The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here ruclips.net/video/v7_J_daQkSU/видео.html
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless] U get Idealism right. And i love that. Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend. there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer. [Rocks DO write excellent essays] Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
It looks like, where Fascism went wrong, was that since in the case of Italy, being a recently created nation of small peninsular states, it was still in a period of expansion, the colonial era was still in effect, and in remembering the Italian nations history, it wanted to revive the Roman Empire. So while it was populist, it was so within the imperialist mindset. Italian Fascism became associated with the Ethiopian invasion and later it's allegiance with Germany In Spain, Fascism is associated with the militarism of the Spanish civil war against the Communist Left, and in Portugal with the Portuguese colonial empire. So when Leftists see small c conservative Populism on the rise in 2024, they make the association with the war years of the 1st half of the 20th century and assume they stand for the same thing. They don't realize that there have been other Populist movements that were not involved with military expansion or civil war. In Canada we had Populist Provincial governments that were voted into office for decades on end and they neve had violent tendencies.
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
@@anjecheisenberg5060because denying things without understanding them is mature, and spending the time/effort to have a nuanced opinion is immature. Makes perfect sense!
@bhante1345 Au contraire! Fascists are quite consciously engaged in an enterprise to create a reality in their own image, AND I feel vindicated in identifying them as such.
A. James Gregor was my professor at Berkeley. He wrote my recommendation letter for law school. He had such utter disdain for leftist students. One day, at the start of class, he said that several students had gone to the administration to complain about him. He said, "I have tenure. What are they going to do? Take away my parking space?" It was funny. On a serious note though, he was a great professor.
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate hearing this story. I read Gregor years ago, after reading Hegel & his ideological ilk. It’s odd that Gregor doesn’t get the credit & accolades of certain others, who wrote less credibly on the same topics- though the ideology of those writers and/or the agenda of the critics may explain this caprice. Was Gregory a good lecturer?
@@utubemewatch Honestly, his lectures were good but the language construction of his lectures was like the language construction of his writing - complex, dense and geared for an academic audience steeped in the subject.
The thing is my friend the nazis all though we call them right wing were not by our definition they definately werent left wing and were closer to the right wing yet they were like a 3rd wing not glued together by capitalism but by blood and nation
I'm totally excited about this series! Ever since I read "The Doctrine of Fascism", I realized how we have been massively mislead about what fascism actually is. This series is so important!
I agree with you. And we're mislead right from school. We were just taught a line with Communism on the far left and Fascism and NZism on the far right. Though we did have one teacher who bent that line into a circle and explained how alike they were. He was onto something. This was around 1980.
@@righteousmammon9011 'Obviously' is probably to stretch it too far as long as we don't have proof, but I will agree to 'extremely likely'. Actually I have been to the US, but only ten hours in Kennedy Airport. I had the luck to watch a Concorde take off. Quite impressive. Then I flew on to South America.
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
@@Klee99zeno Tik is dumb. If he doesn't want people to be fascist why associate it with people's religious beliefs? 🙄 moron. Imagine going through all these hoops just to say you don't like big government.
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an subjective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up? There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
Fascists : "Marxism and liberalism are on the same ground" Marxist : "Fascism and liberalism are on the same ground" Liberals : "Marxism and fascism are on the same ground"
Each one cares about a specific set of things and has a specific worldview. In truth, all 3 statements are correct. It just depends on which ground we're talking about. I'm assuming liberal here means classical liberal. I'm an ancap and so the most extreme a liberal can get. In extremely basic terms, fascism attempts to force conformity to the state, the superior being, and servitude to the superior people. Communism tries to force servitude through the state or other means (depending on which kind of communism) to the supposed victims, to uplift them, at least according to their rhetoric. Liberalism attempts to restrict or eliminate the state and forced servitude in order to help victims, powerful people, and average joes alike to attain a greater degree of freedom and utility. You can see the overlap clearly. Fascism and liberalism both try to help the powerful. Communism and liberalism both try to help the weak. Communism and fascism both emphasize a need for violent coercion and slavish servitude.
"Fascist" is used as a generic antiwhite slur for anyone who contradicts the antiwhite narrative or threatens to even slightly forestall white erasure. Most allied soldiers were "fascist" by their definition.
Agreed. The Left lets us know who they are and who we are. It's just that our side is not listening. The Left would call our Founding Fathers Fascists.
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough. "Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
Saying Plato agrees with Protagoras is insane. A lot of Plato's dialogues have mocking relativism (and specifically Protagoras) as a main theme. Kant's idealism argued for the obiectivity of knowledge PRECISELY BECAUSE it's transcendental. There is no way kantian idealism undermines objectivity, the opposite is true. Both Plato and Kant believed in the universality of truth, even though both disregarded the senses.
Yeah. I think TIK bit off more than he could chew and didn't really understand anything he said, (or thought he said). He couldn't even make the connection between communists bastardization of Kant's Critique of pure reason to Critical Theory then Critical Race Theory. While this is a video on Fascism, he is the one who said we fascists hated communists because we're on the same level. (Not saying you're a fascist though I am, proudly). But TIK's presumption that objective reality being unreachable via pure reason, without subjective, personal experience = objective reality doesn't exist is a very communist way of thinking.
Completely agree. Objectivists, especially Ayn Rand herself, completely misunderstand Kant's epistemology and metaphysics. Transcendental Idealism is a form of realism that simply argues that our minds recreate an approximation of the external world that we can manipulate, like a game engine. It has its own language, symbols, and innate categorization systems to create this simulation, but objective reality exists and is something we interact with all the time. It merely implies that our conceptions exist and have meaning in the context of this recreated world, and that we attempt to give names and associations to things which are real and exist outside of our consciousness, but that these ideas require our mind or our interactivity with other people and their minds to give meaning to those names. Roughly speaking. Objectivists strawman this argument, having failed to understand it as the nuanced realist stance that it is.
@@seanaguilar2057what is the communist bastardization of Kant? How did that lead to critical theory and then critical race theory? Where do communists deny objective reality? Citation needed.
To be fair, communism could also be described as a quasi-religion. In that the ideal of communism substituted for the religious impulse. The effect is authoritarian.
Communism is not describe as an ideal, as i understand it's more a "prediction" of what will be after the capitalisme after it's fall caused by its inner contradictions. Communism is not an end, the end of economic classes will not be the end of contradiction within the society, all kind of dominations will not end with the end of economic domination.
@@loutragetadk453Correct as Marx defines it. In real life communists have replaced religion with Marx’s ideas. Funny enough, these people are also very open to smoke opium.
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe.... ruclips.net/video/NFPIGNua5WM/видео.html
@@JH-6g5 I think it's people, not ideas, that do things. They live(d) their lives, as I live mine. And history is just the stuff that happened before. Nothing needs to 'drive' it for things to happen or to have happened.
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
Great video and objective breakdown of Fascism. Sadly, the public schools today don't even teach enough of the basic concepts of civics to enable the younger generations to begin to understand.
Don't be so mean to Plato, he was thinking big thoughts without the same thousands of years of collective knowledge to draw upon. He was wrong about a lot in hindsight, but many people would not have the imagination to be as wrong as he was, and he and his students built the foundations for almost everything we believe now.
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...." The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on. A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it. And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible! The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests..... Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
@@pietrayday9915The biggest pessimistic thinker Arthur Schopenhauer was an idealist. Idealism just describes mechanics of perception. How our mind perceives things. Nothing more. And idealist Schopenhauer didn’t believe in God.
