I got to the point where first speaker tried to misrepresent this Hayek quote (about 13:00): "It was men’s submission to the impersonal forces of the market that in the past has made possible the growth of a civilization which without this could not have been developed; it is by thus submitting that we are every day helping to build something that is greater than any one of us can fully comprehend" The speaker tries to claim that Hayek is relying on mysticism and has a faith based belief in the market. Whether you support Hayek or not, this is dishonest. No point in going further.
If you watch again, you'll find that Johannes didn't claim that "Hayek is relying on mysticism", he instead said there's a "mystical element" (14:06) of Hayek where he invokes his concept of "Civilization", which is a significant difference, as if it's just an element, it could be wrong and Hayek's higher-order claims could still be true, Johannes is not claiming at all it's foundational for Hayek like you suggested. He's however indeed critiquing Hayek and being polemic about his definition of "Civilization" here, which the quote suggests, is "greater than any one of us can fully comprehend", note that "Civilization" in 20th cent Vienna among liberals is basically the same as "the (capital G) Good", so Hayek is saying here that "the Good" is something we can not individually "fully comprehend", yet in order to achieve it, we must throw ourselves into "submission to the impersonal forces of the market". So it seems to me fully justified that Johannes claims Hayek is phrasing his support of markets in mystical language here. Specifically due to describing Civilization as "something that is greater than any one of us can fully comprehend", which is claimed to be outside of reason and historically is how mystics defended their metaphysics or, simply, their version of god, against a rationalist critique. Beyond this, I'd recommend for anyone to "go further" even if you feel attacked by someone's claim, as long as the someone is reasonable sticking to open, honest and charitable discursive form, which I think both interlocutors here are. I personally find Johannes's form to be a tad too polemical or heated at times, but he seems to make up for it by bringing an impressive interdisciplinary knowledge to the table, don't be fooled. All the best.
I haven't heard this era or region discussed from this academic perspective, and it's both fascinating and conveys important historical trends that still have relevance today. Unfortunately, the first speaker is not confident in his English, and his speech is so halting, with heavy breathing sounds and "um"s littered every 4 or 5 words -- it proved to be hugely distracting. I've lived in Germany and am very accustomed to German accents, so it wasn't his non-native accent that's the problem; it's all of the violations of "good public speaking" principles that grates on listeners' nerves! They made it hard to absorb what he was saying. Especially for the first half, I wound up skipping over part of his lecture, because I couldn't ignore my annoyance and impatience! In the first half, when his energy is so lethargic and halting, his speaking rate is also about 3x slower than a typical speech pattern. Later on, after a video, the speaker finally got animated and spoke at a normal, smoother pace (though still littered with too many "um"s!)
I got to the point where first speaker tried to misrepresent this Hayek quote (about 13:00):
"It was men’s submission to the impersonal forces of the market that in the past has made possible the growth of a civilization which without this could not have been developed; it is by thus submitting that we are every day helping to build something that is greater than any one of us can fully comprehend"
The speaker tries to claim that Hayek is relying on mysticism and has a faith based belief in the market. Whether you support Hayek or not, this is dishonest. No point in going further.
If you watch again, you'll find that Johannes didn't claim that "Hayek is relying on mysticism", he instead said there's a "mystical element" (14:06) of Hayek where he invokes his concept of "Civilization", which is a significant difference, as if it's just an element, it could be wrong and Hayek's higher-order claims could still be true, Johannes is not claiming at all it's foundational for Hayek like you suggested.
He's however indeed critiquing Hayek and being polemic about his definition of "Civilization" here, which the quote suggests, is "greater than any one of us can fully comprehend", note that "Civilization" in 20th cent Vienna among liberals is basically the same as "the (capital G) Good", so Hayek is saying here that "the Good" is something we can not individually "fully comprehend", yet in order to achieve it, we must throw ourselves into "submission to the impersonal forces of the market". So it seems to me fully justified that Johannes claims Hayek is phrasing his support of markets in mystical language here. Specifically due to describing Civilization as "something that is greater than any one of us can fully comprehend", which is claimed to be outside of reason and historically is how mystics defended their metaphysics or, simply, their version of god, against a rationalist critique.
Beyond this, I'd recommend for anyone to "go further" even if you feel attacked by someone's claim, as long as the someone is reasonable sticking to open, honest and charitable discursive form, which I think both interlocutors here are. I personally find Johannes's form to be a tad too polemical or heated at times, but he seems to make up for it by bringing an impressive interdisciplinary knowledge to the table, don't be fooled.
All the best.
I haven't heard this era or region discussed from this academic perspective, and it's both fascinating and conveys important historical trends that still have relevance today.
Unfortunately, the first speaker is not confident in his English, and his speech is so halting, with heavy breathing sounds and "um"s littered every 4 or 5 words -- it proved to be hugely distracting. I've lived in Germany and am very accustomed to German accents, so it wasn't his non-native accent that's the problem; it's all of the violations of "good public speaking" principles that grates on listeners' nerves! They made it hard to absorb what he was saying. Especially for the first half, I wound up skipping over part of his lecture, because I couldn't ignore my annoyance and impatience!
In the first half, when his energy is so lethargic and halting, his speaking rate is also about 3x slower than a typical speech pattern. Later on, after a video, the speaker finally got animated and spoke at a normal, smoother pace (though still littered with too many "um"s!)