The strongest cults are the ones that are never perceived as cults.

@TheImperatorKnight

5 ай бұрын

FIRST!

@Batflecksnyderverse

5 ай бұрын

So religion?

@clongshanks5206

5 ай бұрын

🏳️‍⚧️ ✊🏾 and 🚺

@jrton1366

5 ай бұрын

Like libertarianism?

@finlaymcdiarmid5832

5 ай бұрын

​@@jrton1366have you ever heard of a oxymoron?

I sense a great disturbance in the aether: as though millions of philosophasters cried out in terror, and then broke into a cacophony of circular arguments, personal insults, and a vigorous round of "no u."

@elpurelator8518

5 ай бұрын

TO SLOW TO THIS ONE TIK FIRST!

@jimsteele9559

5 ай бұрын

Funny! Perfect! Good one.😂

@b4zz3d59

5 ай бұрын

Haha, it reminds me of "whataboutthementhough" anytime the other halfs behavior is questioned in any way. 🙉🙈🙊

@robertortiz-wilson1588

5 ай бұрын

Yes, yes, indeed.

@davidelliott5843

5 ай бұрын

Whataboutism = how you deflect attention from the exact thing you are doing. But pretend is beneath you.

I remember my philosophy teacher telling us "this table isn't real but it's really real" made no sense back then, still doesn't

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

Your teacher had tenure.

@off6848

Ай бұрын

Maybe he meant that table is a function and it’s actually wood or metal or whatever

@AidenfroZz

Ай бұрын

@@off6848 I think it was that the ends of the table was to be a table while the ends of the wood could've been a plank or a support beam or something

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

@@off6848 Aristotle would call a function a final cause . And the wood,etc a material cause.

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

@@off6848 Aristotle had 4 types of causes, inc/material, final.

As a Christian this is very interesting. The huge mistake Hegel made was the idea God was dependent on his own existence. This hubris is the downfall of so many.

@tbk2010

3 ай бұрын

Not a christian, but replace "god" with "the true, though unknown nature of the universe" and I agree.

@TeaParty1776

3 ай бұрын

@@tbk2010 Hegels unfocused mind is destructive to mans life. But he did a nice waltz thru history.

@cristopherq1935

3 ай бұрын

I don't think the vague descriptions of the Christian god is any better than the Hegel descriptions of his god...they both seem like unfounded claims not based in reality.

@TeaParty1776

3 ай бұрын

@@cristopherq1935 Thinking about claims w/o evidence disintegrates the mind. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.

@TeaParty1776

3 ай бұрын

@@cristopherq1935 No God!

The French Post-Modernist philosophers have taken idiobabble to an extreme.

@imbunata

5 ай бұрын

I have read Derrida and yes I had troubles but Deleuze, I have tried

@shdwbnndbyyt

5 ай бұрын

Read the thoughts of the leaders of the French Revolution... even before it began... the jacobin clubs had lots of idiotbabble

@peterg76yt

5 ай бұрын

They just plagiarized Monty Python's argument sketch.

@stevelebreton3489

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the video

@michelguevara151

5 ай бұрын

I apologise for what passes as 'french thought', the majority of the 20th centuary to today is complete socialist idiocy and perversion, better to stick to the likes of decartes, montaigne, moliére.. far better..

Ideobabble is the word we didn't know we needed.

@NoPrivateProperty

5 ай бұрын

Ideobabble is unlimited growth on finite planet. goobers

@satanicmuffin9309

5 ай бұрын

@@NoPrivateProperty Found one of the loser brigade who's probably subscribed so he can frantically downvote the video and launch strawmen to damage control.

@hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004

5 ай бұрын

​@@NoPrivatePropertyFound the Hegelian

@Web720

5 ай бұрын

​@@hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004 Bro your pfp is Hegelian as well 💀

@82dorrin

5 ай бұрын

​@@NoPrivateProperty Okay Böhme

Trigonometry was actually my favorite part of mathematics as a kid, which is why I apologized to my old math teacher for forgetting most of it when I met him as an adult.

Plato's demiurge is not the ancestor of God in the Christian teaching. In fact the idea of a demiurge is a heresy that has surfaced time and time again, eg Catharism.

@neilreynolds3858

4 ай бұрын

It's an idea that resurfaced during the 1960s and has been growing in influence ever since.

"If they can get you to reject reason, they can get you to reject reality." This is, no joke, the central theme to everything influential that Umberto Eco wrote, and is how he himself routinely redefines basic terms and even reality itself to suit his narratives.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

There is no reality, only your perception of it. And reason ... it is severely limited. Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

@jackee-is-silent2938

5 ай бұрын

@@aleksazunjic9672 Gödel's incompleteness theorems are really about how predicate logical systems are no stronger than Number Theory. And that those logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent. Both cases can be useful. And both need to handled carefully.

@DrCruel

5 ай бұрын

@@aleksazunjic9672 There is no reality until Reality kicks you in the teeth. Then there's ideoobabble to explain it away.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

​@@jackee-is-silent2938 In broader sense, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about limitations of logic and human (rational) mind. In other words, we are either incomplete or inconsistent , and could never prove our consistency on our own. There would always be statements that are true but we cannot prove it.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

@@DrCruel You need to have real teeth for that 🤪

"Socialism is when there's no commodities, including food" might just be the best definition.

@johnburns4017

5 ай бұрын

You mean _Communism_ not Socialism.

@sdrc92126

5 ай бұрын

🤣It really is a death cult when taken to its logical conclusion

@johnburns4017

5 ай бұрын

@@sdrc92126 Another confused person.

@jamie-fm6mx

5 ай бұрын

You are the confused one mate

@jamie-fm6mx

5 ай бұрын

Communism is a branch of Socialism, there is no real difference. Just as fascism and national Socialism are all branches of Socialism. The core is the same with semantic differences. The result is death, destruction, poverty and misery regardless of which branch you choose.

"Hegel thinks he has found God in the middle of the PUBG circle" is not a sentence I thought I would be hearing today, but here we are.

Hieraclitus isn't saying nothing exists. Only that nothing is fixed. What exists is the process. Existance is a process. Our universe is a process, from the smallest quarks to the largest superclusters they all change. The idea of the fixed is for us, a necessary generalization to make sense of the world.

@aidanm.655

3 ай бұрын

Take a look at my comment. There are SO many falsehoods in this video it’s laughable.

@metaphorpritam

Ай бұрын

That is one interpretation of it. The emergent phenomenon of Fermions and its interaction with bosons is persistent. That is why conservation laws exist and are unchanged since the times of Hieraclitus.

Thesis: dead Antithesis: alive Synthesis: 🧟

@cryptarisprotocol1872

5 ай бұрын

LMAO 🤣

@carlodebattaglia6517

5 ай бұрын

virus

@robertortiz-wilson1588

5 ай бұрын

lol

@Web720

5 ай бұрын

No wonder "lefties" become npcs, metaphorical zombies.

@sevex9

5 ай бұрын

Zombie zombie zombeehehehe

There seems to be broadly two types of people, one hears ideobabble and thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is an idiot" while the other thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is a genius."

@chillinchum

5 ай бұрын

You know, for a long time in my early life, I would hear of it, and then think "this isn't making sense to me, I feel like an idiot", sometimes I followed up by actually saying "This isn't making sense to me, please help me understand and not be an idiot." Interestingly, the results I'd get from trying to ask this varied greatly, but patterns have emerged. The dismissive responses can be really indicative. This comment was brought to you by the contrarian association of definitely not contrarianism (My apologies. I really am feeling oppositional today, it's a little bit of an ahole thing, but it's not aholeness for aholeness' sake if you know what I mean.)

@Web720

5 ай бұрын

​@@chillinchum The problem for the Marxist is that many don't even read Marx, so you ask them questions and they will say "educate yourself" or "my job isn't to educate you".

@lukeasacher

5 ай бұрын

Bravo! :)

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

People saying "this make no sense" are simply sheep in the pen. They live in their small world, one day they will die and that is about it. People who try to understand ... well, they at least have a chance. No matter how small.

@snex000

5 ай бұрын

@@aleksazunjic9672 There is no trying to understand the incoherent babblings of a charlatan.

Wikipedia is the best single source of idiobabble in the world today

@user-nb3mq3cg8k

3 күн бұрын

Ignorance definition in Wikipedia actually explicitly refers to you

@kevingates503

3 күн бұрын

Your not to bright

@user-nb3mq3cg8k

3 күн бұрын

@@kevingates503 maybe if you actually do something significant you can make your opinions much more accurate

Heh, TIK is the epitome of the "English shopkeeper" trope, to the point of stereotype that would be distasteful to use in fiction. Level headed, sensible, and completely oblivious to he's own intellectual limitations.

@draw4everyone

5 ай бұрын

Period. So much ink has been spilled over Hegel and his relation to Kant and Schelling that TIK might as well be dunning Krueger incarnate in this video.

@anon_148

3 ай бұрын

His utter lack of self awareness is ironically(considering the subject of this video) by far his most defining characteristic.

@ApophisTw0Thousand6309

3 ай бұрын

Ok, but where is he wrong though?

@CirKhan

3 ай бұрын

​@@ApophisTw0Thousand6309 he is wrong in talking about things that are far beyond he's education and understanding, then filtering them through heavy ideological lens to make a point he predetermined. This isn't a matter of factuality, it's a matter of entire paradigm he operates with. He's literally discarding 2.500 years of European intellectual development out of hand, declaring it as a cult. An edgelord move if there ever was one.