@@pietrayday9915Most of people are materialistic by their perception. They automatically perceive the world as reality. Idealism is not an explanation of how things work. Idealism is like Buddhism. You have to train and meditate hard to achieve idealistic perception of the world. You have to overcome materialistic understanding of the world to achieve difficult state of idealistic perception. The problem of religions and such teachings as Marxism is that they are trying to apply their view as inevitable and necessary for all.
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value. That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful. Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is." The true philosophers are those who do something.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
Nope...not researching from wartime archives but someone else's books is a major major flaw. And politically correct not mentioning the lies by the tiny hats narrative ✡️👿
The best and possibly one of the most important videos of our lifetime to watch. Thank you Tik, your research into what fascism actually is going to make a difference. BTW I think it would be a good idea to do a bite sized book version of this video as they would be handy to give out to people if they ever wanted to have useful information on the key points on this 20th century religion.
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes "I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking "I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin "I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell) Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
(Hope this is not a dup; clicked CANCEL by mistake, apparently.) "And would monsieur like some dessert?" the waiter asked. "Ahh," replied Descartes, patting his belly, "I think not." And *poof*, he disappeared, not even leaving a tip. The waiter sighed. Would he never learn?
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years. The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies: The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible. The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth. Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!" Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth..... That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American..... The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective. Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct. I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion. I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant. I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume). I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
"we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions." That's idealism and subjective reality. "You believe" is subjective. "Independent of perception" is idealism. Moreover, Christians also believe in a community in spirit, subject to the head consciousness Jesus. So in that sense they are Jesus and the community is in his image. So it's pretty much the same thing as Fascism the way he describes it. Just replace Jesus by Mussolini and you have pretty much the same thing. If you can't see it, just look at Trump and his followers. It's not a fluke that they would worship some guy just because he brandishes a Bible and would allow him to do anything. It's baked into the religion to do that. In fact it IS the religion. He's wrong about the word though, Fas is the divine law as opposed to ius which is human law.
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them. In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and always requires interaction at some point. For us to see matter, the matter must have interacted with a light source, for example. And for us to see the light, it must interact with our retina.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
Hi TIK! And thanks for this great research! I just wanted to say it would be a lot easier for the viewers to follow your longer videos with some sort of a timestamp at the bottom. Thanks again.
you're friggin awesome man. i'm studying the philosophy of art and wondered about the overlap with politics ... obviously not long enough or i wouldve gathered this. i felt "out of the circle" with some key words others use but you explained a lot about the overlap and saved hours of checking out others pennesses.
TIK, while Christianity shares some superficial similarities to the hermetic/socialist/woke Ideology religions, they are just that, superficial. I'm entirely unsure how familiar you are with deeper Christian thought, so if I explain something you already know please don't take it personally. I also onow there's a lot of possibilities for why you'd compare Christianity to the leftist religion, for example most of your Western audience automatically thinks of Christianity when you bring up religion anyways, and not just to denigrate Christianity. I'm just trying to show some of the distinctions which are why the two lead to wildly different outcomes and show how the Christian religion is different from these others. Some examples are: 1. Christianity has universally rejected platonist views and although does believe that God made the world we also believe that world is objective and not made in man's minds. 1a. There is no demiurge in Christian beliefs, the same God that made the world is the God that incarnated himself as Christ. 1b. In addition Christ himself rejected worldly government and said his kingdom is of another world. So anyone trying to bring about that kingdom on this world is foolish at best and downright deceitful and malevolent at worst. 1c. Christianity places no particular emphasis or importance on change or contradiction. If anything we see no contradiction in change because God made the world logically with rules and change is just one of the many consequences of those rules of nature, not some grand mystery. 2. The idea that man makes reality or that men are part of our can become God is called pantheism and is considered a form of idolatry which is wrong and evil in Christianity. 2a. In Christianity God is self conscious and always has been. He needs nothing, from us or anyone else, instead it is us who need him. So there is no god needing to recognize himself, it humanity serving some insane purpose like being a mirror for God. Instead we are simply his children who wishes to love and careful and raise up properly just like any parent should. 3. In Christianity Alruism isn't strictly speaking necessary. While self-sacrifice can be lauded, suicide is a sin. Jesus was quite clear that what is necessary to be saved was to accept him and to fight against sin in oneself. This doesn't mean being perfect, one may still stumble, but it does mean reducing sin and being genuinely apologetic and contrite when one's baser nature does win out and seeking to their change future behavior. Full self-destructive altruism is not required. Christians are supposed to carry out good works yes but this is out of a sense of thankfulness for our salvation and not a prerequisite to it, and even then the call for charity doesn't supercede other responsibilities like those to family, friends, and self. 3a. Christianity doesn't deny desire like Buddhism, we believe that humans' indivuality and desires are a gift from god and thus ought to be expressed. However sometimes those desires can become corrupted and twisted and then one must submit to god and allow him to correct the corruption. 3b. Sins in Christianity are clearly enumerated and are always the result of something good or neutral being taken to excess. Sexual immorality for example is an excess of sexual desire and oftentimes being directed wrongly. Wrath is misplaced anger etc. 3c. While in some situations self sacrifice is good in Christianity, a soldier sacrificing himself to save his friends for example. In cases where it wasn't absolutely necessary it is looked down on. Since Christianity says we were bought with the blood of Jesus, to harm oneself, even in service of another, is to insult God and the price he paid for you. 3d. Lastly all sins are ultimately self-damaging and self-destructive. Even something as simple as lying will eventually get you caught in a lie and lead to consequences. The Enemy, the Devil is the spirit of self-destruction, he seeks to nurture these self-defeating desires in men and weaken them and drive them away from God so he can devour them. Jesus explicitly declared He came that we might have life and have it to the fullest. God in Christianity doesn't want to oppress or arbitrarily restrict people everything He does is for our good. Quite different from the blind and deaf god of the Hegelians. Honestly most Christians would probably say that Hermeticism/Hegelianism is a parasitic corruption of real morality and personally I feel like it is the direct ideology of the antichrist, a sort of false Christianity to try and overpower the real thing and destroy it.
It's still a consciousness that created reality and which you identify with. If someone came and identified with that consciousness, you would gang up, just like Jesus' disciples did. It's literally what the kingdom of Heaven is, a spiritual community. It's no different than those things you think are left, while you are, I suppose right. Hegel is considered on the right as well.
@@OneLine122 not really they're talking about a spiritual hive mind. Whereas a simple voluntary community like Christianity is very different. And please understand that Christianity is voluntary, you don't have to join it. It's just that the natural consequences for not doing so are rather grim.
My dear brother in Christ, your point 1c. reminded me of GK Chesterton: "The (Catholic) Church solved the problem of furious opposites by letting them be furious and opposite." :) (Can't remember where he siad it though!)
Perhaps in this video TIK is not explicit about which religion is similar with fascism/socialist ideologies but in other of his videos he imake it clear that these they are a form of gnosticism.
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
Marx was materialist. Idealism and materialism are opposites. When you placed Marx among idealists or as a successor to idealistic philosophers, then something went wrong because it is impossible. If Marx used dialectical rhetoric of Hegel doesn’t make him an idealist.
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.* Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
There's a reason that back when i took a psychology class back in school the first thing our teacher told us was "Psychology is a kind of philosophy, not a science," He still got a little irritated when I called Sigmund Freud "Freaky Freud". Fun times.
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
After reading "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is just a variation of the Philosopher-King theory of government and includes all of the potential problems with that approach. Violent transition of power, oppression of any minorities' culture and points of view, exploitation of the ruled for the benefit of those in power, etc. A surprising number of great philosophers throughout history have advocated for a philosopher-king type of government since they didn't believe that the general population could rule themselves.
