zuckerwattenzauber I'm from India and yes, your way of teaching is really lucid and humourous. Thank you! and yes, English is not my first language too.
Man, Thank You! Currently pulling an all nighter for a modern political thought exam in the morning, shout out from Ireland, decent taste in tunes too :)
Great Video! I really appreciate you posting these! Could you do one video comparing all the enlightenment thinkers briefly, maybe in a timeline sort of format?
The philosophes are definitely on my list of videos to make this semester - with so many of them, I can't guarantee that it will be brief - but it will be done.
Can you help clarify one point for me? When you talk about Locke's writing you say he was writing against the back drop of the glorious and almost bloodless revolution, do you mean the American Revolution? Because I thought that the American Revolution was somewhat influenced by Locke's writing and not the other way around...? Thanks!
And Romulus and Remus feeding of the teat of the she-wolf too! Man, I need to get more cool stuff like that. Cool lectures, man! Great free and easy platform for learning European history that most don't offer online.
Philosophy was not meant to be hard and not able to be understood. Your videos are doing an excellent job bringing an interest to this important subject. Thank you.
Roberto Rodriguez-Nunez Thanks a bunch for the kind words! I have absolutely no formal training in philosophy - I'm a historian with a general interest in the subject and believe strongly in its value to the human mind. I'm hopeful that people with a casual interest may watch some of my videos and be drawn to more advanced studies as a result.
Roberto Rodriguez-Nunez Doing okay... Focusing now on Reformation Theology, which I guess is a branch of philosophy. Hoping to turn out more philosophy videos once I hit my rhythm with these history videos I'm trying to produce each week.
I always feel like a poor 2nd-rater, because my classical education is so weak. I sort of skim the highlights. Richey's enabling my willful ignorance with Cliff Notes versions of these matters. But then, not many people know what a topological vector space is, which I know a little something about.
From Monty Python's "Live at the Hollywood Bowl" Transcribed by John Daley jdaley@picasso.ocis.temple.edu Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable, Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table, David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist, Socrates himself was permanently pissed... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill, Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day, Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram, And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am." Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed. Read more: Monty Python - Immanuel Kant Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Good Ben Afflect: the prequel to Good will Hunting - set in the 17th century where he was Hobbes' lamb. Hobbes really got his ideas from a lamb name BA - Ba ba ba ba ba
It's been ten years since the original upload and I have to say that this is the best video I've seen on the topic thus far. Thank you again for making this. I want to highlight to people that sometimes you don't need really badly animated videos to talk about philosophy. You can just be a human being and bring information to people in an effective and timely matter. Your notes/lecture are helping me get through my Ethics and intro to philosophy class in Community College. Thanks again. - Bob. : )
I just want to thank you so much for brilliantly summing up Hobbes and Locke in under 20 minutes whereas I have stumbled through it for two weeks to no avail. Awesome job to say the least
Nate Washup Glad I could help! As far as turning the lectures into podcasts, I'd have to figure out some stuff about how to do that with Apple... but I may make some of these lectures available in audio format on my website.
A question of utmost importance to philosophy: Why do you leave the tea bag in and allow your tea to become bitter? What is the meaning of bitterness, and why do you like a taste that exists as a mechanism to prevent you from ingesting poison?
+James Connolly Tea ought to be bitter! The bitterness is essential to tea flavor! I don't know why tea bitterness is so good, it just is. Blame the tastebuds.
+James Connolly Bitterness is to discourage eating unsafe food. However we also have the ability for acquired tastes if what we're eating isn't harmful, the more you drink black coffee the more you'll like it. That's another advantage instilled in us, to take more enjoyment in a food if it turns out not to be harmful.
HA! Glad you approve! This is my most popular video and I can't make a dime off of it because I sampled Mastodon's music, but I wouldn't do it any differently if I had to do it over again. I love me some Mastodon - thinking about going to their listening party in Atlanta for the new album on Monday!
Hello sir, I am Abhilasha. I closely follow your videos on Political science. They are very very very interesting. I would like to request you to please make a video on Rousseau and about the General Will.
Thanks, Hamish! OMATS is no Blood Mountain, but there are some good tracks - especially Chimes at Midnight and Diamond in the Witch House. I'm watching your album review now!
''Those of you that have trouble with the English language and would like to see it translated into Latin..'' haha, this seriously made my day! I have an essay due on the differences and similarities between Locke and Hobbes in 5 hours, and used this video as extra, last minute research. After reading countless books and articles for weeks on end, this basically summarised everything I needed to know. Thanks for sharing!
vik saggu I doubt he would have been pleased. Locke was writing after the Glorious Revolution, in which very little blood was spilled - so little that many call it "bloodless."