@TheDon266

2 ай бұрын

Yeah and look at where all that "intellectual development" got us, Some of the worst authoritarian regimes some that still exist to this very day and a political elite in the "free" west who with the help of the mainstream media accuse ordinary hardworking citizens the very thing they are all the while profiting off their suffering. If that's what 2500 years have amounted to then it deserves to be discarded for all the garbage evil it brings.

As a Christian, I may be able give an answer to what traditional Christianity would say theologically to the idea that "God can do anything, so can also not exist,". This is essentially similar to the question "God can do anything, so can't he create something bigger than Himself,". God in the Christian view is omnipotent, so He can do all things, yes. However, He cannot do a thing that is not a thing, this is a contradiction. If something is bigger than God, then that is a contradiction. The example that is often used is "God cannot make a trianglesquare". He can make a square in a triangle or a triangle in a square. Or a third shape we call in our language triangle-square. But not a trianglesquare. As mentioned above, he can do anything, but that is not a thing. That is a contradiction. The idea of God making himself not exist is similar. God, in the Christian view is by His nature the existent first mover of reality. The concept of God making Himself not, in the Christian view, a thing. It is a contradiction. Another massive reason this would be considered impossible is that God is thought to exist outside of time and space. Therefor, His nature does not change and is consistent. So essentially, if He exists at once, He exists for the rest of time. Secondly, depending on what you are referring to with "don't say God's real name," there is also a reason for that as well. This comes from the book of Exodus where God gives his name as "YHWH". This translates to "I Am,". In Judaism (as well as to an extent early Christianity) this name was avoided because saying the name of God "I Am" could be interpreted as making the impious claim that one is God. According most interpretations of the New Testament, this is what gets Christ in trouble with the Pharisees. Other names of God however (Elohim, Adonai, etc) were generally considered acceptable to say aloud. I hope I explained that somewhat well. Overall, love the content man, keep at it. Well wishes from the US.

@nicholasconder4703

5 ай бұрын

I look at the existence of God through the lens of physics. If one looks at explanations of the universe through concepts like string theory, then our reality is basically a four-dimensional space (length, width, depth and time, perhaps) existing within a much larger reality of multiple dimensions. God is a multi-dimensional being who exists outside of our reality, and perhaps on a higher plane than all the dimensions that make up the multiverse. In other words, God exists outside of time, and indeed time has no meaning to God. God exists outside of physical reality, and is omnipotent because He can make changes to any and all dimensions. This also means God is omnipresent, because He can be present in any dimension at any time and place of His choosing, and influence it as He desires. Also, being omnipotent and existing outside of time does present an issue for God, in that He can see ALL outcomes of decisions that are made by us humans. Every time we come to a point where we make a decision, there is a fork in the road. Every choice leads to other choices, creating a life path that is like a growing tree, or perhaps better described as a root system. We can only see what is in front of us, but God sees the entire root system. On top of that, He can see how our individual root system of potential choices interacts with all the others that we make contact with throughout our lives. This is why God does not usually interfere with our lives or with history, because He knows how one small change can ripple throughout the system. It also takes away one of the greatest gifts God has given us, freedom of choice. If we are to receive the gift of eternal life, we need to show we are deserving of it through how we interact with others. After all, if one is a paranoid murdering psychopath, would one ever find happiness in a kingdom where kindness and mercy are the order of the day? And wouldn't those stains on the soul become the sources of the fire that destroys the soul in the light of God Himself?

@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts

5 ай бұрын

Certainly, to a Christian the "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" would be more a word game than a real question, God is all powerful, so anything he creates is lesser than him. The people who do think that God just keeps going up and up are Mormons, who believe in an infinite number of gods, YHWH being just one, the lowest.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

God is not bound by the logic. Remember, God allowed himself to be killed, although he is immortal and omnipotent .

@bigscarysteve

5 ай бұрын

@@aleksazunjic9672 God did not die in His divine nature, as that is impossible, being a contradiction. The man Jesus Christ died on the cross. However, since Jesus is the same Person as the second Person of the Trinity, whatever He does in His humanity can be attributed to His Deity, and what He does in His Deity can be attributed to His humanity. Thus, it becomes possible in this way for God to die for our sins.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

@@bigscarysteve This is the human interpretation, in order to satisfy requirements of human logic. However, God is illogical, un-reasonable ... cannot be comprehended by mind (or law, as mentioned in scriptures). Thus, God did die on the cross. One and only God. No matter how paradoxical and absurd it sounds. This is the core of Hegel's unity of opposites. Two opposites come together, to create something entirely new. God did not die for our sins, He died to give us Life.

Idealism was actually one of the two main pillars of ancient philosophy, the other being Materialism with its main representatives Democritus and Epicurus who didn't believe in any transcended reality . Karl Marx thought of himself as a materialist philosopher and his university thesis had the title : "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature".

@CariMachet

2 ай бұрын

Well I guess he fell into a hole from the other side > happens when you determine you know everything > you become rigid and kill off your own growth and block the path

@otdatchest

2 ай бұрын

@@CariMachet Please read Socialism, Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels. Marx never determined he knew everything; he simply gave an analysis on capitol and the way the world works through different modes of production. Ideobabble is not a method to confuse people into believing them, that would never work. Ideobabble is a result of people not understanding the lingo associated with the theory which they assume you've already read before reading what they're writing. The quote by Marx used at the beginning to introduce the idea of Ideobabble was one removed from context of hundreds of pages.

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

Your skill in evvading Aristotle is worthy of modern mainstream philosophy. Are you a professor?

@otdatchest

Ай бұрын

@@CariMachet Are you implying Marx was a utopian who thought he knew everything? That is easily disproven by reading any of his work, his opinions on things were constantly changing and he believed in dialectical materialism, not utopianism.

@CariMachet

Ай бұрын

@@otdatchest I think Marx was a sociopathic idiot > I am an anarchist and stand with Bakunin

Tell me you know nothing of metaphysics without telling me you know nothing of metaphysics

I bought a book about Hegel once. After 10 pages I got a headache because of the complexity of the language and lack of actual content in the sentences. I have been having similar discoveries around the ideological types. I've found the best way is to just ask questions. Usually they get agressive when you dont understand their obvious gibberish.

@maryhaddock9145

5 ай бұрын

Word salad

@Jenseduca

5 ай бұрын

Maybe you should ask someone who understands? Did you ever thought about that?

@sortebill

5 ай бұрын

@@Jenseduca What part of "I've found that the best way is to just ask questions" did you fail to comprehend?

@Jenseduca

5 ай бұрын

@sortebill The part is where the importance of who you ask your questions is completely absent. I can't comprehend why. It doesn't help if you ask fools, like this guy who made this video, they kust gonna confuse you even more.

@sortebill

5 ай бұрын

@@Jenseduca I wont ask you any more questions then. Thanks for the advice not to listen to you.

I remember when I was at uni studying history and we had an obligatory philosophy class. Dude came in on a bike and started to argue that a chair does not really exist. And then half an hour debate ensued, during which a statement of objective reality was deemed as absurd. I remember arguing that if I throw the chair it could hurt someone. Suffice to say I barely passed that class.

@johnschuh8616

5 ай бұрын

Doctor Johnson said much the same thing.

@CantusTropus

5 ай бұрын

"Modern" philosophy mainly consists of trying to convince people that reality is not real. It's no wonder so many people think philosophy is nonsense. It isn't, but I can't blame them for thinking so.

@firesb7791

5 ай бұрын

Diogenes had an answer for this sort of situation

@LoganLS0

5 ай бұрын

Gave them a lesson in Pragmatism.

@thomasenderson893

5 ай бұрын

​@@firesb7791What was his answer?

The bit about normal Christians just going by faith when responding to the contradiction of God is inaccurate. Great video about Hegel btw, but the assumption here isn't right. What Christians SHOULD say (and have said for 2000 years) is that God can't do things that are contradictory -- not because he's subject to some higher idea of logical consistency, but because logical consistency is in his nature. He IS logic, just like he IS love. He is the source of these things, so he can't act in a way that's misaligned with his being. Therefore, Christians don't just go by blind faith, and then they also solve the problem of God being a contradiction.