The general population has never ruled itself since the fall of Athenian democracy. What we have in the West now is a Republican form of government dominated by trade
Just a tip on quantum mechanics. What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer. Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'. Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'. Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
Ayee dude, this a good video talkin' 'bout Fascism. It's like a game where everything is made up, and the points don't matter. Essentially- a whole lotta fluff, and no substantial positions on either side of the political spectrum. Just there to take advantage of insecurities and confusion within the populace during a difficult time. Thanks for the upload once again, homie.
This was a very thought-provoking video for me. Especially your conclusions at the end. I want you to know I am truly grateful beyond words for what I have learned from you about the ideologies that have shaped the history and present of the world I find myself navigating, which has gone far beyond what I was taught in school about them and the nonsense spouted by my peers who are uninformed. I feel I am far better equipped to see things for what they are as a result, and I now have a good understanding of those ideologies. So what now? What, knowing that which I now do, should I support? It seems there are few or no political figures in my country who are on anywhere near the right track. What would you say is the closest we have ever gotten to a government you find acceptable - because we have to have some form of government, if only to keep the peace and prevent general crime (assault, theft, child abuse, corruption, murder, the big stuff...)? You understand these things so well, and have the big picture view at your disposal - so how would you set up a government? Very curious to hear your perspective!
I’ve been watching TikHistory for about a year now. I finally understand what all these terms actually mean and not what today’s secularists want them to mean. Thank you for all your work!!
What an excellent video! I managed to learn what fascism truly is, along with other philosophies such as the Hegelian philosophy which I've always had trouble understanding. Thank you for clearing this up and giving a wonderful explanation! Especially during a time when the word "fascist" is just thrown around towards people you don't like which makes it lose its true meaning.
Thank you for this rationale breakdown of what the philosophy of the Fascism movement was grounded in. I regularly have debates on Forums where no one seems to have a real understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Philosophical Fascism or how to see the broader connections. For many of them, they debate that Fascism can only be defined by a narrow constraint of the movements of Mussolini and Hitler, but yet can include Jordan Peterson and Texas. What is generating a lot of problems is the application of a vague evil monster that is now called Fascism, but is loosely relate to Philosophical Fascism, in the way that all Americans look alike. Let's call this Misnamed Fascism. Misnamed Fascism does share some traits, and it is the monster in the closet, but it is not what people think it is. For almost two decades, I have shared that Misnamed Fascism can be identified by three traits. These traits can be seen across time, and can be see in groups that start good and then veer into trouble. Only groups that display these three traits go full bad. Just having two can make you annoying, but not wind-up gassing millions of people in the name of the collective good. There are parallels with Philosophical Fascism, which is why it can be equated to a Religion and/or drift easily into Misnamed Fascism. #1} You believe in a hard and fast worldview and The Cause to make it the way you envision it. This version of the world is an absolute. Paradoxically, being absolute about everyone having their own perception of the world is possible. What you believe is right or wrong is absolutely right or wrong regardless of circumstances and other considerations. You do not need proof, or rationality, it is inherently proving itself. (Excellent for one who wants to "dream" the world into reality) #2} Communal Support. It is self-feeding in that it affirms itself with the statement, "How can it be wrong if so many people believe it?" It draws from the masses to validate itself and then its "validity" to draw more masses. "David Copperfield teleported the Statue of Liberty, because millions of people saw him do it." This is not always wrong, but a necessary part of the mindset. (Collective Dreaming and Democracy) As you can see, many things result from #1 and #2. Most religions possess these, which is why Philosophical Fascism and Misnamed Fascism both qualify to be seen as Religions. But only extremists possess #3. With all three, you get the combination people often call Fascist these days. They rarely realize who actually fts those criteria. #3} The acceptance/willingness to do Anything for The Cause. Not the willingness to make any sacrifice, but Anything, including making others sacrifice for The Cause. Whether this is Forced Taxation, or Gas-Chambers, you will make it happen. This is different from the community voting for increased taxes, but the direct imposition of these regulations without the backing of the community. And the willingness to use force to make it happen. (Authoritarianism, but one that can co-exist with versions of Democracy, Socialism, and Liberalism). #2 combined with #3 tends to be Politicians and Partisans. #1 & #3 tend to be youth. All three is when really bad things happen to groups/nations. Sadly, when talking to people these days, it is useless to address the misnamed elements and just get to the foundations of what they are calling Fascism.
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I appreciate someone that actually engages with the topic. A lot of the comments feel like the New Atheists, scoffing at a strawman. I don't agree with the forms being the best way to do things, but the idea of "The more something partakes in the features of its category, the more of that thing it must be." Balls are round, thusly a rounder ball is participating more in the form of Ball, though since we're in reality, at some point the ball is no longer perfectly round as a conceptual, abstract ball in our heads.
Be careful in choosing to label yourself as "this" and not "that". The path toward self deception starts with choosing sides and making it part of your identity.... Just an old man's observation.....
Yes, this is the type of content I wanted. I was discussing this with my son last night, and we need different terms for Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, the WW2 thing we called Japanese fascism which is very different and needs a unique name, etc. The problem is the USSR scribblers have called everything they do not like 'fascism', which they think is a form of 'capitalism', and their propaganda has confused everyone even though the USSR died its inevitable death. I look forward to this work particularly as you discuss the philosophical issues with these systems instead of the typical 'it bad' argument. My son's argument is that the German National Socialists were 'right wing' compared to the other parties at the time. Pre-Overton Window. However, there were small right wing parties at the time. Internationalism only becomes left-wing when the call for 'world socialism' comes around. Until then almost everybody was a nationalist.
Kokutai is not "Japanese Fascism". Its a giant family system, updated from the Edo period. That's why Japan's culture didn't change when the warrior element was removed. The Family System within the culture simply moved into the corporate world.
Coincidentally I am halfway through The Theory Of Mind As Pure Act 📕 Bought it coz I liked the title. I had no idea Gentile wrote other interesting stuff. Thanks 🙏🏽
The basics. The human intellectual ability to invent categories and divide "things" into different categories, while discussing exceptions to said categories. The gradations of certain general categories, like youth and elder, or the phases of the moon (appearance). So much sophistic word games. Slightly valuable, for understanding nuances, but overblown. That's my thoughts on the value of philosophy today.
What you see as blue could be perceived totally different by other beings. Thus, you could like blue color, but others would find it totally repulsive. Which in turn may lead to conflict.
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
Excellent context for stoicism and Epictetus' emphasis on distinguishing between thoughts within control and outside of control as the basis for finding contentment solely through reason
The religion point is so played out and tenuous. All political ideology, including your own anarcho capitalism, has some philosophical backing. The notion that an underlying philosophy makes a political position a religion, is just to say allegiance to any political ideology is a religion. If that is the case then TIK is a zealot.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff. The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible). This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
Tik: Thought-provoking, while entertaining, video as always! I did want to comment on your statement on "modern psychologists": at least in the U.S., the vast majority of psychologists and psychotherapists are no-longer influenced by psychoanalytic thought (Freud/Jung/Adler) - they only study same for historical context. Physiological psychology (based on brain functioning studies), normal and abnormal child development, cognitive-behavioral theory, and the effects of trauma have been predominant in psychology since the 1980s.
In reality, the use of both “principles” is common but not accepted by all… the second method is based on “mind tricks”… and some use only this method, considered as a fastest one… but It depends…
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw There are certain insights which cannot be conveyed with words. They transform your perspective entirely and afterward the most seemingly outlandish ideas begin to make perfect sense. Its more about experience then words.
