A Conflict of Visions: Thomas Sowell's Constrained vs Unconstrained Vision

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ☕ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 2:21 What is a Vision? 4:25 Constrained vs. Unconstrained: Human Nature 4:47 Constrained Human Nature 6:45 Unconstrained Human Nature 10:20 Unconstrained: Progress and Change 11:42 Constrained Progress: Progress and Change 15:15: Summary of the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions 16:56 An Attempt at Synthesis: A Developmental Perspective

[@RomanDobs]

You have great competent content and not just educational it’s exactly the kind of meta analysis of philosophy that I want to hear not just endless introductions to thinkers but how they relate to each other comparatively not elementary . THANK YOU 🙏

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

That means a lot to me Roman thank you

[@listenup455]

Fantastic! I've been listening to a lot of interviews with Sowell recently, and I find his perspective to be really interesting. Coming from a very liberal/progressive background it's been eye opening and challenging to my preconceptions about many things and has forced me to question my position on the political spectrum. I appreciate your unbiased overview (to the extent that anything can be unbiased) of both his basic position and the opposition. It's a good reminder that both visions in tension is really what we want rather than an excess of either one.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Matt I had a similar reaction to Sowell - very different to so much of what I've previously come across and added whole new layers of nuance to my vision of the world

[@listenup455]

He's a seriously underacknowledged figure in mainstream circles. On another note, as a former philosophy student who has been drifting away from philosophy while getting swept up in the drama of culture war discourse, I've been finding your channel to be a lifeline getting me back in touch with my intellectual roots. I appreciate you and your top quality content!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@listenup455 Agreed I think it's because right wing thinkers are routinely dismissed on the presumption they are going to be fascists or plutocrats. And I have to say thank you so much for the kind words it means the world to me to hear that kind of feedback

[@K-newborn]

why do progressives cry BLM and ACAB but defend the most racist pro-police bills that biden and bernie wrote?

[@jaylenoschin8189]

This is a brilliant, balanced commentary, well done once again…

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you so much Jay!

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Thank you for going over this, I've been really enjoying diving into Thomas Sowell's work. He's really opened my eyes to far more nuance on a variety of topics.

[@davidr1620]

Conflict of visions was the most difficult Sowell book to get through for me. Not because it is complicated but because it is such a novel concept, it takes example after example to explain what these visions are and it can feel a bit dry. However, after I finished it, I immediately read it again. I had just started to deeply understand the thesis by the end of the book, and a second reading was far more easy to understand. I consider it now one of the most enlightening books I’ve ever read.

[@DTogo3774]

Get the audiobook, it'll help

[@Mark.Allen1111]

Thinking vs I am. “I think therefore I am.” I know thinking through the I am. VS. I know I am through thinking. One is no better than the other. Nothing can be said other than “it goes on.” “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein Thanks for the food for thought James. I’m going to sit in silence and let the vision rock on. Musicians are poets they are the ones who know it. The vision I’m talking about. But I can’t say anything. I love your channel. It splits my brain in half. But I can’t say that because my brain is already split in half.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you so much Mark your kind words are much appreciated

[@clementguichet5726]

Very pertinent, it's crazy how well these two visions fit with the debates in the philosophy of mind and cognition. Traditional reductionism with the constrained against traditional anti-reductionist functionalism with the unconstrained. Although I should mention, both vision entail an ontological hierarchy of simplicity. For those interested, contemporary cognitive neuroscience has departed from such dichotomy. Nowadays it is undergoing a Kuhnian revolution whereby every disciplines (or level of being) constrains the higher level properties, themseleved constrained by a plurality of suitably organized proper lower-level properties that realize them. No surprise it has embraced an egalitarian ontology to run away from this tug of war and is now geared towards a mechanistic integration of each level's explanatory power.

[@luciocastro1418]

where can I learn more about this? This notion was a suspicion of mine, and I'm kind of tired or reinventing the wheel, any direction will be appreciated!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Absolutely fascinating Clément thanks for that mapover and for learning me a bit on the state of philosophy of mind these days

[@clementguichet5726]

@@luciocastro1418 You can check Gualtiero Piccinin's latest book Neurocognitive mechanisms: Explaining biological condition (2020). He's academic philosopher who's published for 20 years on the subject

[@KalebPeters99]

@@luciocastro1418 Definitely check out John Vervaeke's content. He's at the frontier of cog sci in my opinion. "Awakening From the Meaning Crisis" is his lengthy -- but very worthwhile -- lecture series.

[@searchforserenity8058]

I don't know how I missed this channel and I am so happy KZbin suggested it to me. I have watched several videos already and really enjoy the insightful views. This channel is definitely a gem. I read Dr. Sowell's book many years ago and didn't understand it at first. But it had a profound impact on my thinking all the same and remains my favorite of all of Dr. Sowell's work. As a liberal, I don't agree with his views on why people "choose" to be poor. I think he suffers from the failure to recognize his own cognitive biases while he exposes those of his opposition. He is a brilliant intellect, however, no doubt. I have to admit that my views have changed over time and that is the result of my recent readings in the field of neuroscience. I started off constrained, then switched to unconstrained, then gradually centered myself somewhere more in the middle (but still on the unconstrained side). Neuroscience has pointed out a few things that has informed my progression on this: 1) we are not born either good or evil, but with very plastic brains that have the capacity for both; 2) that capacity is subtly influenced by our genes but more profoundly influenced by our environment; 3) most actions people take are more reactions driven by complex processes within our brain, not from conscious thoughts and choices. We are not as "in control" as we want to believe we are; 4) our brain maintains its health through stability of its structure. Thus change is good, but it should be thoughtful, measured and slow. I believe that our societies and institutions, being a reflection of our "collective brains", should also change in the same manner. 5) It is easy to confuse Cause and Effect on this. Humans being "evil" is not a cause. It is an effect. Understanding how our brains produce potential reactions, how amygdala trigger/hijack works, and learning to be mindful, can change the result.