Hi, new subscriber here. By the way, I'm from Philippines. Thanks for this informational video. This'll surely be of great help for me in my upcoming board exam.
What a pompous dooface--with the tea-bag tea and the snuffing. Not all knowledge serves the purpose of AP testing, but the video is premised on this assumption, without even a word of warning. And if you were to redo the video, do away with the (entirely unfunny) threats.
If you want to know how influential these guys still are in today’s world, just look around the world and you realize most governments are either Monarchs or constitutional republics
The Calvin and Hobbes view of human nature might be more of a reason that we need a republican form of government, never too much liberty nor too much control in the hands of utterly depraved and fallible individuals.
Thanks for video. Any philosopher, educator, political scientist that concludes the roots of government are in ancient Greece or Rome, have committed racism, and revisionist white-supremacist history/thinking. In actuality, the top ancient Greeks went to school in Khm/Khemet/Kemet aka Egypt. Further, Persian and Mesopotamian and also Indus Valley civilizations all had governments that were very successful. But white supremacists limit the definition of govenment to white ones (ancient Greek and ancient Roman, Germanic, Celt, British). Then they take dogma from anglo / white versions of black spirituality and infuse another racist construct, the white Jesus. Therefore, any conclusions, even those that seem logical and non-racist are partial truths and can't possibly give true freedom and justice to the black and brown homo sapines on the planet. We are all family from Africa.
greetings from Morocco, great video, loved the last table comparing the two, very helpful, would love to see their ideas versus rousseau and more recent social contract philosopher (proudhon, rawls ...). love the mastodon hints. great help
The difference I find with both philosophers is that Hobbes believed that humans were naturally born evil, and Locke thought that humans were originally born as 'tabula rasas', a state of mind where knowledge is completely nonexistent. Locke thought of them as innocent beings; neither good or evil. That is what I remember from a couple of years ago.(This video brings back the nostalgia I had when I was in high school learning this, and I still know a lot about it now. I remember getting an A- in that English class. Hopefully, I preserve this knowledge so that I can help my younger brother get a more educated understanding of this lesson later on when he's in middle school.)
I don’t think Jefferson was worried about plagiarism when he changed property to the pursuit of happinesses. I think it’s more plausible that he didn’t want poor people thinking that they had any right to land. Just my opinion! Loved the video and the sound track lol🤘
The Original Sate of human kind isnt the same. They may be both talking about the state of nature but this state differs from one to another. Hobbes´ state of nature is war while Lockes state of nature is cooperation.
Wow i just realized by watching your video that my college professor basically copied everything you said in the manner you said it, INCLUDING some of your jokes.. smh
its not that i dont trust anybody, its just that i dont trust some people and since im not sure who those people are i must act the same with all people just in case.
I like a lot of Hobbes' premises, but not his conclusions. As much as it would be great, do not see it as realistic for there to be a benevolent dictator (which if it were, would help overcome problems of democracy that Socrates identified).
Man, your explanation is amazing!! I'm brazilian and i'm going to have a test in 2 hours in my college and u just told, brightly, what i needed!! Thanks!!
I'm studying him right now, and he explicitly states we should stop obeying in two cases : 1) The sovereign's behaviour threatens our right to self preservation (aka he tries to kill you or he stops you from having access to enough food) 2) The sovereign is not powerful enough as an authority to prevent the state of nature (People are killing and stealing from each other, and the state isn't doing anything about it). These are two very extreme cases, that wouldn't have justified the English Civil war that took place at the time when the Leviathan was written. :)
Finally you got the facts correct. Amazing! This reminds me of myself a sophomore student correcting my modes of reasoning professor about deontology, where many human rights principles like going against capital punishment and etc were based upon. :).
Thoroughly enjoyable lecture and presented very clearly (and nice use of humour). I'm sure you helped that student out! :) And Mastodon is awesome. Thanks for your efforts.
+Stephen Coleman nope. according to hobbes in leviathan, the sovereign's authority is absolute but not limitless. when the sovereign fails to protect, it's authority is relinquished. It would be a matter of a broken social covenant.
+Nebojsa Galic The right is to flee the monarch and return to the state of nature, because the soveriegn has already returned you to the state of nature by making a direct assault on your right of nature: self preservation.
+Nebojsa Galic My understanding has always been that Hobbes does not give the right to rebel against a monarch. The catch is--and I recognize this is contradictory--that in the event that the people DO attempt to depose the sovereign, it is legitimate if they are successful. So, basically, they have no right to do it...unless they win. This is based on the idea that, if the people are successful in deposing the sovereign, it must be because the sovereign was illegitimate--i.e., the sovereign was weak and could not perform its function, thus was illegitimate.
