You hit the nail on the head with resentment and anxiety resulting from the expectation of upward mobility. So often I’ve wished that I didn’t have to figure out my career, that someone would just tell me what to do. This anxiety is doubled for “gifted kids,” because if you’re not succeeding, you’re not just unlucky - you’re an utter failure. I think at the heart of this problem is expectation and comparison, which only lead to envy and disappointment. Secondly, I think at the heart of this issue is the individualism-collectivism debate. I’m a firm individualist, but the atomization of modern societies is undeniable. Even if we are individual minds with inner lives and unique paths in life, much of our thought is spent toward how we relate to certain groups, and much of our happiness derives from belonging to groups. Maybe we should think of ourselves in individual terms politically and philosophically, and in collective terms for everyday life? Finally, I don’t think either freedom or equality are goods in themselves, ultimately. (This is an illusion that we Americans seem to suffer from especially). They remove obstacles on the political and social level that may hinder our “pursuit of happiness,” but they do not provide that happiness. One still has to figure out what to do with one’s freedom; being equal to your fellow citizens doesn’t inform you who you are as an individual. They are a start, not the end.
(1:05) "... the doctrine of equality has brought us closer to the image of paradise, but, paradoxically, it has left us feeling more and more like hell. The Terrible Beauty of modernity has made us more equal but also more hateful, more depressed, and more envious." Has it, though? I bet the Helots of ancient Sparta were generally a lot more hateful, depressed, and envious towards their subjugators than most people nowadays. How many people today, even if they're upset because they believe things could go better for them, would prefer to be a serf and a murderable untouchable for the Homoioi of a time less committed to concern for all?
I agree - I spend a lot of time reading ancient texts (literature, history, religion) and statements from modernists, postmodernist and beyond always seem to be claiming certain current experiences are unprecedented or unprecedentedly pronounced. But in almost all cases I can find an ancient text discussing the same problem, often in greater extremes 🤷♂️ I suppose comparisons are hard to objectively measure.
Maslow keeps buzzing in my mind as I think at this amazing concept you enlighten. there's a case that the idea you are suggesting is completely true, and yet again if the theory has some merit, it's mind-blowing on how little we have been able (over the centuries, accelerating with tech) to shape a society that makes us any happier. then Maslow come knocking at the door, as we one crucial miscalculation on how our common mainstream, our culture and formation (from school onwards) as mislead us to the extend that we have misunderstood the concept of esteem and self-actulization. I'll think more, watch it again over these days and eventually come back. Thanks again!
Any argument against equality seems to be motivated by power, and any argument for equality seems to be motivated by power. Yet any argument for power seems pretty stupid and damageing for the ones making it, because those who win win, but those who show their hand seem to lose. Politics is wierd
@@andyd568 Power can not be balanced since it is the opposite of inability, or incapacity. You either have power or you don't, and if everyone has power then no one does.
Why complain when things are good? Because it can be better, we are in the middle of ever increasing amounts of change, and the most apparent forces will force us backwards. Of course we should struggle rather than sit by. Of course we should complain and compare.
One thing to consider is whether or not the people complaining actually know how to make things better. For example, if you tax the big corporations more then expected future profit margins for projects will go down, and they will be less able to take on riskier, high upside projects. This might not seem like something that effects the average person, but it does. Most new drugs and technologies are very risky business ventures and when you increase taxes, it gets to a point where these projects are not worth taking on. That is why the U.S.A invents most of these things. If we are at a point where we are ready for innovation to stall out, then more socialism could be a good answer. If we want to continue getting new innovations then we may want to reconsider. Just something to think about. It’s obviously something we have to balance out tho.
@@EatWithBadlands-- How's developing drugs and new technologies a risky business venture? Or is 'why' the better question? Or maybe 'in what sense'? I ask because, while I don't disagree with you EatWithBadlands, at the same time, I'd say the present situation (any situation, really) does come with a lot of baggage, a lot of implicit assumptions, a lot of things taken for granted. Perhaps with a better understanding of those cultural assumptions or contingent facts on the ground, drug development and technological innovation could be less risky or 'risky' in a better way. A kind of meta-innovation, if you'd like.