Great Video, but just a comment. I think you brought in Christianity too early and lumped them in with Solopstists. Christianity is Platonistic, one could say Neoplatonist. They do believe in an objective reality, the power of the mind/faith, and can easily make the argument for holding up reason as valid. Augustine's understanding which became the philosophical basis of most of medieval Christendom and still has a strong influence today was very similar to Platonism. Aquinas did rediscover, but also reinterpreted Aristotle into a Christian lens, and as such he created a strong philosophical basis for reason within Christianity. That's not to say Christianity cannot be Solipsistic at times. The best example of this is in Last Thursdayism which basically negates historical evidence with the argument "God could've created us last Thursday with all evidence and memories of a time before being just planted in us." But even this is not really Solipsistic as it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview, not a rejection of reason or reality entirely.
Maybe you just like parts of it. Just because fascism espouses X, Y and Z does not mean they invented it and copyrighted it. Almost all ideologies share common positions and beliefs. It is the mix that makes each of them what they are.
Thank you for the whole video, but thank you as well for your explanation of some of the foundational Greek Philosophy. I've read a lot of it before. I've even taught some of it. But this is the first time I've heard it described in a non-abstract manner where I could get my head all the way around it.
The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link
There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here ruclips.net/video/v7_J_daQkSU/видео.html
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless]
U get Idealism right. And i love that.
Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend.
there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer.
[Rocks DO write excellent essays]
Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
You should absolutely do a collab with Metatron 😊
It looks like, where Fascism went wrong, was that since in the case of Italy, being a recently created nation of small peninsular states, it was still in a period of expansion, the colonial era was still in effect, and in remembering the Italian nations history, it wanted to revive the Roman Empire. So while it was populist, it was so within the imperialist mindset. Italian Fascism became associated with the Ethiopian invasion and later it's allegiance with Germany In Spain, Fascism is associated with the militarism of the Spanish civil war against the Communist Left, and in Portugal with the Portuguese colonial empire. So when Leftists see small c conservative Populism on the rise in 2024, they make the association with the war years of the 1st half of the 20th century and assume they stand for the same thing. They don't realize that there have been other Populist movements that were not involved with military expansion or civil war. In Canada we had Populist Provincial governments that were voted into office for decades on end and they neve had violent tendencies.
I AM, THEREFORE I THINK!
AR
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
So racial colectivism
@@kwestionariusz1Sounds familiar, like a certain modern group of people that injects race into absolutely everything.
Still collectivists using Marxist vocabulary.
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
@@kwestionariusz1 Viewing the world with only two concepts is very reductionist not everything is either collectivism vs individualism.
Being treated like a grown-up who can deal with complex and sensitive topics feels good. Thanks mate.
That comes when you are thinking like a child. An adult would immediately realize the nonsense in this video
@@anjecheisenberg5060Go on then - explain. You could even upload a response to RUclips.
@@anjecheisenberg5060because denying things without understanding them is mature, and spending the time/effort to have a nuanced opinion is immature. Makes perfect sense!
Only children listen to all sides of a debate. Everyone knows that.
@@anjecheisenberg5060 "the nonsense"
You’re pushing the conversation and actual understanding of these topics farther than most public officials and academics have for years.
Lol
Yes, pushing them into total fantasy and ideological lunacy.
ThikHistory is beyond clueless.
@@DavidBusiness-wb2jo
Yep
The public officials and academics don't have any interest in an anatomy lesson regarding fascism. That is the problem.
@bhante1345 Au contraire! Fascists are quite consciously engaged in an enterprise to create a reality in their own image, AND I feel vindicated in identifying them as such.
A. James Gregor was my professor at Berkeley. He wrote my recommendation letter for law school. He had such utter disdain for leftist students. One day, at the start of class, he said that several students had gone to the administration to complain about him. He said, "I have tenure. What are they going to do? Take away my parking space?" It was funny. On a serious note though, he was a great professor.
Berkely is ground zero for very bad things
A Prof that is against the left? Rare as Hen's teeth.
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate hearing this story. I read Gregor years ago, after reading Hegel & his ideological ilk. It’s odd that Gregor doesn’t get the credit & accolades of certain others, who wrote less credibly on the same topics- though the ideology of those writers and/or the agenda of the critics may explain this caprice. Was Gregory a good lecturer?
@@utubemewatch Honestly, his lectures were good but the language construction of his lectures was like the language construction of his writing - complex, dense and geared for an academic audience steeped in the subject.
The thing is my friend the nazis all though we call them right wing were not by our definition they definately werent left wing and were closer to the right wing yet they were like a 3rd wing not glued together by capitalism but by blood and nation
I'm totally excited about this series! Ever since I read "The Doctrine of Fascism", I realized how we have been massively mislead about what fascism actually is. This series is so important!
I agree with you. And we're mislead right from school. We were just taught a line with Communism on the far left and Fascism and NZism on the far right. Though we did have one teacher who bent that line into a circle and explained how alike they were. He was onto something. This was around 1980.
@@larsrons7937 Only in America.I hope.
@@NereoSal I couldn't tell. I've been to America but not USA if that's what you mean.
@@larsrons7937 he obviously meant the USA as that’s the only country with America in its name.
@@righteousmammon9011 'Obviously' is probably to stretch it too far as long as we don't have proof, but I will agree to 'extremely likely'.
Actually I have been to the US, but only ten hours in Kennedy Airport. I had the luck to watch a Concorde take off. Quite impressive. Then I flew on to South America.
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
A bit like the old story of Samuel Johnson and Berkeley lol
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
We have negative and positive thoughts but our thoughts are influenced by our upbringing and journey of Life.
@@Klee99zeno
Tik is dumb. If he doesn't want people to be fascist why associate it with people's religious beliefs? 🙄 moron. Imagine going through all these hoops just to say you don't like big government.
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
What are you going on about?
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
@@colincampbell4261 There was a woman in Birmingham who was arrested by the police for silently praying outside an abortion clinic. Look it up.
@@emceedoctorb3022 That's bizarre. But not surprising.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an subjective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
"Let's criminalize a rival political party to protect democracy!!"
Do they not see the problem here?
If a party is against the Constitution then of course it must be criminalised
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up?
There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
@@jeffreyscott4997 No... because they're just essays, they're just words. An anti-democratic political party on the other hand is more than just words
I had a whole lengthy post posted, but all that is left to me is that I strongly condemn YT censorship!
Fascists : "Marxism and liberalism are on the same ground"
Marxist : "Fascism and liberalism are on the same ground"
Liberals : "Marxism and fascism are on the same ground"
Each one cares about a specific set of things and has a specific worldview. In truth, all 3 statements are correct. It just depends on which ground we're talking about. I'm assuming liberal here means classical liberal. I'm an ancap and so the most extreme a liberal can get.
In extremely basic terms, fascism attempts to force conformity to the state, the superior being, and servitude to the superior people. Communism tries to force servitude through the state or other means (depending on which kind of communism) to the supposed victims, to uplift them, at least according to their rhetoric. Liberalism attempts to restrict or eliminate the state and forced servitude in order to help victims, powerful people, and average joes alike to attain a greater degree of freedom and utility.
You can see the overlap clearly. Fascism and liberalism both try to help the powerful. Communism and liberalism both try to help the weak. Communism and fascism both emphasize a need for violent coercion and slavish servitude.
You summed it up quite well
@@ethangroat8333 Thanks for the precisions ! I agree
I actually identify as a conservative democrat
All are correct
"Fascist" is used as a generic antiwhite slur for anyone who contradicts the antiwhite narrative or threatens to even slightly forestall white erasure. Most allied soldiers were "fascist" by their definition.
Well yes most allied soldiers were white. Fascism is how the European mind works. Which is good.
Agreed. The Left lets us know who they are and who we are. It's just that our side is not listening. The Left would call our Founding Fathers Fascists.
Flawless pronunciation of "pen-ness" every time. Well done, sir.