Hahaaa!!! I'm dying here!! Your response to the youtube critic, or whatever they are, is absolutely legendary. I wasn't ready for it and you caught me off guard. Was in the middle of drinking a Mello Yello that ultimately ended up on me and the floor. As far as I'm concerned you are now a legend! Just awesome. Also, I am enjoying your videos very much. Just full of good stuff. Appreciate your time and effort.👍🏼

00:04 🧠 Ideologues often evade providing clear definitions or answers, resorting to vague, abstract concepts, making meaningful discourse challenging. 02:55 🤯 Ideobabble, characterized by complex, unintelligible language, serves to exclude those outside the ideological circle, perpetuating confusion. 06:12 💡 Ideologues prioritize abstract ideas over concrete reality, communicating in nebulous terms to assert superiority and justify entitlement. 07:59 📜 Hegel's philosophy, influencing Marxism, Fascism, and National Socialism, centers on the idea of humanity as a mirror reflecting God, seeking self-completion. 16:14 ❄ Early philosophers like Thales and Pythagoras, influenced by mystic beliefs, laid groundwork for ideologies merging religion and philosophy. 19:56 🔀 Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed. 22:11 💡 Hegel's concept of "Aufheben" influenced Marx's Historical Materialism, emphasizing change. 23:02 🔄 Fascist and Marxist ideologies derive their emphasis on change and struggle from Heraclitus's philosophy. 24:54 🌍 Movements like Marxism and Fascism prioritize change and abstract concepts over concrete policies. 26:43 🤔 Heraclitus's philosophy challenges the concept of reality, proposing two realms: Appearance and Reality. 28:33 🕵‍♂ Cults manipulate followers by undermining self-esteem and promoting blind faith over reason. 30:56 🧠 Plato's World of Forms suggests a reality beyond the material realm, influencing subsequent philosophical thought. 34:37 🎩 Hegel's dialectic aims to reconcile contradictions, leading to the transcendence of material reality. 38:20 🔄 Hegel's dialectic mirrors the Christian Trinity, emphasizing a process of synthesis towards higher understanding. 39:42 🌌 Dialectical Materialism seeks to transcend material reality through the reconciliation of contradictions. 42:55 🕊 Hegel's approach to God avoids defining Him directly to avoid self-refutation within his dialectic. 45:35 💭 Hegel aims to destroy his conscious mind to approach unconsciousness, believing it brings him closer to God, echoing a desire for unthinking obedience seen in cults like National Socialism. 46:57 🧠 Coercive persuasion in cults leads to dependency on the group, eroding critical thinking and reality perception, fostering unthinking obedience. 48:22 🚶‍♂ Marching in movements like National Socialism served to divert thoughts, kill individuality, and foster a sense of community through mechanical, ritualistic activities. 49:43 🌟 Destructive cult leaders often possess messianic visions, seeking to change the world for their own purposes, echoing traits seen in Marxists, according to Ross from "Cults Inside Out." 50:39 🎩 Hegel's pursuit of Absolute Knowledge parallels cult leadership, with followers like Marx, Gentile, and Hitler adopting similar tactics. 51:31 🌐 Ideologues avoid defining terms like socialism to maintain a magical abstraction, preventing concrete definitions that could undermine their ideologies. 52:52 🔄 Ideologues resist defining concepts to preserve their magical abstracts, aligning with dialectical materialism's rejection of materialism and preference for abstraction. 53:46 ⚠ Ideobabble perpetuated by ideologues seeks to manipulate minds, leading followers to delusion and mental instability, urging viewers to ground themselves in objective reality.

@oliverstransky4254

5 ай бұрын

These AIs are getting too smart...

@dameanvil

5 ай бұрын

@@oliverstransky4254 I don't think so. This is just another comfy excuse. Just because one can't put out enough words to finish a sentence, doesn't mean that anyone who can write more than a paragraph is automagically a.i.

@SoMuchFacepalm

5 ай бұрын

@@dameanvil Sup.

@Cloud9vegas1

5 ай бұрын

36:41 👩🏼 Because yo mama

@bakters

5 ай бұрын

" *Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed.* " They were not flawed. When Schliemann have found Troy, it was in ruins. Was it "the same" Troy as that of Iliad? No, it was different, yet still the same. TiK claims that it's a false contradiction, because it's the same city. Well, it was just a mound of dirt by then, so not even a city. How can something be considered to be "the same city", when it's not even a city anymore? The contradiction is real, if a statement can *only* be either true or false, with no in-betweens. That's not true, though. We've known that truth can be a function with possible values from 0 to 1 only for a relatively short time. TiK still doesn't seem to understand it.

Hegel said "ok Böhme" unironically.

@thulyblu5486

5 ай бұрын

Native German speaker here, the pronunciation isn't even close to "boomer" but English doesn't have an "ö" sound so I'm not complaining about the lack of accurary - just that this makes it not really funny since it's based on a mispronunciation. (in case you're interested, google translate auto detects Böhme as a German word and gives you an accurate German pronunciation. Just for fun: It also gives you stereotypical accents when you let the voice from one language pronounce words from others. French voice pronouncing the word "hilarious" is indeed hilarious btw xD)

@DB86563

5 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486still funny

@tktktkam947

5 ай бұрын

​@@thulyblu5486 For people who don't speak German the joke is funny, taking it too seriously isn't

@goranpersson7726

5 ай бұрын

@@thulyblu5486 i as a swede grew up with the sounds of Å Ä Ö and one day I thought "how do i explain the pronounciation to an english speaker" and I remember actually succeeding with it I.E finding words where the sound was present, I cant actually remember what the words were but I do remember finding atleast 1 word where one or two of the letters in it made the same sound as Å Ä or Ö for each of those letters

@tzar9395

5 ай бұрын

@@goranpersson7726 Urgent has the ö sound in place of the u.

Imagine making a nearly hour-long video about Hegel's influence on political movements without once mentioning Hegel's political philosophy, or even Aristotle. It is precisely misunderstandings and intentional misrepresentations of Hegel, like this video, that are the basis of Marxism and fascism, not Hegel's philosophy. He was a constitutional monarchist, btw--along with being an Aristotelian, not a Platonist--and in his system private property was the mechanism whereby individuals secured their rights against the monarchy (thus creating a stable state). Moreover, the statement that Hegel agreed with Bohme is factually, flat-out incorrect. In the third volume of his lectures on the history of philosophy, he critiques Bohme as an incoherent mystic, even going so far as to conclude his remarks by stating that he could not reconcile himself to Bohme's philosophy--although he did admire the man's piety. As regards his philosophy of religion: its fundamental crux is that it is our duty to know God because God's nature is to be known; hence why God posits himself in opposition to himself. He states in his 'Philosophy of Mind', "What we have said above about the nature of mind is something which philosophy alone can and does demonstrate; it does not need to be confirmed by ordinary consciousness. But in so far as our non-philosophical thinking, on its part, needs an understandable account of the developed Notion of mind or spirit, it may be reminded that the Christian theology, too, conceives of God, that is, of Truth, as spirit and contemplates this, not as something quiescent, something abiding in empty identicalness but as something which necessarily enters into the process of distinguishing itself from itself, of positing its Other, and which comes to itself only through this Other, and by positively overcoming it--not by abandoning it. Theology, as we know, expresses this process in picture-thinking by saying that God the Father (this simple universal or being-within-self), putting aside his solitariness creates Nature (the being that is external to itself, outside of itself), begets a Son (his other 'I'), but in the power of his love beholds in this Other himself, recognizes his likeness therein and in it returns to unity with himself; but this unity is no longer abstract and immediate, but a concrete unity mediated by the moment of difference; it is the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son, reaching its perfect actuality and truth in the community of Christians; and it is as this that God must be known if he is to be grasped in his absolute truth, as the actual Idea in and for itself, and not merely in the form of the pure Notion, of abstract being-within-self, or in the equally untrue form of a detached actuality not corresponding to the universality of his Notion, but the full agreement of his Notion and his actuality." If you want to critique Hegel, fine, there is plenty in Hegel to critique, but at least read Hegel instead of relying on James Lindsay's hysterical pablum.

@thepouchka

4 ай бұрын

Do you have any easily digestible resources to get a grasp of what Hegel taught? I don’t particularly want to delve into a book of jargon and a lot of videos I see online are very surface level wishy washy. Cheers

@freejazzravethrash8849

4 ай бұрын

@@thepouchka Unfortunately, no. His philosophy is not very amenable to summary. The only way to really get a grasp of what Hegel thought is to read Hegel. Along with a reasonably comprehensive understanding of history and philosophy. Basically, you've got to be in it for the love of the game. However, if you're just looking for a few convenient talking points to shut down people who, like the author of this video, namedrop Hegel dismissively to show what a smartypants they are, just ask them to explain Hegel's critique of Kant's moral philosophy, or whether Hegel believed Spinoza was an atheist, pantheist, or acosmist. You won't need to know the answers, you can just watch them sputter.

@thepouchka

4 ай бұрын

@@freejazzravethrash8849 Yeah that’s what I suspected, not sure how much I could commit to learning about a self referencing esoteric field like Hegel but maybe one day. So do you disagree with everything in this video or just the point which you commented on?

@freejazzravethrash8849

4 ай бұрын

@@thepouchka Everything thing in this video is wrong. The assertion that Hegel considered himself to be God is probably the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. The only way to achieve that reading of Hegel is to have never read Hegel at all. Likewise, the only real danger in his system of philosophy is that people like the author of this video use its inscrutability to intimidate impatient, insecure people; conversely, the only real benefit of mastering it is being able to criticize pseudo-intellectuals who dismiss Hegel out of hand. I wouldn't call him esoteric, though. Just burdensome and time consuming.

@StruggleoftheOutsider

4 ай бұрын

​@@freejazzravethrash8849🫳🎤☝️☝️🕶️👌

The most prominent and entrenched cult is institutional science.

One of my favorite insults of Hegel comes from Schopenhauer, who called him a "windbag". Good ol 19th century beef.

@shinebassist

4 ай бұрын

He also referred to him as a "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan" which might be the greatest and most accurate insult in history

@dreyri2736

4 ай бұрын

I don't think TIK would have much good to sqy about schoppy either. Considering that he is philosophically illiterate.

@joestalin2375

4 ай бұрын

​@@dreyri2736 You sound like a butt hurt cultish self victim,you poor thing.

