Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism 

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

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

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

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.

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.

Thesis: dead Antithesis: alive Synthesis: 🧟

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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".

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

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."

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.

you quoted Meister Eckhart and tried to pass it off as Hegel. This whole video is an insane level of misinformation.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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!”

I've studied philosophy, and frankly, this video was hard to watch. First of all, for the love of God, please don't use wikipedia for anything philosophy related. The Standford Encylcopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is much better, and is written by professionals and not random people who don't understand what philosophy is. Second of all, you don't really understand any of the philosophers you are describing. To understand Hegel, you need to understand Kant's trancendental idealism. I know you don't understand it, because you start calling Hegel "ideo-bable" even when he ideas make perfect sense in the context of Kant. There's a reason it takes years to learn philosophy, you need a background of many thinkers before engaging in it. I'm not defending Hegel, I think he's wrong, but your reasons for disagreeing with him are basically "I don't understand him". I actually do understand him, and as such disagree with him. My primary reason for this is the concept of moral progress, which underlies Hegel and all modernist thinkers like Marx. Finally, you don't understand Fascism at all. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would ever argue Fascism to be Hegelian. It's literally anti-Hegelian. Read any Fascist philosopher (Evola, Schmdidt, Heidegger, etc.) they all firmly reject Hegel as a symptom of "modernity". Fasciscm is a pre-modernist philosophy. It seeks to return to a time before rationality and reason (which is what Hegel literally stands for). Marxism is a Hegelian philosophy that flips the dialectic on its head, fascism is a rejeciton of Hegel entirely. Please educate yourself, this video was very difficult to watch as someone who has read, studied, and written numerous papers on these subjects.

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.

Schopenhauer famously described Hegel's work as "a pseudo-philosophy that cripples all mental powers, suffocates real thinking and substitutes by means of the most outrageous use of language the hollowest, the most devoid of sense, the most thoughtless, and, as the outcome confirms, the most stupefying jumble of words”.

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.

You have no understanding of ontology, which explains your difficulty of understanding being vs becoming. You, as a modernist, explain that what exists is that it can be perceived by the senses. The likes of you would have believed that there's no way that radiowave particles could exist because it couldn't be perceived by the senses until acientific instruments later revealed that they do. So you limit your understanding of reality to that that can only be oerceived by the senses and by extension instruments. Yet, im sure you would argue that your ideas have a certain element of reality otherwise how would you even understand yourself as a being if your interpretation of yourself and everything else around you only occurs in the realm of ideas. You believe that the wisdom of these philosophers amounts to ideobabble yet you are coming to the conclusion through a sort of reasoning that is only occuring in your ideal mind rather than by observing some external to you. Even those, external things you observe are only interpreted and given meaning through your ideas. Your ideas being something abstract and not concrete whatsoever. Therefore, you being the ultimate judge of reality can only come to a judgement through reasoning of ideas then you can conclude that ideas is reality. There is no reality without ideas because there would be no one to observe it so who would say it exist if there is no one to idealize reality? So yes Giovanni Gentile is right and many other philosophers are right and you can safely say this without necesarily agreeing with the necesary political or ideaological conclusions that followed their conclusions.

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...

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.

As a religious person, I strongly dislike Hegel, because I don't agree with basically anything he says, but some of his clownish ideas are often how my religion is presented by others who don't know better (but think they do). Never mind the brilliant minds of Aquinas and Gregory and so many others who could do intellectual laps around Hegel and made a strong bedrock for philosophically articulating individual rights and civil liberties. No, people just look at Hegel.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

Heraclitus couldn't comprehend the difference between reality and his thinking about reality. The river doesn't have a name in itself, it's what people call it, the river in the mind doesn't exist in reality. It's something that our cognition does, names the things we see.

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.

Remember when that guy was calling you Tilk

Yes it's the same river, but that same river has changed. That's the point

Holy cringe tik. Edgy atheist still in the 2020s?

Hegel was the quintessential post-modernist even before modernism was a thing

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).

Meatloaf was a Hegelian who truly understood the meaning: "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that..." WHAT, MEAT?! WHAT WON'T YOU DO?!!!

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'm currently evaluating the differences between Thunderclap Newman's "life is just a game, you fly your paper plane, there is no end" weltanschauung vs Procol Harum's "Life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" I'll let you know who wins after a few more beers...

I am speechless. In Hinduism’s Advaita Vedanta school of thought metaphysics there are two levels of reality described exactly like by Heraclitus.

Never stop TIK

As a Christian, it's obvious to me that Hegel started put with a flawed notion of who God is. "The eye I see God through is the eye God sees me through" well thats just objectively, God is clearly apart from man. Any basic reading of...any holy book will make that obvious!

This right in line with James Lindsay's work, which is great. The more people putting the message out the better!

Hegel's entire philosophy starts from the recognition that there are things about which logic and experience cannot provide definitive answers. Limits for human logical and empirical knowledge. The Kantian 'noumenon', so to speak. Obviously one approach is to say 'well then, let us not discuss these things any further, let us stick to the tanks', which is of course a possible outcome and the current domain of Science But on the other hand, it is hard to see why self-impose such limits, and why the human mind cannot use other instruments of investigation, or at least make an attempt. As for contradiction, contradiction is not seen as a 'good' thing, but as something that exists in our experiencing the world, in our "being and thinking the world". 'Reality' (and/or our experience of reality) is not always logical and non-contradictory. Hegel's philosophy is an attempt to deal with the contradiction and with the noumenon (which can be seen as two faces of the same coin). Hegel does not reject contradiction as a mere error of the intellect, but assumes that it can be something structural, a possibility in the ontology of things. His dialectic is an attempt to deal with contradiction, to study it and eventually use it to "say something true about the noumenon". I agree that Hegel lends itself to being trivialised and 'exploited' to reach aberrant conclusions, but Hegel's original intent is not to establish an irrationalist mysticism just for the sake of it, but rather to try to find a means of investigating issues and answering questions for which - by definition - logic and experience can say nothing

Holy shit, that peikoff playlist is absolute gold, thanks Tik!

Yes philosophy is confusing to people who are philosophically illiterate, great work

“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.

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

I thought of Obozo's "hope and change". It's a slogan about nothing, yet millions of simpletons fell in lockstep.

I think of Hegel, Marx, Bentham, and Malthus as the four horsemen of the revolution.

RU-vidr debunks ideologies that nobody supports by deciding to go up against almost every single philosopher and intellectual throughout all human history.

This is the most "TIK collaboration with Esoterica and Let's Talk Religion channels" as we can have it. They both explained a Lot of what TIK is explaining in this video. Very interesting topic.

We ought not to ignore quality philosophy because of its disciples. Both Marxism and Fascism had different spins on Hegelianism. Hegel himself was a rather moderate guy.

This is a pretty bad take. Theres no proof that materialism is any more valid than idealism. We dont truly know the structure of the universe and human thought is not concrete.

The point that they have no concrete policies and their entire messaging is just vague "make things better" reminds me of recent video essay by MentisWave on praxis. It just goes from a different angle, but also concludes that socialists do it, because if they had to say something concrete and lay out their policies, it wouldn't be appealing and just obvious bad policies when scrutinized, hence they rely on the abstract and ideas, rather than practice towards them

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

our man had to suffer neural damage while researching Hegel's ravings for our sake.. Praise be the TIK! Thank you for your work!

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.

Okay saying 99 percent of philosophy is tainted by Heraclitus is at best shows an ignorance of the history of philosophy. Obviously you are unaware that philosophy birthed modern science and mathematics, might have heard of this thing called "natural philosophy". Philosophers trying to deal with inherently immaterial things like ideas, with language based on material reality, have issues expressing the idea in such a way that captures exactly what they mean and they can't exactly point out in the material world "look this thing is what i mean when i use the word idea". A perfect example is ideobabble the word you came up with. You say it is basically nonsense jargon. Well jargon is always going to be nonsensical to those outside of the field as jargon is basically words the describe technical information that isn't in the common lexicon. Ideobabble is jargon it is a techincal term that is being used to separate jargon in the scientific and technical fields from jargon of ideological fields (in this case ideological is being used to describe a field primarily consisting of ideas.) In fact ideobabble is ideobabble by definition which is kinda funny. Back on point how would one describe the idea of a chair? The idea of forms is that you know what a chair is when you see one in reality because you have this generalize idea of a chair in your head. Your mind pulls this generalize idea from seeing instances of individual chairs but that generalize concept of what a chair is doesn't exist in reality because any chair you make is a representation of the general idea. Yes you made a chair, but is that chair that you made a generalize example found in all chairs in the world. No it can't be because chairs can be shaped differently or made of different materials. The generalized idea of chair that we all understand when we use the word chair can not exist in material reality, yet we all know that the generalized idea of a chair exists and it is something we can pass on and teach to others. So if we only need to deal in concrete things to effectively deal with reality what is a chair? It is a silly question what is a chair because everyone knows what a chair is, so build me a perfectly generalize chair that captures the idea of chair so perfectly that by that sole example it exemplifies all chairs in existence past and future in such a way that all chairs imitate that chair. Now has much as i dislike Marx, his ideas, his economic, and his politics and the last thing i ever wanted to do was defend him your willful refusal to understand plain language and to then assume that your audience can't understand it should be taken as an insult by everyone watching. The Marx quote that you cite the reference as Marx, "Das Kapital" vol 1 p14 Marx is saying that Hegal views reality as only consisting of the personified ideal (what Hegal would consider God) and that Marx only accepts material reality and that ideas are just what our minds come up with from observation of the material world. It is a blatant rejection of duelism and saying their is only a material world and everything is material including ideas that the human mind comes up with. "The Ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind" or human ideas are nothing more than a reflection of the material world. This is such an easy read of Marx especially since he states elsewhere that man is a product of his material condition. Thus to Marx there is no ethic other than what a man's material condition allows him if starving with nothing and no prospects for the future he will become violent to change the situation. This is why Marx predicted a violent revolution because he thought the capitalist would eventually have everything and give nothing to the worker. I usually like your analysis of history and economics. This video however I consider a failure as you are missing some very basic points and failing to understand the purpose of the majority of philosophy. Philosophy purpose is to try to understand the world as it truly is in all the ways we interact with it. That is why in early history philosophers were also scientists and mathematicians. They sought to explain everything in the world. This included trying to explain exactly what is an idea, what exactly is knowledge, how do we know that we know something, what is exactly going on when we go from just remembering a set of facts about something to actually understanding that thing. These are difficult questions to answer because they are asking questions about something we can not see, touch, taste, smell, or hear we can't show it to another person yet we all seem to experience something similar that we can sort of describe it but not really. To write off philosophers as not contributing to society for the most part would be saying science and medicine hasn't been useful to society because if you look atthe history of these things their roots go back to a philosopher who had a philosophy on how the world worked. That is why researchers get a PhD which stands for Philosophy degree because philosophers look for new knowledge and understanding of the world.

It's so rare to see anyone talking about the actual source of ideology and totalitarianism. Thanks!

Silly argument. TIK uses words like "objective reality" that have all kinds of metaphysical presuppositions that if you laid out into the open would sound like ideobabble. We all have ideological/metaphysical priors and most remain unexamined. And thats OK not everyone is a philosopher and reality is deep!

I don't think that ancient Greek philosophy had only bad influence. E.g. Science, Money, Democracy, Liberty, Equality also appeared from philosophy.

I'm a simple Bible believing Christian without being a member of a church or any religious community, and all this is to me quite comical to watch and listen. In my youth I was at some point a bit of a fascist, at one point a bit of a socialist, then a social justice worrior, and all this time an atheist, but all throughout very restless and confused. I was just seeking anything where I find peace and solid ground. I found it in Christ many years ago, and in all honesty I see the "philosophical" and political arguing and talking as a confused human mind trying to create their own reality and to become "god" in their own terms. I know this channel doesn't really have a considerable Christian following, and I assume (I could be wrong) that TIK is a quite hardcore atheist seeing how he sticks to objectivism like a thirsty man to a bottle of water in a dessert. But I keep praying that TIK, who is a very restless soul, will keep seeking the Truth and find himself too under the cross, and that he will lead others there too. One phrase that struck me before being a believer was the words of our Christ; “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit". If ideas and world views don't have a healing or positive effect either in personal life or society as a whole, they should be reconsidered.

Hahah this guy thinks the philosophical concept of idealism is "gibberish". At least learn basic philosophical concepts before making a video talking about... philosophical concepts. Why does yt recommend this absolute sophistry and uneducated drivel?

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.

Quick question Tik, when you talk about “ideobabble” are you referring also to invented terms and changes in definition made by libertarian philosophers or only socialist thinkers? I woud think that you’d mean it by any corner of the political spectrum, but what’s the emphasis here?

Finally, the video we all have been waiting for.

9:44 sounds exactly like what many parents with Narcissistic or Borderline personality disorder do, they ignore the needs of the child and instead try to create a mini-me in order to see themselves, then punish the child harshly for not living up to whatever standards the parent set depending on their mood. I think I have a pretty good guess on where Hegel's low self esteem and need to overcompensate comes from... :|

I am biased, but as an orthodox Christian this sort of justifies that many of these ideas, when intermingled with Christianity, have been declared heresy by the church since the first millennia AD. And to think I was falling into hermeticism and Gnosticism when I was a teenager. The reason I didn’t was because I ultimately find anything too abstract to be silly. And I was raised to work hard and earn my own keep. I had parents who were constantly teaching me values opposite of all this nonsense. My upbringing was just barely enough to keep me from becoming one of these cultists, imagine a young person who was not fortunate enough to have such an upbringing? This behavior is truly predatory and malicious. Thanks Tik for your videos, also I think it would be pretty cool for the future to explore 18th and 19th century wars for Battlestorms. Or wars in Africa in the 20th century such as the Rhodesian Bush War, Angola, Sudan, etc. Thanks for the excellent content and I pray for your health and well-being.

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

This video is a great approach to Hegel and the Hegelian ideas that led to so much trouble.

Tik is a living example of how far you can go down the rabbit hole when you apply root cause analysis to historical events.

•let me just try to immediately and effortlessly understand the highly technical distinction between transcendental idealism, absolute idealism and actual idealism, by just reading one sentence in Wikipedia. •if I can't instantly understand, then it must be ideobabble. Just as any theoretical physics theory that I can't instantly understand, despite having no learning in that area, is clearly ideobabble. •this is painfully mid-wit thinking. And Sorkin made the same fallacious appeal to ignorance. •Read more.

i love this talk. i recently joined this channel. the special and satisfying features of the talks of this channel are the emphasis on the big picture, universality, and essence. so EDUCATIVE. i love it

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.

2:32 "sounds like jibberish" it just says that his philosophy comes from Kant and Hegel... Also reading a wikipedia page doesnt help you to understand his ideas, read them. It's non-relativistic subjectivist constructivism with the recognition of an Absolute spirit which permits movement since without it there would be no potential and potential cant be real so it's an actual mind to be resolved in a construct like the mind of a man, plant, animal etc. If you want to make a good critque of fascism, say that the reason it is the way it is is because of semantics when it comes to the word "totalitarian" which indicates that yes, it's "just thugs and stuff" since Gentile sabotaged his own philosophy to make it fit into his want for power.

Once we stray from Aristotle and Aquinas we go wrong ... that's about it ...

Its ironic a Randian talks about cults

(42:32-42:42) "If God can do anything, can he not-exist?" I think your reasoning is flawed. If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything because it doesn't exist. Because non-existance is not something you can do. So, existance can't do himself out of existance. That's the contradiction. The only thing non-existant, is not being. God cannot be non-being, because he is the principle of all being(s).

The core of Hegel's philosophy, The Absolute Spirit, has nothing to do with God. i'm quite surprised this whole explanation circles around God. The Absolute Spirit is not a person, it's a spiritual non-personal "mechanical" entity that just exist to self-reflect itself completely through the history.

it’s wild how you not only picked the singular book which aims to *interpret* hegel (instead of reading a primary source, or even a beginners secondary text) through a hermeticist lense, but you also misunderstand some of the very basics of hegels system. “thesis antithesis reconciliation” “dialectical system” none of these things were actually ever said by hegel, the dialectic isn’t just this one simple thing, but it varies constantly. the dialectic of becoming (the literal first chapter of the logic) isn’t the same as the dialectic of mediation, you can’t just aim to describe the dialectical process as a mere trinity, because the trinity always varies not only in its content but in its logic as well. you don’t understand hegel; this isn’t the marxist “oh this wasn’t *real* marxism” argument they throw around to excuse socialism, this is the simple fact that you don’t understand the basics of what you are talking about. and this is fine, i’ve spent the last two or so years of my life studying hegel, and even i know that there’s so much left for me to learn, nobody expects you to actually talk about hegel, you are not a philosopher nor are you a philosophy channel, either take some time and actually study philosophy (don’t read someone’s interpretation of philosophy without actually knowing the philosophy itself first) or just don’t misinform people. the part which genuinely ticks me off about this video is how much you overstate gentiles influence on fascism. there is no “marx” of fascism, the very fact that german and italian fascism differed in so many ways ideologically proves this immensely. gentile was the co author of the doctrine of fascism, and he appointed himself to the position of being the philosopher of fascism, but almost none of his theories have had an actual impact on fascist society in the way marxist theory has had on communism.

Nice explanation, Lewis. Thank you so much.

This explains, at least in part, why those who errors towards a more conservative approach as being more pragmatic when it comes to policy and solutions which indirectly explains that engineers tend to lean more right-conservative.

A former professor used the term Polibrish. Political gibberish. It's when a person wants more, usually power but often wealth in general, but doesn't want to appear greedy or entitled. They won't say "The government should pay me X dollars a month just for existing." They will couch it in "The government should provide us with X dollars to ensure greater equality." By transferring their desires to the group, a group they coincidentally happen to be part of, it comes across as altruistic not greedy or lazy.

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!

Every time I read philosophy this video is what plays in my head, this really deep sounding babble is just that, it’s so easy to poke holes in if it isn’t flat out false or basically arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin. Then realizing how massively influential this text I’m reading is and how seriously the author is taken, realizing how much of it is built on false premises is disheartening especially when they deliberately obscure their meaning so hard it’s work to try to read it and pointless to argue something that can be completely reinterpreted at will