[@noah5291]

You, Kane B, and Carneades are the best philosophy KZbinrs when it comes to quality. Fantastic. I love the art in yours as well--i mean your writing and speaking

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you so much Noah! That's very high praise and thanks for the feedback on the content as well that's always good to hear

[@summerkagan6049]

I love the illustrations you chose to accompany your lectures.

[@emanuelpetre5491]

Courageous, creative and overall brilliant, as always.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Emanuel!

[@wbw910]

I applaud the description of Dr. Sowell's most meaningful work IMHO. The end goes to prove his point, "who" decides what is or isn't true or possible? To advance human society we need both, those who see a better way and those who hold the reigns that want to proceed but with caution

[@mindness1540]

This blew my mind, I'll be thinking about this for a month.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Delighted to hear it!

[@alanoswald3137]

brilliant content, was just introduced to sowells work on the quest for cosmic justice in my intro to philosophy class at uni. i had similar reaction to some of his claims, still, he is extremely intelligent and worth analyzing

[@j.hmarvelous2231]

Anything with Dr. Thomas Sowell I’m a fan of. Great video. Much blessings to you. 🙏🏾 I subscribed.

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

I've recently read this excellent book and, IMO, for what it's worth, this is very well done. One can't hear this distinction too often. Thanks. I'm subscribing. Thanks.

[@CurtHowland]

Thank you. This is an excellent dissertation on the subject.

[@scottjcrouch]

I love this kind of content. Though many people decry these sorts of "false" dichotomies as overly simplistic, I find them to be very useful conceptual tools for making sense of the world, as long as they're not the only tool you ever reach for in your kit bag. Perhaps another way to put it: things can be mapped on many different axes in n-dimensional space, but no single axis is going to tell you the whole picture ("all models are wrong, some are useful"). I know this model is wrong, but it so often helps me make sense of what the hell Jane Philosopher was getting at in that last paragraph. (To be clear, I'm talking about philosophical dichotomies, not the idea of constrained-unconstrained visions spoken of in the video, though ironically you could describe the latter as itself a kind of constrained vision on a meta-level (or perhaps I'm already pushing this tool well beyond its usefulness :))

[@padraicogawain3162]

Brilliant and well said treatment of the concepts of constrained & unconstrained visions. 👍 Thank you 🙏

[@robertharris1611]

What an excellent video essay! I enjoyed it very much!! I have the sudden need to read the leviathan...

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Robert! Delighted to inspire a bout of engagement with a classic

[@yqafree]

Very well. I'm glad you covered Thomas Sowell. A great comparison. I think you comparing different views on what constitutes actual justice and true justice would be interesting. Perhaps speaking to what one sees as evils or transgressions is first in order and then what all are called for in their rectification. - Your Quality Apologist

[@rumekpadamrophe912]

You did a really good job on this text. Keep up the good work.

[@renaissancefairyowldemon7686]

Thank you for very enlightening video. I feel everyone need to hear this message, awesome job. 🔥🖤🌹✨🧚‍♀️

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks as ever Renaissance Fairy!

[@renaissancefairyowldemon7686]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy welcome 🖤🔥🌹

[@surfism]

I am afraid that your characterisation of Sowell's "bias for the constrained vision" is a reflection of your own bias for the opposite. Much better to simply state which side he favours, and let us decide whether it is tainted by bias. Thanks for the video! I am thrilled that you accepted my recommendation.

[@ngayihiabbealaindidier471]

Totally agree. This for me was not a faithful rendition of Sowell work but rather an attempt to défend the unconstraint vision via Sowell work. The unconstraint is always very seductive but at the end very destructive. And also the attempt to reconcile the two visions is an oxymoron. You can't have the fact that man is unperfectible and the fact that he's perfectible at the same time.

[@antonskippy5376]

Precisely.

[@ArdentLion]

It's not that Sowell is biased against the unconstrained vision, it is that he is biased in favor of reason.

[@Amish_Avenger]

Exactly. One might think that he is just a biased conservative if one just takes a shallow view into his life. Look deeper however and you find out that Sowell was once a full-blown Marxist, captivated by the very same unconstrained vision he describes. He only came out of mindset through experience and logical deduction, specifically because he began to work for the government and saw how the ideals and actual enactment of said ideals are at conflict with each other.

[@xnephysisthere]

thank you so much for this video, this allowed me to come to see a critical mistake in Thomas Sowell, who I've admired and have never as of yet found folly in his wisdom. He had expressed this work of his to be his most favorite, due to him believing it wholly his own, not built upon previous works of others in the literature. Clearly that is not the case.