Why do all theses philosophes feel the need to generalize human nature? Can we not accept that _some_ of us are inherently evil _some_ of us are inherently good, and the rest us fall somewhere in-between based on circumstance, role models, and environment?
From one teacher to another...kudos! I keep telling people, there's no reason to even go to college anymore, except to get that piece of paper and of course if one isn't motivated to study all this independently. This helps me get to essence of what I want to teach my students.
Education is the journey towards a future job; it doesn't need to be boring or reflect the potential negative aspects of the working world. Don't be so pessimistic and start looking at the positive side of everything ;)
I love using dynamic vids like this to illustrate points to my students. Tom, you manage to make works like this *WITHOUT* resorting to cheap tricks like profanity, double entendres or scatalogical humor. You instead use a relaxed, gentle wit and confident knowledge to get your point across. There's no need for me to worry when I show your vids to my students- even those who don;t like Mastadon say you're better than John Green. :) Take care, JM
Why do you lock your door? We lock our door against the one, not against the many. Whenever I have left the door open and unlocked, nobody has even tried to violate my peace. Thus I would say that the many are good, but the one among the many may wreak harm, not because the one is necessarily evil by nature, but poverty, especially poverty which results from bad government, may drive one to desperate acts. Poverty is a subsidiary evil, which derives from the one primary evil, bad government. [Love the dialogue. Many thanks.]
Please cite a peer-reviewed source for this. The imprisonment rate of the poor is disproportionate, not the rate at which each socioeconomic class commits crime. Speeding is a crime, I would imagine the affluent are much more capable of committing this crime than the impoverished. You've no parameters set to your argument, and it is also a false notion that poverty is the motivator for criminality; if that were so--a critical mass of impoverished persons would be criminals, and not a minority.
JMM4886 Look city by city within the US, its undeniable that poverty mixed with dense population is the driving force behind crime and murder, has nothing to do with guns, guns are just a tool of choice criminals use to commit the crime , not what gives them the intent. Ban guns and criminals will not only still get guns, they will start using other weapons, and it will be easier for them to prey on people because they will feel safer acting on their intent. Only .002 % of people who buy a gun legally go on to use it in a crime, 98.8% of guns purchased legally are never used in a crime. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2012) When a criminal feels safe, they commit more crime. Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found: 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed. 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot. 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens. 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed. 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims. 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police. Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone. Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
***** Criminality is not driven solely by poverty, poverty may be a contributing factor, but criminality across the board is relatively equal. If you're referring to incarceration rates, then yes, the poor are regularly incarcerated more than the affluent and middle class. There are a number of reasons why: social ties within the community, ability to afford good legal representation, types of crime ranging in severity of criminality due to arbitrary MMS (i.e. possession of "crack"--commonly attributed to be a drug of the less affluent, and possession of cocaine--commonly a drug attributed to the more affluent; 1g of crack is a felony while 1g of cocaine is a misdemeanor [in GA]). If poverty were the motivator for criminality, there would be relatively little "poor" people on the streets, and in the communities and cities of the United States. Secondly, I have no idea where your firearm rant came from. I agree with your sentiment, but it is all moot as it has nothing to do with the discussion here within this comment thread. And, I would not use "wikipedia" as your primary source of reference. I know of a professor that purposefully alter facts in Wikipedia just because.. not to mention what the average internet user does to the information within. Lastly, I'm not !00% certain on the number, but most murders are crimes of passion (a.k.a. heat of the moment). Poverty does not make one more susceptible to passion.
Hi Tom, I just wanted to say that I teach Media and Politics and we cover Hobbes and Locke on the course and I always show my students this video and they love it!! It is so useful and it is funny. I love it! Thanks so much! If you can look at our English language learning channel and tell us what you think then what would be great. Thanks again :)
Oh My Goodness! This was such an entertaining and informational video. My history teacher just spits out information at us, but you make it fun and manageable. Thanks so much!
So, I, now, understand! Thank you so much Tom, this was so helpful! My exam is on Monday and I feel more confident about it now. Greetings from London.
Is Hobbes talking about God as the absolute monarchy, like a theocracy or something? That seems to be the only creature that fits the Bill of being able to control through absolute authority. How is a king that is finite able to rule absolutely, and who is also subject to his own totally depraved nature? I find what Hobbes's says interesting but I just fail to understand how it works in application. I have always felt that absolute monarchy is the best form of social order if you could find such a just and right creature able to rule in such a way.
