These are excellent videos for Prager University. The introduction text is also solid and inspiring. Thank you.
There is one logical fallacy that torpedoes the case. A thing (good or bad) cannot be the cause of itself. The reason must be antecedent to the thing. Saying that the problem of Marxism is Marxism is ineffective. You pointed out that the goal of Marxism is to change human nature. Human nature is a given. Human nature is not going to change. We know that. The kids are taught otherwise today. They believe it. The videos don't address that.
Not to recognize all the ills of the mixed economy is to ignore that people know things are bad, but they have not been offered a strong case for disbelieving the "there's a light at the end of the tunnel" and "the state will wither away." Just because Marxism has consistently failed is not a hat on which to hook a principled opposition.
The answer must be in the nature of human nature itself and must be an implicit assumption made in 1776 -1789 by the Founders regarding the nature of rights. We are living through a proliferation of so-called "rights." It has gotten much worse in the last 20 years as if time is running out, or in the words of Atlas Shrugged, our "days are numbered." The implicit assumption has been replaced by explicit knowledge, but the concept of rights has not been updated.
I would look to something in the definition of rights that needs to be explicitly restricted and clarified based on human nature. It would have to be simple and exact to make Marxism obviously wrong in principle. Morality might trump economics, but ultimately the metaphysically given, man's conceptual consciousness forms the basis of human nature itself.
Philosophy must adjust to reality, and the longer it takes to adjust, the harder it becomes. Perhaps this is the idea that will move the cultural needle toward rationality. I doubt Prager will favor this notion because Christianity is basically Platonist. Objectivism is the only philosophy that could lead the way.
“No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come” ― Victor Hugo.
Thank you for inspiring me to reason this out to something of a new "big question" for me. I value your clear presentation and your passion. Thanks again.
The problem with Marxism is collectivism, with those at the top deciding for the collective what their greatest good is (and then, as the videos point out, making sure that this greatest good is enforced.) Our real greatest good is that we're each free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law.
You hit the nail with the issue of the "greatest good." The greatest good is not the solution -- it is a problem.
You may have noticed that year by year; the law is increasing the constraints and decreasing freedom. You may have seen societal legislation, executive orders, entitlements, and selective investigations based on political ideology. These have transformed the United States. We have moved from a society of individual sovereignty to one of life-by-permission.
The breach between individual sovereignty and the greatest good is a philosophical divide much deeper than collectivism versus the "greatest good." Collectivism predetermines your master. The "greatest good" empowers your neighbors to choose your master. Either way, your master will define your life and may permit you to live it. Individual sovereignty is the idea that is under constant attack, even from those who think they are defending it but glorifying the greatest good.
These are excellent videos for Prager University. The introduction text is also solid and inspiring. Thank you.
There is one logical fallacy that torpedoes the case. A thing (good or bad) cannot be the cause of itself. The reason must be antecedent to the thing. Saying that the problem of Marxism is Marxism is ineffective. You pointed out that the goal of Marxism is to change human nature. Human nature is a given. Human nature is not going to change. We know that. The kids are taught otherwise today. They believe it. The videos don't address that.
Not to recognize all the ills of the mixed economy is to ignore that people know things are bad, but they have not been offered a strong case for disbelieving the "there's a light at the end of the tunnel" and "the state will wither away." Just because Marxism has consistently failed is not a hat on which to hook a principled opposition.
The answer must be in the nature of human nature itself and must be an implicit assumption made in 1776 -1789 by the Founders regarding the nature of rights. We are living through a proliferation of so-called "rights." It has gotten much worse in the last 20 years as if time is running out, or in the words of Atlas Shrugged, our "days are numbered." The implicit assumption has been replaced by explicit knowledge, but the concept of rights has not been updated.
I would look to something in the definition of rights that needs to be explicitly restricted and clarified based on human nature. It would have to be simple and exact to make Marxism obviously wrong in principle. Morality might trump economics, but ultimately the metaphysically given, man's conceptual consciousness forms the basis of human nature itself.
Philosophy must adjust to reality, and the longer it takes to adjust, the harder it becomes. Perhaps this is the idea that will move the cultural needle toward rationality. I doubt Prager will favor this notion because Christianity is basically Platonist. Objectivism is the only philosophy that could lead the way.
We can hope that:
“No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come” ― Victor Hugo.
Thank you for inspiring me to reason this out to something of a new "big question" for me. I value your clear presentation and your passion. Thanks again.
Great videos!
The problem with Marxism is collectivism, with those at the top deciding for the collective what their greatest good is (and then, as the videos point out, making sure that this greatest good is enforced.) Our real greatest good is that we're each free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law.
You hit the nail with the issue of the "greatest good." The greatest good is not the solution -- it is a problem.
You may have noticed that year by year; the law is increasing the constraints and decreasing freedom. You may have seen societal legislation, executive orders, entitlements, and selective investigations based on political ideology. These have transformed the United States. We have moved from a society of individual sovereignty to one of life-by-permission.
The breach between individual sovereignty and the greatest good is a philosophical divide much deeper than collectivism versus the "greatest good." Collectivism predetermines your master. The "greatest good" empowers your neighbors to choose your master. Either way, your master will define your life and may permit you to live it. Individual sovereignty is the idea that is under constant attack, even from those who think they are defending it but glorifying the greatest good.
Thanks, Ilene. Turns out I'm writing an essay right now on the idea of the "common good" or the "greatest good."