You definitely need to clearly pronounce both Ns.
@@bartsanders1553especially when lamenting that one cannot touch pen-ness
The pen-ness in my trousers does not actually exist.
Someone should create a YTP of that lmao
He really drives home the pen-ness example
“Facism is just about have a fun time with your bros” musselini 2019
Gentile was intellectually deficient
Libertarianism does that better
LOL
"Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State."
Fascists argued that socialism "doesn't go far enough."
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Ant-ness. You own nothing and will be happy.
So communism?
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough.
"Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
This can be a real shock the first time you hear, but understand it.
Saying Plato agrees with Protagoras is insane. A lot of Plato's dialogues have mocking relativism (and specifically Protagoras) as a main theme. Kant's idealism argued for the obiectivity of knowledge PRECISELY BECAUSE it's transcendental. There is no way kantian idealism undermines objectivity, the opposite is true. Both Plato and Kant believed in the universality of truth, even though both disregarded the senses.
Yeah. I think TIK bit off more than he could chew and didn't really understand anything he said, (or thought he said). He couldn't even make the connection between communists bastardization of Kant's Critique of pure reason to Critical Theory then Critical Race Theory. While this is a video on Fascism, he is the one who said we fascists hated communists because we're on the same level. (Not saying you're a fascist though I am, proudly). But TIK's presumption that objective reality being unreachable via pure reason, without subjective, personal experience = objective reality doesn't exist is a very communist way of thinking.
Yep. Lots of sycophants in the comments going "you're so deep bro"
Completely agree. Objectivists, especially Ayn Rand herself, completely misunderstand Kant's epistemology and metaphysics.
Transcendental Idealism is a form of realism that simply argues that our minds recreate an approximation of the external world that we can manipulate, like a game engine. It has its own language, symbols, and innate categorization systems to create this simulation, but objective reality exists and is something we interact with all the time. It merely implies that our conceptions exist and have meaning in the context of this recreated world, and that we attempt to give names and associations to things which are real and exist outside of our consciousness, but that these ideas require our mind or our interactivity with other people and their minds to give meaning to those names. Roughly speaking.
Objectivists strawman this argument, having failed to understand it as the nuanced realist stance that it is.
It's hardly worth even commenting on this guys videos. His arguments are idiotic.
@@seanaguilar2057what is the communist bastardization of Kant? How did that lead to critical theory and then critical race theory? Where do communists deny objective reality? Citation needed.
To be fair, communism could also be described as a quasi-religion. In that the ideal of communism substituted for the religious impulse. The effect is authoritarian.
He said that in another video.
Communism is not describe as an ideal, as i understand it's more a "prediction" of what will be after the capitalisme after it's fall caused by its inner contradictions. Communism is not an end, the end of economic classes will not be the end of contradiction within the society, all kind of dominations will not end with the end of economic domination.
@@loutragetadk453Correct as Marx defines it. In real life communists have replaced religion with Marx’s ideas. Funny enough, these people are also very open to smoke opium.
Yes.
Religions are ideologies. Communism is an ideology. Communism is not a religion. But it certainly has a lot in common.
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
That's fundamentally a platonic idea.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe....
ruclips.net/video/NFPIGNua5WM/видео.html
@polybian_bicycle
It's a common sense idea. Why do people take this shit so seriously? Obviously, ideas drive history, dummy.
@polybian_bicycle
It's a common sense idea. Why do people take this stuff so seriously? Obviously, ideas drive history
@@JH-6g5 I think it's people, not ideas, that do things. They live(d) their lives, as I live mine.
And history is just the stuff that happened before. Nothing needs to 'drive' it for things to happen or to have happened.
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
Ah yes the Metatron and Tik gang. Avengers assem...
I wonder why he would never reacts to TIK 🤔
Maybe we can get a crossover one day.
@@ciupenhauer Metatron is a wanker
I've seen tik called a communist because it's obvious he's anti Nazi. Nuanced discussions are beyond ideologues. .
Great video and objective breakdown of Fascism. Sadly, the public schools today don't even teach enough of the basic concepts of civics to enable the younger generations to begin to understand.
Don't be so mean to Plato, he was thinking big thoughts without the same thousands of years of collective knowledge to draw upon.
He was wrong about a lot in hindsight, but many people would not have the imagination to be as wrong as he was, and he and his students built the foundations for almost everything we believe now.
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...."
The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on.
A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it.
And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible!
The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests.....
Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
@@pietrayday9915The biggest pessimistic thinker Arthur Schopenhauer was an idealist. Idealism just describes mechanics of perception. How our mind perceives things. Nothing more. And idealist Schopenhauer didn’t believe in God.
@@pietrayday9915Most of people are materialistic by their perception. They automatically perceive the world as reality. Idealism is not an explanation of how things work. Idealism is like Buddhism. You have to train and meditate hard to achieve idealistic perception of the world. You have to overcome materialistic understanding of the world to achieve difficult state of idealistic perception. The problem of religions and such teachings as Marxism is that they are trying to apply their view as inevitable and necessary for all.
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value.
That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful.
Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is."
The true philosophers are those who do something.
And those who think they are philosophers only create unliveable Utopia.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Evil materialist
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
@@RyanRothwell
So Ants use philosophy ?
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
Funnily enough multiplayer servers tend to operate with the explicit notion of private property that can not be interfered with by other players.
Um... I'm not suspectable to Fascism. I am a Christian
@@LibertarianGalt True, True
@@LibertarianGalt and anarchy servers like 2b2t have people collectively coming together to build road networks and other massive projects
TIK you should honestly write a book on all your ideological and economic findings. This stuff needs to be preserved more than just on the tube.
Nope...not researching from wartime archives but someone else's books is a major major flaw.
And politically correct not mentioning the lies by the tiny hats narrative ✡️👿
The best and possibly one of the most important videos of our lifetime to watch. Thank you Tik, your research into what fascism actually is going to make a difference. BTW I think it would be a good idea to do a bite sized book version of this video as they would be handy to give out to people if they ever wanted to have useful information on the key points on this 20th century religion.
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes
"I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking
"I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin
"I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell)
Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
2024 you can be replaced ai
@@BuleriaChk Have you read Rothbards essay titled The Hermeneutical Invasion?
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
(Hope this is not a dup; clicked CANCEL by mistake, apparently.)
"And would monsieur like some dessert?" the waiter asked. "Ahh," replied Descartes, patting his belly, "I think not." And *poof*, he disappeared, not even leaving a tip. The waiter sighed. Would he never learn?
This will be an excellent series. Looking foward to it
This is not easy , but very interesting !
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
@@checkthemeaning55 Do you require a label?
@@TheImperatorKnight I for one appreciate that considering I am one of those people who frankly hasn't invested much time in philosophy. So thank you.
@@checkthemeaning55 I don't know if you're any '-ism' but Hans Hermann Hoppe criticised Democracy and he's a Libertarian.
@@TheImperatorKnight And for that we thank you.
I'm loving those videos about philosophy and ideologies. Looking forward to the next one.
It is amazing how freely people though around these terms without having a working definition. Thank you for your work
This explains why you won't find the word democracy in the U.S. constitution.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years.
The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies:
The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible.
The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth.
Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!"
Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth.....
That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American.....
The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
Democracy is just anti-Christianity (Anti-Conservatism/Anti-Republic) .... Let every individual be his own monarch
@@pietrayday9915 fantastically put
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective.
Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct.
I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion.
I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant.
I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume).
I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
Well spotted and articulated observation.
@@nigelcundy4685basically Tic needs to put on his dunce cap and read his Aristotle.
Christianity shares its belief in the independent existence of reality with Judaism.