@@declup Developing new drugs and new technologies is a very expensive process. It requires a lot of money, tools, resources, and highly-educated manpower. Of all attempts to develop new drugs and technologies, few actually succeed. The majority of attempts to develop new drugs and technologies end in failure, and all the money, tools, resources, and educated manpower will have been wasted. Therefore, developing new drugs and technologies is a high-risk investment. Because it is a high-risk investment, people and organizations will only be willing to invest in it if they have either 1. a financial system that will burden much of the cost of that risk, or 2. the ability to profit greatly from a single success, thus offsetting the cost of a thousand duds. Without either of those factors, any organization which invests in developing new drugs and technologies will swiftly find itself out of resources, and therefore unable to continue existing. The United States has both. The US has extremely forgiving bankruptcy laws (offsetting the cost of risk) and strong intellectual property laws (allowing companies to profit greatly from new breakthroughs). These two things combined incentivize Americans and American companies to invest in developing new drugs and technologies, which is why the US leads the world in the creation of new drugs and technologies. If you can think of any cultural assumptions I've overlooked that change this analysis, I genuinely would like to hear them.
It's a false problem. Pretty much only narcissists believe it's an issue. If anything though, we are much more unequal than in the medieval age, so the logic would be the other way around, but it's not the issue. But to give a rough idea, the difference between a laborer, the lowest salary and a master artisan was just twice the amount. Today it would be around 10 times if not more for some. So the inequality is much worst than it ever was. If I were to guess though, there is too many options. It's why richer countries are more unhappy. Too many options and too much competition, which allied with individualism means everybody is an enemy. It leads to an overall lack of trust and without trust, people fall into depression. So it's those things. The equality issue has always been a way to disguise the problems and everybody knows they don't want it, so it's a complete fake, but adds to the lack of trust.
I think your take, among all these other comments, is unique and, therefore, really interesting. So, in your view, societal unrest isn't due to inequality but instead to a kind of overtaxed free will? Is that right? Would fewer options make society, communities, culture, what have you, healthier and more content? And individuals too? I wonder how many fewer choices, though. Do you mean most of them, so a latter-day variation of monasticism? Or only certain kinds of choices, like car color or career option? And in what way does individualism affect the reception of choice?
8 месяцев назад
@@declupIf I may put in my two cents: The important thing is that the fewer options are not determined from the outside, but by oneself. We have all eaten from the apple and know what possibilities exist in the world. Someone else taking them away from us in not going to make us happy. The act of limiting ourselves, accepting the situation we are in, coming to terms with our own limitations, learning to enjoy what we have, that's what's necessary to make people feel fulfilled. So basically, a Buddhist approach of non-attachment. Or the idea of the "mystic in the marketplace" (from Tantra, I think), living in a world full of temptations and enjoying them without being ruled by them.
@ Yeah, I can get behind much of that, R.M. My experiences thus far have also led me to thinking attachment and desire can often be unhelpful or too controlling at times. But do you think OneLine's coming from the same place as us? I get the sense OneLine thinks of abundance of choice as a systemic issue, kinda like asbestos in a school building -- a problem for a bunch of people or the right influential people to solve, rather than any individual students themselves. Maybe like Buddhism but at a collective level -- a whole community's dismissal of a perceived vanity of choice? Or something like that maybe? Anyway, interesting topic to talk about, though; that's for sure.
8 месяцев назад
@@declup I find it hard to assume what OP's worldview is on this. Their post seems to leave that part out. Just stating that people are overwhelmed by abundance of choice. I personally think, the solution lies in the individual as much as in the collective. Every individual is already on their path of personal development, acquiring more and more inner freedom, becoming more independent from desire. At least as a long-term trend. And at the same time, we need to change the systems we have in place to enable people to pursue this way of development. And changing the systems is most easily done by the people who are currently holding the most power. At least that's my belief.
