Terry Eagleton in conversation with Roger Scruton

Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
__________________________
This event took place at the Royal Institution on 13th September 2012.
For more events, visit www.intelligenc...

[@aristotelian3098]

Two true brilliant gentlemen, debating and disagreeing seriously with grace, humor, and respect. May they be contagious.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

Oh shut the fuck up you prat

[@aristotelian3098]

Retinend Well, that was meaningful. And you misspelled your name: R-e-t-a-r-d-e-d

[@krileayn]

If anyone needs to STFU it's you.

[@EMAGA]

The marxist is a buffoon.

[@squatch545]

The capitalist is a dickwad.

[@LuizHenrique-qx5et]

An intelligent, insightful debate which, despite containing radically opposed opinions, was conducted with decorum and respect. One must be awed that in times of Trump and political correctness, such delightful conversations still take place.

[@zenlokamaya]

Sir Roger Scruton, R.I.P. (1944-2020)

[@cecilefox9136]

How sad!R.I.P.

[@extendedclips]

🙏🏽✨

[@manchesterunited9576]

Good

[@MGMonasterio]

It is beautiful and enriching to disagree with grace and respect, a pity that we have only one of the two alive today. We need more of these!

[@tomgreene6579]

We do indeed....where can we find them ???

[@arts_ambassador]

Thank you for sharing. Sir Roger is a joy to listen to - he is, perhaps, our leading philosopher of aesthetics, after all. Terry Eagleton is interesting too.

[@Abysssmo]

"Our". If it is your "leader", perhaps you should listen to him in a more attentive way. He even says in this very debate, that you cannot just project your individual or mere group perspective to an universal that far exceeds your particularities and prejudices.

[@angusmcangus7914]

It's wonderful to have these videos of Sir Roger in his pomp. I wonder what he would have said about what we have gone through in 2020-21. What a loss his untimely death was.

[@post-baudrxllardian7608]

Not that great a loss judged by the absolute lack of argumentation seen here

[@IndependentManSpeaks]

34:49 "One reason why I'm a Marxist, quite apart from just enjoying annoying people, is that I don't like to do any work, I don't really like working." A surprisingly honest admission.

[@mrmuttley1]

I could not agree more with the statement. That is why we developed all this technology. At 73 I cannot watch television so I study philosophy and economics and feed the birds and let others do the gardening. I entertain myself which seems to entertain others. I do not understand the work ethic when we develop technologies to eliminate most of what we call work. Seems illogical.

[@natanaellizama6559]

Most people don't like working, especially in capitalist countries. Labor work is not good in itself, it is something done in order to survive and to have a dignified lifestyle, but not because labor work it is dignified in itself.

[@NeilKelly_is_angryexpat]

ask anyone if they actually enjoy the work they do... not the social connections of a work team or the identity of a corporate uniform, but the work.

[@mau345]

@@NeilKelly_is_angryexpat funny i like my work HATE the social connections

[@timothykeenan3743]

@@mau345 serial killer? ;)

[@grandmaster_gus]

Is that a young Ash Sarkar getting the last question in? Of course she had to give all that pre-amble only to respond to Scruton's answer by accusing him of "only listening to music made by dead white men". What an embarrassment.

[@pearlnolan1405]

I was looking for this comment :)

[@fernandofaria2872]

way to ruin a great debate

[@MxLee192]

Yup, standard Sarkar, even when younger, arrogant and overly antagonist about white people.

[@syourke3]

Eagleton gives a very stimulating and witty lecture about Christianity at Yale U. called "Christinity: Fair or Foul". He criticizes Hitchens and Dawkins in ways I would not have expected from a Marxists. You might find it enjoyable. Cheers!

[@aysoodaagh3167]

Thanks a lot dear. I'll find it after I watched this video.

[@bigo0723]

If you check out his work, he's heavily influenced by Christianity, and his work on evil and Materialism (which you can read in his books On Evil and Materialism, which are bit direct titles) are heavily inspired by Aquinas and the Christian tradition. One can point out, Marx heavily admired religion and encouraged his wife to read Jewish texts but that's just conveniently forgotten by some people.

[@wandersmann8765]

@@bigo0723 Even if you're an atheist, if you can't find value on the christian tradition, you're probably a fanatic.

[@scythermantis]

@@wandersmann8765 And Eagleton is no Atheist, obviously

[@davidarroyo6903]

Wish there were more like Eagleton. This would be a much more humane world. What a brilliant, beautiful human being he is!

