Hello world! My name is Paul Krause. I am the editor of VoegelinView and a political philosopher, literary critic, and classicist. Educated in economics, history, and philosophy for my bachelor's degree, biblical & religious studies for my master's degree, and political philosophy for my second master's degree, I graduated from Baldwin Wallace University, Yale, and studied with Sir Roger Scruton prior to his death.
I work as an Instructor of Humanities where I teach literature and philosophy, and work as an editor and writer. I am also the author of multiple books and a contributor to several academic volumes, including Finding Arcadia (2023), Making Sense of Diseases and Disasters (2022), The Odyssey of Love (2021), The Politics of Plato (2020), and The College Lecture Today (2019). This channel exists as a resource of education in the humanities, mostly: philosophy, political philosophy, art & literature, and theology.
Kant’s categorical imperative sounds a lot like the constitutions “all men are created equal”; both denying the rights of the people whom they subjugate and reifying the attitudes that would exacerbate the destruction of earth’s biosphere. In a word, the soil is split by the flag of the colonialists.
Only Schopenhauer understood and built upon Kant. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are idiots. If you want good process philosophy which talks about the coincidence of opposites, read Whitehead and Hartshorne. Hegel thought the Prussian state and constitutional monarchy were the pinnacle of political theory. Kant's philosophy is better because he's responding to the serious intellectual challenge posed by Hume. Hegel is just asserting things. At best, you can see him as a historian like Thomas Carlyle, trying to understand themes in history. But does anyone seriously believe that national geists have ontological existence? Stirner would call Hegel's "metaphysics" a spook.
This is a beautiful analysis. My one sentence meaning summary of these stories would be something like “to everything there is a season” but pulling out the love and forgiveness aspect and showing how these are emphasized in the Iliad was touching.
great video brother. somewhat similar to the 'oral troy' (i don't know what you would call this in english) which know from my grandfather (i am greek). the only question is, why does this not have more views? why don't all of your videos? top quality content, but perhaps if you invested in an editor to add a bit more visual stimulus, it could help with getting you the gains in viewership to which your vast knowledge entitles you. keep up the good work brother.
I appreciate the kind words and am glad you have found this talk insightful and fruitful. I would just note, though, that as a teacher and journal editor, alongside a writer, I merely do this literally out of charity of sharing knowledge. I'm not a RU-vidr or "digital creator" making this an equivalent full-time job. All my content exists for those who are seeking it.
this should be the material covered on the very first day for all Western high schoolers!!!! this video has been invaluable for ensuring the series books i have lined up for my kids (still in primary school) will give them a robust survey of our inheritance, and i cant wait for them to be able to read it on their own and not have it read to them in the cradle
It’s reading comments such as these that I wonder if you understand that you are a treasure for the effort you put into these videos. Those of us with the passion for a broad range of philosophy, but lacking the privileges necessary actualize such pursuits fully, are very grateful that people like yourself help us to delve more deeply simply for the love of it rather than pursuing a particular end. I’ve listened to many hours of lectures on German idealism from different university professors and I’ve tried to hazard digesting parts of those works more directly. However, your videos have given me greater clarity than before with relatively little time investment. I will look forward to listening to all you have made and will continue to make for so long as you remain an honest teacher.
This is a great topic of conversation, and a great video. In a time where the epic is massively over shadowed by those which came before, we should still give the Aeneid its deserved place in the epic tradition.
A lot of great stuff to consider when reading all this poetry in dialogue with the events of the time and the other works of the same period! It's always best never to read in isolation!
Actually the great art form of opera was the result of experimentation with Greek drama during the Renaissance in Florence. A lot of the ancient Greek plays were rediscovered in this period -specifically in Florence, Italy where in the sixteenth century a group of humanist enthusiasts that included the father of the great scientist Galileo attempt to perform Greek plays but were not sure how to do it -they noticed that there was a chorus so concluded the plays were sung so they invented recitative - a type of hybrid between talking and singing that became standard in operatic performance. Initially it was merely an art form for the dedicated few but when it got to Venice especially with the great composer Monteverdi it became a popular art form with insertion of things like arias , choruses and comic interludes. The first live opera I saw and I was totally overwhelmed by the beauty of it was "Orfeo ed Euridice" by the Austrian master Christoph Willibald Gluck and the story was taken straight from Euripides. Gluck also set Euripides' "Iphigenia in Tauris" to music as well. Philosopher Rousseau, when he went to a performance of Gluck's Orfeo in Paris exclaimed that the music was so beautiful that no more music need ever be written.
I don't really know what to think of Liberalism and Capitalism anymore. I read some of a book called Liberalism is a Sin by a Catholic priest and that really did change my views as a "conservative". I don't even know what a "conservative" wants anymore and what they base their ideas off. The Evangelical Conservative or Atheist Conservative might share certian values with me but they are still Progressives in my opinion just older Progressives than the Woke but still related. Sometimes I wonder how we fix all this and if what we all really want is Catholicism without the Catholicism. I'm obviously very biased as a Catholic and don't pretend to know as much as I use to but those are my ramblings. 😂
without conflict theory, there is no basis to socialistic idealism. also, fascism originates from ancient Rome. Muslini's fascism is a bastardization of the Roman origination. also, corporation refers to the physical entity comprised of the assets (human and otherwise) that come together to effect change in an organized manner. also, captilaism reffers to a system that promotes capital as being the highest form of good. also, "good," under capitalism reffers to a thing or idea that can be distributed.
Even under the most charitable interpretation anti-fascism is authoritarian and has to wield dictatorial power to maintain itself. This is why the purity spiraling and the dialectic can never stop
With Embodiment of the Global Brain which connects all human beings and machines in an Absolute Superorganism, then there is a New History: - From the history of the Book (def and blind history) to Audio Visual History - From the History of some people to history of all people who register their documents on internet. - From the history of Man to history of Cyborg. - From the history of God to history of the Absolute Superorganism. - From the history of rule over the Nature to the history of Artificial Nature - From the history of National Systems to history of World Systems (the Greek is a national system in the Ecumen we must begin from the history of Ecumen and another Worlds) - The end of Traditional Philosophy (from Descartes to Derrida as the Old Testament of Modern aeon) to the New Testament of Philosophy (philosophy is the study of human beings race as Absolute Superorganism) by integration of Marx (Moses) and Nietzsche (Elijah) on the Mount of Transfiguration. And the integration of Hegel Philosophy (Abraham - the grand narrative) with System Theory and Cybernetic (logic of Being). - From Desire and Freedom to the burden of Duty towards the future of human being race. - From criticism to interpretation (what is the law that connects all different contradicted philosophical systems? Why is the Cartesian duality considered the beginning of modern philosophy? ..... ) We are in a Liminal stage crossing to the other bank .... Philosophy is Elsewhere. Then the great question, how to philosophize on the internet? I think the first trial was the website of Principia Cybernetica. "Thus Spoke the Egyptian Priest"
Capitalism does not exist in fascist nations. There is nothing free market. Therefore no capitalism. it is everything of by and for the state. It is new sales pitch for socialism to a public fearful of the Bolshevik shit show in Russia.
Italian fascism was not race focused. There was a massive number of Jews in Mussolini Italy and they were one of the main conduits assisting Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.
They see fascism everywhere cause when you are a fascist, then you surround yourself with fascists. Remember they accuse everyone and everything of being what they really are.
Sure. But then that's an entirely different discussion than what Brecht, Mandel, Frederic Jameson, and all the other new Marxist theorists are discussing which is what we're explaining here.
Fascism and communism are both statist ideology's and most of the criticism of fascism can be said about communism and vice versa. The argument about real socialism is the same as calling everything non classical fascism as revisionist thus bad and we should try it again. Political extremist are very simialir they just dont realise it
Anti-fascim was created and implemented by Josef Stalin due to his rivalry with Hitler. It means, literally, everyone who is not on line with the Stalinist ideologie is a fascist and can be whiped out. This was nessecary to distinguish his communist SOCIALISM from German national SOCIALISM and Italian FASCISM. Nazis had learned a lot from the Soviet system, for instance the concentration camp system was a copy of Soviet gulag system. And similarities are going further if one compares the Nazi form of gouvernance with the Soviets. From dictatorship to leadercult, one-party-system, party controlled, united youth organisations and workers units to planed economy, that was called 'commanding economy' by the Nazis. They didn't seiz the private companies, but controlled them completely. Until today, marxists are trying to hide the fact, that Nazis and Communists were two opposit sides of exactly the same medal, called SOCIALISM! Nazis were far away of beeing capitalists. They were anti-capitalists and thats also why they hated Jews, because Hitler was convinced that Jews are the leading force behind capitalism and bolshewism (Trotzky=Leonard Bronstein) and thus are aiming to destroy the world order. The reason why marxists avoid the term National Socialists, and are using FASCISM instead, is that they want to cover that they in fact are actually the real fascists today.
To give you an imagination what really happened in Nazi-Germany: They implemented a rich-people's-tax that was up to 65% of their income and restricted the amount of income for CEOs of big German companies to a certain wage. If that isn't exactly what the Left is demanding today, no more evidence is needed!
This video doesn’t really talk about to social and political issues as to why he claims the left sees fascism everywhere. Mainly it does a poor job trying to explain the difference between capitalism and Marxism. The content creator doesn’t understand the difference between neoliberalism and capitalism. He’s trying to sound like an educated individual, but in reality he’s just a google scholar.
I didn't even watch the video yet, this is the first video of the uploader that has been recommended to me but you sound like an absolute redditor. You're making faux-criticism remark without actually addressing a single point of contempt or making any point.
The "person who created the video" has a degree in economics, peer reviewed articles published in journals of political philosophy, a degree in political philosophy, studied at Yale and with a Cambridge philosopher, and is literally explaining Marxist theorists by citing them directly and explaining them: Bertolt Brecht, Ernest Mandel, and drawing upon the works of others like Frederic Jameson. But hey, you obviously have a much greater insight and logic than all of us so if you want to explain why Brecht, Mandel, and others are wrong and how I'm deceptive and misleading by literally quoting them, you have the freedom to do so.
@@PaulJosephKrauseI doubt that. You can be anyone on the internet. I get you’re just reading someone else’s words, but the things said in the video doesn’t address what the title sets up. I’m not sure if you’re real or AI, but the person who created the video needs to tweak his content a bit.
No you clearly don't get that I'm reading and explaining others. If you "get" that I'm "just reading someone else's words" then you wouldn't have accused me of being some "Google scholar" who doesn't know capitalism, neoliberalism, economics, or political philosophy. But hey, you keep on being you. If you don't want to learn but instead get set off in a fit of rage because a short lecture on Brecht, Mandel, and New Marxist historiography doesn't fit your judgement of politics, that speaks volumes about you. You can read this if you want, but then since this is a peer reviewed article it's probably just google scholarship according to you: www.kritike.org/journal/issue_21/krause_december2017.pdf
According to Mussolini - a former Socialist, turned into a Nationalist during World War One by the realization of Austrian rule of Tyrol - bureaucracy is the future of Italy as there is no actual state if there is no educated personnel who administrate... and of course, he was right in hindsight when now looking at a Fascist youth leader, keeping a divided Italy aligned with the transnational bureaucracy of a European Union... Marxism isn't prominent in the West due to students of Gramsci, propagating an ever more toxic intersectionalism, but due to corporations, co-opting a youth, easily deceived by tokenism. What followers of a secularized Jew get right is that power is the major objective of the political process - not sustainable policy or consensus - what they are mistaken about is the demand of power along economic class - as sympathetic as it seems when trying to imagine daily routines that includes full industrialization, but without any bourgeois social hierarchy. Currently, in Europe bureaucrats hold power - in balance with the lobby of powerful corporations who can't enforce even substantial interests e.g. in continued trade with a Russian Federation, demonized as 'fascist' - female layers, female judges, female secretaries, female party cadres who - like the women of ancient Sparta - lack the offspring to sustain their rule... In come the bourgeois policies of massed immigration - in order to replenish a diminishing national recruitment pool - in direct competition for housing and unskilled jobs with a proletarized labour force that is culturally less educated than any generation before them - and by now, completely demoralized into a state of anomie. It wasn't miners and farm hands or service workers who demanded off-shoring of production sites and immigration, but the sons and daughters of an educated, Transatlantic bourgeoisie... And while it looks entirely fantastic in our time: a Romanized, Thracian peasant Justinian the Great rose in ranks of a Byzantine military by mere martial prowess before populating the Porphyr Chamber of the Palace of Constantinople with a new dynasty - and so it can be with the warlords of today, trained in bourgeois academies or recruited as mercenaries, but falling into their destined place by the mere fortunes of war. A concept, completely plausible to the Hellenistic mind, proven by the Roman Dominate - but entirely strange to the Enlightened, despite their complete dependency upon a militarized liberal imperialism. If industry and trade with foreign resources is the structural base of modern power, blockading trade routes and dismantling power grids is the grand plan of the aspiring local crime- and warlord - this plan is not a construct of brilliant reason, but it's natural shadow, speaking through dreams before guiding the hand in effortless instinct.
@@christophmahler wow, now once I have decanted all the verbiage what I am left with is that in essence you are trying to justify the despicable replacement theory now popular in extreme right circles in the US and most notably in the MAGAt movement. Also when I read Jew I thought you were going somehow to incorporate the Protocols …… Zion into your diatribe. Then when you went into women this and women that I was certain enough that yours was indeed a proto-fascist rant except with a nice red white and blue ribbon. You can quote every philosopher and or prominent historical figure you want but when you do this by placing your buggy in front of the horse it’s inevitable that it will be wrong. You seem to make the same mistake when using historical sources in the field of philosophy or any other academic field for that matter is that all too often these sources are taken out of context by the will to fit them into a modern discourse. Now when I say people who have a point to defend will take them out of their context is that their “brilliant “ arguments for the theories they are putting forth were formed by and in the context of their time with all the limitations in character, knowledge, morals etc of their time. BTW that is also the reasons that the textual constitutionalists of organizations like the Heritage Foundation and others like it are frauds. They take horrible reactionary positions and then try to drown the proverbial fish in so much useless texts and verbiage that in the end almost position can be taken from their sources. And that’s exactly what is happening today in the US. I have noticed the same phenomenon with Libertarians. They may be the worst of these frauds who try to make their point by transgressing all the faut-pas of putting forth a solid argument or theory. That is why they are mostly laughed at in all serious circles. Now if all your positions and the sources for them is to try to justify the rise in authoritarianism in the US and other modern western democracies then your goose stepping down the wrong road. And it’s not by cherry picking only the chocolates you and the other reactionaries like and discarding the rest that you will create a good box of chocolates for everyone. You will still end up with a shhyty box of chocolates.