"we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions."
That's idealism and subjective reality. "You believe" is subjective. "Independent of perception" is idealism.
Moreover, Christians also believe in a community in spirit, subject to the head consciousness Jesus. So in that sense they are Jesus and the community is in his image.
So it's pretty much the same thing as Fascism the way he describes it. Just replace Jesus by Mussolini and you have pretty much the same thing.
If you can't see it, just look at Trump and his followers. It's not a fluke that they would worship some guy just because he brandishes a Bible and would allow him to do anything. It's baked into the religion to do that. In fact it IS the religion.
He's wrong about the word though, Fas is the divine law as opposed to ius which is human law.
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them.
In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and always requires interaction at some point. For us to see matter, the matter must have interacted with a light source, for example. And for us to see the light, it must interact with our retina.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
@@andrewdelaix Yes... we can see...
Hi TIK! And thanks for this great research!
I just wanted to say it would be a lot easier for the viewers to follow your longer videos with some sort of a timestamp at the bottom. Thanks again.
you're friggin awesome man. i'm studying the philosophy of art and wondered about the overlap with politics ... obviously not long enough or i wouldve gathered this. i felt "out of the circle" with some key words others use but you explained a lot about the overlap and saved hours of checking out others pennesses.
TIK, while Christianity shares some superficial similarities to the hermetic/socialist/woke Ideology religions, they are just that, superficial. I'm entirely unsure how familiar you are with deeper Christian thought, so if I explain something you already know please don't take it personally. I also onow there's a lot of possibilities for why you'd compare Christianity to the leftist religion, for example most of your Western audience automatically thinks of Christianity when you bring up religion anyways, and not just to denigrate Christianity. I'm just trying to show some of the distinctions which are why the two lead to wildly different outcomes and show how the Christian religion is different from these others.
Some examples are:
1. Christianity has universally rejected platonist views and although does believe that God made the world we also believe that world is objective and not made in man's minds.
1a. There is no demiurge in Christian beliefs, the same God that made the world is the God that incarnated himself as Christ.
1b. In addition Christ himself rejected worldly government and said his kingdom is of another world. So anyone trying to bring about that kingdom on this world is foolish at best and downright deceitful and malevolent at worst.
1c. Christianity places no particular emphasis or importance on change or contradiction. If anything we see no contradiction in change because God made the world logically with rules and change is just one of the many consequences of those rules of nature, not some grand mystery.
2. The idea that man makes reality or that men are part of our can become God is called pantheism and is considered a form of idolatry which is wrong and evil in Christianity.
2a. In Christianity God is self conscious and always has been. He needs nothing, from us or anyone else, instead it is us who need him. So there is no god needing to recognize himself, it humanity serving some insane purpose like being a mirror for God. Instead we are simply his children who wishes to love and careful and raise up properly just like any parent should.
3. In Christianity Alruism isn't strictly speaking necessary. While self-sacrifice can be lauded, suicide is a sin. Jesus was quite clear that what is necessary to be saved was to accept him and to fight against sin in oneself. This doesn't mean being perfect, one may still stumble, but it does mean reducing sin and being genuinely apologetic and contrite when one's baser nature does win out and seeking to their change future behavior. Full self-destructive altruism is not required. Christians are supposed to carry out good works yes but this is out of a sense of thankfulness for our salvation and not a prerequisite to it, and even then the call for charity doesn't supercede other responsibilities like those to family, friends, and self.
3a. Christianity doesn't deny desire like Buddhism, we believe that humans' indivuality and desires are a gift from god and thus ought to be expressed. However sometimes those desires can become corrupted and twisted and then one must submit to god and allow him to correct the corruption.
3b. Sins in Christianity are clearly enumerated and are always the result of something good or neutral being taken to excess. Sexual immorality for example is an excess of sexual desire and oftentimes being directed wrongly. Wrath is misplaced anger etc.
3c. While in some situations self sacrifice is good in Christianity, a soldier sacrificing himself to save his friends for example. In cases where it wasn't absolutely necessary it is looked down on. Since Christianity says we were bought with the blood of Jesus, to harm oneself, even in service of another, is to insult God and the price he paid for you.
3d. Lastly all sins are ultimately self-damaging and self-destructive. Even something as simple as lying will eventually get you caught in a lie and lead to consequences. The Enemy, the Devil is the spirit of self-destruction, he seeks to nurture these self-defeating desires in men and weaken them and drive them away from God so he can devour them. Jesus explicitly declared He came that we might have life and have it to the fullest. God in Christianity doesn't want to oppress or arbitrarily restrict people everything He does is for our good. Quite different from the blind and deaf god of the Hegelians. Honestly most Christians would probably say that Hermeticism/Hegelianism is a parasitic corruption of real morality and personally I feel like it is the direct ideology of the antichrist, a sort of false Christianity to try and overpower the real thing and destroy it.
It's still a consciousness that created reality and which you identify with.
If someone came and identified with that consciousness, you would gang up, just like Jesus' disciples did. It's literally what the kingdom of Heaven is, a spiritual community.
It's no different than those things you think are left, while you are, I suppose right. Hegel is considered on the right as well.
@@OneLine122 not really they're talking about a spiritual hive mind. Whereas a simple voluntary community like Christianity is very different. And please understand that Christianity is voluntary, you don't have to join it. It's just that the natural consequences for not doing so are rather grim.
My dear brother in Christ, your point 1c. reminded me of GK Chesterton: "The (Catholic) Church solved the problem of furious opposites by letting them be furious and opposite." :) (Can't remember where he siad it though!)
Awesome comment 👍
Perhaps in this video TIK is not explicit about which religion is similar with fascism/socialist ideologies but in other of his videos he imake it clear that these they are a form of gnosticism.
Imma have to watch this a dozen times to make it stick.
It's not an easy one, but I hope I've explained it well
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
@@TheImperatorKnight yes, you did, he's just flaunting the fact he is five times cleverer than me - ahh well, on to watch number seventy...
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
@@inquisitorMence Feel with ya there. The noggin's not remotely working as it did before the issues.
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
There is no such thing as a "secular" school. All men are religious.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
Marx was materialist. Idealism and materialism are opposites. When you placed Marx among idealists or as a successor to idealistic philosophers, then something went wrong because it is impossible. If Marx used dialectical rhetoric of Hegel doesn’t make him an idealist.
Just wanna say thanks for everything you do, Tik. You’re one of the real ones and it’s a huge breath of fresh air.
Socialism is a religion
unlike the trickle down economics of capitalism course.
@AFGuidesHD trickle-down economics is when the government takes your money and redistributes (trickles it down) it to the lower classes.
Yeah, there's no such thing as "trickle down economics" ruclips.net/video/nZPDpk8NA-g/видео.htmlsi=KNG44PJUyZ-HmN--
All political ideologies are basically Christian heresies, really.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes!!! Thank you.
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Fascism = Real Democracy = Freedom.
So if the majority can take my stuff I'm free ? Direct Taxation = Freedom ?
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
This is really interesting!! You did a great job explaining all this!
Beautiful presentation! This provides a bit more context to what I have read/researched over the years. Thank you!
Thank you for bringing all of this to light, Mr. TIK.
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.*
Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
"We all have pen ness in our minds" 🤨🤨🤨
@@queuedjar4578 Some of us have a small pen-ness. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
@@82dorrin
As long as the wife is happy with it.
I have the perfect pen-ness form.
My pen-ness is average-sized.
There's a reason that back when i took a psychology class back in school the first thing our teacher told us was "Psychology is a kind of philosophy, not a science,"
He still got a little irritated when I called Sigmund Freud "Freaky Freud". Fun times.
