How to Make Sense of the LEFT VS. RIGHT Debate | Daniel Schmachtenberger
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Many debates need a dialectic standpoint in order to grasp the truth. Daniel Schmachtenberger explains with the example of the left vs. right debate how sensemaking can work in a complex world.
This is a fundamental question, because without good sensemaking, we cannot even begin to act in the world. It is also a central concern in what many are calling the "meaning crisis", because what is meaningful is connected to what is real.
Full video, licenced under creative common: • The War on Sensemaking...
---
If you like the content, subscribe!
He is at a high level of consciousness.
First understand then strive to be understood😊
Daniel is like a genius philosopher feeling around in the dark describing all the attributes and shapes behaviors in every little detail of a concept we have a word for already. Compassion.
That final part resonates with Buddhist wisdom, which challenges you that you are not your thoughts. There is the deeper reality of presence ; the observer, the witness, that when cultivated brings about peace and equilibrium. For that possibility to open up there needs to be release of form and identity, which we cling to and derive our sense of self from. A letting go. Or as the speaker puts it, the ability to temporarily suspend.
As Eckhart Tolle puts it, if we let go of that with which we identify, we do not cease to exist. On the contrary, we truly come alive.
I feel like a aloe vera in a swamp,where i cannot florish becouse of the harsh enviorment.I mean more in connecting with people which is soo needed in this individual disconnected world.People want to be seen and heard.This system is excluding "human people" in my view
Very true, I believe people being isolated is deliberate
I become a better person just listening and learning from Daniel. What a jewel!!
James Lindsay and Daniel need to sit down and discuss Hegel's dialectical process in more depth together, I would love to see that.
Suspending "the impulse to be Right" is the hardest part of negotiating ANY dialogue! Our egos really have been trained to push us to compete for the high ground of "rightness". That must be something 'we' acquire culturally... and really calls out to be understood at its root, if 'we' are going to have helpful collective understanding of our selves, in order to develop ways to work on the corrections needed to maintain civilizations 'fairly'.. ie truly sharing our environs (with ALL the life forms.. not just "other people"). ^..^
This brilliant piece sits at the heart of the need & direction of democratic reform. Specifically, the need to shift from our adversarial, divisive, group think party system, to a more inclusive, well facilitated deliberative system. This would need to include some competency standards & training/coaching for politicians aling with large poblic campaigns to orientate the general public to the benefits of this alternative system.
These benefits not only include better decision making & a more representative democracy, but also likely to reduce to possibility of war, including world war...
One thing we haven’t done is legitimize what the training of a leader truly looks like
An enormous strength that Daniel has is he does not respond to another's viewpoint with the word 'but'. The word 'but' is argumentative and closes down communication. Even when his viewpoint is challenged, he does not respond with his ego and explores the other perspective thoughtfully. I do struggle with the depth and breadth of Daniel's references and thought processes, but (ha!) I think I am better for listening.
This reminds me of the classical Indian framework of vada, vitanda, and jalpa. In vada, the objective is to have a discussion aimed at ascertaining truth. Vitanda is merely attacking the opposition's arguments, and jalpa is argumentation with the sole intent to win. Vada requires a certain degree of detachment so that one can hold mutually contradictory ideas in mind simultaneously without the need to rush into one or the other being the right one. In this form of discussion the ego (defined in the tradition as the narrow "I-sense" based upon limited information) is viewed as a hindrance to the pursuit of truth and is therefore removed from the process as much as possible. In jalpa and vitanda the ego is fully operational and governing the entire process, and the pursuit of truth is lost.
I think social services only work in homogeneous cultures of high trust where mostly everyone acknowledges personal responsibility.
@JC S I think that's how we started America.
Good luck with that.....if that idea was sustainable it would have maintained itself from the agrarian culture....but move to rural area amd give it a shot....the anabaptists have thier issues as well....
As a social worker myself, what people fail to recognize is that people on the fringes carry a lot of baggage: (generational) poverty, disfunctional family/upbringing, bad role models, childhood trauma. People complain about people on wellfare not handling their money right, but that is exactly the reason why they are in that situation. We have to recognize tha someone born into an affluent environment has a head start in life. Secondly, often there are underlying emotions of anger towards society, feeling looked down upon, rejected and treated unjustly, that need to be adressed in order for the person to succesfully reintegrate. This along with developinng the necessary skills to be able to function within society, is a process that takes time. Are we willing to just discard people when they stop being productive ? They're still human beings like the rest of us, even we may think of them as less.
Perfect, waterproof systems don't exist. There will always be people trying to game the system. It becomes a matter of minimizing that risk, while maximizing the benefit to society by designing systems that empower people rather than make them dependent. If you don't, society will ultimately pay the price. Which I think you are currently experiencing in the US, with the opiate crisis, rampant poverty, extreme concentration of wealth and a hightened polarization that people fear may lead to civil war.
Edit: another thing. People don't just work out of financial gain/obligation. It also fulfills human needs of social standing, purpose, self-realization and networking and social interaction.
@@desamster I come from the type of background you describe. I have needed a certain amount of help over the years. But I dread being dependent on handouts and strive to produce something of value. But my generation was taught to strive and to avoid self pity. The problem comes with teaching people that an entire lifetime of dependence is acceptable, discouraging them from getting their act together. Frankly, being poor on a western country is bring rich in many others. Social services should be an occasional safety net not a perpetual coddling machine. Personal responsibility strengthens you. Any form of dependency weakens you.
@@shadowartist8892 I fully agree. A problem of entitlement. As you say, we are incredibly priviledged to live in a Western society, lest not forget. A measured combination of support and tough love is needed.
You're absolutely right about debate, dialectic and objectification of "other". I think there's a simpler framing regarding right/left. Few people are completely politically aligned, they change over time, and it's valuable to understand multiple individual positions.
The Right / Republicans are dominance hierarchy minded / patriarchal. They believe that some individuals are better than others and society puts some people in positions of power that have been determined by society. People on the Right seek higher positions on a hierarchy and delegate sensemaking to people above them in the hierarchy.
Democrats (ideologically) are non-hierarchical (center). They believe collective decision making is best, so want to hear more voices and dialog. The party as an organization is hierarchical, but democrats tend to want to hear a range of opinions and let the majority decide.
Liberals have a growth hierarchy mindset (matriarchal / left). They believe it's best for each individual to make their own decisions and act independently to be at their best. They are wary of the dominance hierarchy, trying to balance it and protect individuals from the dominance mindset, but are mostly ambivalent toward centrists.
I think this framing addresses shifting of positions over time. It's based on how people make decisions, rather than an Overton-window framing of issues and positions on specific topics.
I’ve tried with close friends and family for years to have these types of conversations, but it always results in people desperately grasping onto holding onto their ideas.
Let go of trying to convince the other person. Instead genuinely try to understand their views and where they're coming from, and honestly express your truths in return. Which may challenge theirs, but that is for them to make up their mind about. This is counterintuitive at first, but when a person feels listened to and understood, rather than feeling as if the other person is trying to impose their truth onto them, they are more inclined to open up in return. Of course if you try to apply this as a deliberate strategy, you're back to trying to convince. Instead focus on having a real conversation, which starts with listening. If you're not willing to take the first step, don't count on the other person to do it for you. The same way conversations can degenerate into trench warfare, feedback loops can work in a positive way to bring about more mutual understanding. Easy in theory, practice is different.
By listening I mean not just to the content of what the other person is saying, but also reading between the lines, sensing emotional charge. Why does he/she feel that way ? Where is it coming from ? People derive meaning from personal life experiences and this makes them suceptible to certain beliefs. For example, voting analyses shows that right wing anti-immigration narrative appeals to working class people because they may feel they're not represented or looked down upon by the ruling political class, feel they have to work hard while outsiders profit off of their labor (or so it is made to seem), while they struggle to maintain. So it is really these underlying feelings of hardship, perceived inferiority and neglect that are being tapped into and need to be adressed.
Wanted to add this:
People cling to their ideas because they identify with them. If you attack their ideas, it's as if you are attacking their person. This will elicit a proper response (defend and strike back). Though you want to challenge certain ideas, because they are violent, unjust or grossly incorrect, this puts you back into the verbal warfare situation, which really doesn't lead to anything constructive. As social workers, we learn that the first step in being of service to our client is listening and acknowledging their feelings. The person feels understood, you generate goodwill. If you see problems in their thinking or attitude, which may involve shunning personal responsibility and directing blame outwards, you hold onto that for the moment. People will do what they can to maintain their sense of self-worth and dignity. Scapegoating, on a societal level as well, is an easy and therefore attractive (but false) solution.
When the first phase is suffiiently met, you can present the client with different ways of looking at the situation, maybe options they hadn't conceived. You open their mind to new possibilities and lead them on a more constructive path. Flaws in their current stance may need to be adressed, but from a genuine place of looking for clarity and best interest, not in an 'out to get you' kind of way. (Notice how political discussions are often verbal boxing matches, with both sides out to damage an dominate their opponent. It's all about winning.)
As for the last part, you can only present the client with this new information and point them in the right direction. It is up to them to accept and take action and this may take a while. But if and when they do, they will own it. That's why you meet them at their starting point. Cut directly to imposing a view and course of action, and you'll be met with resistance.
Of course as a social worker, you're in an asymmetrical relationship of deliberate assistance of you towards your client. This is different from a discussion between free individuals on held political views. But it's interesing to take note of these emotional mechanisms and interpersonal dynamics at play.
It is very difficult to find anyone who wants to actually have these conversations. Most of the time I don’t even try.
You have to take an honest look at how things are on the planet, rather than just be optimistic. The hard truth is most people are NOT ready to think about a buuunch of things. What we can do, as people who are more interested in these topics....is to just APPLY to our life, and embody different values systems....THAT is what is going to change the world.
If we wait to convince a portion of the population of a good idea....we will NEVER get anywhere.
Bad faith actors make this process null and void.
I tried to share his teachings.... no one listens... and I mean *no one*. It's like people like to suffer at their own hand.
What type of people and what did they say?
How do we get both sides to agree that Arson and Murder is not peaceful?
Excellent, u start 2 leave me behind, I will forward this 2 my network, keep making these films, cheers 🥂
I appreciate the sentiment, obviously well thought out from his perspective, but how does one this go about doing this? finding a bunch of introspective, meritocratic, altruistic, philosopher leaders is not that easy or we would have done it by now. There's a reason philosophers are never statesmen at the same time anymore. Politics is in essence arguing on behalf of one's tribe v the interest of other tribes, without using armed conflict to do it. People naturally polarise and gravitate to the left and right because that's our human nature, and if one side has more members than the other they will rule for a while in a democratic system, which is an of itself a form of conflict and perpetual struggle. In other words, in order for a political utopia of sorts to exists where cooperation is the key value, we would have to radically change our behaviors, habits, desires, etc as well as change our entire economic system and system of innovation, because as much as cooperation is helpful for efficiency, conflict breeds innovation, as opposed to stagnation.. there is no realistic way to create a star trek like future without generations of social programming both on the micro and macro level.. short of Vulcans showing up and telling us to live long and prosper that is.
It took a long time to get where we are and it'll take a long time to get where we could be. There is no one solution- each of us has to do anything we can to spread these ideas and be a living example of sense-making. We can't find good politicians because you can't be a "good" politician in the current system.. you can be corrupt or impotent. Those are the options. It will take an overhaul... but overhauls happen a step at a time just like the process that caused the need for them. Keep talking about this... with anyone who will listen. Make your decisions, as much as you're able, based on sound sense-making. Maybe there are some who could have a larger influence more quickly, but most of the people who currently hold influence in this culture have no interest in sense-making and dialectic. What else can most of us do but just live the concepts?
I'm actually not even a fan of the terms "left" and "right". Outside of the French Revolution, I don't actually think they apply, especially considering what they stood for but also because these terms do not carry any inherent political, social or economic meaning which lends them to allow for such malleable and confusing definitions of groups.
For example, we are today expected to believe that Fascism is on "the right". It is to be the "extreme right" as in the more "right" you go, the closer to collectivistic, economic central planning and State idealization you go. Now I am a social conservative, you know, God, guns, individual liberties, VERY small government etc., so, very "right wing" in the US (however I am very Libertarian in that imposing my views on others is absolutely not allowed). HOWEVER we are then under the current standard expected to believe that if you get more extreme than me, you suddenly become a collectivist, anti-individualist, Statist authoritarian. I'm sorry but that absolutely makes no sense. If you get more extreme of me, i.e., more individualistic, less government, etc., you actually get closer to Anarchy, not Fascism. I find that it is the use of these improper terms that have allowed for this sever distortion in people's understanding.
If you are to entertain a single axis spectrum, then it can only be that your two descriptors at each end (and you can only have 2) absolutely must be mutually exclusive. Ring theory is bunk as I see it. If you have to bend your graph, then it is actually you who has a warped understanding and you have chosen poor descriptors.
For any passing reader at a loss on his reference to the French Revolution, check out one of the father's of conservatism Edmund Burke and his correct predictions on how the revolution would play out.
I was actually in the middle of writing a very similar comment mentioning the French Revolution and how the political compass has shifted left, (the conservative label now is basically a moderate or libertarian driven by economic arguments) but decided on the easier and more harsh route of insults.
The Fascists always were left-wing progressive socialists. In the 20's and 30's progressives in the US praised both Mussolini and Stalin. When the Nazis and the Communists were both minority parties in the Reichstag, they pretty much voted in lockstep.
The accusation that the Fascists were "right-wing" arose in the mid 30's when the Soviet Union formed the COMINTERN.
Any left-wing socialist party that refused to join was labeled "right-wing", since that was the worst insult one socialist could level at another.
It also was done because the Fascists and Nazis were competing with the Communists for the same base. Most growth in the Fascist movements came by poaching voters from the Communists and other left-socialist parties.
Conservatives were always opposed to both groups.
The thing is, you have left-right wing spectrum on both ethical issues (gender roles, race/diversity, abortion, gay rights, and more applicable in the US: gun laws), as well as economics. The liberal party in my country for example is left wing liberal on ethical issues, but right wing on the organization of the economy (more free market, limited government regulation, focused on business owners and entrepreneurship). The far right on the other hand is ethically conservative, but I guess more centrist on economics (their focus lies more on anti-immigration anyway). In the US you only have two major poltical parties, which makes things more complicated.
The nazi regime's political model is referred to as national-socialism, because they were left wing on economics (collectively organized) but extreme right on themes of race, gender roles and national identity. Nationalism and identity play a huge role in right wing politics in general, while left wing traditionally is more focused on worker rights and wealth inequality. Consequently, there is a sense that left wing parties have not sufficiently adressed the topic of migration, which has become a hot issue, or have been seen as too lenient or politically correct, spurred on of course by right wing rethoric and accusations and a growing concern amongst the population.
There's a pretty clear understanding of their current meanings.
Jonathan Haight explores the right left axis in "the righteous mind". Well worth reading.
The problem is he isn't talking about the bigger issue. It's not collectivist vs individualist, it's tribes vs eachother. That's why politics have gotten uglier as subcultures find that they have less and less in common in the US. He's more surprised at that than he should be because his thought process applies to small nations like Denmark. If you continue to think about the ideologies without the people behind it, you'll constantly see "both sides" and be in utter dismay that the arguments are as ugly as they are in the real world. It's ironically less complex to go about it this way.
The question is do groups care about eachother equally and the nation equally too? If not, they may truly not want a win win scenario, rather proportionate point scoring. Assuming good will is a nice starting point, but naive.
Academics and Scholarly doctors seem to be about 20 years behind the times at least. Some are even spouting garbage talking points from 50 years ago without even realizing that the dynamic nature of social and political views have rendered their perspective moot or the very least inadequate to help explain the actual world directly in front of them. I would say this guy is stuck in the 1990s.
Your points on the tribal quality of todays political discourse is far more accurate. I also find it interesting that Glubb's essay "The Fall of Empires", written in 1978 is a more adequate way of "making sense" of the present days political scene than Daniel's comments from a few days ago.
@@chrisbanion Exactly.
@@1wizful The crazy part is he even refers to the fact that left vs right isn't a stable concept. He hasn't connected the dots that resentful authoritarians are principleless intentionally. Probably the clearest example is the progression of Obama being elected while opposing gay marriage, then just after he flips on it the entire left demands everyone is for it or else you will get destroyed. Then after all that is done, moving onwards to niche trans issues. Issues that the exact same people in power didn't care about whatsoever just one political cycle ago. Most of these people in power behind the scenes are 60+ years old, and we're supposed to buy that they radically change their mind like a teenager? There is no point in looking for axiomatic explanations when these are just tactics for shame and destruction, like you said.
This isn't even touching the demographic voting patterns, which I'm sure we all know is a far more consequential + openly discussed strategy.
The only consistent core worldview is if you view America as a net positive or net negative, is the average middle American family infantile or deserving of respect? The rest works its way backwards. If America is a net negative it's only logical to limit the nation via using its own guilt, while seeking personal gain.
@@DrWNoLs Well said, only not America itself but beyond it to its actual roots. The worldview of your meta-analysis extends to the very existence of a certain genetic collective. (Edit: And which people remain infantile or deserving of respect is yet to be judged, the climate is still too comfortable at the moment to motivate any real change.)
@@1wizful Very true. Those deep roots are why some feel so threatened by nationalism, despite their own personal success. The only solution will be for the people to stand up for themselves before it's too late.
Totally agree...but how do we get both sides to amicably and intelligently sit across from each other and carry out such a civil dialogue...we are not anywhere close to that point yet in our evolution of the individual...we need a lot more individuals at that state to really effect the whole...
And it's getting worse
Why is he characterizing people who need help "shitty people". There's a lot of judgement where he claims he's not judging. Just because someone is mentally ill or physically disabled does not make them "shitty". That is a horrible way to characterize people.
Without acknowledging the use of force and coercion as the inherent means to any end when talking about government policy, there can never be any chance of solving the big issues facing us all. Avoiding or skirting this reality will only assure the continuation of the Left?Right divide that fails almost everyone, with very few exceptions. Based on my observations, after watching and listening to many people with Academic backgrounds for years now, they are just not willing to go anywhere near a simple acknowledgement of that basic and undeniable reality. Which means that burden is placed squarely on the shoulders of people like myself, who are willing to call a spade a spade. The problem, of course, is that very few people even know I exist. So very few people are hearing this truth.
interviewer is wearing board shorts
plz interview this guy some more, his last vid was also super pleasant to listen to
lol..
I discovered Daniel approx 2 months ago..if their is a Yoda..
I think we have found him..
I can’t seem to quench my desire for his wisdom, as I continue to listen to his countless interviews
Fantastic.
None of it will be fully understood until the metaphysical aspects are explored and understood. But this is a great general analysis of the material levels of the arguments.
one thing i heard a bunch of republicans say when one of their own says something outside the norm - "well he is not a real republican" or a "rhino" for "republican in name only" im like - WTF. what the hell is a "real republican" like really.
Of course you get the same behavior one the left.
@@guyinoregon1 not so much, they clearly haven’t developed an acronym for it. The psychology of conservatives litterally shows they are more loyal to hierarchy and group norms and hegemonic stability and are much more punishing of people when their own step out of these bounds. Sure anyone would be displeased with someone not “getting with the groups program” but only one side is it a defined part of the political psychology that they operate by.
This young man articulates the human problem of individual vs collective best I’ve heard yet.
It’s when it fetches up against the resolution/solution/construction part where, as he rightly says, it gets difficult.
The positive-resolutive part, incidentally, has been tried before; I myself used to be very much a part of that work. In that work I saw a living process of how individuals within a group come to trust one another, with the truth, as your guest says.
It can be powerful, literally beyond what looks possible to normal consciousness.
It’s almost, if not all, gone now, evaporated, stripmined, perhaps, in the late 80s - early 90s.
I could go on - not with the dreary “reasons” I think it tapped out, but with some deeper elaboration. But, for one thing, I’ve talked too long already.
Man this debate has been on my mind my whole life in some way. Born into an intuitively wrong feeling dystopia. Like a bad dream come true. Not to be big-headed, but relatively speaking you could call me the Da Vinci type. I like to do a lot of things, learn a lot of things etc. The collectivism is eating me away from the inside out. The anti-intellectualism, the hyper risk-averse subjectivist types. Is this what they refer to as the "culture war"? It certainly feels like it! For me, it looks like lazy/unskilled/untalented/unproductive people have created a way of thinking which justifies, protects and even over-values their position in society, with regards to what it takes to run a society that is. Perhaps I got that bit wrong and that we shouldn't be valuing people based on what they can do of value! Who knows?
For instance, the notion that you can be born with talent.
I've found this to be the case amongst people I suspect to be insecure around their lack of talent and so it makes sense that they would believe it.
Kristufar Burhtun I don’t totally agree, but am 👍ing you anyway, for your intelligent input.
@@MoonBurn13 Well I thought you bordered on the same issue when you mentioned "the truth". I thought you were referring to how the truth, or at least the search for it is what traditionally united us before the 90's.
Kristufar Burhtun What I’m referring to there by “the truth” is what is called in the East “innocent speech” - having enough trust in those hearing you, to speak without interfering from your ego censor, your survival mechanism, and simply state the facts and that which comes to mind before “second thought”.
Obviously this requires great trust in your audience - not in the sense of seeking agreement, nor in the sense that they are under any obligation to “enroll” in you or what you’re saying: but simply to speak, and listen, without judgment.
The space in which you do this must, it should go without saying, be hermetically sealed off from Society in all its forms - the opposite sex, children, weak and untrustworthy people, who would rather be righteous than make a space for aliveness in life.
You don't have to go that deep into the yeah buts and what ifs. There is a reason they are called the Right and the left and some of us are born with the sense to choose whether to be Right or to be left
So he’s basically saying things are more complex than the left and the right. But he poses no solutions.
No one knows everything, collectively achieve better outcomes. I think that’s the gist here. Less dogmatism, less Republicans bigotry, and we’d get the best ideas out of both parties working together
“Solutions” are ego/fear driven illusions. And even if that weren’t the case, when you chastise someone for talking about a “problem” without offering a “solution”, you discourage them and others from discussing issues that could eventually be “solved” with collective brainpower. Maybe that’s your unconscious goal.
We need thousands, shit millions of ppl who think at this level? I think about a number of topics he discusses in a range of videos. I ask how can I make an effect? I write post on the education system. I doubt that I will have children, but if I do I would choose self educated. I'm 31 now. The probability looks unlikely that I'll find the right woman; become in the correct space mentally,Financially, etc. Then to put the work into myself and the marriage and our kinds relationship to afford and create someone like Daniel....
Sense as already been made now time to do something about it
This whole thesis relies on an educated citizenry. I wonder why education has been allowed to stagnate and wither in such a wealthy nation??
how to deal with people who don't seem to care about fairness or sensemaking? those who simply want it their way, with no consideration for what others feel.
This is a great commentary. But a good starting point would be for all Americans to quit perceiving the folks on the other side of the aisle as the enemy. And stop blaming them for everything that is wrong. If this nation does not learn that compromise is key, and that we need more moderate leaders who understand this, we will never accomplish much at all in our nation. Look at congress right now. I rest my case.
But I’m still having a great amount of difficulty with people that think racism isn’t real.
But their perception comes at the cost of their morals and more importantly their insecurities. Having some of those being an extension of religious beliefs, misguided but beliefs none the less. Those are not the best tools to carry into a discussion of logic or reason. Like dealing with analytics of expressionists art and they are mightily still grasping colour by numbers.
Perhaps there is some truth in what they are saying that you are unable to see because you are reacting only to the perceived falsehoods, and then projecting a moral element into it by deeming those who accept the falsehoods as morally problematic in some way. But perhaps they have a point or perspective that it would be useful to understand.
San Pellegrino
Constructive criticism and subjective analysis are different. But then to say that a reality is a construction of self, that one can only go so far. Then empathy and sympathy are on table, unless you do not have the proper prerequisite for that, that seems to stall the entire idea.
I must be purely at fault for using empathy and sympathy for the wrong function.
Or the falsehoods that I have subjected to myself could be an act of masochism.
That must be it.
it's ok, those people don't actually exist, so no real difficulty
Hegelian to a fault.. why describe the goal of a better society as thesis, antithesis, synthesis? Why the dialectic at all? I'm unconvinced that that is somehow a neutral structure to argue from. I hope someone who understands philosophy will explain it to me.
I'm struggling with this too lately.. I love Daniels thinking, and I also love the thinking of James Lindsay. I would love to see them discuss this in long form.
@@jarrod155 I'm not sure Daniel would take Lindsay seriously because of his very focused theory on philosophy- I tried to ask James (based on his work, not on his Twitter which I don't care about) directly about the dialectic and whether or not it can manifest in our thinking regardless of whether we want it to. He never responded though he did respond to more trivial things I commented on. My point being- don't we all accidentally fall into dialectical thinking sometimes? Would it ruin Lindsay's hypothesis about Hegel being the prophet of a state-as-god (which, as a deity, has yet to be awakened or "realized" through all kinds of societal pressure and endless dialectically enforced change) if Hegel was merely trying to describe a way of thinking rather than how we *should* think? Both Daniel and Lindsay could indeed flesh this topic out extremely well, I agree.. explanations from both of them as to why they believe the dialectic is important vs damaging would be helpful. That said, Daniel might not like to associate with Lindsay based on his overly active Twitter presence. I appreciate anyone for that matter who delves into these philosophical topics as much as they do, regardless. My instinct currently is that the dialectic, like postmodern deconstruction, is a tool that can either be abused or used responsibly to augment already sound discourse.. I don't know where the line falls there, though.
@@sleepinertiac I think that's a great summation of things..
I think it's a worth while thing to explore "what are the appropriate limits of dialectical thinking?".
My current working razor to limit the dialectic is to say "use empiricism primarily(good), and know when your reasoning for its own sake and for the truth". What are your thoughts on that?
@@jarrod155 Yes. Like any other edifice that describes a way in which we *can* think, we need to always discern whether or not we *should* think that way, in any given circumstance. (Insert Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park quote here) There's certainly something a bit slippery about the dialectic when I see it too easily superimposed over different arguments, whether for or against its usage. Sometimes it seems quite arbitrary, "here are three things and as long as the first one is a problem and the last one is a solution, it's a dialectic", it can seem as though it's being forced to fit something that either cannot support it or doesn't need it to begin with. I'm being too vague. Sometimes I see the thesis and anthesis as too interchangeable in terms of starting point; it's too easy to misidentify the "thesis", and it's also too easy to assume the solution correlates with the thesis/antithesis.
I'm just trying to figure out how useful this thing is when its triangular conception doesn't seem to care if the triangle is equilateral, isosceles or scalene, for a geometric analogy. Often the thesis and antithesis aren't quite opposites either.. so it's generally in the sphere of the is-ought problem that attempts to derive the ought from the two opposing IS's. Also there's an issue of polarity too-if the thesis is negative, the antithesis is positive and the synthesis is also positive. If the thesis is positive or neutral, the antithesis is usually negative and the synthesis is positive. How does ignoring all possible negative syntheses help to get closer to the proper solution? Where are first principles when you need them..
@@jarrod155 Was my reply that bad? 😅 I know it's ridiculous but that's how I'm thinking about it.
There are certain fundamentals and prerequisites that must be insisted on in order to enable any progress. By that standard one side is always more right than the other. Truth only loses in compromise. The dialectic meta-purpose is to find the best of both Starting with the most fundamental issues and adding others to they extent they are compatible. There can be no dialectic between post-modernists and realists, for example, because their views are mutually exclusive.
--------
Typical wisdom is long-standing aphorisms about how to act in the world.
The fact that those aphorisms are long-standing means that they are universals, which in turn means they are mundane - the lowest common denominator of thought. They are only able to be passed down over generations by being as simplistic as possible while still producing positive results when applied rationally.
This scale is an approximation:
The fact that circumstances change mean that wisdom is a low-level understanding and half of wisdom is understanding when and how to apply it. Level 1 Wisdom, its typical understanding, is woefully incomplete.
--------
Since different aphorisms can be mutually exclusive and considered wise or not depending on the circumstance, there must be another, higher level of understanding that incorporates that difference. Level 2 Wisdom is to find a scale which incorporates a rule for how to choose between mutually exclusive wisdom.
--------
Level 3 - There is yet greater wisdom in integrating the idea that sometimes you want balance and sometimes you want to be "all in". There's no such thing as a balance of love - more is better.