@rennor3498

4 ай бұрын

Schopenhauer was also angered by the fact that Hegel's courses were often swelling with student's, while very few bothered to attend his. Once Schopenhauer performed an experiment whereby he schedueled his lecture to take place at the exact time as Hegel's and was outraged to find that only 5 came to his, while over 200 were cramming in other university room just to hear the discourse of the former.

@schadowizationproductions6205

4 ай бұрын

It would be even easier to make a stupid video about how Schopenhauer is responsible for nazism than Hegel but let's not give this guy too many ideas...

TIK's videos should be shown in schools and academia. As someone who lived in a Socialist country with a single party (called the Communist Party) behind the Iron Curtain, his videos struck a cord.

@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231

5 ай бұрын

It's really sad how people are still living through the horrors of socialism in present day, and all these academic numbskulls in western countries are trying to bring it here. We should be well past the point where we toss socialism in the proverbial dumpster of terrible ideas we never try again. At this point it's as stupid as triangle shaped wheels.

@robertvolz4200

5 ай бұрын

In which socialist/communist country do you live?

@bkucinschi

5 ай бұрын

@@robertvolz4200: I left long time ago, and as you know the Eastern Block fell apart in 1989-1990. It was the RSR (Socialist Republic of Romania).

@robertvolz4200

5 ай бұрын

@@bkucinschi ah ok I misread. Instead of lived, I read live. Thanks 😊

@NullParadigm

5 ай бұрын

@@bkucinschi bb--b-b-bbb-but it wasn't r-r-rreal socialism!!

The point made at about 7:30 is salient to the reasons where socialism/communism was successful. Marx, as I understand him, thought that the revolution would start in the countries with the most developed industrial proletariat. He was thinking of Germany, the UK and the US. Of course, his whole theory of historical and social development was a load of crap. I was going to say flawed, but crap better describes it. For all their complaints, the proletariat understood that they lived better than the peasants. That is why they, or their ancestors, moved to the cities to work in industry in the first place. The first place a Marxist revolution succeeded was Russia, still mostly a peasant society. Then there was China, even more rural and poor. Even Cuba follows the pattern. What happened was that the communist revolutionaries found that the only way they could motivate people was by offering them free stuff. Of course, they had to take that stuff from someone. That was the more successful people in society. This is why we don't see these countries succeed on their own, either while communism is in force (China and Cuba) or after supposedly throwing off communism (Russia). They are still at heart poor peasant societies. The people have been so thoroughly corrupted by communism that they are in no way capable of building a rules based liberal democracy. It looks more and more like Russia and China will devolve into a period of warlordism. This happened to China after the fall of the Qing dynasty. In Cuba, I expect the regime to collapse (soon) and the US, encouraged by the large Cuban American population, to step in. They have the most hopeful situation. By the way, in China, the first nationalist leader, Sun Yat-sen, was a socialist. His goal was to consolidate power, then they would consider democracy. His program was nationalist, not democratic. China has no chance.

35:39 I'm guessing you're not referring too Veritas Et Caritas, since he only has 16k subscribers which isn't tens of thousands. So does anyone know which channel he's referring too? Also I haven't actually got round to watching Veritas response videos which there are 2 now.

@flaminpigs3545

5 ай бұрын

He is referring to him.

@RealMrBruh

5 ай бұрын

@@flaminpigs3545 Ah ok, my bad. Thank you.

Suddenly a lot of the Church's repression of Gnostics and others makes sense. Especially since the message of Christianity is and has always been that salvation is offered freely to all. No one can give you salvation, you have to accept it yourself. There's no enlightenment or mystic journey process, no hidden knowledge or esoteric rules. It's all laid out very clearly in the Gospels, have faith and love thy neighbor as thyself, and that is how you live a good life and afterlife. There may be irony in it but the saying "What would Jesus Do?" might be the best answer to these cultists. And in the Bible Christ helped many, and selflessly healed the sick, preached love, and died on a cross for the sins of Humanity. But Jesus also drove out the money changers and rebuked those lacking in faith or righteousness. So I guess the message would be that like Jesus while our love of others should be unconditional, but our aid and protection should not, lest we become overly permissive. Jordan Peterson talked about something similar in needing both love and justice in our world but the exact words escape me now.

@SoMuchFacepalm

5 ай бұрын

One (of the) thing about Jesus I've always found weird; What's the deal with the money changers? Was it them doing business in the temple that was the problem, or the fact that they were money changers?

@michaelthayer5351

5 ай бұрын

@@SoMuchFacepalm I would say more that they were doing business in the temple since Jesus openly associated with tax collectors, who though reformed and penitent were of a similar ilk. And in addition you have the famous render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's line that more broadly means accepting the objective reality of the world while maintaining faith.

@EdiTheDon

5 ай бұрын

Rather than bringing their own sacrifices, worshippers had to change their Roman money into "temple" money that they then used to buy ritual animals for sacrifice. As the Pharisees (and perhaps the Sadducees) owned both the moneychangers and the ritual animals, you can imagine the kind of profit they were making. Jesus rarely had a good word against the Pharisees as he saw them as taking advantage of the people. Hence the driving off of the moneychangers, and their decision to kill him, inadvertently fulfilling the scripture.

@michaelthayer5351

5 ай бұрын

@@EdiTheDon depending on your interpretation this could be used as an argument against monopolies as the Pharisees and Sadducees had complete control over access to ritual and sacrifice in the Temple and used this absolute control for their enrichment. Then Jesus drives out the money changers, symbolically showing how there should be no barriers to faith, for it is you yourself that stands before God, not your tribe, nation, or family, You and only You must answer if your heart has faith and you lived a righteous life.

@nicholasconder4703

5 ай бұрын

@@EdiTheDon As I recall, it was even worse than that. I remember reading somewhere that even if you brought your own sacrifice (many people were herders at the time), the priest examining the sacrifice would find some form of blemish on it, making it unfit to sacrifice, then offer you a "temple certified" animal instead. This explains why Christ also drove out the ritual animals as well.

I've come to the grim realization recently that the modern world consists of almost nothing but pure ideology. Most discourse functions on the basis of ideology, i.e. people hold a set of abstract propositions about how the world "ought" to be and then impose that view through various social channels (social media, news media, entertainment media, etc.) as a means to either gain social currency or to "conquer" ideological ground, while shunning and ostracizing those who do not conform. These ideologies also serve as a form of personal comfort and provide a sense of internal stability or grounding, at least on a superficial level. The distinction I make between ideology and religion is something like: religion is about what you do (how you act in day to day life, the rituals, practices and traditions you engage in) and it can also be seen as the frame through which you see the world, whereas ideology is almost purely propositional in nature. This would mean that, although there can be ideological aspects to religion, that is far from its only quality. However, taking part in this ideological way of engaging with the world can, in itself, be seen as a new form of religion, if that makes sense. And it's a very tribal, unsophisticated form of religion that leans on things like grievance, envy and resentment as its motivating forces. You can come up with as much intellectual jargon as you like, at the end of the day all you're doing is externalizing blame, engaging in petty power dynamics and doing it all with an unearned sense of virtuousness.

@kylekatarn5964

5 ай бұрын

Hot damn, great post.

@henrytep8884

4 ай бұрын

Actual not a great post, since ideological religions can go in all sorts of way. Post literally equivocated ideological religion with one type of ideological religion when there is an infinite amount of ideological religion that can possibly exist. In a sense every nation state that has a distinct culture can be defined as an ideological religion because that is how general the scope of the term covers.

@Max-ep5ir

4 ай бұрын

@@henrytep8884 Like I said, the distinction I make between ideology and religion is that religion is the wider concept. Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially as it relates to economic and political theories and policies. In other words, ideologies themselves are mainly categorized by their propositional content, i.e. ideas that you have in your head that you believe to be true. Religion is defined (most broadly) as a system of faith or worship as well as interests and pursuits followed with great devotion. This means that religion has performative aspects. It's not just about the abstract ideas you hold in your head, it's about how you act in and see the world. So, to make it clear, you can have things like Christian ideology, but Christianity itself is not defined exclusively by its ideology. The point I was making is that, in the modern world, ideology IS the performance. Almost anything anyone ever talks or cares about is how the world ought to be in terms of economics, forms of governance or cultural norms - and that, in itself, is the performative aspect of modern, secular religions. They forego the metaphysics, spirituality, rituals and tradition of classical religions in favor of these ideological power dynamics.

@mysticone1798

4 ай бұрын

Interesting comment, but it applies exclusively to Leftist/Marxist ideology, which has brutally demonized our traditions and institutions. You can't honestly claim that conservatives are primarily ideological when in fact they are quite grounded in rational policies and seek concrete solutions to real problems. That is why the Left approaches the problem of Donald Trump with hate, Fake News, propaganda, and a weaponized justice system, NEVER from a perspective of Trump's policies or what he actually says and does. The border wall, for example, whether you're in favor or not, is part of a solution to mass illegal immigration, and has nothing to do with ideology. Same goes for the preservation of free speech on campuses, opposition to Big Tech online censorship, and the fight against transgenderism in public schools, etc. All conservative issues rooted in laws and policies, NOT ideology!

@benitolazio8193

4 ай бұрын

Welcome to life junior.

It's telling that many people in the comments have read or been told that "this means this" and as such they think TIK is wrong with the argument "you interpret it wrongly". But TIK's whole argument is that these kind of texts have been interpreted by people over time and lead to many different beliefs and many of them are really messed up and damaging to people and society. Point being if TIK interprets the meaning as shown in the video and others interpret the same meaning then what kind of argument is "i dont agree with you interpretation"? The bread crumbs are there, TIK is following them, your personal interpretation doesn't change anything about that...