[@Siegfried5846]

That could only happen if we had all-White countries again.

[@dogstank]

I'm a huge Eagleton fan which made this so fun to watch; I've never seen him get bopped on the head with such incisive wit. What a show!

[@alastaircrawford2383]

Yes a great show. Roger was witty, sharp, but incisive? I felt he seemed to use cheap 'get out of jail' laughs, rather than engage Eagleton on ideas.

[@krileayn]

I mean who would dare debate Roger Scruton. The man has an almost pure instinct for sticking to the argument, never swayed by cheap emotionality. Wish I had heard him in my younger days, the man is a genius.

[@daubreyjaneweirdsley]

Laughable comment. Scruton is a self loathing parvenu reactionary who despises, his working class background; an ersatz philosopher/intellectual and a intellectually challenged person's idea of an intelligent man, as you so aptly demonstrate.

[@nietzschean3138]

@@daubreyjaneweirdsley Your emotional reaction betrays what you really think. She doth protest too much comes to mind.

[@goodyeoman4534]

@@daubreyjaneweirdsley The other-person's-idea trope is used almost exclusively by people attempting (and failing) to sound smart themselves.

[@valentinberg7]

If a person is very good at the logic he/she will sound very convectively no matter what position he/she takes. And this is wonderful because this is the sort of debate where the truth is being born. But the truth is ( maybe fortunately and maybe, unfortunately) is very subjective so that is why even in the comment section here we have people insulting either those who debated or their followers :)

[@sakuraojibwe6634]

​@@daubreyjaneweirdsley By having derided @krileayn, you obscured the points that you might have been trying to make about Scruton. Of course, you might just have been blowing off steam and never intended to convince people of the merit of your position; if so, then have at him. As with pro-wrestling, a pile-driving comment is forgotten no sooner than it appears...about the time that it takes for us to swipe to the next comment on our phones. Pity, you never gave us the chance to know the depth or shallowness of your insights about Scruton.

[@stevengoldstein7890]

What a truly enjoyable time I spent listen to these two gentlemen this just goes to show you what can be done with two people with differing opinions having a discussion or if you will civilize argument without rancor I totally enjoyed this going to listen to do it again

[@thecanuckwoodsman1451]

That last girl who accused Roger of only listening to the music created by 'dead white men' is quite spectacularly rude and ignorant. I wish someone had put to her: in what circumstances would she consider it remotely acceptable to turn up to a discussion between two philosophers and sneer at a culture of "dead black men"?

[@robertdavidson5948]

Well, but black men have been for centuries dehumanised by those who lord it over them.

[@edgarschy]

I liked Scruton's "that's what you've been taught to say" and his "cliche" jab.

[@HowardARoark]

Yes she was not just spectacularly rude, but also racist and sexist, and downright ignorant. That someone is 'dead' does not in any way diminish the work they have left behind. Let's just say for example we didn't pay any attention to the works of scientist Nikola Tesla because he is 'dead' - then we'd miss out on the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. This girl was clearly seeking an opportunity to take a racist stab at the 'white male' speakers - as can be seen by the way she slipped her remark in hurriedly and clumsily. However Scruton responded with dignity and was not phased in the slightest.

[@kayem3824]

The Canuck Woodsman Much of classical musiic is extremely depressing as it was based on the horrid Catholicism. RS Is still stuck to the conventional view of the superiority of Western culture, a self-serving colonial myth that has passed its sell-by date.

[@jonathanngaan3891]

+Kay Em "depressing" don't make me laugh, being melancholic doesn't mean "depressing", not to mention the fact that they are not the majority as you try to make it out to be. Western high culture is superior to whatever bollocks of a culture you sympathise it, and that's coming from a non-Westerer.

[@YGriffiny]

If you have no in-depth knowledge of the Marxian canon, please refrain from commenting. This is not a polemical argument, as is stated many times in the video. Both men make good points and some dialectical reasoning is agreed upon.

[@WakeupMEDlA]

Y Griffiny awful excuse for not making any meaningful points. eagleton's marxist dogamtism is unbearably pompous and i hate the way he talks about the left

[@iga27]

I like Scruton, but the moderator, Hannah, is the true icing on the cake;

[@clickaccept]

I think she must have been stoned.

[@theicyridge]

They're both for the decomodification of culture, which is huge.

Two M if you want to pass for cultured...

[@gabrielleheard6366]

Holding on to what we love, peacefully with compassion to all, protecting freedom, think, be, speak.

[@johnmartin2813]

The real problem, as I see it, is the decline in the landed hereditary aristocracy, which had a long-standing tradition of noblesse oblige and public service, and were often enlightened patrons of the arts, simply because they had the time and money for this. Alas they have been replaced by the nouveau riche, who merely spend their money on ostentatious display of the most vulgar sort. In this, it seems to me, both capitalists and leftists have conspired together, albeit unintentionally, to everybody's detriment. Where would Yeats and Rilke and Wordsworth and Coleridge have been without aristocratic patronage? A regime of endless prizes and competitions and corporate sponsorship, and all its associated razzmatazz, is simply no replacement.

[@patrickkilroy6512]

50:00 When Eagelton starts talking about the defeat of leftism in the Muslim world as being somehow artificially imposed by America and the West, I weep. He tellingly refers to Indonesia instead of the United Arab Republic spearheaded by Nasser's Egypt, the Pan-Arab movements' heavy socialist overtones, the entire tradition of Ba'athism or "Arab Socialism" which produced the Assad regime in Syria and the Hussein regime in Iraq. He doesn't mention the socialist PLO's performance in Israel / Palestine. He doesn't talk about Gaddafi's efforts to mimic Nasser in Libya, the bloodshed and incompetency of the National Liberation Front in Algeria, Siad Barre's horrendous regime in Somalia, nor any of the plethora of leftist / socialist / communist regimes and movements across the African continent, many of which occurred in majority Muslim contexts. These regimes and movements were of course opposed by the West and America in the Cold War, but I fail to see how this is any more or less artificial than the initial Soviet and western academic production and sponsorship of them in the first place. Those regimes and movements have heaps of blame to accept for their own spectacular failures, and no semi-conscious firsthand observer can have failed to notice this. Socialism manifestly and consistently failed in the Muslim world. THAT is why leftism has been broadly discredited there, and why the gap which political Islam has filled existed to begin with. You can quite explicitly see how such foundational Islamist figures as Sayyid Qutb were explicitly resentful of being imprisoned by a socialist Nasserite Egyptian government for their pious fundamentalism, and that this is what actually radicalised them more than anything. They viewed such regimes as the "Near Enemy" (the West and America being the Far Enemy). So socialism is every bit as mired in blame for terroristic religious extremism as neo-imperialist American capitalist internationalism.

[@_blank-_]

Ok but would these extremists have gained power if the US and its allies didn't keep pumping them full of money while trying to overthrow/sabotage pan-Arab socialist-ish governments? No.

[@_blank-_]

I believe those pumping these extremist groups full of petrodollars are more to blame than the regimes that opposed them.

[@rwatertree]

35:50 The notion that culture is neglected because our energies are directed to work and profit seems utterly bogus. What is an architect without builders and masons? What is an author without printers, distributors and booksellers? Nothing but effete dreamers. Our ability to create and spread cultural products is a result of work. Profit, wealth have enabled the commission of great works. Who would Louis Le Vau be without Louis XIV?

[@albertloan396]

Can't agree more! Also, there exists this persistent distain for commerce or trade. It is the age old hatred of the merchant or tradesman, in contrast to the "gentleman" of leisure. Disgusting. What free people create through voluntary, peaceful exchange (which is what markets allow) should inspire awe and gratitude, rather than a penchant to command and control.

[@allanlewis2989]

"Let's assume there is some truth in what you're saying" LOL

[@majordolbyscat]

How could you not continue watching after an introduction like that, lol.

[@gianfrancobenetti-longhini8192]

In 1949 the family arrived in Tanganyika from Italy to join our father in the town of Arusha. As I could not attend Primary School until I could speak and understand some English, I used to help the local person in the garden, and started learning his language, till an Indian family with children came to live across the road. These, on seeing me looking at them, waved me over to play. Thus I started learning English from them, till one day my father spoke to me on what some British Officials had told him .... "European children must not play with Indian children" and that I should stop doing so. I was quite upset since I did not feel that I was different from them. I will not write of how this attitude was aimed against non-British. However I have to thank the event as it started applying a vaccine against discrimination towards others.

[@rashomonsan]

The officials were right.

