Why? I don't agree with his lumping in of Kant with Hegel. Their philosophies are extremely different in fundamental ways that would seem crucial to the development of wokism. For starters, Kant believed in an objective (noumenal) world, and Hegel completely threw out that notion. This alone would seem quite relevant to the development of a worldview premised upon subjectivity as being the whole of the universe. And Kant has historically been referred to as an exemplar of Enlightenment thinking, which makes Hicks' assertion that Kant is anti-Enlightenment seem arbitrary at best without better reasons. If Kant is anti-Enlightenment by virtue of his inability to find certain attributes of the noumenal world knowable, then surely DesCartes must likewise be regarded as anti-Enlghtenment. It is from DesCartes' "Cogito" that Kant's epistemology proceeds, after all. And, if there's any thinker who embodies the Enlightenment more than Kant, it would have to be DesCartes', the father of the Scientific Method. In short, I found this discussion interesting. But, Hicks' lumping in of Kant with Hegel is puzzling. Especially in an analysis concerning the roots of wokism.
Also, the notion that Kant's epistemology is not based on the principal of sufficient reason seems self-evidently wrong. Again, if there's ANYONE who typifies reason, it is certainly Immanuel Kant. We can debate the soundness, validity and products of Kant's reasoning, but to assert that his ideas are not grounded in reason seems preposterous. His most famous work is the Critique of Pure Reason, for crying out loud. It's a far cry from the epistemology of Hegel.
@@michaelking1091 I don't know what Hermeticism would have to do with these epistemological issues. But, that's OK! So long as we're off the Kant/Hegel equivalency, I'm satisfied enough!
Woke is not voluntary. It does not exist without continuous politics, force, violence and destruction, as well as the kinds of lies and deception found in famous Orwellian books. But Woke also cleverly vale's itself in being compassionate and feeling morally superior.
Woke is not a deliberate ideology adopted to con one's peers. Woke is a corruption of liberalism and socialism; gone off the rails. It may seem to you and me that woke is a pile of poo which no one could possibly accept - yet wokes themselves gain from their beliefs to the extent those beliefs unify the woke behind common values and aims.
Excellent discussion. I would add that professional programs, such as Business and Education, among others, have been inundated with Marxist/Woke philosophies deviously worked into the curriculum, in some cases at least since the early 1990's. A great deal of work must be done across all levels of education to purge irrational ideologies.
You can add that all you want, but it's simply not true. There's not a single business class in the United States of America that teaches anything but capitalist philosophy. They all just go off the assumption that nothing but capitalism exists. I would also argue that if you feel you need to purge an idea that you're not the good guy in this scenario. Leftest thought and ideas occur naturally in a society as it progresses and becomes more tolerant. What you want to do is force people to absorb your ideology. Just like the nazis did. You, And everyone else in these comments, is just saying a bunch of stuff They heard before with no evidence to back it up. There's no such thing as woke. There are right wing extremists, and there is everybody else. The propagandists just call everybody else Woke and you're falling for it.
the uploader chooses when and how many ads are shown in their videos, depending on how much money they are planning to make for themselves. That’s pretty basic knowledge friend.
it would appear then that the ideological thrust of post modernism is akin to the distinction swift makes between horses & humans in gullivers travels which rodenberry revisioned as vulcan:romulan as facsimile of reason:unreason (feeling) landing firmly on the side of feeling over rationality
1:01:15 This definitely describes me from ages 20-24. Hicks is right on the money. It's almost embarrassing how accurately he describes my psychology when I was Marxist.
Watched a few interviews with Stephen Hicks and I find myself repeatedly blown away by his extreme lucidity and presence of mind. You can ask this man ENORMOUS questions and it seems his mind is almost instantly able to systematize that question and break it down into its components, present a clear outline of said components, and then delve into each one in depth without losing track of the entire question. This man has the ability to speak casually in the format of an organized essay. Absolutely fucking genius. Thanks for this upload!
I used to agree more with Hicks, but now, under the influence of psychology, I see real limits to reason. I do think that those of us committed to reason can still debate and reason. But experience tells me only a few people are so committed. Most people who say they're committed to reason are only superficially so. As soon as one gets on the wrong side of their value system, they generally revert to tribalism.
philosophy seems in my understanding to be a multifaceted dialogue across time between philosophers: the complex web of innovation & interpretaton explains why philosophy is divided into schools & associations
I don't think that's what philosophy is. Do not assume that everyone engaged in what seems to be philosophical dialog is open to reason. People often put their values ahead of reason and those values, themselves are often not subject to rational examination. I think post-modernism made this trend (values before reason) more common. As such, what we know of as everyday philosophy today is more broke than it's been for 300+ years.
@mark4asp perhaps a personal ethic & morality is more akin to what philosophy may mean to some, but then again, the Greeks understood the rabbis as philosophers
...who ever thinks their woke, must be seriously questioned. Like what is artificial cultures and what is organic cultures. Woken to what. I know I’m woke, cause I question myself all the time, and certainly know I am on a major learning curve, and I know I got to get enough sleep. 😆 sure is interesting though. This whole concept of Woke. Who made that up?! It’s just a passing dangerous tangent! Woke must mean going back to nature and being organic and whole earth friendly. Right?! 😆 might just be way too simple!
@@mark4asp Being woke (or liberal, or politically correct or whatever faux pejorative) isn’t intolerance of any of those things. That’s quite possibly projection talking. It’s quite the reverse. Woke means being enlightened, aware of or awake to intolerance or social injustice... SJW. Another faux pejorative. Concern about climate change isn’t intolerance of deniers. Support for one thing isn’t the same as intolerance for another. That’s just bad reasoning. A classic false choice or black and white fallacy. As to being genial, that’s an aesthetic associated with the upper class of the time. Liberals (as in centrists or actual liberals, not the faux pejorative) still place too much emphasis on manners, if you ask me.