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

When man regards his unfocused mind as a guide to thought, the result is contradiction and mysticism.

@kakhakheviashvili6365

Ай бұрын

But Hegel went against basic Christian theology. God NEEDING humans for... well, anything, is blasphemy. Humans being righteous spirits trapped in human body is also deeply anti-Christian. In fact, we know that since as early as Apostles Christians were condemning gnostics (who held that belief). So no, not every interpretation is correct or valid. If i say "i'm hungry" but you interpret that as me being sleepy - that's just incorrect interpretation, no matter how much mental gymnastics you perform to reach that conclusion. Also, while you see the nod to "world of ideas" in John 1:1-5, it requires certain knowlegde of Early Christian missionary work, that focused on "seeds of truth" in worldviews of target audience to draw parallels between that worldview and Christianity (which would help non-Jewish audience that didn't know the Old Testament to understand concepts of the Gospel). Doesn't mean Christianity drew inspiration from there. Most likely early authors weren't even aware of those schools of thought when the core of the theology was formed, they just later tried to use whatever available to explain Christianity to people (Acts 17 is clearer example of that). So just because you can interpret so.ething incorrectly, doesn't mean people shouldn't point out obvious issues. Hegel would be excommunicated from the most Churches today for his blasphemous gnostic views. So taking them as one legitimate interpretation of Christian Scripture is simply wrong.

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

@@kakhakheviashvili6365 The unfocused mind contains neither truth nor falsehood, but only the arbitrary.

Wow. I have had some formal training in philosophy but this video really helped to complete a lot of thoughts and ideas that I have come into contact with over the last few years. This video and your ideas have significant value and use. I really appreciate your work, thank you.

Statement Analysis says that the people do that (never clearly define things) as "hedging their bets", allowing them to say later on that you "miss understood them" and then change their meaning. Rinse and repeat.

@SoMuchFacepalm

5 ай бұрын

So, plausible deniability?

@boobah5643

5 ай бұрын

@@SoMuchFacepalm Plausible deniability is putting on the appearance you don't know something so you don't have to stop it; this is closer to a motte-and-bailey argument.

@SoMuchFacepalm

5 ай бұрын

@@boobah5643 Eh, I'd call it false equivocation. Plausible deniability is just the benefit you get out of it. Of course, you also get plausible deniability from the motte-and-bailey, playing dumb, Tu Quo Que (in some circumstances) so it's really the same thing in the end. They're lying, and we know that they are lying consciously, because of the effort they go to to cover it up.

@makkyjay5905

5 ай бұрын

Exactly. Hagel's dialectic functions as an underhanded means of fortifying a conjecture against valid criticisms, by making the claim purposefully vague and fluid in its meaning. In contrast, when a conjecture is made in good faith, it will be constructed as simply as possible, devoid of ambiguous language and will often be supported by a set of foundational premises; thereby demonstrating a degree of confidence, since the scholar has deliberately chosen to make the refutation process less difficult for detractors of the claim.

@EdiTheDon

5 ай бұрын

Generally, the simpler the explanation and closer it is to the common tongue, the more true it is, especially in academic circles 😂

The title already has me cracking up.

@johnwolf2829

5 ай бұрын

And here, I have been trying to bring "psycobabble" back all this time.... Meh, this works!

@sdrc92126

5 ай бұрын

ideocracy

@AtreidesMan

5 ай бұрын

It is accurate though

@Sosarchives

5 ай бұрын

yes and it points to him never reading Hegel

@lainiwakura1776

5 ай бұрын

@@johnwolf2829 I like truthiness myself, but Colbert hasn't been good since he canceled the Colbert Report and stopped voice acting.

Hello TikHistory. I found your videos recently, and was surprised at how Gnosticism was involved. Do you have any plans of doing a video on Hermeticism, to compare and contrast the two, and if or how Hermeticism/those who practice it affect politics?

In Spain, we started recently to use the neologism "politiqués" (politiKES) to name the language that politicians use to say nothing with many words. It is more a way of using language to masquerade intentions than a real language, but I'm pretty sure you get the point. "Ideobabble", you are welcome.

@joebudi5136

5 ай бұрын

We call it "word salad" in the US.

@joebudi5136

5 ай бұрын

Or politispeak.

@FF-xw8gs

5 ай бұрын

In Brazil, we call this Politiquês

@anonymous3174

5 ай бұрын

Leftists use language not to communicate but to manipulate.

@6Haunted-Days

5 ай бұрын

Ah ya mean maggats then huh they do this ALL the time.

Also guys, you can use ideobabble style of writing to get alot of marks in your english exams.

@rudolphguarnacci197

5 ай бұрын

A lot are 2 separate words.

@Reinhard_Erlik

5 ай бұрын

@@rudolphguarnacci197 It's the internet and I wasnt the one who aced the english exams using the ideobabble style.

@johannesstephanusroos4969

5 ай бұрын

You still sound like 'anidiot' because of that

@FerdarPleaseSubscribe

4 ай бұрын

It still needs to make sense, the examiners can smell bs

I just have this image of Plato’s heaven being a place where if you sit down to make a painting Plato will come running up to you bawling his eyes out screeching “you ruined it! That empty canvas was a perfect form of a canvas and now it is a mere object!”

@CallanElliott

5 ай бұрын

I entirely believe that Diogenes broke into Plato's heaven to do exactly this, and then lecture Plato on how he's entirely wrong. Yes, I know that's contradictory, but it's funny.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

Would you do exactly what you did in your life, if you could be lets say 7 years old again ?

@ArtyBayville

4 ай бұрын

Diogenes was by far a better philosopher than Plato

@N1GHTWOLF1

Ай бұрын

@@ArtyBayville Sure buddy. By those standards, the modern day Diogenes is getting spat at on the corner of an intersection while begging for money. Sounds like you should put your money where your mouth is.

@admontblanc

18 күн бұрын

Incorrect, Plato would flex on you and challenge you to a boxing match if you dared to disagree with him.

I wonder if he realizes that stuff like that is the main reason why it's so hard to take him seriously as a military historian.

As a Christian (I hate using that sentence starter, but it's relevant) who came to the faith through scientific and historical evidence for it, there are few things as frustrating as hearing/seeing people say that they have to throw away reason to justify their faith. And these are the people who end up representing us. Granted, a lot of Christians think this way, that there's not good evidence to prove their faith, so they simply "don't worry about it." Utter nonsense. Though calling what you refer to in this video "Christianity" is... lackluster to say the least.

@tbk2010

3 ай бұрын

If you find faith through reason and evidence, is it really faith?

@TheGamingKiller242

3 ай бұрын

@@tbk2010 ...yes. You're still stepping out in faith and trusting God. People who don't believe in God have faith he doesn't exist technically.

Actually Pythagoras is used every day. If you are an electrician you use it to calculate the waveform of current although you only do it manually at school and a machine does the job otherwise it wouldn’t be possible if he hadn’t discovered the formula.

@johnschuh8616

5 ай бұрын

Pythagoras asserted that the world is number. On that which can be expressed in numerical terms is true.

@sr_leonardi

5 ай бұрын

The Babylonians and Egyptians already used the Pythagorean theorem before he existed, Pythagoras likely only formalized it (if that).

@terpfen

5 ай бұрын

You missed the sarcasm.

@jkbrown5496

5 ай бұрын

When Econ professor Bryan Caplan was promoting his book "The Case Against Education" he would make the comment about never using Pythagoras' Theorem but learning it was still useful. And that is true for Liberal Arts/social science majors but in the trades it is used daily. Even if just by the 3-4-5 rule to square a corner.

@permanentlybotulated

5 ай бұрын

@@sr_leonardi "Babylonians and Egyptians already used the Pythagorean theorem before he existed" - okay, where's your citation?

20:44 _Heraclitus said: "You can't step into the same river twice."_ No, he said: "You *can* step into the same river twice - and at the same time, you can not. This is even more radical because it shows how much this philosophy embraces contradiction.

@conforzo

3 ай бұрын

Exactly. Reality is contradictory.

@horstnietzsche1923

3 ай бұрын

But both those statements are true in a different sense? It is and is not the same river similar to how people change across time.

3 ай бұрын

​@conforzo Reality isn't contradictory, definitions are abstract for the sake of speed.

3 ай бұрын

​@horstnietzsche1923 It is the same river as it is the same you. Replacing a small part obscures the definition but remember the definition of river and you include time diffused states.

@conforzo

3 ай бұрын

Yes it is. Both in the empiriciat immediacy and the abstract understanding.

This is another l video on KZread I will watch as much as your videos on private vs public and Fascism. Great work TIK.

“Ideobabble” is a good coinage. “Jargon” is technical language, which may serve a purpose of precise description in a special context but is ill-suited to a general audience. “Verbiage” would be a closer equivalent in this case. Thus, we could also call Hegel's writings "ideoverbiage". Anyway, I like "ideobabble" and think that it will catch on.