[@yqafree]

Rewatching this after a few weeks, I noticed that the unconstrained vision mostly seems to come from a person whose insights and ideals come from a the state of thought that you've addressed in a video from about a year ago,ekstasis, while the constrained vision is one brought about from an individual that has experienced much in the way of catharsis. Hearkening back to your video about those compared, I thought I would make the connection for those who haven't seen it and those who like such inductions.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah now that's a fascinating map across! Never thought of mapping out ekstasis and catharsis to these things. Gem of an insight apologist!

[@airconlover]

brilliant summary at the end, extremely well balanced

[@airconlover]

Great video, I think that Ghandi's line about being the change you want to see in the world applies more to the constrained vision currently than the unconstrained. It's basically Jordan Peterson's message, you can't rely on society or the government to make things better for you because whether you realise it or not the quality of your experience is within your own power and no one else's. I used to have the unconstrained vision, but over the last few years I started to change my opinion, then I recently read one of Sowell's book on the topic and it delivered the final blow. My partner and most of my immediate friends/family have the unconstrained vision, it makes things difficult when talking politics, it's hard to communicate the ideas Sowell talks about without just sounding like a heartless asshole, I need to argue the points better in a way that shows how on an individual level it may seem heartless, but on a larger scale it can be compassionate.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I feel your pain Beau. I would have a similar personal journey and it is a bit of a challenge to see how you look in the mirror of the Unconstrained and I can't say I've found the way to show that I have a heart while still talking about these things. I do find the image of the murmuration a helpful one - to think of it in terms of a collective of living beings moving amounting to something more than the sum of its parts but then of course when you bring it back to the individual it can again sound quite callous which is unfortunate

[@silent_stalker3687]

One issue about the unconstrained vision this: if it failed… why or who failed it? If it makes no sense for something to fail to the person acting it, then they could blame someone involved and when there are millions there… then yeah. Now when you see this failure you can see people becoming resentful or seeing other views and so on to ‘challenge’ the failure not fully the actual failure but a scapegoat. The constrained vision in a way protects against resentment and the unconstrained vision doesn’t protect against it. And then you have ‘what if my goals aren’t possible… no they are if they were done properly- we can keep going until we can’t no more or until it works’ and then… you can imagine the stuff they do out of resentment, anger and so on if the goal can’t be sustained or forced. Effectively it’s just equivalent exchange.

[@RAUFFUS_0]

YESS!! I really wanted a video on human nature in the living philosophy channel! I think it's very relevant philosophical topic and, interestingly, very much controversial in today's world. Steven Pinker's book - The Blank Slate explores a little bit more of this idea, and I'm considering writing a thesis about this! Thank you James and keep up the awesome work! I'll make sure to become a patreon when i have a little bit more cash! 🇧🇷Cheers from Brazil🇧🇷

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Glad to supply the good Davy! I actually came across Pinker a lot in the secondary research for the episode - it turns out his whole thing of the tragic and the utopian is actually a reworking and updating of Sowell's book. Very interesting stuff!

[@RAUFFUS_0]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Nice! I'll definately pick up Sowell's book. I would also recommend Leslie Stevenson's and David L. Haberman's 10 Theories of Human Nature. It covers the religious, philosophical and biological aspects of the concept of human nature, great stuff!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@RAUFFUS_0 Nice thanks for that one as well Davi!

[@johnmcevoy3598]

We all function on a continuum between our best and worst selves, and should circumstances require, our worst may be the better option.

[@bohba13]

... both visions resonate with me. I want a society where self-actualization can be reached, where we can create and flourish, yet also understand that while humanity is capable of great good, enough choose not to to be a problem worth hardening the systems of society against. Is this a constrained viewpoint or is this more... Balanced?

[@FreedomSpirit108]

Thanks for a great video

[@hobodan6000ify]

What a quote to end on. Man doesn't live on bread alone. But without bread, man doesn't live at all...

[@CaptainBaat]

Amazingly done, thank you

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Keye!

[@purpledevilr7463]

I had a thought which I called ‘the dark synthesis’ What if you conclude that the ‘imperfectable’ or in other words evil side of humanity is perfect? That humans being good is not perfect? To embrace our imperfection, ie the greed.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

That's called "Objectivism" It's a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, give it a read.

[@purpledevilr7463]

@@moritamikamikara3879 well I do know a tad about their positioning politically, so learning they made it does put me off of it a bit. But thanks.

[@projectmalus]

Hobbes' problem was he saw the effects and not an initial cause for enhanced negativity in humans. I think I have an accurate rough sketch of the problem (that became problems) but the bias against the right knowledge and the right action connected to that seems overwhelming. This bias is reassured by the building of a knowledge pool and so there's this conjunction where the civilization slide into decay and the knowledge pool fragility are on either side of a razor's edge and it only takes a nudge, an action, that is variable in being right or wrong, but the knowledge that would inform that action is deferred in favor of false power usually 'cause of the bias inherent in both a weakened (diminished) state and that compelling false power. Thanks as always for the video.

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

The book is available on KZbin as of few weeks ago.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

The dichotomy is a false one in that the social condition dreamed up by the constrained vision is really just a constrained vision utopia, and the so-called utopia of the unconstrained vision is really a moral constraint. Both are aiming for an ideal social condition which could be considered a paradise for the people who prescribe to that vision; the masochism of the constrained vision is really hedonism in disguise. The immoderation of the unconstrained vision is really to moderate people towards immoderation. Thus both visions suffer from moral blindness and sterility. They only avoid these conditions by antagonizing each other. So in practice, there is no meaningful distinction between the two and they are entirely dependent on the other.

[@owretchedman]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. What Sowell really wants to do is present himself, the sober, constrained grownup and the unconstrained as petulant children. It's very silly. The human body is both constrained and unrestrained according to this binary. It's as silly as calling those who breathe in liberals and those who breathe out conservatives. Derrida saw all this and wrote extensively on these traps.

[@kevinrombouts3027]

Excellent presentation.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Kevin!

[@lukegranata7154]

Brilliant. Thank you.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Glad you enjoyed it Luke!

[@bhajandaniel9771]

Interesting, however I was waiting for the constrained and unconstrained visions to be correlated with Aristotelianism and Platonism but it never came. I watched this twice. Did I miss something? It seemed to me that two sets of thoughts were presented, both interesting, but poorly correlated if correlated at all.

[@chaselove603]

watching the loops being formed but not addressed >

[@davidcrowley1951]

Levins book: the great debate, communicates the same ideas, pitting Thomas Paine and Edmund Burkes ideas regarding the French Revolution, against each other

[@S41GON]

There is a video where Destiny talks to a philosophy PhD who previously debated Vaush (the aqua debate...) and this PhD categorized philosophy with 3 main schools which were supernaturalism, naturalism and creative anti-realism. I sense the unconstrained view falls under the latter. This rhymes with James Lindsay who said there are 3 defining schools of thought in the Western tradition, (Judeo-Christian) religion, reason (based on Greek philophy) and a third, secret one that often wears the disguise of the first two and what could be described best as gnosticism or magic and this third school also falls under the category of the unconstrained view.

[@andreab380]

One essential thing to remember is that, to use Plato's image, the shadows on the wall are not naturally occurring but are cast by hidden people, the makers of illusions. While it is true that conditions of scarcity may hinder human pro-social impulses, this is not our "natural state" in any meaningful sense. In many areas, natural resources are plentiful, and an increase of desires increases a sensation of scarcity when there is none. That is to say, scarcity is easily manifactured, possibly by those same people that speak of greed and selfishness as more essential.

[@owretchedman]

Doing a little poll. Is the following statement constrained or unrestrained? "Seeking to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind."

[@Pan_Z]

Whatever confluence of the two visions you subscribe to, it seems the Constrained Vision will always need be considered. If the immutable characteristics of man are forgotten, if institutions which subdue the worst inclinations and foster the best behaviours are dissolved, then any society will revert to a less civilised age. Men are far more selfless & noble with a full belly.

[@dcissignedon]

What on earth does the expression "the better angels of our nature" mean?

[@SithSolomon]

“You cannot see That which is the Seer of seeing; you cannot hear That which is the Hearer of hearing; you cannot think of That which is the Thinker of thought; you cannot know That which is the Knower of knowledge. This is your Self, that is within all; everything else but This is perishable.”

[@eS-ql7vm]

PLEASE do some more work on Worldview Analysis! Worldview Analysis truly examines reality on a more fundamental level than philosophy, politics, or culture. It is akin to theology, in the medieval conception. “Hidden Worldviews” is a great book to start with. We need more non-evangelical Christian minds entering this world of scholarship!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Wow! I didn't even realise that was a field of study that's amazing thank you very much for the recommendation!

[@nobody535]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I wasn't aware of it either. Looking forward your episode on it now though ;)

[@motownmoneygang]

The patron's name "croissanteater" always cracks me up😂. shoutout to your patrons, I'm happy people are supporting your work. I was thinking you would probably be a great professor, giving lectures and interacting with students and stuff. have you ever considered?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I know he wasn't sure about me saying the name when he signed up but I really like it it's a lot of fun! I did think about getting into the professor thing when I was starting in university but the need to churn out articles and the difficulty of getting the job and the general lack of freedom put me off it. Now I see it differently but I don't see myself being a regular university professor any more. I think I will do public lecture series because I get a kick out of public speaking and would love to have a regular face to face audience but that's a different story

[@Keiranful]

Very interesting comparison. One point of contention for me is that people following an unconstrained vision are individualists and then putting both Smith and today's SJW's and anti-racists into the same category. Smith is wholeheartedly and unapologetically individualist, but the others are highly collectivist, looking at people not as individuals but a combination of defining characteristics. Intersectionalism is the antithesis to individualism and imho these people don't have a good opinion of human nature, seeing problems everywhere and no one being without sin in their eyes

[@mouwersor]

The idea that no one man should have a lot of power because it can be misused doesn't sufficiently account for groups/ideas distributed across society still collectively holding massive misusable power. I follow Moldbug in recommending a monarch to maximize freedom.

[@Salv-lj8kj]

Excellent.

[@silent_stalker3687]

One issue I have is that the unconstrained vision ignores nature to a degree such as scarcity is a part of nature as is disease and so on. Buddhism and stoicism seem accept that suffering is life as does Nietzsche. For the coming famine I’ve got 5 years of food stored up and I did share food with some people but they gave the food away in the 2020 elections because ‘our side isn’t greedy’ and so on. I have them another stash of food for emergencies and they’ve been feeding their dog the food they don’t like and eating what they do like.

[@yusufjibrel7465]

Really interesting stuff, the schism/dividing line between Plato and Aristostle is definitely very illustrative of a certain useful way to cluster 2 very broad categories of ways to view the world(one more grounded and pessimistic/empirical whilst the other is more idealistic, rationalistic and aspirational). Raphael's The school of Athens is just really cool. It it pretty interesting to try to find my place in this dichotomy. I don't think I(and most people for that matter, these categories are just too big for that really) am enough of a purist to fall into either extreme and be clearly just one with no regard for the other(wouldn't be much of a conflict if things were that simple). I find the aspirations and appeal to a higher potential of the unconstrained vision to be very appealing, but i do have concerns regarding the very individualistic element of it. Since i view many of the major problems of our day(growing inequality, climate change, political segregation, privacy/ surveillance, the influence of technology for good and bad etc.) to be highly systemic and therefore unatributable to personal failings of specific individuals(a few bad apples) as well as unsolvable by mere personal effort. With that being said, though i do still ultimately lean toward the unconstrained side of things, as i would lean toward Rousseau rather than Hobbes when it comes to human nature and the social contract. The way this conflict connected to Maslow's hierarchy is interesting and certainly to me suggests that he(Maslow that is) would have to be unconstrained since he would put self actualization at the very top whilst putting material and physical needs at the very bottom, though they do form the basis which could actually make them the most important since they are necessary whilst the top of the pyramid is actually contigent on everything that comes before it. I'm confused now, I probably shouldn't have tried to ``type´´ him based on the pyramid anyway, still fun though. I have an interesting question though about Karl Marx who was a historical materialist which contrasts with the(in my opinion, i could definitely be wrong) highly idealistic and uncontrained vision of communism(i'm thinking specifically about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Where would you put him on this? And where do you personally fall in this dichotomy? Cheers nice video as usual, you really are one of my favorite tubers? PS With your appreciation of Nietzsche and Jung i would guess that you are closer to the uncontrained vision, am i wrong?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Wonderful comment to read Yusuf. Sowell actually has a whole section in the book dedicated to Marx. Marx and the Utiliitarians are both hybrids. If I recall correctly Marx is Constrained with respect to humanity's past and Unconstrained with respect to the future of humans. There's obviously a lot more nuance to it than that but that's the basic idea since Marx is a Hegelian in the economic historical sphere which is the past and near future but then unconstrained and utopian about the future. As for myself it's an interesting question. I think I definitely have a lot of Constrained in me and it's probably where I'm closer to at the moment but I have a lot of Unconstrained in me as well and have in the past been entirely Unconstrained and find myself swayed in that direction again at the moment. That being said there are certain elements of the Constrained (the not blaming individuals for systemic problems as you pointed out) that I think are very important to hold. So I guess I'm seeking a synthesis but lean Constrained

[@yusufjibrel7465]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thx for the reply The thing about Marx is definitely interesting, it does seem to make sense and a strong binary like this is always going to lead dilemmas either in edge cases or in the case where someones position changes based on context/which part of their argument you are talking about. A synthesis i always an interesting idea and connects to the thing about paradigm shifts were the old problems rather than being solved per se are really just kind of transcended(or rather rendered irrelevant by the new paradigm and the problems that it creates). I think you might have focused on it in the video but does this dichotomy also apply polically, where the right is more unconstrained with regard to how to act and be as an individual(liberalism, free market capitalism) whilst being more constrained with regard to their views on human nature(the more authoritarian and nationalistic side). Kinda like the political compass where unconstrained would be the libertarian/anarchistic side of things whereas the constrained would be the authoritarian and leftist(economically, state planned economy, systemic view of problems etc). Very interesting stuff regardless and thx again for the answer, it really is appreciated😁 PS It seems i have a problem with run-on sentences😅

[@peterclark6290]

Any conflict arises from either the believable concept that we have a mindful creator versus the verifiable concept that life, a hierarchy of species, on a planet in a solar system, within a galaxy, etc. are merely incidental occurrences. The God argument provides instant purpose and the incidental argument provides an expensive opportunity. Cohesion vs Chaos. Panic vs Courage. It is to the ever-present shame of the Atheist community that we haven't assembled a coherent and complete argument to combat the inane excuse of the supernatural. Even our 'greatest' Scientists would struggle with the idea of infinite Universes (jellyfish swarms of them) in 'the' Cosmos. That all that 'exists' is Energy which has a binary logic due to its polar (electro-magnetic, positive-negative) nature. That compounds itself into the 'matter' of life (a useful illusion). Because only such an extremely robust base could assemble the observable Universe, as a laboratory for the same logic to provide further refinements without divine assistance. The 'flaw' is Entropy which most likely indicates the individual Energy 'packets' are not identical. But God doesn't do flaws - unless his parents bought him the cheaper Chemistry set for his birthday. However we did create God. Hundreds of times, each convincing enough to sustain mutual distrust that could lead to the destruction of the species, sometimes contemplating so even with the same God. Thus the only existential question ("that in the darkness binds them") is what is _sapiens_ going to do with this temporary opportunity on a leased planet in an ad hoc Universe? "Stare full hard against the moon" or find out the origins of bright-mindedness in robust, resilient, sociable, achievement-seeking and lovable prototypes. If we fail nothing will notice: if we succeed any appreciative acknowledgements will fall on senses long since dis-arranged. The human design challenge: _Intelligence and Imagination are the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself._ Step 1: Planetary wide systems that are transferable to any culture with the not unimportant aim of having one 'human' culture. The distributed (power averse) systems of Democracy, Capitalism and Science seem the most likely - *when they are philosophically understood and applied.* In one sense the Manifest Destiny concept without their compromised constitution and Washington DC. The United States of Gaia. BTW Jonathan Haidt's _The Righteous Mind_ is an interesting companion volume to Thomas Sowell's argument.

[@Kar-Kan]

I don't know how much true to say that on social collapse every individual is for himself, that notion comes from anglo saxon over individualistic world notion, its cammon among Scandinavians to, basically to all so call "sea based" civilization. But other world view would say that human being is first tribal (or social) animal, so basically it would be: "every tribe for it self" and on individual level: "for the tribe!" ; With close bonds between individuals of that particular tribe.

[@projectmalus]

I wonder if the power of the sea nullifies some of what I think of as false power, like that of machines which take one out of context and then fail leaving one with the recognition of a diminished state (no muscles and a long way to walk) which is then turned around in the mind to avoid blame and responsibility. The ocean is so powerful it makes a mockery of this false sense of power because it's hard to escape that context when that ocean asserts so strongly. The machine can be political, too.

[@gonzalonunez8226]

Very interesting. That can explain very well liberals vs conservatives in the covid context. Liberals: "trust science"; Conservatives: "No lockdowns".

[@jgarciajr82]

Modern science is telling us a different story. Psychoanalysis is starting to say no one is toxic. We're born into toxicity. We are conditioned. I never really asked her body how it feels. Some of us need to leave the mind behind and go into the body now. 🙏🏼❤️

[@johnhagan-zr4pm]

The Constrained Vision might be equated with the cyclical natural of History Whereas The Unconstrained believes in a revolution (of thought, language and institutions) leading to a linear and inevitable progression to Nirvana.

[@enfienz9458]

I think it's interesting that the shadows of both of these visions are what a vision believes the other to be. The self-righteousness and prunity of the unconstrained vision is exactly what the constrained fear and try to, well, constrain. However the rigidity caused by the limiting of the human nature by society is what the unconstrained hope to avoid. Additionally, I find a bias given by history to the constrained. Personally, I think that the constrained is on the side of society because society is on the side of the constrained. In fact we have only ever seen records of violence and human greed occurring during societies. Consequently, the abuse of power and corruption could also be consequences of the structure of society and its limitations since you can only have power if you have a platform to use your power on. The likes of Hitler or others are not people with unconstrained visions, just the products of the shortcomings of a system benefitting the unconstrained vision. PS: I don't agree fully with the unconstrained vision. Oh and sorry for my English, it's not my first language.

[@vl8962]

Thomas Sowell?!?!? Yes plz😎

[@otaviopmartins]

Awesome

[@duskshard2446]

I personally find this dualism or this binary somewhat limiting. I think a lot of groups and individuals have a combination of these two. To draw an example I would look to communism: it holds both views at once. On the one hand it sees the individual as worthless, greedy and self centered, thus constrained vision, but sees the class or the collective as something perfectible and is in that sense highly utopian and thus unconstrained. Another example is the opposite in many ways to communism, that being individualism and almost an aristocratic view, where the individual is seen as good but the people are seen as wicked or stupid. One could say this is unconstrained vision, since the unconstrained often see society as the problem holding people back, but personally I disagree. People with an unconstrained vision also believe society to be perfectible, something most of an individualistic opinion would reject. This contradiction between the ideas also came up for me when I heard you mention Leviathan by Hobbes and checks and balances in the same breath. Those two are opposing in almost every way. Leviathan seeks authoritarian government to prevent the (ill)-nature of the individual to manifest itself, thus hurting the collective, while checks and balances exist to safeguard the nature and rights of the individual from the state (I..e collective)… the two don’t seem to share a lot, in my view at least. I thought also about how different presuppositions can reach the same conclusion. Example: authoritarianism. On one hand, people are so dumb that they can’t govern themselves. On the other, people are so smart that they can’t govern each other. Both can be held at the same time. Perhaps the difference lies in views on the collective and the individual: maybe you have a constrained view on individuals and an unconstrained view on the collective (as with Hobbes or most communists), or a unconstrained view on individuals and a constrained view on the collective (most individualists), or perhaps an unconstrained vision of both, or a constrained vision of both.

[@Vgallo]

I used to be a massive sowell fanboy when I went through my conservative phase, but now I’ve come through the other side, I think like Peterson, politics has turned him into a limited partisan thinker, knowledge and decisions and the constrained vision are definitely his most interesting and least partisan works.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

There is no need to unite the visions other than to point to the fact that they were always one. . . . Only even this won't change anything. There is a certain sanity in their unending conflict and apparent ignorance of their inner unity because it is this incessant war that keeps each side going. The biggest possible disaster that should ever befall one of these visions is that it should prevail over the other. I say this even as someone who bias most likely falls into the unconstrained vision. By process of inference, if no other, I see that the health of the vision that best aligns with my own flourishing is contingent upon the health of it's opposite. Sowell's opinion is conspicuous not just for it's bias but it's hypocrisy: The contrained vision is the one that insists human nature cannot manage itself and authority must therefore be deferred up the social hierarchy. That is elitism any way you slice it; a belief in the superior human being, however so defined.

[@davidtagauri2034]

The constrained vision is obviously much more intelligent and realistic. The unconstrained may get some things right but their main view of the world is wrong. Good video by the way.

[@rosgill6]

Power in the hands of the unconstrained is much more dangerous than in the hands of the constrained

[@SithSolomon]

man should strive to purify his thoughts, what a man thinks that he becomes, this is the eternal mystery.”

[@doh917]

The irony in this video when critiquing Sowell and his bias towards championing the constrained vision is that the author of this video is hoping to usher in the unconstrained vision. This is actually rather predictable for one who has encountered many of the unconstrained. Unconstrained never consider that their vision is actually unconstrained because by virtue of them being unconstrained, they view themselves as simply the null hypothesis to which morality is what they deem morality to be. And when one may point this out, the typical response would be that those who are against (insert unobjectionables, moral blackmail, vulnerable sympathies) one is thus not moral or whatever other belittling, shaming, or undermining language as a response. The view of the world for an unconstrained visionaire typically falls back on what they deem it as good with the presumption that all humans align with said vision and use utopian presentations and pretensions as the rationale that is used to justify aligning with said vision. "Can't the world be better? Don't you want it to be better? (notice the application / implication of guilt...a subtle manipulation if one were to notice) If people would just do x, y, and z well then cooperation, love, and happiness would flourish (notice the implication that one must do said things. Also notice the absence of what happens when one doesn't "just do those things"). These are the blindspots that many people have either deliberately for the opportunists or unconsciously for the true believer / utopians

[@AlmostEthical]

I note that Sowell attacked Obama and did not mention George W Bush and his disastrous attempts to transform the Middle East when referring to the dangers of trying to change the world. Sowell is interesting at times, but I prefer more fair-minded thinkers.

[@owretchedman]

Sowell is an ideologue and a weak philosopher. He's not a bad writer when he isn't defending the castle.

[@K-newborn]

@@owretchedman bernie has 4 mansions why dont you go ask him for help

[@K-newborn]

well maybe dont 911 america or dont vote progressives like bernie who voted bushs wars

[@moritamikamikara3879]

@@owretchedman Explain.

[@TheSigil]

Unfair minded because he didn't mention a person's name. That doesn't make any sense

[@ShareefusMaximus]

Some of us share the vision of Homer. But that talk is not for everyone.

[@seanwooten6410]

Great and fascinating stuff. But while I would agree that the religious, or more like, Christian view, is certainly constrained, still, I don't think it is entirely group oriented. Certainly, the group of saved vs unsaved is very important, still, each person is there individually and must make the choice alone of where he belongs. And neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, amounts to anything. And yes, the opposing view of the unconstrained, such as social activism, is individualistic insofar as it attempts to take into account personal motivations, but it is group- and impersonally oriented in that it is concerned with the oppression of poor vs the rich, or minorities vs majorities. To them, each individual means little compared to the group they are a part of. Minority people can be oppressed, even if they are wealthy, famous, or even vice president of the United States, and those belonging to the oppressor class can somehow be part of those oppressing even if they are powerless, poor, and unknown and unheard. Their individuality means nothing and their group, everything.

[@seanwooten6410]

Or maybe I have misunderstood you here.

[@seanwooten6410]

Also, the things you say here are so very true. Thank you, again.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Yeah the collective vs individual thing is quite interesting here actually. I can't remember exactly what I said in the video but I'll say it how it appears to me now. So it seems that the individualist thing tracks with the Unconstrained more ideologically insofar as historically it was more the potential heights to which individuals can soar if not tethered by the system. But without a doubt the modern social justice movement has very little to do with individualism and is very much about groups and their identities so I guess this is a recent shift but I guess that just goes to show that this isn't really about individualism or collectivism and that this component can oscillate.

[@artsomniacv-logcitybydanie1249]

Basic human needs. It is almost that simple. That is why so many social stigmas are not real. The Goergia Guidestones may have been percieved in ignorance to those that are glad they are destroyed.

[@K-newborn]

So eugenics and population control?

[@artsomniacv-logcitybydanie1249]

@@K-newborn I don't know if you would have to call it control Because it is seemingly voluntary in this time period of our existence. If people had a promise of endless flowing beer and cigarettes and pornography And TV and video games And foodWithout the need to work for economics, They would forfeit their existence and just go for it. The problem why it has not worked already it's because there are a percentage that will catch on and realize that it's a mistake and revolt that's why they test all this stuff on other countries that are starving and less fortunate. Of course this has nothing to do with many of our forefathers but exist because of certain individuals that are able to pressure their existence into reality. .... Like all the people said that they don't like America and they wanna leave well at that very 2nd they should get a knock on the door And a Van and baggage handlers waiting for their crap to take them to the airport or to the docks. If people don't wanna apply themselves and be agreeable or open minded or patient and they're willing to proclaim such crap then how are we supposed to work to evolve our species and gain anything they have become an obstacle. It is what it is I'm not condemning anyone I'm just calling it out because that's what it is, And at 48 years old I didn't set it up like that. .... It's not much different than people that get a medication allowance and assistance for living every month or week because those people too decide to forfeit opportunity or health or regard for participation so they become Voluntarily invalid by the road admission and submission. What's good is that a lot of childrenThey're able to Dodge all the sinisterness are able to see this and they may not follow the same path. And there's also a percentage of adults that know that life is hard and they would rather not work or have dreams to aspire to and they would give up in a different way. Old people would put themselves to sleep and children would find a way to circumstantially commit suicide without regard didn't didn't both cases. Would it be their own ignorance???.... I don't think so because we all have choices and the equation of making the same choice with bad results is considered Insanity, It becomes Then an aspect of free will. People like to gamble. People like to be victims. People are consumed by their own fear. They would settle for the mere fact that it would be easy and subject themselves to a fate. If that kind of world would happen, The same world would not even consider Gand consider giving someone like the parkland shooter shooter the chance of still being alive. People also would not be sitting in jail for weed, Because other hard drugs lead to the submissive laziness and dysfunction Which has created a profile file that's wrongly placed in this hypocrisy. Government would have enough money to operateBecause of what they don't have to spend on people that are draining the system with Stubbornness or unfairness Or habits. There wouldn't need to be a death machine because it would be like The Valley of the leopards only the leopards only their minds and spirits are difficuit's are decomposing As a result of their disregard. In reflection if I am 48, I've had plenty of opportunities to screw up or throw my life away or be ignorant or destructive or not care and I and I don't do those things I want to be a valueable member of society, Earn my keep and keep what I earn. .... And for all the people that I've seen through life give up or die or quit or do damage.... Those are the types of personalities that would jump on it.