I feel like there was some space to mention Epicurus’ influence on the “pursuit of happiness” part of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, since he was outspoken about his admiration for the Greek philosopher of “eudaimonia”. Also, I think the new pendulum of society has its two extremes on happiness and freedom. People chase happiness until they start feeling enslaved by it and that’s when they choose to be free. But being free also doesn’t fulfill them, so they consciously sacrifice a part of their freedom in the pursuit of ever-returning happiness, and the cycle goes on and on, showing maybe that the goal, when reached, doesn’t fulfill. Maybe what we need is resistance and the everlasting overcoming of it, as Nietzsche would put it. As always, great video, keep it up.
@@Jimmylad. Yes, out of the various examples, the most obvious one is in a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short in 1819, in which he stated “I too am an Epicurean”.
Idk I feel this vid provides a lot of half truths and and the grand ideas stated on paper but never were really fulfilled in practice. This vid is brushing aside all the unfulfilled talk......
Another beautiful video. I am loving this series! Two thoughts emerged for me (both are linked). The first is that of Frankle’s point about man needing to strive slightly. That we are homeostatic organisms (as is a fitting description of all of life) but that our needle tends towards some struggle, yearning, strife. That if all were perfect (all inequality irradiated) and we are neither yearning nor wanting, neither in pleasure nor pain, we actually paradoxically experience that as suffering. If we are slightly wanting for something, then we are happy and find life meaningful. This is mirrored in Dostoyevsky’s “man is not a piano key” sentiment. The second pertains to your video, videos like it, and even my first point. It is Jungian in essence. What are we talking about when we talk of the “we”. Of “man”. People are individuals, not normal distributions. Are we intelligible patterns in groups? Atoms only “behave” in any intelligible manner en masse, that is, statistically. When attempting to diagnose the meaning crisis or assess the male suicide epidemic, can we generalise? I kind of know my own sentiments and feelings (in flux and ephemeral as they are) as they pertain to my own experience of existence at any given moment. Are large psychological surveys or philosophical theories of steadfast worth? Do these conclusions and news stories self-perpetuate in their creation? What does it mean to be British, or of a certain class? Is any of it innate? Here I think we run into the old Adelphic/Socratic insistence to “know thyself”. To avoid the unexamined life. It’s so rich and complicated. I agree with your points. By my agreement, how does that affect the reality of the issue. On a personal level, need it be an issue? One must exist socially, but how fully must one become engrossed in the full broadest picture of humanity or modern man? Is it even graspable in full? I love your videos, thank you for another great one!
We are hardly "More Equal" than before. There are less overt things that we can properly measure inequality with as the titles and instutions are done away with, but their status, and *our* status, remains. There is certaintly no equality of outcome, and neither is there equality of opportunity, only the latter's illusion without its fulfillment. Equality won't come until inherited and enforced inequality are done away with via force, because it can't be done with the volition of the ones who inequality benefits. The supposed problems of extant equality is a result of the discrepancy between what is told and supposed, and what is seen and experienced.
I want to see things get better. Even so, I'm curious to know what you mean by 'We are hardly "More Equal" than before.' It seems you have particular times, places, or ways of things in mind when you wrote that sentence. Would you mind describing them? How are the "we" of one of those times less equal than we were or would've been in the other of your two times? Or, put differently, how are things now-ish less equal (or equally equal?) than before-ish?
@declup What I'm primarily referring to is the distinction between Being Considered Equal, and sincerely Being Equal. On a global scale, "we" aren't slaves anymore, not serfs, not feudal peasants; and "we" aren't patricians, dukes, or emperors. Within a margin of error, we are all regular Citizens who can theoratically govern ourselves, work at and operate a business, hold the powerful accountable, or who are theoratically subject to popular opinion, the wishes of the consumers, and the whims of popular power. In that, we are Considered Equal. In practice, though, in the places that see themselves as upholding such Equality, the powerful of whatever yesteryears we talk about are still the powerful of the current times. The dynasties of slaveholders and landowners have been mushed into the propertarian bourgeoisie class, (wheter or not they categorically fit that classification by holding the means of production isn't what I mean, but they are often associates of those who do just that, and their interests align massively just by the virtue of having influential wealth) at the same time, the slaves, farmers, and worker masses have been smushed into the title of proletariat (again, not categorically fitting of that classification, but their class interests align) Between the two, the dynamic of rulership and servitude remains largely undisturbed. There is maybe once in a lifetime multi-generationally successful startup or otherwise mobility from the lower class to the upper one, but much less than they would be made to believe. Political dynasties remain, old business dynasties remain, even Feudal dynasties still cling on, and there is a barrier that surrounds them that is practically impenetrable for those who are Considered Equal, and in that they aren't sincerely Equal. There is no equality of opportunity because providing that opportunity would require at-least-centuries of precedence and built up wealth and influence to be abolished, which the wealthy and influential can't allow.
