Individualism Vs Society - Brian Eno & Yanis Varoufakis [2020] | Intelligence Squared

In 2020, musician Brian Eno and economist Yanis Varoufakis joined Intelligence Squared for a wide-ranging conversation on an array of topics, from nuclear power to Julian Assange. In this clip, the duo delve into the impacts of individualism on our society's creative and economic spheres, questioning the role of individualism in a functional society. Which side of the debate do you align with? Join the discussion and share your thoughts in the comments below!
See the full session here: • Yanis Varoufakis and B...
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: kzbin.info...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#intelligencesquaredplus #intelligencecsquared #iq2 #brianeno #yanisvaroufakis #society #individualism #modernsociety #economics #creativity #culture #language #creativesector

[@SH-cu9rc]

"The whole point about mainstream economics is to justify capitalism, and capitalism justifies itself on the basis of the fiction that wealth is something that is produced individually and the state comes and taxes it, when it is exactly the opposite. Wealth is produced socially, collectively, and then it is privitised"

[@nightoftheworld]

🔥5:44

[@BeyondaThought]

I'd like to understand privitization more, and what he means by it then being privatized. I know that sounds simplistic, but I'd like to understand how privitization is creating more problems.

[@MelissaGalatas]

​@BeyondaThought Great question! An example: pharmaceuticals are often developed via taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. The pharmaceutical companies will then charge the taxpayer a massive amount of money to access the needed drugs, even though the taxpayer funded the research to develop them. This can be applied to all corporate development, not just because of the subsidies and tax breaks they receive, but because of the 2008 bank bailouts and quantitative easing practices. Therefore, the wealth generated by that new technology was only made possible by public investment. Taxpayer dollars. But instead of the taxpayer being treated like an investor, we are treated like we're asking for hand outs and are denied access to the technologies we funded unless we pay exorbitant prices. Yanis argues that the taxpayer should be seen as an investor and receive dividends from our investment, just like any other investor would. Especially when the technologies we pay for are then used to eliminate our jobs.

[@nightoftheworld]

@@MelissaGalatas exactly, corporate welfare at its finest.. not even to mention how we've had our wages suppressed to enrich them even more, which they then spend on lobbying for more of our tax dollars. The sickness is absolutely terminal.

[@Raelspark]

No, it's the opposite

[@mariettestabel275]

Greeks-the Light of the World. 💫 Brian Eno 🎼👌 Thank You.. Thanks to Both of You.

[@cadenceenglish]

What beautiful minds ❤

[@robertallen591]

we used to believe in things bigger than us we used to work together for the greater good , now we are powerless individuals that for all our technology are more isolated and depressed than any generation in history. we are farmed like sheep by a consumer society in which we can never have enough, and have become nothing but units of consumption, indeed our value as a person is determined by nothing but our possesions

[@TomekSamcik69]

"The best results come when everyone in the group does what's good for themselves. Incomplete... The best results come when everyone in the group does what's good for themselves AND the group"

[@seenloitering7019]

How is an individual supposed to know what's best for the group?

[@TomekSamcik69]

Individual has to engage in voluntary interactions with the group to figure

[@seenloitering7019]

@@TomekSamcik69 So, each individual determines what is best for the group based on their own reasoning and experience. That sounds like classic individualism to me.

[@robertallen591]

rubish

[@RuneDrageon]

​@@seenloitering7019Dialog

[@bearclaw007]

Two of my favorites in their respective fields.

[@mariusdlb3713]

Real question: how do you implement the creative tools of their thoughts into your own life and involvement?

[@evolassunglasses4673]

We have been reduced to individual economic units.

[@mariusdlb3713]

Yes, and we keep posting comments everywhere, on social medias, as little signatures of ourselves, only fragments of the vast artwork that our era prevents us from elaborating :D

[@mariusdlb3713]

Recommending : The society of Spectacle by G. Debord

[@mariettestabel275]

The Human Ego is Musical; it grows when you Aplaud it.❤

[@truthaboveall7988]

Brilliant

[@marilyngoldie5946]

Surely one can’t be without the other. If we were hermits we would not have any perspective other than our own. If an individual joins a group, provided they are open and aware, the individual can develop ides from group dynamics then grow an idea into something else…a book, a piece of equipment, a new policy and son.

[@jackieec40]

What are teachers, coaches, professors, they collate ideas, parents, families, i always say its good to talk, connect , learn, be inspired, share the feelings of the human condition 😊

[@wankee888]

ancient society believes unity is strength. Not so complicated.

[@nightoftheworld]

Ya but remember the content of that unity doesn’t necessarily have to be liberating or emancipating for others-think Nazis or corporate neoliberal globalism, etc.

[@luked2982]

Ancient society, as opposed to modern society, was one of close *natural* ties. Aristotle's Politics: "Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right when he says, "First house and wife and an ox for the plough, " for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,' and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.' But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.'" Modern society attempts to create unnatural bonds through law, wherein lies the difference in kind between these relations. You cannot arbitrarily force bonds between strangers like the natural bonds that would arise from family and extended family living in close proximity and with mutual goals.

[@merlepatterson]

0:38 - Tell that to Da Vinci or Aristotle or Newton or Turing

[@robertholland8283]

Good clip.

[@RetNemmoc555]

IQ Squared, when you mic someone, make sure their microphone is not scraping against clothing and (in this case) beards.

[@ijexcmos8153]

Perhaps, we need another iq-swuared talk on how to do that! 😂😂😂

[@njits789]

5:43 👍

[@flavius_pisapia_sculpture]

The individual is essential for the society. It's a fallacy to think that society has intuitive thinking able to discover new things.

[@myangreen6484]

The idea that society somehow has its own intuition, separate from individuals, is a bit off the mark. It's like saying a forest has feelings apart from the trees in it. Sure, every person's intuition, shaped by their unique experiences and learnings, is the real building block of what we might call 'societal intuition'. But when these personal intuitions blend together in the societal melting pot, something bigger emerges. Think about it historically. Big changes in how societies work - like moving from the feudal era to industrial capitalism - weren't just the brainwave of one person. They were the result of many individual insights and experiences coming together, against a backdrop of changing social and economic conditions. Yet, there's a twist. This 'societal intuition', while rooted in individual thoughts, gets nudged and tweaked by those who hold the reins - the ruling classes, the big bosses. They shape it to fit their needs, often prioritizing profits over people, growth over the environment. So, what we get as societal intuition is this complex web of personal experiences, historical shifts, and the influence of the dominant economic and political powers. It's no wonder then that sometimes what society as a whole seems to 'think' or 'feel' can clash with what many individuals, especially those not at the top, experience. To really change things, we need to get this. It's about valuing each person's intuition while also being aware of how the bigger societal forces play their part in shaping our collective consciousness. It's a fascinating, sometimes messy, interplay that's at the heart of how societies evolve and change.

[@flavius_pisapia_sculpture]

@@myangreen6484 An individual is not one to be reigned or ruled over. An individual is not easily influenced by external authority. Such individuals are present in every so-called societal class. Outwardly they may seem bound by duties or a humble life but they are inwardly free. All great changes in history were because of individuals and their influence on the age they lived in. The ruling classes play a minimal role in this. The major direction is given by the spirit of the time of a particular age. The spiritual rules everywhere. The individual initiates are the ones that do the real work, in line with the spirit of the age, often behind the scenes of history, in anonymity. For example an italian by the name of NG Bellia studied recent (70s) social issues and found solutions. He did this in a mathematical way. His solutions are the only true ones for now and for the future. He was such an initiate as described above. After he found the solutions many people started studying his works. This study creates culture, and culture creates change or better said cultural and human evolution.

[@Nestoras_Zogopoulos]

What the heck, I was just listening to brian eno's music while this popped up. Didn't know he does stuff like this

[@pustakarileks7404]

Me too, surprised

[@svenamsterdam3501]

UBI is one key. Affordable public housing is another.

[@wise5674]

I agree with affordable public housing. UBI is illogical to me. How can everyone get the rewards of effort? Regardless of whether they contribute to society or not? Isn't that just slavery where some people are foolish enough to work and others just get the rewards from the work?

[@RoverT65536]

4:45

[@goranmiljus2664]

The team is always bigger than the sum of its parts. None of the Beatles musicians did as well on their own.

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

It is in this individualistic society of our time that feminism flourishes.

[@louislemar796]

Communities are just collections of individuals, a community is not an entity in and of itself capable of thought and creativity. It is the individual human mind which focuses, which initiates a process of thought, which integrates, imagines, conceptualises etc etc. Groups of people can share ideas, but only to the extent that each member of the group is engaged in a process of thought, which each individual has to initiate and direct themselves.

[@jackieec40]

THis was written by a man or a sad feeling person maybe🤔

[@louislemar796]

@@jackieec40 this was written by an unthinking zombie who doesn’t critique arguments but instead tries to impinge motive and criticise a persons character, which should only be done if you know the person very well and have the appropriate level of evidence to justify your claim.

[@Dystisis]

What you say has an aspect of truth to it, but there is another aspect you ignore. Individuals don't just form their ideas out of nothing. They rely on communal resources and institutions to do so, most obviously language. You might think language is just a mechanism for conveying an underlying thought, but that is not so. For a person to write down thoughts, say them, or even think them explicitly to himself, he has to formulate them *in* language. And language is not the product of the individual, but of a community. Every concept a person thinks through, comes from outside himself.

[@louislemar796]

@@Dystisis Well that’s not exactly correct. Nothing is formed out of nothing, that’s a redundancy. People form ideas by observing reality directly and forming new integrations based on their observations. When Isaac Newton observed an apple descending to earth, he began to form an integration about an objects relationship to the Earth and proceeded to develop a theory based on it, which he achieved himself. Now you say that people learn language, and benefit from “communal resources and institution” well who are you referring to and what resources and institutions are you referring to? Many people go to private schools and benefit from their parents paying for their education. Those who go to government schools i would argue don’t benefit at all, but let’s say they do, the teachers are being paid by compulsory taxes i.e. at the expense of the taxpayer. In addition, language is primarily not social, it’s individualistic. Individual humans create new concepts like Internet, or Football, or Gravity, which didn’t exist before, which then other individuals think about and adopt over time. Groups do not originate new ideas or words qua group. It begins with an individual and then shared, learned etc by other individuals. Whatever “resources” exist are produced by some individual or some group of individuals who trade and exchange their goods/services with other individuals, value for value. There is no “free resource” provided by “the community” I do not owe my teachers anything - they got paid. I don’t owe my parents anything - i did not choose to be born, I don’t owe anybody anything except to reframe from violating their rights. Anyone who gave me a value as a adult did so under a system of trade because i was offering them something to exchange with. That language you’re using is just trying to obfuscate the reality that some people produce and earn what they produce and others don’t.

[@amcespana2150]

a united and coordinated army is much more than a mob of armed people, a society is much more than the sum of each separate member. Philosophers only talk nonsenses about a world they don't know. The human being is made of flesh and blood, we are not beings of light, ideas do not work in the real world that is made of matter

[@StAsshole]

Can’t believe am watching a finance minister quoting sartre, wittgenstein. I hope it’s not quote level knowledge.

[@TheLivirus]

Ideas are socially created, yes, but through the contributions of individuals. I'm not convinced by the truism that good ideas simply emerge out of putting a bunch of people in the same room.

[@GuillaumeTANNEUX]

Yet it is a fact. As you wrote "Ideas are socially created, yes, but through the contributions of individualS.". IndividualS are what make society. In other words : society is a bunch of individuals. When this particular individual comes up with an idea, it's because he/she was taught at school, she/he read books, articles, heard conferences, discussed with others,... in short was fed by many before and in order to produces an idea. Even the greatest minds didn't just come up with brilliant idea out of nowhere. But rather built upon others ideas. In this case the "room" of your comment is the society. Therefore, yes, putting a bunch of people in a room is what allow ideas to emerge.

[@TheLivirus]

@Guillaume TANNEUX That's a stretch. You seem to equate all contributions and interactions. By your reasoning, there is no need for that task group of handpicked individuals or that group of friends with a shared passion, because they already share room. Not all people choose to spend their time reading the greats and wrestling with difficult problems.

[@GuillaumeTANNEUX]

​@@TheLivirus within the society there are numerous sub-groups of different interests. Exemple scientists studying microbes, other studying space, other math, and so on. Other exemples will be athletes of this or that particular sport, artists of this or that particular field of art... Exemples are countless. Yet, in none of them there is just one individual. All are groups. Smaller groups, larger groups, but always bunch of individuals. As for the last part of your comment, I didn't imply that all ideas are brilliant or revolutionary. Even trivial ideas proposed by common people are the result of the amalgamation of education, history, other people ideas... Don't you think ?

[@TheLivirus]

@@GuillaumeTANNEUX I'm not sure we disagree then, because my starting point was that good ideas are created socially. I'm just emphasizing the contributions of certain individuals, acknowledging the importance of their hard work, dedication and unique qualities.

[@GuillaumeTANNEUX]

@@TheLivirus oh! Sorry for my misunderstanding. You are right, I can only agree with you. Individuals deserve to be recognized and praised for their contribution. As far as we know that the collective (society) is what allows individuals potential to flourish. Interested in a oral conversation?

[@kathymartin5730]

Many artists spend majority of their time in solitude creating. Often listening to mother nature is more inspiring than bunch of noisy people.

[@clivesmith9377]

Some artists, who cannot do it in cities, seek isolation to find new ways of expression in the Art they work on. But inspiration mostly comes from what there is accumulated within communities. Rothko in New York and Picasso in Paris did very well amongst other artists, family, friends, lovers and a plethora of people.

[@GuillaumeTANNEUX]

That's true, but it doesn't mean that society is absent even in the seek of solitude for creation. The artist was taught how to play instrument, the instrument was made by society, the result of creation will find its meaning by being enjoyed by others (society),... without even touching all the basic needs anybody, including artists, have in order to pursue their carrer or interest (food, health, transportation, energy, infrastructures....). Society doesn't mean that individual cannot seek or need solitude. But allows to be in solitude if and when needed. Whereas the absence of society (in a virtual assumption) oblige to solitude. Major difference here. Please do not see my comment as an attack whatsoever. I do truly respect you as my "sister", if I may put it this way. I understand your point, which once again is true, to some extent. I just felt like completing it as an act of love to you.

[@jamiedorsey4167]

I'm accustomed to some kind of back and forth of differing point of views from IQ2. This was kind of disappointing in that it was so one sided.

[@SwitzerlandEducation4471]

An American priest walked into a barber shop in Washington, D.C. After he got his haircut, he asked how much it would be. The barber said, "No charge. I consider it a service to the Lord." The next morning, the barber came to work and there were 12 prayer books and a thank you note from the priest in front of the door. Later that day, a British police officer on vacation came in and got his hair cut. He then asked how much it was. The barber said, "No charge. I consider it a service to the community." The next morning, he came to work and there were a dozen donuts and a thank you note from the police officer. Then, a Nigerian Businessman came in and got a haircut. When he was done he asked how much it was. The barber said, "If you are really a Nigerian then you don't have to pay since you are from the same country as Akeem Olajuwon the basketballer." The next morning, the barber came to work and there were 12 Nigerians in front of his door waiting for a haircut!!! Join us at unlimited laughter 👈

[@aurelia5614]

What is the point in knowing the nationality of the priest, police officer and businessman in this story? Is it meant to be a joke?

[@DinoRamzi]

@@aurelia5614In a word… yes.

[@jamiedorsey4167]

I think the economic point of the joke is sound. That people will take advantage and ruin the system. However the joke is framed in a pretty racist way, there's no need for the national identities of the people, and it could easily be said that it was the British that lined up the next morning for free haircuts.

[@DinoRamzi]

Wealth is created collectively and then privatized??? What an assertion. Everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, even if that labor was arranging the labor of others in the most efficient and profitable manner necessary.

[@jonirischx8925]

If you truly believe that everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, then you must adhere to socialism. Otherwise you are not being logical. There is no such thing as 'arranging the labor of others' that generates wealth on its own. It is an administrative task for which a wage should be paid, like a manager or an accountant. What you actually mean is that an investor, or a capitalist or an entrepreneur who 'arranges labor of others' is entitled not only for the wage for that managerial work, and the surplus it produces, but to the surplus of ALL the labor his own work relates to. How is this him being entitled to the fruits of his own labor, when he effectively garnishes the wages of others, in order to maximize his access to surplus, that is not generated by him? The surplus that his labor generates in organizing others, is his own. But by your own logic he is entitled to that, and only that. And that is not wealth.

[@DinoRamzi]

@@jonirischx8925 you are conflating management with risk. The people who put money into it are the risk takers. But they also do a fair amount of management.

[@Raelspark]

@@jonirischx8925 nonsense

[@stuntman1359]

is no more profit and loss system, then how would society know how best or most efficient to allocate resources? Central planners would be in charge, not society.

[@greogewestmann4913]

We don't need someone to teach us language, read Noam Chomsky.

[@lostsoul2184]

Don't just miss žizek s absurd jokes ?

[@AndrewNuttallWearsPants]

Notice the externalization of creative agency in this, which is typical of collectivist thinkers. Take the point that you cannot learn a language unless someone teaches it to you, for example. First, there would need to be an inventor of language to teach the first learner, which means someone would have had to have a private language at some point in the distant past to start the ball rolling. Second, this claim is not consistent with the evidence. Children raised by wolves, who had no human contact until they were found, developed language independently but together and in response to their circumstances. Thus, individual creativity is absolutely key, and this sort of collectivism is just as flawed as coherentism.

[@stephannaro2113]

Most of language is invented by dead people. How am I supposed to share my wealth with them? Isn't it interesting how bands aren't put together by central planning, but by individuals freely working out who to associate with and how. And you can say what you want about band members acting as carbon to make steel, but it seems pretty obvious that there are a whole bunch of bands that revolve around one person, where you can swap out the "carbon" without diminishing the steel which ultimately is produced by the one. Maybe Eno just isn't as good an artist as those ones, and so needs more "carbon"?

[@maldarkangel]

This entire video was just pro communist content... your welcome.

[@scarba]

He married the daughter of one of the richest industrialists in Greece. I dont understand how such a rich guy can spout Marxism.

[@robertholland8283]

le·git·i·mize /ləˈjidəˌmīz/  verb make legitimate.