[@artsomniacv-logcitybydanie1249]

@@K-newborn What's also funny is the word eugenics have been in my mind since I was a kid and it was only about 2 years ago that I stumbled upon the word. I questioned myself as to why I kept saying it and why it was in my mind. My feelings come from failures based on disappointment for disappointment for opportunity or participation should in things as a group or team. I do have a level of reset and It's ridiculous for so many of us to seek problems clearly and yet nobody could do anything about those problems, And all those problems are existing because of a percentage of people. I don't feel bad because these things have to do with starvationIn the destruction of The environment and the evil acts that are committed, .... People are crying and people are dying that don't want to or don't need to, So that says something is wrong and when we look at it it's because of certain peopleFor what they do or do not do. In context I could be labeled as a mean person, To which point I would hold up a mirror for the accuser to either look at themselves or in the background of the world they live.

[@artsomniacv-logcitybydanie1249]

@@K-newborn I also would like to state that I mentioned the circumstanceHighlighting my support for America Because it is the only place ever to exist in our civilization To be labeled land of the brave home with a free with freedom liberty and Justice for all. That's worth something to me and I think the rest of the world to the world as our borders....

[@K-newborn]

@@artsomniacv-logcitybydanie1249 so yes or naw?

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

Maybe it would be more correct to state that we are born _both_ Platonists and Aristotelians. Our bodies planted in the earth with minds reaching heavenward.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Beautiful. I love it

[@psychosophy6538]

This is the second time I watch this video, because of some ideas I couldn't publish from my first watching. The unconstrained vision is suitable for those who are willing to give up on themselves and serve the tribe/whole. Perhaps because they failed at their own life, or because their ultimate goal can only be achieved by integrating oneself with the group. But a solitary, skeptical individual doesn't buy that. He is well aware of corruption, of noise, of the paradox of trust (the most dangerous people are the ones you trust the most, because you do not expect something bad from them; thus your trustworthy comrade will destroy you with Black Swan event) and the will to power. He looks for his own interests FIRST. If his interests require something from the group, he can negotiate it and help with whatever it takes for the group, up to some extent, so the deal can be closed. It is beneficial for the human race to pursue a relative utopia, but that should be a side effect of the constrained vision.

[@fantuswitt9063]

I dont believe in either one because what is a good human nature or a bad human nature in the first place? I think it boils down to different humans favoring different qualities of so called "Human nature". One maybe likes that humans search for the spiritual others like that we search for earthly knowledge etc..

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

The constrained vision is a philosophy of the persona. The unconstrained is a philosophy of the Self. The constrained chooses man The unconstrained chooses God.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Interesting way of putting it. I definitely think the Unconstrained is more individual oriented and the unconstrained is more collective oriented though I'm not sure I'd phrase it as a persona vs Self split

[@Mashauri-Ai]

Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceed from the mouth of God and ofcourse your can turn stone to bread but for what purpose

[@sandorfintor]

I have The Tragic Vision.

[@adambowe2359]

This is only the second video I have watched of yours. I thought you were going to go full sjw for a minute. I glad that was not the case. I'll definitely be watching many more of your videos.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

Rather than make a video and conjecture Sowell's preferences, why not just ask him?

[@miketee4158]

Your comments in another video suggest you subscribe to the unconstrained, socialist vision.

[@Amish_Avenger]

You are doing Sowell a disservice. You need to study his history before you come to such a conclusion. Sowell started out as a Marxist and naturally leans into the unconstrained mentality. It was only through logical deduction and working for the government is where he learned the dangers of it. He did not become "biased" against unconstrained mentality because of some preconceived notions. He became "biased" against the unconstrained mentality because he lived it.

[@Andrew-qc8jh]

go outside dude

[@DavidRichardson28]

Rise of the alt right?? 🤔 😂 Where

[@11kravitzn]

At 5:37, why do you show Rabbis while talking about power corrupting? A bit nazi-ish, I'd say.

[@11kravitzn]

Relevant. You're right about JP's shadow, but didn't get the full picture. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJfJiGidgaypq5I

[@groupflix]

I appreciate the attempt made in this video, but I think the author extrapolated qualities from and for each. They seem more like the author's opinions. And he seems more of a an unconstrained type to me. That is my opinion.

[@padraicogawain3162]

If Trinity and UCD had lads like you in charge, the Irish ☘️ ruling class wouldn’t be the feckless sorrowful governance failures they are.