"Although we need the word to keep things known in common, people still treat specialists as if their nonsense were a form of wisdom." -Heraclitus

Dear TIK just wanted to recommend you a certain book for future. It's name is "Conversations with an Executioner" by Kazimierz Mocarski. The autor was high ranked officer of Polish resistance AK and after the war he was imprisoned by the newly established communist regime as potentially dangerous. He was hold in one cell with Nazi war criminal Jürgen Stroop himself by months. Durning this time Moczarski heard a lot of stories from Jürgen about his Weltanschaltung starting his service durning WWI, first steps in the SS and pacification of Warsaw ghetto uprising. This book is absolutely must read for everyone who wants to know more about Nazi ideology and how it was applied in real life. Apart from that I finished Stalingrad recently and I deeply amazed by your work. I wonder if would you analyse how accurate is German war film Stalingrad from 1993 like you done with Come and see. I think no one is as overqualified to do such video as you. Greetings from Poland

This video makes me think of “Star Trek, a cashless “advanced” society where everything works somehow with no real explanation other than “we evolved”.

Dear TIK am following your channel and I like your video about idelogy and cult, it makes sense. I have just a request for you: at 27:38 you speak about culty and show a collage slide with people and a building in the background, can you tell me why do you use that image? Moreover there is no flag pole on it, I know that place and it is not related with any cult or sect.

The biggest critic of Plato's Forms was...Plato. The concept only came up in a few of his dialogues and he even then wrote a dialogue where he dismantles his own theory. Just because Heraclitus says that quote about a river doesn't mean he wholeheartedly agrees. We just remember he asked the question and it was a good thought experiment on the idea that things change. The materials that made you up were somewhere before you, and they will be somewhere else later.

@Pyromanemac

5 ай бұрын

​@@dostoyevsky1222tik doesn't seem to be the right person to discuss philosophy. He's just too literal. The early Greek philosophers, as you two point out, were generally critical of concepts and didn't necessarily follow it because they talked/wrote etc about it. On the other hand, more modern pseudo philosophers like Hegel have an objective goal where they subscribe to their ideobabble. This video didn't seemed to get lost in the weeds some, the information meandered and didn't really come to a point. "Why does it matter who Hegel was?" Because he believed in a dialectic ever changing non-reality (as explained in this video) which informed the foundational "logic" of the first communist/socialist/fascist thinkers. I'm pretty sure this video topic was inspired, again, by James Lindsay, who shares that literal understanding of the philosopher chain. Not that this invalidates their conclusions, they just aren't the best at describing the concepts.

@Pyromanemac

5 ай бұрын

@@dostoyevsky1222 James Lindsay expands on the influence of hegel on communism et al. It's just influence, not that he came up with the concepts first. This is why I said tik gets lost in this video, it never gets tied back in. And yes, hegel was a pseudo philosopher, the same as every college freshman smoking weed for the first time. Thinking they've come up with some life altering concept, but it's just nonsense.

@DF-ss5ep

5 ай бұрын

​​@@dostoyevsky1222There were two groups that came out of Hegel's ideas, and ironically James Lindsay does mention them: the young Hegelians and the old Hegelians, the former akin to socialists, the latter to fascists. One go go and investigate where the precise links are, see who quotes who, but already the scene of the crime looks very suspicious, given the location (Germany) and the timeframe (1800s).

@Pyromanemac

5 ай бұрын

@@dostoyevsky1222 Hegel is effectively just a step in the referential chain. Ultimately the concept is Gnowledge, gnosis. Modern marxist etc reference people like friere to justify their ideologies. People don't recognize the name and think nothing of it. Except friere foundationally cites hegel and marx etc. Think of it like modern "journalism" where the "source" is another article who circularly cites the article you're reading. "Well, they cited their sources so this must be valid" ignore the fact that the source is fundamentally flawed. Everything else is just fluff and flavor to the nonsense.

@Pyromanemac

5 ай бұрын

@@dostoyevsky1222 aah, got it, you're just a troll. Cool cool. Enjoy the algo bump tik.

Just when you think it's Khorne, Nurgle, or Slaanesh, It was TZEENTCH all along... THAT BLUE BASTARD!

@PingOnThis

5 ай бұрын

All according to plan...

@ffff7164

5 ай бұрын

Khrone: Fascism Slaanesh: gender ideology Nurgle: Reactionary ideology

@The_New_IKB

5 ай бұрын

#Blame Lorgar!

@jeffreyscott4997

5 ай бұрын

"On Critical Emperor Theory Praxis" aka "The Biography of Horus Lupercal"

@lloydgush

5 ай бұрын

Well, that brings hope, his plans seem to always lose.

As I was listening to the presentation It occurred to me that the philosophers mentioned structured their theories to adapt a parallel logic to more orthodox theologies in order to lure potential adherents with a brand of alternate theology to that which was familiar to the candidates, thereby improving the alternate's acceptability.

@TeaParty1776

4 ай бұрын

========= But a human being cannot live his life moment by moment; a human consciousness preserves a certain continuity and demands a certain degree of integration, whether a man seeks it or not. A human being needs a frame of reference, a comprehensive view of existence, no matter how rudimentary, and, since his consciousness is volitional, a sense of being right, a moral justification of his actions, which means: a philosophical code of values. -Ayn Rand, For The New Intellectual

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

Ayn Rand says virtually all philosophy is a rationalizzation of evasion.

"Our brief examination of the role of subjective freedom in Hegel's political philosophy has yielded two important conclusions concerning Hegel's complex relationship to liberalism. First, in its incorporation of subjective freedom, the Hegelian state is able to account for almost all the rights and freedoms we ordinarily associate with the liberal state. Second, though Hegel is able to provide for these liberal rights and freedoms in his state, his ultimate justification for them is not the typical liberal one." - Paul Franco So, you can not only arrive at Marxism and fascism from Hegel, but also at liberalism. Does this make liberalism a cult, too?

@Jenseduca

5 ай бұрын

This guy if full of shit. I don't if he is just plain stupid or he deliberately mislead his viewers. The first thing anyone who starts to study Marxism finds out is that it stands on materialism. Which is literally opposite to idealism. Marxist reject Hegelian idealism, or any idealism for that matter. There's no way he doesn't know that. Why does he lie then? Or is he just unable to comprehend? And yet he find the audacity to lecture people on this topic. Just increadible.

@LZin-uk5nh

3 ай бұрын

You should read "democracy, the god that failed"

The thing is the "Don't say Gods name" idea is older than Hegel, Jewish mysticism already had that.

@ArtyBayville

5 ай бұрын

And was likely a misinterpretation of saying Yahweh's name in vain. The Old Testament, Yahweh is routinely called Yahweh.

@LZin-uk5nh

3 ай бұрын

​@@ArtyBayville Incorrect. The word is written, but never spoken. Instead, you say "hashem", in order not to say God's name in vain

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

Gods real name is Harry.

Hegel's ideobabble sounds a lot like it's a variation of Gnosticism where the material is bad and the 'gnosis' is good.

@LibertarianGalt

5 ай бұрын

It is Gnosticism.

@tysonbiornstad2205

5 ай бұрын

Yep, it's just Kabbalah. Gnostic Luciferianism.

@ffff7164

5 ай бұрын

Recycling the same crap so the ideologues don’t have to come with anything new. It’s like modern Hollywood movies.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

Nope. Matter and spirit (gnosis, knowledge) are thesis and anti-thesis. In perpetual struggle, yet they give birth to synthesis of something entirely new.

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

@@jackde5815 Hegel has no connections with Gnosticism. Gnosticism is TIK's Idée fixe 😁, secret cult that acts trough ages . Hegel simply discovered certain truth, natural law if you will.

Greatly informative video, I would love to see more. All the best to you from Sweden!

In the ever emerging idiocracy - sooner or later everything will neatly be defined as an ideobabble. And "common sense" will be cherished - of course, common sense of a common idiot. Keep up with good work, discard everything you don't understand, dumb it down to extremes, and keep feeling smart about yourself. Danny-Krugers of all the world - unite!

You're really not understanding Heraclitus. He is not saying everything isn't real, he's saying everything is in motion and our perception of the world is imperfect. He is not saying there is literally a second reality that's more real than the one we experience, he is saying that we have an imperfect understanding of the world around us, so we think and act in relation to this incomplete perception of the world, rather than in relation to the world as it really is- we can only come close to understanding the world as it really is through reason. Of course, he's right about this, and it has no relation to orphic cults or 20th century cranks.

@tradingmachine4832

4 ай бұрын

don't expect a 100 iq midwit to deal in good faith.

@davidw.2791

3 ай бұрын

It’s not enough to these guys that you’re condemning those 20th century cranks. You still going for “reason” which to them is just more postmordern fuckery.

@aidanm.655

3 ай бұрын

I said the same thing in my comment, I’m glad I’m not the only one who understands these philosophers. Unfortunately so many people who watched this are completely clueless.

@ekekonoise

2 ай бұрын

He's not understanding Heraclitus nor Hegel. He hasn't read neither, only Marxist commentary about them. It's a disappointing and unnerving video

@TeaParty1776

Ай бұрын

H thought a Logos transcended entityless, random motion.

Never stop TIK

@anon_148

3 ай бұрын

Never stop being a peasant without a shred of self awareness?

Anyone who claims Hegel is "pie in the sky" and incomprehensible doesn't understand him. Two books: The Accessible Hegel by Michael Fox Hegel's Theory Of the Modern State by Shlomo Avineri. Read these two books before you discuss Hegel again.