@@yveltheyveltal5166-- It doesn't seem like you believe that the ruler-servant relationship has shifted to one of regular citizenship "within a margin of error". Not when you also say "the dynamic [between them] remains largely undisturbed" and "Feudal dynasties cling on". And yet, the capacity (maybe even only theoretical) capacity to govern oneself, to operate a business, and to have at least some effect on the selection of those with political power do seem pretty significant. I consider them important anyway. And, smushed or not, I'd rather be a member of the proletariat of modern times than a slave. Additionally, I don't myself see any evidence of meaningful feudalism -- in the technical sense, I mean, with divinely appointed kings and shoeless serfs bonded to a plot of land. (I do admit, though, that your use of the word 'feudal' may have been for rhetorical effect. I've having a bit of trouble trying to pick out, from your writing style, what you sincerely believe from what you're trying to amplify for effect. Maybe there's isn't any difference, I'm not sure.) All in all, yveltheyveltal5166, I'm still a bit confused by what you _specifically_ _concretely_ mean. Could you maybe point to an example of how there's less equality of opportunity for something like the average person now than there was in the past? -- Edit -- I orginally miswrote my thought about your characterization of the change from historical feudalism to modern-day power disparities. That is, my first line was originally 'the distinction between rulers and servants resides "within a margin of error." But I've, hopefully, edited it to make it more sense.
@declup What I meant by "margin of error" there was that there still are slaves, monarchs, etc. in the world as it is, just not to the same extent as the times in question. I'm not exactly, like, distilling and refining my thoughts here so it's understandable that you're having trouble with what's rhetoric and whats sincere belief, I'm not spending energy on drawing those lines either right now. In short what I mean is that the modern proletariat and ancient slaves aren't more (or less) "equal" with their respective ruling class just because the living conditions has improved in the transition from one servile class to the next. That the lower side of the Inequality equation lives better than it used to grants the illusion that they have a chance to become just like their rulers (equality of opportunity as is preached by the current elite), when in reality that chance hasn't improved at all.
There is a conflation of two concepts here. One is equality before society, i.e. that each and every one of us should be treated equaly. That is something we all should strive for and where I have yet to find a valid counter argument to. The other is more murky. Equity doesn't capture it, because it focuses on outcomes. I guess it could be described as "equality of starting position" or something similar. This can never be. In that sense we have no equal, because no one else (not even an identical twin) shares the EXACT same preconditions or experiences with you. Maybe this can be framed as outward and inward equality. I see outward equality as eminently desirable, which is mirrored by its success in the democratic world. A desire for inward equality on the other hand cannot be achieved, as stated above, and will invariably lead us to missery, because we are inherently unequal in that space. No amount of legislation, social engineering or sheer willpower can change that. What we should then do, as a society, is to differentiate these two concepts, and teach ourselves to compare ourselves to only those who truly are our inward equals, our past selves. This solves the issues stated in the video of envy and resentiment. Treating everyone we come into contact with the same while looking only at ourselves for comparison can and does lead to a happy and contented life. I know, because that's what got me out of an incredible amount of missery.
I am not fully convinced that egalitarianism is a major cause for collective unhappiness. So many aspects of our way of life are so radically different to that of people in the past and continue to exponentially change, so that it might just not be possible to single out a group of major causal factors out of a see of correlations and reasonable explanations. Instead, it might be more interesting to ask what the cause of our changed way of life is.
It's not egalitarianism, it's literally satanic by inverting the natural. Giving power to women always ends bad. Wether in your marriage, or in a society like Rome, Babylon etc.