Thanks, great video TIK.
Again, Thank You! It is such a tangled web. Cleary Explaining these mind sets, in layman's terms, helps form a clearer picture of our current reality.
Thank you, Tik; you are brilliant. I wish you’d been around when I was growing up.
He's an absolute plonker as we say in the UK
If a tree falls on a clown and nobody sees it, is it still funny ?
But there's no such thing as humor.🥴
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
I'm sorry that a tree fell on you
Well, Plato must have had an amazing "Magic Mushroom" garden.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
Clown rights are human rights! Stop clownism now!😀
He did. Know who else did? The Apostles.
And a great Pen-ness
@@LlibertarianGalt Absolutely.
So since neither of them did, they both did in the same way. The negative way. Brilliant logic man. Bravo.
After reading "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is just a variation of the Philosopher-King theory of government and includes all of the potential problems with that approach. Violent transition of power, oppression of any minorities' culture and points of view, exploitation of the ruled for the benefit of those in power, etc. A surprising number of great philosophers throughout history have advocated for a philosopher-king type of government since they didn't believe that the general population could rule themselves.
Indeed 😅
"the greatest and most noble person in society is the philosopher, and they should be in charge" - said every philosopher ever.
Kant did, although the kind and the philosophers were separate. The king was simply deciding the religion, the philosophers it's application.
The general population has never ruled itself since the fall of Athenian democracy. What we have in the West now is a Republican form of government dominated by trade
By definition, people can't rule themselves.
People CAN'T rule themselves.
Yes! Another video of Tik 😊
Thanks for continuing to pubbly this intresting videos, THANKS!
Excellent video thank you! You weave together history and philosophy so well and it's a pleasure to listen to. Bravo Sir!
ontological idealism and stuff being created by ''my mind'' are not the same thing
intro to philosophy class level of misunderstanding
Just a tip on quantum mechanics.
What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer.
Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'.
Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'.
Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
It took young me a long time to figure this out, simply because our science communicators are all garbage.
@@tbk2010 They don't know what they are talking about and some are just dishonest.
Good video.
Its interesting how Italy and Japan got lumped together with Germany despite them being ideologically quite different.
It was just convenient to do so since they all fought on the same side
lol tik never talk about Japan
Ayee dude, this a good video talkin' 'bout Fascism. It's like a game where everything is made up, and the points don't matter. Essentially- a whole lotta fluff, and no substantial positions on either side of the political spectrum. Just there to take advantage of insecurities and confusion within the populace during a difficult time. Thanks for the upload once again, homie.
This was a very thought-provoking video for me. Especially your conclusions at the end. I want you to know I am truly grateful beyond words for what I have learned from you about the ideologies that have shaped the history and present of the world I find myself navigating, which has gone far beyond what I was taught in school about them and the nonsense spouted by my peers who are uninformed. I feel I am far better equipped to see things for what they are as a result, and I now have a good understanding of those ideologies. So what now? What, knowing that which I now do, should I support? It seems there are few or no political figures in my country who are on anywhere near the right track. What would you say is the closest we have ever gotten to a government you find acceptable - because we have to have some form of government, if only to keep the peace and prevent general crime (assault, theft, child abuse, corruption, murder, the big stuff...)? You understand these things so well, and have the big picture view at your disposal - so how would you set up a government? Very curious to hear your perspective!
If there is no objective reality, then blind people reading with their fingers are really not reading at all, they just spew whatever comes to mind.
Thank you for a very interesting video.
I’ve been watching TikHistory for about a year now. I finally understand what all these terms actually mean and not what today’s secularists want them to mean. Thank you for all your work!!
What an excellent video! I managed to learn what fascism truly is, along with other philosophies such as the Hegelian philosophy which I've always had trouble understanding. Thank you for clearing this up and giving a wonderful explanation! Especially during a time when the word "fascist" is just thrown around towards people you don't like which makes it lose its true meaning.
Thank you for this rationale breakdown of what the philosophy of the Fascism movement was grounded in. I regularly have debates on Forums where no one seems to have a real understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Philosophical Fascism or how to see the broader connections. For many of them, they debate that Fascism can only be defined by a narrow constraint of the movements of Mussolini and Hitler, but yet can include Jordan Peterson and Texas.
What is generating a lot of problems is the application of a vague evil monster that is now called Fascism, but is loosely relate to Philosophical Fascism, in the way that all Americans look alike. Let's call this Misnamed Fascism. Misnamed Fascism does share some traits, and it is the monster in the closet, but it is not what people think it is.
For almost two decades, I have shared that Misnamed Fascism can be identified by three traits. These traits can be seen across time, and can be see in groups that start good and then veer into trouble. Only groups that display these three traits go full bad. Just having two can make you annoying, but not wind-up gassing millions of people in the name of the collective good. There are parallels with Philosophical Fascism, which is why it can be equated to a Religion and/or drift easily into Misnamed Fascism.
#1} You believe in a hard and fast worldview and The Cause to make it the way you envision it. This version of the world is an absolute. Paradoxically, being absolute about everyone having their own perception of the world is possible. What you believe is right or wrong is absolutely right or wrong regardless of circumstances and other considerations. You do not need proof, or rationality, it is inherently proving itself. (Excellent for one who wants to "dream" the world into reality)
#2} Communal Support. It is self-feeding in that it affirms itself with the statement, "How can it be wrong if so many people believe it?" It draws from the masses to validate itself and then its "validity" to draw more masses. "David Copperfield teleported the Statue of Liberty, because millions of people saw him do it." This is not always wrong, but a necessary part of the mindset. (Collective Dreaming and Democracy)
As you can see, many things result from #1 and #2. Most religions possess these, which is why Philosophical Fascism and Misnamed Fascism both qualify to be seen as Religions. But only extremists possess #3. With all three, you get the combination people often call Fascist these days. They rarely realize who actually fts those criteria.
#3} The acceptance/willingness to do Anything for The Cause. Not the willingness to make any sacrifice, but Anything, including making others sacrifice for The Cause. Whether this is Forced Taxation, or Gas-Chambers, you will make it happen. This is different from the community voting for increased taxes, but the direct imposition of these regulations without the backing of the community. And the willingness to use force to make it happen. (Authoritarianism, but one that can co-exist with versions of Democracy, Socialism, and Liberalism).
#2 combined with #3 tends to be Politicians and Partisans. #1 & #3 tend to be youth.
All three is when really bad things happen to groups/nations.
Sadly, when talking to people these days, it is useless to address the misnamed elements and just get to the foundations of what they are calling Fascism.
'Mr Hitler, why did you decide to invade Poland?'
'Well you see, two thousand years ago, heraclitus explained that nothing exists...'
So according to Gentile this video only exists because I am watching it right? You are welcome TIK for all my effort.
Technically not, since I exist too and saw it first 😂
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I appreciate someone that actually engages with the topic. A lot of the comments feel like the New Atheists, scoffing at a strawman. I don't agree with the forms being the best way to do things, but the idea of "The more something partakes in the features of its category, the more of that thing it must be." Balls are round, thusly a rounder ball is participating more in the form of Ball, though since we're in reality, at some point the ball is no longer perfectly round as a conceptual, abstract ball in our heads.
Excellent work! I am so glad you discovered both Piekoff and the Austrian Economists. Long live free people trading!
One of your best ever! Great work mate ❤
We reaching the noumenal realm with this one
You couldn't use mugs instead of pens? You're killing my inner 8 year old.
As an "idealist" I gotta ask: How's materialism working out for you?
Materialism isn't the same thing as realism.
well he gets to call us dumb when creating his own explaination of things so, hes happier than most materialists lol
Be careful in choosing to label yourself as "this" and not "that". The path toward self deception starts with choosing sides and making it part of your identity.... Just an old man's observation.....
Yes, this is the type of content I wanted. I was discussing this with my son last night, and we need different terms for Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, the WW2 thing we called Japanese fascism which is very different and needs a unique name, etc. The problem is the USSR scribblers have called everything they do not like 'fascism', which they think is a form of 'capitalism', and their propaganda has confused everyone even though the USSR died its inevitable death.
I look forward to this work particularly as you discuss the philosophical issues with these systems instead of the typical 'it bad' argument.
My son's argument is that the German National Socialists were 'right wing' compared to the other parties at the time. Pre-Overton Window. However, there were small right wing parties at the time. Internationalism only becomes left-wing when the call for 'world socialism' comes around. Until then almost everybody was a nationalist.
Kokutai is not "Japanese Fascism". Its a giant family system, updated from the Edo period. That's why Japan's culture didn't change when the warrior element was removed. The Family System within the culture simply moved into the corporate world.
Coincidentally I am halfway through The Theory Of Mind As Pure Act 📕 Bought it coz I liked the title. I had no idea Gentile wrote other interesting stuff. Thanks 🙏🏽
those ancient philosophers truly had some deep shower thoughts as 12yo would have, too "woah dude what if your blue is my pink woah"
They didn't get these ideas from shower thoughts, they got it from other practices.... Whatever you do, don't look up the word "Quibayo" on RUclips
The basics. The human intellectual ability to invent categories and divide "things" into different categories, while discussing exceptions to said categories.
The gradations of certain general categories, like youth and elder, or the phases of the moon (appearance).
So much sophistic word games.
Slightly valuable, for understanding nuances, but overblown. That's my thoughts on the value of philosophy today.
What you see as blue could be perceived totally different by other beings. Thus, you could like blue color, but others would find it totally repulsive. Which in turn may lead to conflict.
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Why are we bringing politics into this? The easiest way to divide people is to talk about the modern politics...
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
@@Alte.Kameraden I think the sensationalism is par on the course of the algorithm, and more so of his style of presentation.
@@korana6308 if you think TIK videos are not about modern politics, then you are not paying attention
I see Schrödinger’s cat in my mind’s eye.
Seems like we are coming to a confluence of dead ends in philosophy, epistemology and, perhaps, physics.
Yuck, I hope you aren't older than about 14, you pretentious clown.
Schrödinger's description/equation is in a different set of natural laws. It is lower than the level of atoms, but in electrons!
@@thermionic1234567
You're a clown.
I really enjoyed conceptualizing anyone sufficiently simple to accept the philosophical concept that concepts don't exist. :P
Thank you TIK for another excellent philosophy presentation. I find your visual historical philosophical scemmatics especially helpful indeed. 👍✌️
2:04 Would ever do one about how Fascism roots sprung up on French Socialists? The book, Neither Right Nor Left, goes into that.
A James Gregor talks about it and so does Giovanni Gentile.
That would be interesting.
@@LlibertarianGalt
Right, but the book goes in depth and shows chronological order in how it happened. Sargon did a book review of it.
@@Web720 Yes, A James Gregor translated the bulk of Giovanni Gentiles works into English and is worth looking into.
He doesn't touch upon Georges Sorel here?
"Hagel thought" Uh oh, not again
Yeah, but did he really?😂
Great video. I have a few disagreements, but overall, this is a legitimate interpretation of the facts. Could you go more into depth with Franco?
here I am, 35 years later hearing Tik in tre voice of my philosopher teacher 😮. I never would have imagine those classes would be useful one day.
Excellent context for stoicism and Epictetus' emphasis on distinguishing between thoughts within control and outside of control as the basis for finding contentment solely through reason
The religion point is so played out and tenuous. All political ideology, including your own anarcho capitalism, has some philosophical backing. The notion that an underlying philosophy makes a political position a religion, is just to say allegiance to any political ideology is a religion.
If that is the case then TIK is a zealot.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff.
The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible).
This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
That's fair enough, but what specifically did Peikoff get wrong in his series?
Rand's distaste for Kant is anything but incomprehensible, if you understand Objectivism.
if it's any consolation it isn't a heterodox view, much of what I heard in the Peikoff lecture series was supported by the Arthur Holmes series
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I had not heard of that series, thanks for pointing it out!
@@IBuildItHome I remember I had a deep respect for Kant until I found Objectivism.
6:10 "nothing ever happens"
"And our proof is that we see things happen."
My video has frozen at that exact time. Weird.
Sidenote: 1 John 2: 1-17 (there are two kingdoms) & Colossians 2:20 for a little more light. again thks for heads up on the knuckleheads. 👍
Tik: Thought-provoking, while entertaining, video as always!
I did want to comment on your statement on "modern psychologists": at least in the U.S., the vast majority of psychologists and psychotherapists are no-longer influenced by psychoanalytic thought (Freud/Jung/Adler) - they only study same for historical context. Physiological psychology (based on brain functioning studies), normal and abnormal child development, cognitive-behavioral theory, and the effects of trauma have been predominant in psychology since the 1980s.
In reality, the use of both “principles” is common but not accepted by all… the second method is based on “mind tricks”… and some use only this method, considered as a fastest one… but It depends…
God, philosophers are a weird bunch. It feels like they should be best left in a pub and never be listened too ever again.
you will always be duped and fall prey to propaganda if you're not familiar with at least basic philosophy
We get it, you are not intellectually capable of understanding complex thought that goes against your world view.
@@vladimirkraynyk True. Still, its almost like every philosopher is an anti-common sense nutter.
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw There are certain insights which cannot be conveyed with words. They transform your perspective entirely and afterward the most seemingly outlandish ideas begin to make perfect sense. Its more about experience then words.
They sound like a bunch of nerds, probably wouldn't even set foot in one.
Gentile is talking about the collapsing of the wave front
Incredibly excited about you series on national socialism and facism!
Another fascinating video, Tik!
Great Video, but just a comment.
I think you brought in Christianity too early and lumped them in with Solopstists. Christianity is Platonistic, one could say Neoplatonist. They do believe in an objective reality, the power of the mind/faith, and can easily make the argument for holding up reason as valid. Augustine's understanding which became the philosophical basis of most of medieval Christendom and still has a strong influence today was very similar to Platonism. Aquinas did rediscover, but also reinterpreted Aristotle into a Christian lens, and as such he created a strong philosophical basis for reason within Christianity.
That's not to say Christianity cannot be Solipsistic at times. The best example of this is in Last Thursdayism which basically negates historical evidence with the argument "God could've created us last Thursday with all evidence and memories of a time before being just planted in us." But even this is not really Solipsistic as it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview, not a rejection of reason or reality entirely.
TIK your last video about fascism has stuck in my head for weeks.
You made it sound WAY too appealing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Then you need to read basic economics by thomas sowell.
@@bassamalfayeed1384 I'm not saying I'm a fascist, what I'm saying is that he presented it in a very human and intellectual light.
@@AYTM1200Just remember, at some point, everybody runs afoul of fascism.
Maybe you just like parts of it. Just because fascism espouses X, Y and Z does not mean they invented it and copyrighted it. Almost all ideologies share common positions and beliefs. It is the mix that makes each of them what they are.
Maybe because Fascism isn't as bad as you think..m
Thank you for these educational videos
I'm so happy you've mentioned it, TIK, but please give us a video on Schrödinger and quantum mechanics !
Thank you for the whole video, but thank you as well for your explanation of some of the foundational Greek Philosophy. I've read a lot of it before. I've even taught some of it. But this is the first time I've heard it described in a non-abstract manner where I could get my head all the way around it.