I wasn't ready for the your momma joke 😭🤣

The most important trick of cults is to keep the cultists in a state of perpetual confusion. It is the ability to confuse the cult members that gives the leader his power and authority and gives him the appearance of unreachable knowledge and understanding that can bring peace. Bonus points if you manipulate emotionally loaded concepts, frustrations fears and challenges and pretend to have insight to resolving them.

@user-kp8um6yt8j

5 ай бұрын

Is this about Tik?

@kwimms

5 ай бұрын

Well sure, but it starts with us giving our power away to them...

@StalkedHuman

4 ай бұрын

Socialism is the opposite of communism. This topic is censored by the communists. Communists are the censors. This guy is confusing people

@SchmulKrieger

4 ай бұрын

The fallacy and issue of cult rejectors is that you believe that the leader of a cult do not believe in his ideology. 🤦🏼 They probably do believe in it as every other member.

@davidw.2791

4 ай бұрын

@@user-kp8um6yt8jI wish

Heraclitus: there are two worlds Brocrates: wdym? Heraclitus: this world we are in is fake, but there is another that is real Brocates: woah, how do you know this one’s fake and that one’s real? Heraclitus: bc you cant see, touch, feel, or interact with this other world, or really define it at all. Brocates: So… it’s not real? Heraclitus: wdym?

Fun fact: if you push a dialectics user long enough he will eventually accidentally refute language with their backwards logic.

Very interesting, thought provoking essay. It made me realise 2 things: - you are an atheist of a particular kind - an anti-Christian (hence why you've chosen Christians - not Jews, not Muslims, not Hindus - to emphasise the play of the "faith card) - you don't actually know the difference between philosophy of science (headed by J. Popper) and actual science, particularly physics of the very large and physics of the very small (quantum mechanics) with all its implications about reality (the "objective reality" you cling to as the ultimate label) This is good, though. It is again evidence that even rational people who in key fields strive for objective, truthful analysis sometimes fall prey to the superficiality of summaries (not quite Dunning-Kruger, but close). I like being challenged, and TYKHistory is doing excellent work in challenging people (and exposing the frailties of the axis marxism-socialism-communism-fascism-actualism).

Ironically enough, the act of looking into ideas you disagree with - is very Hegelian. I.e. Hegel would very much approve of this video.

@zombieRyuji

5 ай бұрын

Based

I don't think you realize how important your work is in the battle against this new dark age we're going through, Tik

@drogen9987

5 ай бұрын

yeah true the dark age since the beginning of recorded history lets go ugabuga again

@emanueljames7801

5 ай бұрын

What makes this a dark age? I’m honestly curious im not trying to debate

@snackoman1577

5 ай бұрын

the battle for ancapistan or whatever hes fighting for

@aleksazunjic9672

5 ай бұрын

Well, it is not the dark age. It is simply fading of Western civilization, because it was eaten inside by those who we are not allowed to mention, but are closely related to current president of Ukraine 😁

@bigmouthstrikesagain4056

5 ай бұрын

Gnostics?...Greeks? I know what you're talking about and I think your full of it by the way

Hi. You underestimate the role of Kant in all that. In particular, for Plato and even for Aristotle, universals are not in the mind but exist in themselves. That is why they are never changing. It is Kant who is mainly responsible for the shift from universals to mind-related concepts, which made Hegel's dialectics possible. It is according to him, not to Plato, that the mind shapes the empirical reality. Besides, it is not insignificant that Hitler's favorite philosopher was not Hegel but Schopenhauer, who considered himself a true Kantian and Hegel as an arch-enemy. Finally, the claim that, for Marx, the material reality is fake is something new to me. Indeed, as a materialist, he must consider objects grasped by the senses ultimately real, mustn't he? How, then, could they be fake for him?

@davidw.2791

3 ай бұрын

Yes if anything Marx is a materialist.

@davidw.2791

3 ай бұрын

People like OP are adored by the ppl who are like “Not only does nothing good come out of leftism, but any and all kind of evil out there are only possibky leftist”

Okay, bagging on Pythagoras for Orphism and his Pythagorean cult is spot on, but his geometry is absolutely crucial to an algebraic understanding of orthogonality. All of the work of Descartes (Cartesian Algebraic Geometry) has it's foundation in the Pythagorean theorem. Even Trigonometry and the Trig functions are based on logical inferences derived from the Pythagorean theorem. I actually had a revelatory experience in this direction. When I realized that the distance metric in the Cartesian plane was the Pythagorean theorem and that decomposing vectors in the x and y direction is all done with the Pythagorean theorem... My mind was blown🤯 I used to have a very hard time conceptualizing mathematics and struggled consequently. After the Pythagoras revelation I started understanding math concepts so much better. I feel like I owe him for that. Anyway I hope that I don't ask too much by asking that you provide some nuance in your critical approach to Pythagoras. Thanks 🙏🏾 EDIT: time 36:41 is the most savage thing I have ever heard whilst listening to someone pontificate on high philosophy and brother, I have to say, I love you. With the deepest part of my heart and soul, I love you!👍🏾😂🤣

Last year I read Roger Scruton's "Fools, Firebrands & Frauds: Thinkers of the New Left" and it covers Sartre, Badiou, Foucault, Zizek, Galbraith and a whole host of others whose ideas become indistinguishable from each other. Every single one of these 20th century Marxist "thinkers" thinks in gibberish. Badiou even claimed that language can be reduced to a mathematical formula where meaning only has meaning if it assigned a value. Scruton's opinion is that all of this ideological babble is designed to undermine what already exists and to unbalance people in order to move towards a vague, unnamed utopia.

@MaynorPinto

3 ай бұрын

I'll definetily give Sir Roger's book a look. He's a philosopher I deeply admire for speaking clearly. The only reason I'm watching this video in the first place is because I notice a cult-like devotion to Hegel from several people of the "intellectual" left

@ryanwulfsohn2563

Ай бұрын

Very good book

"Ideobabble" for ideological jargon is a good word. It's bound to catch on. Good for you.

@spiff1

5 ай бұрын

yeh its a good one

@extract8058

5 ай бұрын

Or you can just say "dogma" which has the same meaning.

Marx claimed that his theory was scientific, which he contrasted with "idealist" philosophers. He argued that the fall of Capitalism was inevitable because that was the way history would develop. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. So followers of Marx believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism will follow the transition from feudalism to capitalism as day follows night. That's why communism is like a religion and the Revolution is like the Final Day of Judgement. And that's why Marxist-Leninists like to use the term "late Capitalism" because they really believe the end is nigh.

My son keeps telling me I should read more philosophy but it's always struck me as a lot of different people spouting their own opinions on things - often incomprehensible nonsense.

Something I realized at the 40 minute mark where Marx is saying his dialectic materialism is the opposite of Hegel's, and as you pointed out Marx has issues with truthfulness. James Lindsey fell into the trap in one of his videos of saying Marx took Hegel's idea and turned the pyramid upside down. This reminded me of a critique of Marx in Pages of Socialist History by Tcherkesoff where he stated that Marx was a plagiarist who word for word stole the ideas of others, claimed they originated with him, and would then criticize the person he stole the ideas from saying they had everything backwards.

@LlibertarianGalt

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the recommendation!

These are my favorite videos of yours. I love your ww2 stuff but all the philosophical and religious talk behind our past and current day ills has captivated me.

Hey...what did Neil from The Young Ones do????

When did you use the term idobabble? Because I used that in an argument with a friend about Marx's Communist Manifesto back in 1981. I used to read lots of stuff back then like that and tried to really understand it and sometimes discussed the ideas with friends.

@SchmulKrieger

4 ай бұрын

In terms of that, Donald Trump was more left than the so called leftist Democratic party.

@pompom8315

12 күн бұрын

If you don't understand the Communist Manifesto, you need to look for a specialist. It's not a philosophical work, there's hardly anything in it that a toddler couldn't understand.

Christianity is not a cult. Have faith in God.

James Lindsay and the New Discourses has incredible in-depth research on this stuff too, for those interested in more information.

If there's one thing I can say I've learned from your dives into Hegel is that, whether intentional or not, most discussions about philosophers treats the writings as if they're in a vaccuum to the detriment of understanding the full context. I greatly appreciate the focus you put on who inspired their writings, and when they were making rebuttle to other writers.

I don't think Plato denied the real material world it's just our perception of it is often inaccurate.It is possible to realise that our understanding of the universe is incomplete and our perceptions sometimes wrong and at the same time accept the reality of our existence and the concrete material understanding we have of it so far.I just think Plato and Socrates were wise enough to realise that we may never fully understand so therefore there is an aspect to existence that will forever be outside of ourselves, again this in no way denies our present material existence and our understanding of it.

No good ever comes from a pie in the sky. you can't reach to eat it, and it only ever falls down and makes a mess.

I'll have to send this on to a philosopher I know, he's an expert on hegel, he can run his rule over it.

@merocaine

5 ай бұрын

@@AndrewMcLay274 I'm pretty sure 99.9% of peeps with a strong opinion on hegel have never read him, and even less in the original German. I know I haven't, all I know of him is what other people have told me.