Agree. The rate of change of EVERYTHING seems so overwhelming it is hard to adapt on any/all levels. Not sure it is fair to blame egalitarianism. Although, as always, the thesis is well supported.
As if any other industry-based system would do better. All these problems ACTUALLY trace back to the start of the Industrial Revolution, which has been a disaster for the human race.
@@killgriffinnow the industrial revolution was the product of capitalism and it’s worst aspects are products of how capitalism relates and uses industrialism. Industrialization did not independently cause our ills as if it’s an autonomous object.
@@StrategyCats this doesn’t even make sense. The Industrial Revolution is not an economic model. And feudalism was miserable- please look into the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions
In order to answer that question we need to differentiate between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. The poets, philosophers and founding fathers were talking about equal opportunity. There really is nothing wrong with that premise especially having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness. Some people want to build empires, others want to just lay on the sidewalk and be beggars. To each there own. A complicated problem arises when we say, the lazy beggar needs to have as much property and happiness as the empire builder. The word happiness comes from happening. Hapless means unfortunate. Hap means good luck and fortune in Old Norse. If you stay busy, make a lot of things happen, you will be happy and have good luck. If you lay on the sidewalk staring at your phone, you will be hapless with one p, unlucky and unhappy. It's really that simple. The key is the pursuit of the second p, which is a choice and does not take much. If a society forces the happy person to give their second p to the hapless person, resentment will follow on both sides. The hapless person who did not earn that p will not become happy because of it and demand more p's resenting and accusing the happy person. The happy person having to give away all his p's will resent the system which makes him look like the bad guy for making and having the p's, while society relies on and desperately needs his ingenuity and industry. It is a system that makes everybody unhappy and breeds resentment. In conclusion, yes equality of opportunity can lead to happiness and is not the enemy. Equality of outcome creates a satanic system which traps the light of the living, breeding resentment, division and general malaise. People should be asking themselves everyday how many p's they currently have and created for themselves and others rather than just counting and demanding the p's of others.
@@bojout Yes, but I'm not sure we can equate egality with social media addiction and depression prevalence the way it is being presented. The information age, social media addiction and depression are probably correlated. Egality and individualism causing depression on the other hand does not correlate directly. Before the information age and social media egality never hindered happiness but made it accessible to the many who did not have the same opportunities. neither can we equate the pre-fall Eden with equality because they are different metaphysical realities. Also the feudal peasant just had to give one tenth of their harvest to the feudal lords in return for military protection from enemies. We have to give 30%, 3 times that amount to our feudal lords in taxes. Although we are more technologically advanced, we actually are more enslaved.
I think both equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are red herrings. The most important thing is equality of dignity. Equality of dignity recognizes and tolerates inequality of outcome and opportunity, but puts checks in place to ensure that these inequalities do not compromise our equal dignity. I see the US Constitution as an early, and deeply flawed, attempt to enshrine equality of dignity into law. "Dignity" here refers to the right to a decent life, to not be arbitrarily deprived or bossed around, to not be humiliated or hated for no reason, to speak your mind and to live as you please.
@@AJX-2 The goal was equal opportunity for all Americans to live a dignified life through guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. It was never the guarantee of equal outcomes. Anybody who guarantees you equality of outcomes for all is lying to you.
So... is there a solution for this? I'm not a philosopher and I'm sure I didn't understand the video 100%, but yeah, what it says it's kind of mind opening especially for me who has kind of always been pro-equality
It's not one or the other though. It's not Gulags or Robber Barons. We can afford all this war aid and defense budget but is that really what is most important to the average American? If we put it to a vote would people vote for that or investing into the well being of our own society? Suicide is at record highs we clearly need to invest in ourselves in some sort of new deal fashion and change our social fabric somehow @@dale6947
I just wanted to thank you for this one. You have essentialized the mix of late renaissance/early modernity that set humans on this quest for democratic disenfranchisement. Now that its all corporation/AI "trustworthiness" I look forward to your harmony of images and implication.
Unfortunately it's still not something I'm organised enough to do at scale however if you send me an email (email is james AT thelivingphilosophy.com) I could email you on a folder with all the images?
I prefer the ending of this one to the optimistic ending of The Lost Art of Leisure. I really can't see a way out, it's like an unstoppable train. Thankfully, not all of humanity is aboard it.
So the problem isn’t equality, but envy, discontent, pointless comparison … are we this shallow, really? Later thought: some are worse than this, they are entitled. But for others, it’s not a character flaw but a deep disconnection from themselves (trauma, childhood emotional neglect) which has nothing to do with rising equality. To be honest, as we go from the control of rigid social structures and religion, this is a period of adjustment. Bring on the new solutions!
Equal opportunity isn't equality. We have something resembles to equal opportunity, but we don't have equality. The society is still very hierarchical, the winner takes all. People are forced to compete and climb the social ladder not only because of jealousy and vanity. The resources are so unequally distributed, staying at the bottom is absolutely miserable, not a good option.
I can't even imagine how unbearably boring life would be if I had all the answers, or worse If I had no impetus to even have questions to be answered. If just like a herd animal I spent my days grazing in the pasture. How unbearable life must have been before this "equality" lie you mention for anyone that was not a herd animal.
the most major problem I have with this is that modernity did not make us equal, and that, in my mind, we ate not significantly happier or more miserable than our ancestors
Maybe what happens on this planet doesn’t center around humans and human happiness. As you asked at the end of the video: What are we doing here? Seems to have something to do with evolution. The planet today is a lot different than it was three or four billion years ago.
From my perspective, you can't achieve an easier and happier world when people themselves are not enlightened and make problems for themselves or onto others. It's not a one way switch to achieve a happier world, just by passing a law made out of paper, it has to be the individual who has to make their own path and decisions.
@@SC-gw8np Not just that, it's kind of a generational thing, especially with youths who think they already know a lot about the world just because they attended the most prestigious school/college in a country
@@RenceAsANoob It all stems from the (very modern) idea that all knowledge comes from outside us rather than from within. People don’t realise that a lot of modern institutional knowledge is based on layers and layers of untruths and ignorance.
I dont support equality, but i support fairness. In equality, a healthy man and a cripple with get the same opportunities, but one will live in constant disadvantage. In fairness, the cripple man will receive special support he needs to live life to the fullest but receive different opportunities than the healthy man.
I agree with the premise of your video that the perception of possible equality causes a lot of anger and depression. But the parallel of the garden of Eden to the Enlightenment is clearly (IMHO) false - the world is not an equal place and the idea of equality as a right is not "the Truth" but a delusion. In other words, it's not that the events you mentioned (French Revolution, American War of Independence, etc) set the world as it is supposed to be (the True way) but they were attempts at something that isn't true and we now come to see that.
Not to be a social climate change denier but how do you compare the depression rates between now and medieval times when the numbers you're using for comparison only go back to the 1950s? That seems like a *lot* of extrapolation.
The bend in logic with this one is great. No really, I didn't think it was possible to utter such nonsense but you proved me wrong. I see that studing sophism was not wasted on you.
Contract will not revert back to collective compulsion until the collapse of the private space.. It is the supply chain that sustains the private space
the private space is where we conspire against the mass which has bin negated to the global south.. We think while they collectively hunger as ghosts of the underworld
Too bad nobody could have told Jefferson that high IQ doesn't necessarily guarantee success in the typical sense. Not too mention how many different kinds of intelligence there are. Its hard to say if true equality is even possible, the only chance we have is if everyone genuinely gives their best at least 90% of the time, perhaps then we may find some positive changes.
Egalitarianism is derived from subjectivism. Neither which exist in nature. It makes great source material for sowing seeds of envy and hatred in human society. Troublemakers find it very useful in their nefarious plots.
that's why i don't bother with saying i seek for equality. gotta be honest, to myself at least, and admit that i seek supremacy. Will that make us happier, will it be better? I don't know and I don't care.
Génesis points to the essence of human dignity. “Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness.” Equality is all about sameness, not likeness. Focus, through the lens of a creation myth, on the difference between sameness and likeness and you will never be depressed.
inequality in the us is as bad as 100 years ago at least economically, this isnt an issue we have. u could say capitalism and democracy give some illusion of it when there isnt very much and ppl dont have enough power, a change of systems is needed. one only need look to china where more than 80% apparently approve of their govt to see a better alternative.
Society has become a place where victim hood is taking us on a race to the bottom, very few are willing to take personal responsibility for our decisions & outcomes whether good or bad. What happens when we’ve passed the tipping point, when every victim looks to others to resolve all our issues....who’ll do this when only the victims remain?
@@lewizark680 I agree. I can count only two people I’ve met who would be considered just flat-out “lazy”, and they had so many other problems besides. Most everyone is willing to work/fight for their happiness. Anyone saying otherwise is selling you something, be it a product or an idea.
Even the biggest winners claim to be victims though, and victims can be winners. American independence for example, founded by a bunch of whiny new aristocrats that wanted a king to redress their greivances because they wanted more status and weren't happy with less.
I think life is actually too easy for most people. People can be poor in terrible countries yet still be happy and joyful, the understanding that life is nasty, brutish and short lets them appreciate the good parts of life more and work harder for it. Our material situation is better than ever yet our moral or spiritual wellbeing seems to be in freefall. The ideal would be to have both, of course.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Well, in this video he only views equality as something which creates bad circumstances and objects to it that equality is normally viewed as good. However, the fact is that to understand truly what equality implies and how it is used and should be used, you need to let go of the basic morals of the thing for which you gain a higher understanding of the term both ontologically, epistemologically, and morally. In short, be conscious of your bias.
@@michaelmcclure3383 as for example, he uses equality as the source of discontent without actually looking what was going on without the term. That is what happened to liberty, economics, society, ideology, history, science during this shift. For a Marxist, this discontent is not due to some sort of psychological inherent to the application of equality but due to the alienation of the proletariat.
Wow. A Nihilist drowning in his own negativity: a self-fulling prophesy. Do people really believe or want full equality or do most accept that striving for equality before the law is enough to maintain a "reasonable" society?
Sorry but since when are we co sidering alain de botton as a serious source conserning philosophy while he spent years just brilliantly butchering and simplifying philosophers?
Injustice can be corrected, doing so brings one closer to Truth, which enlivens our sense of being and strengthens society. Each has natural endowments by which good use brings joy and peace. This comes naturally in a temperament of love, perhaps this is the virtue to which Jefferson was referring.
For civilisation to begin - Its very simple: if we divert all the trillions being wasted on war and space, then everyone on earth could have a free home, free food, free medical treatment, free education, and then look after the elderly properly and with respect. Me
A key issue with egalitarianism is that it ignores any genetic advantages that individuals or groups might have. This denial of reality allows those with high IQs to rise to top of society, while at the same time denying the source of their privilege. In the United States, IQ is a higher predictor of future success than socio-economic status. We may find that many of our social problems go away if we stop assuming that we are all biologically equal and instead treat genetics as the actual most important privilege in a post-industrial information society. "To whom much is given, much is expected."
Those who come from money do better than those who don't come from money. IQ isn't just genetic, it's upbringing. IQ can be improved through studying before the test. Sure, every so often a particularly bright poor person manages to escape their socioeconomic start, but they are the exception, in the same way it's possible for some privileged people to mess up so badly they become homeless. But it's rare. The monied elite believe they control society, business and government because they are superior, that they achieved their success through their own hard work. Zoom out and look at it schools that went to, the houses they lived in and it's clear they are just products of a system that gave them everything, their personal success is an illusion
@@DenkyManner I wish that were true, but it isn't. IQ can't be improved by studying - the questions on IQ tests can't be studied for (see Raven's Progressive Matrices for example). Many, many studies have proven that intelligence is highly heritable and that IQ tests are a reasonable measure of intelligence. The only reason people deny the overwhelming scientific evidence is because of the gaps. It's fairly common now in the US for poor Asian kids with high IQ massively outperform other groups. This is why some states are getting rid of honors classes and making entry into elite public schools a lottery instead of by test scores, and why many colleges are getting rid of standardized testing.
@@wexomixo-- Are there any specific studies out of the group you've looked at that you find the most helpful or clear-eyed? (I hope they're not behind a paywall, because I'm rather curious to check them out.)