--------
Level 4 wisdom is to understand that the way you must choose between different options is a matter of priority.
--------
Level 5 Wisdom is the result of having enough self-knowledge to effectively apply everything above.
Wisdom is of two kinds, practical and truth. Practical wisdom is about how to get by in society as it is - idealism v pragmatism. Truth wisdom is about explaining how things are and how they should be - science/philosophy.
We're all fucked. That's all.
a simplification would be to prioritize Science to get the truth.
Land value tax (georgism) reconciles the apparent disagreements.
the all-bad good society
I admire Daniel Schmachtenberger to no end but guess what: With rare exceptions, we humans simply aren't up to the task. It's as if this world equates with a group of toddlers left with the responsibility of running a household.
I love this guy but unless his character represents the rule, the actual standard for human behavior, rather than the rare exception, civilization is doomed to catastrophic failure akin to the toddlers playing with fire and inadvertently burning their house down.
What is the Moral of the Story?
cool
Enter the Worship of Complexity and the Hegalian Dialectic... And the end of rational thought.
How are you defining “fully libertarian ideology”?
If we can solve for coercion as AJ Galambos has, we solve for both the collective and the individual
The man on the fence. Or the jesus position is a difficult one. In a world of infinite possibilities. Politics offers us only two highly conflicting flawed idiologies. Everything in life we change evolve and remain the same. Except politics which remains broken.
All for one or one for all.
To quote the musketeers.
He is completely right about the level of debate and peoples unwillingness to seek or to even see compromise.
Our tribal nature has turned essential life changing debate into an extention of tribalism and even as debased as a football match.
It's like the dilemma Hitler came across in WWI.
He hated trench warfare with a passion. He did not want to repeat it.
How similar is that situation to politics with everyone having entrenched positions?
His voice sounds just like Rob Lowe.
The Hunter Gatherer resolved this question by "Embracing the Contradiction" between the individual, and the common good, and did so for three hundred thousand years before the domestication of our species broke the solution into the dichotomy we have become.
This guy was made to spend the rest of his life arguing sophists and postmodernists
Good luck arguing with people who don't believe in logic or truth.
The problem is not about policy. It's about psychology. Only by reading works of writers like Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche can we begin to understand.
Essentially my thesis is that through social network centrality, 90% of America's misanthropes and depressives have aggravated on one side of the political spectrum. Nietzsche's Slave Morality has been described as "sour grapes made into a value system". This is my honest assessment. This is the roots of leftism. It's the kid picked last in kickball. It's the kid who hates the high school quarterback. If the strong eat meat, than the Leftist must consider veganism. If obesity is ugly, the left must count it as beauty. If men built the world, they must be undermined. If the strong drive an 450 hp,8 cylinder Dodge Challenger, the left must declare it evil and declare an electric car to be good. If the strong squat, deadlift and benchpress a barbell, the left must choose yoga and Pilates. Think I'm kidding?
time.com/4276154/justin-trudeau/
Add in the mimetic force-multiplier of mass and social media, and this is what we've got. Mass psychosis.
And this really is how civil wars begin. Because there is simply no way for the left to overcome the massive amount of cognitive dissonance that has washed over them. They will double down, as they've continually done until some sort of centrality or reset is achieved. The only thing saving us is the brilliance of people like James Madison, who clearly set out in Federalist Paper 10 why the only way to keep a democratic system alive is to maximize the number of factions thus limiting any of their power. Fortunately we see the crypto-communist Bernie fighting against the Progressive Socialist Apache Cheif Warren.
@Michael Freed spot on!
Clandestine Reactionary you are a complete idiot. Everything you wrote is reductive authoritarian horsesh!t. You’re a moron.
He uses strawman tho. In Libertarian system there can exist social programs etc.. The only difference is they will be private charity i.e. more flexible with better feedback loop but less guarantee.
Thus that is not sure enough system for the Left (besides having different value system i.e. Equality trumps Liberty)
I can't take anyone serious who uses "kind of" in every other sentence.
Well there are these other two institutions in society called family and church... Remember them?
thighdude7 They died at Gettysburg.
Wait that was right and center right. Where was the BLM socialist left perspective patriarchal intersectional oppression?
They have to eat at the kiddie table. They are playing a totally different game.