@CantusTropus

5 ай бұрын

Nobody sane has read Hegel in German ​@merocaine

@markushaahr9194

5 ай бұрын

@@LT-jc4rgno, but certain texts are vital to read in their original languages. German is much different than English is, and is a lot more expansive. Fact is languges translate meanings based on it’s words. TK made this mistake in the video. He’s telling of Heraclitus’ theory of Water and the Universe whatnot. However he’s not accounting for the fact that Ancient Greek, and Ancient Greek ideas, probably translated way differently back in the day, and they’ve just been translated a hundred times since then. It’s like in Ancient Greece, there isn’t a word for blue. Blue of course existed, but it was probably explained by amother word, that doesn’t describe what we describe as blue. Thus there are probably many words in Ancient Greek, we English speakers can’t comprehend. Like in German, there’s a word, Schadenfreude. Now that’s a word that means, taking pleasure in someone else getting hurt. We don’t have that in English.

@richardenders6606

5 ай бұрын

@@CantusTropus - nobody reading it in any language is likely to remain sane

Every single time he refers to Hegel my Google Home activates.

@johannpopper1493

4 ай бұрын

Well, ain't that ironic.

@hermitthefrog8951

4 ай бұрын

Why do you have Google Home???

Heraclitus also denyed the Winterwelt or “true world” theory that Plato would later come up with and that religions talk about. and it’s different water that’s what he meant with the river analogy

It's kind of interesting how a constructed word like 'ideobabble' can be immediately comprehensible to the reader. I wonder how many languages that works in? English has an abnormally high number of loan words with many shades of connotation, but I don't know if that's a prerequisite.

As a Catholic, Hegel's whole "man is the mirror of God" and "God isn't complete" schtick is very much heretical in my opinion, along with all the gnostic stuff. Thank you for this very informative video

@Boz196

5 ай бұрын

Well there is a reason the Church has suppressed Gnostics for millennia. It is the antithesis of Christianity. They think we can overcome our sin through ourselves alone, become God on earth and create a utopia, where as Christians believe it is through Christ's sacrifice alone that we can enter utopia when we die.

@smokeyplane3285

5 ай бұрын

Forget all the "horns and tail fire & brimstone" views we have of the Devil, the real evil was when Lucifer convinced these philosophic individuals that he was enlightening them by turning them away from the Lord (Gnostics, etc) This is my view, at-least

@ArtyBayville

4 ай бұрын

100%, God is already self sufficient, our existence is to be witnesses to his glory.

The Pythagorian Theorem is used everyday all around you, but you'd only know that if you actually produced any tangible goods. But I guess bridges and homes that don't collapse on themselves aren't important. Who really needs trigonometry in their lives?

@gbjrco

4 ай бұрын

That was the moment TIK lost the engineering and science background viewers. Kinda odd he chose to mock the pythagorean theorem which is perfectly based on reality vs the other mystic oddities from the Pythagoreans.

@davidw.2791

3 ай бұрын

@@gbjrco Probably because those Ancient Greeks predated Christianity or some crap.

@21nickik

2 ай бұрын

I don't think he said it not used anywhere at all. Just that most people don't use it in their daily lives.

@ryanthede4689

2 ай бұрын

@@21nickik you'd be really surprised by how many people actually use trigonometry in their daily lives. Home builders, mechanical engineers, architects, civil engineers, machinists, etc. It's used at some level in just about everything around you. The same goes for geometry in general

@thefool1086

2 ай бұрын

Why are you so angry over a joker?

This video is really good. I am a Hermeticist myself, and I would like to distance it from the title of "Cult" and the philosophy of Hegel. But, I have noticed a lot of Esotericism among Socialists and all the sort. I can see how these esoteric philosophies can drive people to extreem world views. Hermeticism and Esotericism have changed me beyond all recognition. As an Anti Socialist myself I am glad you brought this to my attention... it explains so much.

@neilreynolds3858

4 ай бұрын

That sounds like you live in Northern California. The place was full of that kind of thought when I lived there. They wanted the government to supply all their needs so they could become spiritual beings.

This is gold sending this to all the homies to help them understand the dialectic.

There's another term, for what you've used 'ideobabble' to point to, 'word salad'. Often, seemingly, used for the same reasons you reckon 'ideobabble' is used.

Fallout New Vegas was right on the money when Caesar talked about Hegelian dialectic.

This is a great video. Very interesting. . .of course it's also a subject I've been deeply concerned with for years as well, but through watching this video fully, I've also realized this type of thinking has also been a source of past irritation while dealing with this kind of thinker throughout my life. It explains a lot. Specifically, I'm referring to the type of people with the, "my perception is my reality", kind of mentality. The people who, if they think they are perceiving something, will always insist that is true even if it isn't and even if there is only proof of the opposite being true. This also seems to be the primary driver behind leftist conspiracy theories, such as modern "white supremacy" in western government (which there is zero proof of and has been zero proof of for well over half a century), "systemic racism" against blacks (as opposed to it being against whites, which is the case), that "conservatism" is somehow inherently racist (because it isn't submitting to leftist non-reality-based ideology), CRT (where they claim all historical interactions are about racism towards specific minorities), or other similar braindead thinking which tend to have Marxist origins. And thus no matter how much they're given, no matter how much of their demands are met, there will only ever be more until they have literally everything including your death or deportation. Then everything will still be your fault somehow because they "aren't where they should be "yet", due to your past presence. Hence, they never come to reality at any point, ever. And yes, I have no problem labeling those people as "stupid". They have broken brains. I recall having an argument with someone at one point. . .one of the types who thinks "every opinion is valid and equal", and thinks their "opinion" is "just as valid as a fact", and that a "fact does not negate their opinion'. I have had this conversation multiple times, but it always ends up with their total rejection of reality or facts in favor of their beliefs. In this example, I picked up a blue pen and said, "This pen is blue. If you were to say it's red, you would be wrong". Her counter argument. . .to which she thought was super clever, was: "What if I was color blind? It might appear red to me, and thus I wouldn't be wrong.". The problem with that is obvious. Her brain would be functioning improperly which gives her a false perception of reality. That means, if someone is deaf, then to say, "nothing makes sound", is a valid comment, according to that logic. Same for the, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Of course it does. Reality and physics do not cease to exist just because you aren't there. Effectively, it makes everyone with that mindset severe suffers of "Main Character Syndrome', which is why you see some honest psychologists linking leftists and leftist activists strongly with narcissism. It's possible that mental condition is due to this phenomena of, "my perception is my reality", and "feeling special" because they think their opinion is "just as valid of an explanation as 10,000+ years of human science, ingenuity, and collected wisdom of human society. So, in other words, again, these people are super dumb and super self-important, and have hermetically sealed themselves off from facts and reality within a thick layer of bubble wrap called delusion.

I put “ like” after 5 minutes of watching. Ideobabble - new term that i am going to use, thanks, TIK!

Remember when that guy was calling you Tilk

@realGeobor

5 ай бұрын

Tilk history

@TheImperatorKnight

5 ай бұрын

How could I forget! People are currently asking me to make response videos to Marxist KZreadrs who are calling me all sorts of names, but honestly their arguments suck and I just don't see the point. They're not honest, they're not listening, and they're talking complete Hegel.

@Seb1l

5 ай бұрын

Jaffa, Kree!

@finlaymcdiarmid5832

5 ай бұрын

​@@TheImperatorKnightlike freddo? Do you watch them as you find them or ignore them if you think they are going to suck?

@colin3424

5 ай бұрын

​@TheImperatorKnight Why bother responding to those losers?Unless it will help grow your channel and make you money all you're doing is punishing yourself.

From what I've heard, Hegel is infamously dense, hard to understand, and prone to using vague words that nobody else uses even in the original German. Translations only make this worse.

This video is just "i didn't try to understand so it's ideobabble." Seriously, there definitely is some ideobabble in what you mentioned, hegel for sure. But a lot of the parts you mentioned as ideobabble are fairly easy to understand.

@nullumamare8660

2 ай бұрын

Don't tell him that. You are going to ruin the show!

@useodyseeorbitchute9450

2 ай бұрын

There is some nuance that he is clearly missing, however stating that "emperor has no clothes" seems also as reasonable approximation and summary of those philosophies...

@Swaaaat1

2 ай бұрын

Then prove it. Name an example.

@otdatchest

2 ай бұрын

@@Swaaaat1 The quote used at the beginning to explain the idea of ideobabble was one by Marx in his longest work, Das Kapital, a deep analysis of the way that capitalism works. It was removed from the context of hundreds of pages that, if not taken out of context, you would have fully understood. The idea of ideobabble occurs when someone expects you to understand something that you do not and there is a disconnect, and it is telling that TIKhistory did not read the full text from where he pulled his quotes.

@andrewcraig3113

Ай бұрын

I agree, and I’m still watching it, but for example he gets the talk about transcendental idealism and absolute idealism incorrect. The transcendental idealism is the idea on the faculties of reason where we sense phenomenon and then rationalize on the phenomenon, while being extremely limited on what can be asserted regarding the Noumenal realm, including much of metaphysics, thus synthesizing Hume’s skeptical empiricism with the rationalities of say, Descartes. That might sound like babble if one is not familiar with the terminology, but Kant actual does have actual points he’s making, and these points have been discussed by any and all types of thinkers on the political spectrum. The same goes with Hegel - and I will concede that their writing is needlessly difficult! Yet they are talking about substantial things. Once you have a general overview of the big names, ie Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, it becomes super interesting to then learn what post-Kant philosophers were up to. Hegel for example was distraught about how the French Revolution turned out, and I think it’s fair to think of the Phen of Spirit as post-Mortem of the French Revolution. I’ll keep listening and see how the video unfolds.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire