Wait until the second half, when he gets to the philosophical implications of the first half.
Tl;dr: basically he claims that abiding by ideals and principles is never in anyone's interests and that politics is not about ideology as much as about group interests and group conflict. One should never become lost in the abstract world of forms while there's a very real and a very material world ripping apart at your foothold.
For example a libertarian who refuses using state benefits will be at a disadvantage and over time this will both end badly for him personally and possibly snuff libertarianism from existence.
What does Veeky Forums think? Is there any literature on the subject? In specific on the conflict of the world of forms and reality?
I chose Veeky Forums for this because I doubt the /pol/ crowd is able to appreciate its philosophy.
>you should resort to the lower behavior of most people because it's more realistic and works no thanks
Grayson Harris
>concern yourself with real politics, not forms the author of this video killed socrates
Adam Davis
What makes you think this is the case?
Isaiah Smith
Yes, that IS the tragedy.
For an analogue, imagine you having built a tall ladder to see from high above what the world really is like. Now imagine there are still people who have no clue as to what you saw and no interest in it, and that they're tugging and pulling at your ladder because you're blocking their sun. Your only choice is to come down the ladder and push their shit in or fall to your death.
For the libertarian in my example, this would mean relinquishing libertarianism and returning to the real world where groups of people roll over other groups of people and engage in the same.
Or imagine trying compete with someone who sees no wrong in breaking the law if its in their interests, whereas you abide by the law. All else being equal, it is him who will get the upper hand, iteration after iteration.
A more visual and crude analogue would be trying to defend yourself in a bar fight using philosophy. It'll get you knocked out and there's a chance all your philosophical thoughts will die with you. Your only chance is to "fall down" to lower levels and raise up your hands.
It's not pretty and it's not idealistic and it's not romantic, but it's how evolution functions and what game theory tries to explain. People who become all uppity in the world of forms will perish.
Isaiah Flores
Don't you mean Plato?
Colton Baker
I thought that was obvious?
Ryan Gutierrez
>abiding by ideals and principles is never in anyone's interests and that politics is not about ideology as much as about group interests and group conflict Politics is indeed about group interests. However, why should the group come before the individual? Because it is "less advantageous" for survival in the group?
Groups need leaders and leaders need to be strong individuals. It is less advantageous for the group to push out all focus on ideals and principles.
Gavin Clark
No.
A lot of arguments are thrown around about, say, discriminating people based on their backgrounds. Individualism this, meritocracy that, etc. All the while there's groups that oppose you who don't abide by such limiting ideologies and engage in cronyism, discrimination, group interests etc.
This is descriptive of a large part of western politics.
Xavier Cooper
He isn't arguing for any sort of collectivism. He's just pointing out that one cannot remain an "independent individual" in a world where there's a lot of people who go by groupthink and group interests. Neither can one remain a slave to their ideologies when it puts them at a disadvantage.
Colton Cox
Well that's more reasonable. I thought he was saying something else since the OP said "is NEVER in anyone's interests" when that is not true.
That said, producing strong individuals who can be independent and above the groupthink is more or less the whole purpose of civilization. It's not to make life cozy for a bunch of idiots.
Tyler Reyes
...
Noah Jones
>principles is never in anyone's interests as long as there's groups who don't abide by those principles,* should've been the specification.
You need to clarify what you mean by a "strong individual" because whether you mean Great Men as per the great man theory or simply an entire nation comprised of strong individuals will affect the meaning.
Isaiah Ramirez
Not EXACTLY the great man theory, but closer to that. I don't think that history is merely a series of great men making impacting changes on the world. History is that, plus the series of ELECTIONS of these great men. Great men don't come out of nowhere, they are produced. The spirit of a generation and cultural setting culminates finally in a single or few individuals who exhibit the most admired traits from that generation and cultural setting, adopting them as virtues (traits and abilities which do not come at the cost of the individual's power), with also the means by which they can persevere far beyond the limitations of said spirit, which gets the ball rolling for the next generation's spirit. All of civilization, throughout history, has aimed to produce these men, time and again. You can even see it in small towns, even in families, at the macro and the micro levels of the universe. The only ones in civilization and all of the universe who are not interested in producing these beings are the chandala, as Nietzsche puts it, the lowest ranked organisms who are seeking the destruction of the entire structural order out of a deep-seated resentment.
