When I was in college at DePaul University in Chicago, I had to take a social justice class as one of my requirements. The teacher was all about pushing affirmative action. I'm Middle Eastern, I challenged him constantly because of the discrimination that affirmative action causes towards people like me or people who are classified as Asian. (Parents are from Asia, our classification system is ridiculous) Before the final, I contacted the head of the department to let him know that I can't consciously answer his questions the way he wants me to to get the proper grade by going against my beliefs. I got a C.
"I wish I could tell you that your college years will be a glorious crusade. Actually, they will probably be a miserable experience. If you are a philosophically pro-American student, you have to expect every kind of smear from many of your professors. If you uphold the power of Reason, you will be called Fanatic and a Dogmatist. If you uphold the right to Happiness, you will be called anti-social or even a Fascist. If you admire Ayn Rand, you will be labeled a Cultist. You will experience every kind of Injustice, or even hatred, and you will be unbelievably bored most of the time, and often you will be alone and lonely. But if you have the courage to venture out into this kind of nightmare, you will not only be acquiring the diploma necessary for your professional future, you will also be helping to save the world, and we are all in your debt."
This lecture is ASTOUNDINGLY relevant to the debate over global warming and the tactics used by the alarmists. They endlessly bleat on about the supposed "consensus" regarding global warming, and ferociously attack anyone who dares to disagree with it.
Unfortunately the professors lost.. and now see where we are, 35 years later. The continuous American exceptionalism is indisputable.. so what is he talking about, people have all the reasons in the world to be harsh when evaluating their country. In one lecture he beats up teachers to not giving student anything “know your subject and do that”.. now, we are all supposed to have our own opinion about history ao apparently. Suppose that would be a source of the confusion that he so much detest.
No. The first lecture is attacking the anti conceptual approach of grade school teaching. This one is attacking the intellectuals who formulate and spread those ideas to the college students who become the grade school teachers. The two lectures integrate perfectly.
When I was in college at DePaul University in Chicago, I had to take a social justice class as one of my requirements. The teacher was all about pushing affirmative action. I'm Middle Eastern, I challenged him constantly because of the discrimination that affirmative action causes towards people like me or people who are classified as Asian. (Parents are from Asia, our classification system is ridiculous)
Before the final, I contacted the head of the department to let him know that I can't consciously answer his questions the way he wants me to to get the proper grade by going against my beliefs.
I got a C.
Most important intellectual history portrait I know of. Timely today
@45:15 '..Politics is the last consequence of Philosophy'
Brilliant!
Even more relevant now than it was back then.
And even more now!
Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
These need to be reupped.
"I wish I could tell you that your college years will be a glorious crusade. Actually, they will probably be a miserable experience. If you are a philosophically pro-American student, you have to expect every kind of smear from many of your professors. If you uphold the power of Reason, you will be called Fanatic and a Dogmatist. If you uphold the right to Happiness, you will be called anti-social or even a Fascist. If you admire Ayn Rand, you will be labeled a Cultist. You will experience every kind of Injustice, or even hatred, and you will be unbelievably bored most of the time, and often you will be alone and lonely. But if you have the courage to venture out into this kind of nightmare, you will not only be acquiring the diploma necessary for your professional future, you will also be helping to save the world, and we are all in your debt."
26:20 Subjectivism in Anthropology
53:00 Question Period
Public ownership of the means of Cognition
This lecture is ASTOUNDINGLY relevant to the debate over global warming and the tactics used by the alarmists. They endlessly bleat on about the supposed "consensus" regarding global warming, and ferociously attack anyone who dares to disagree with it.
This lecture is hilarious :))
1:04:45 for Godel & Heisenberg.
Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Awareness implies a perception/knowledge of something. There has to be something to be aware of.
True That! Out.
Kant was irrational.
Wtf this was in 1983??
I think that's Rousseau in the thumbnail... a really evil philosopher!!!
@WarSawUprizing Watch one of Stephen Hicks' videos that talks about Rousseau. He was for many evil things.
Portrait of Immanuel Kant by Johann Gottlieb Becker, 1768.
@@Gorboducoh yeah, of course
Peikoff is the one doing the assault
Unfortunately the professors lost.. and now see where we are, 35 years later. The continuous American exceptionalism is indisputable.. so what is he talking about, people have all the reasons in the world to be harsh when evaluating their country. In one lecture he beats up teachers to not giving student anything “know your subject and do that”.. now, we are all supposed to have our own opinion about history ao apparently. Suppose that would be a source of the confusion that he so much detest.
No. The first lecture is attacking the anti conceptual approach of grade school teaching. This one is attacking the intellectuals who formulate and spread those ideas to the college students who become the grade school teachers. The two lectures integrate perfectly.