A balance is needed. Politics is the leveling of individual interests, but so that the development of GREATER individual interests can proceed, not so that the development of the group can proceed.
Logan Gomez
>He isn't arguing for any sort of collectivism In effect he is.
Grayson Foster
>appeals to game theory and “evolution” lol animal
Asher Price
“If man really wishes to be a “superior species,” he has to give up the habit of acting as the “inferior” ones do.” - Savitri Devi
"There have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years. There is less distance between the man-ape and the ordinary modern man than there is between the ordinary modern man and a man like Schopenhauer.” - Hitler
Racial idealism >>>>> "Racial" "identity" People who fight solely for their identity would be willing to kill someone who has their exact beliefs, characteristics, habits, goals, etc because they have outgrouped them due to the background of their ancestors; such people should never have any say over the rule of a large mass.
>basically he claims that abiding by ideals and principles is never in anyone's interests For the honourable few, ideals and principles are what gives them a purpose in life >politics is not about ideology as much as about group interests and group conflict. one can recognize this and seek to transcend it with ideas >One should never become lost in the abstract world of forms while there's a very real and a very material world ripping apart at your foothold. Idealism vs Naturalism, Plato vs Aristotle, the Gnostic Left vs the Traditionalist Right, on and on it goes. I'll only add that those who believe they can change the world are the ones who do. >Is there any literature on the subject? Specific to race, the works of Savitri Devi and Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg discuss racial idealism and "type formation." This link has more from a national socialist perspective, which has ideal goals but is willing to use naturalistic methods. aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/naturalism-vs-idealism/ >In specific on the conflict of the world of forms and reality? The conflict is within the mind of the person asserting that reality and the forms are separate and wholly distinct; in the idealist there is no conflict.
Leo Perry
Patently false.
The Great Man theory is a bunch of BS and anyone who doesn't have a superficial understanding of history will understand it.
If civilizations were about pumping out these great men, we would see a lot more meritocratic systems and enlightenment ideals instead of cronyism, slavery, oppression, etc.
Great men don't come from cultures that "breed them". They come from whereever, be it a tribal society bent on killing each other or an economic depression or a royal pampered family. They just come, occasionally.
Chase Wilson
Do you know how I know you never watched the video?
Nathaniel Brooks
>steals shit from Blavatsky without crediting her because she was a meek dopey Russian aristocrat with not enough political sway to keep her ideas locked away from stupids >her discipled betray her and use her theories to spread fascism >rosenberg takes spencer and blavatsky and turns them into a hideous hybrid of lunatic politically motivated non-universalist idealism >hitler loses war because doesn’t understand America+USSR=Death >Devi makes up name for herself and starts writing lunacy bout Kalki and Chakravartin >Serrano does this too >enough time passes so that fascism is in vogue again and you can continue stealing Herbert Spencer, Spengler, Blavatsky and other non-germanic essentialist thinkers ideas with impunity >make a mockery of population genetics to try to claim other people’s histories slaves all of you, insolent bugs
Gabriel Taylor
>If civilizations were about pumping out these great men, we would see a lot more meritocratic systems and enlightenment ideals instead of cronyism, slavery, oppression, etc. Why do you think so? All those things — cronyism, slavery, oppression, etc. — are consequences and reactions to the ultimate goal of producing greatness in general. They are spurned off by that goal and by the presence of great people by the variations of weakness present in civilization.
>They come from wherever Not a compelling explanation in the slightest.
Nathaniel Torres
>Not a compelling explanation in the slightest. Find me a unifying factor in what produced these men.
Fact is, YOU are being outgrouped by other groups, and if you cling to your ideals while they cling to the material world, guess which one's gonna feed you or keep you from getting beheaded.
Noone said cooperation between races isn't possible. Just that on the bigger part, their interests conflict.
Ryder Edwards
>Find me a unifying factor in what produced these men. Will to power, the most base will in all lifeforms. It's not a conscious production, but an inevitably subconscious one.