[@nicheman3612]

Obviously the worship of Scruton is strong in this comment section, however I really feel Eagleton did a great job of nailing the hypocrisy and lack of self-awarness that so many conservatives demonstrate starting at around the 1:11:44. "The trouble with the right is they have a lot of theories that just don't like calling them theories...what you carry in their bones without a need to argue"

[@lnb29]

Isn't that the standard, cliched marxist starting point anyway? Not very surprising if I may say so.

[@punchgod]

Finally, a reasonable comment. There is such an engrained appeal to nature fallacy in right wing philosophy its hard to see how it gets off the ground. Countless arbitrary cultural assumptions posing as transhistorical a priori.

[@nicheman3612]

@@lnb29 Well the vast majority of people these days who complain about Marxist thought haven't actually got a clue about what it really entails - certainly not first-hand anyway. So it probably is worth reiterating this point as it was made in clear, accessible language.

[@rw9854]

2 respectable gents for sure. But Scruton is a different class of intellect and reason to Terry. Scruton’s viewpoint accepts human nature and has practical relevance. Eagleton is a jargon machine

[@crazywazydoublehazy]

Interesting how two intelligent people come across and how they effect your listening to and understanding of them. If these two gentlemen were travel guides to a location I had never visited before, I would sense I would experience and learn more, and know why, from Scruton than I would from Eagleton. It is about getting to the essence of a thing, and every time Scruton speaks, I listen so that I don’t miss the telling word or phrase that both encapsulates and clarifies the point he is making. His death is a very sad loss indeed, considering the butchery of culture that we are currently experiencing in the West and in the UK in particular, and the few voices of wisdom available to counter it.

[@felawes]

What a great chap Roger Scruton truly was ... and TE a very worthy companion on stage.

[@EndivioRoquefort]

22:00 "There's been a somewhat callow cult of the outsider and exile and migrant". Good a place as any to jump in. Scruton says belonging is important. I would agree it's an important component of the pursuit of happiness, and this because as a tribal species we are hard-wired to want to belong to bigger things, and can't really help it. However, while recognizing this we also have to acknowledge the dangers inherent in pandering to our tribal nature, as seen in the history of twentieth-century totalitarianisms (throw in reference to the Nuremberg defence, the Milgram experiment, etc). Today, we are surrounded by things we can belong to without cost (even the minimal cost of reflecting on what it is we are signing up to). For example, the Net is full of people happily signing up as footsoldiers in the Gender War, on the assumption that being one gender or t'other is a free gift (comes with the gonads, innit) and not something you have to work at (if you want to). So while I get where Eagleton is coming from (assuming he's talking about the posers, those who talk the talk but have never walked the walk) I think it's dangerous to write off the rite of passage, i.e. the assumption and interiorization of exile as a place we all need to know, and keep coming back to, if we are to become more than cogs in a machine (Bonhoeffer's wholesome reserve). The night in the church, alone, listening to the owls and sleeping on your sword. One view of culture (the one I espouse, and suspect Scruton does too) is that it gives us access to the collected history and wisdom of people who slept on their swords, i.e. deliberately or accidentally found themselves cut adrift from belonging, and were forced to experience life as individuals, and were able to find something of value they could pass on to others in a comparable predicament. Personally I think the idea that there is a crisis or a universal dumbing-down is greatly exaggerated: of course there's been some sacrifice of quality for quantity in higher education, but we've never had it so good in terms of adult literacy, widespread scientific knowledge, or easy access to cultural commodities, e.g. last weekend I was able to read both Richardson's Pamela and Fielding's charming riposte online for nothing, and before coming to this video I was listening to a magical concert rendition of Petroushka on YT, again for nothing. Beats growing up in the seventies listening to Deep Purple on Capital Radio, I'll tell ya that. I'm old enough that I can do the cantankerous nostalgic old git thing "back in my day, everyone was composing Latin verse at the age of three" as well as Scruton, but I've learned you have to back such things up with actual data, and I don't have any, or at least any that supports the view that we are about to witness the collapse of civilization. If you have some, feel free to jump in here.

[@patrickkilroy6512]

Something which wasn't addressed in Eagleton's side of the conversation, yet is seriously vulnerable to criticism, is his insistence on dialectical language. Every time he uses the phrase "late stage capitalism" I started fidgeting in frustration. Likewise when he lamented the time-consuming amount of work still required of people in this "late stage of human history", or during the question time used the phrase "a stalled dialectic". These kinds of historicist notions really are absurd, and once you dismantle them his suggested solutions seem to fade away. Following in the Leftist "tradition" of criticising effectively (whether rightly or wrongly) but then failing to deliver an alternative. This is the exact same vice seen in the deconstructionist Left. Arranging one's priorities and activities on the basis of an entitlement to something never before seen on this earth is quite an astonishing thing to do when you think about it, but it is made doubly so when one claims that this entitlement is somehow dictated by the laws of the universe (another poor stand-in for God I might add) as inevitable. This really is just a way of fabricating legitimacy from nothing instead of making practical arguments. It's actually the problem with the entire tradition of "utopian" socialism, or any other utopianism for that matter. Striding with unearned confidence towards a radical change has very little success rate when contrasted with making gradual improvements with humility and caution. This is the difference between revolutionaries and reformists too. You can quite clearly see how revolutionaries, armed with their criticisms and zealous optimism, always set about smashing up the institutions around them which conservatives may have preserved for hundreds of years, only to start fighting over the rubble when paradise fails to materialise. It's such an immensely high cost to pay that I find Leftists' casual bandying about of the idea offensive, even when its a Leftist as reasonable as Eagleton. When they go beyond that and start militating in favour of it I start to get the impression that I really am faced with something Mephistophelean.

[@TheDavid2222]

The disdain and prejudice shown toward Eagleton in the comments is incredibly undeserved. He is an eloquent writer and a penetrating thinker. He did very well in this discussuon

[@mattgilbert7347]

It's almost as if they weren't watching and listening. Then again, persuasion takes time. I hold onto the hope that the kinds of arguments (most of the arguments belonged to Eagleton here) he made may plant seeds of doubt and, with the efforts of other Leftist persuaders like Ben Burgis and the late, great Michael Brooks, these seeds might grow and flower into changed minds, better actions.

[@rentaghostokish5628]

I must commend the lady moderator for her beautiful posture and pleasant demeanour.

[@kayu_music]

+Rentaghost okish I must commend you for your eloquent and discerning appreciation for the female form, as exemplifying the most supreme degree of condescending objectification

[@drooleybob]

+Woody Phillips 'condescending objectification' yeah, right.

[@kayu_music]

Big Guy What do you call it?

[@drooleybob]

Woody Phillips A complement, derp.

[@kayu_music]

Big Guy Okay Big Guy.

[@Slarti]

I find Terry Eagleton to be so abstract in his thinking as to be unintelligible while I find Scruton to be much easier to understand. I say this as someone who is trained in the sciences and has a great love of the arts.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

I remember trying to read him as a student expecting an irreverent takedown of the various Mr Bumbles, John Thorntons, Gerald Criches and so on in literary history. Instead I read a lot of as you said abstract preoccupations Along irrelevant lines of Marxist so called theory.

[@EndivioRoquefort]

I may be off course here, but my understanding is that Eagleton is a Trotsykist. That allows him to write off all of the 20th century's various experiments in Marxism as travesties ("deformed workers' states" and the like) while claiming to represent the One True Marxism, which is the one that hasn't been tried yet, but if it were tried, would work perfectly. The problem with the One True Marxism is that only one person at any one time actually gets it. (Whatever happened to the Popular Front? - He's over there.)

[@reginaldmolethrasher437]

jagara1 Couldn't agree more. Eagleton loves the sound of his own voice so much - he produces labyrinthine, confusing sentences whose meaning, when there is one is, is difficult to pin down. The guy is a turd.

[@jasoncoleridge5872]

Eagleton is an intellectual heavyweight though, I mean, I struggle with Shakespeare, but I realise it's a failing in me and stop short of calling him a cunt.

[@Stafford674]

I agree, but I find him intelligible, but he is a Marxist, clinging to that ideology at a time when only those in a psychological state of denial are able to do so.

[@steelclassicm890]

Thanks for this polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas!

[@servaashofmeyr271]

Rosamund Pike in the audience at 59:40. Always strange to see famous people where you don’t expect to see them.

[@FMIFestival]

She's still gorgeous.

[@andycastro1014]

Eagleton:"We're in danger of agreeing..." Scruton: "Always happens when I talk, people say to me, 'I'm in danger of agreeing with you'." 😂 (@26:30)

[@robyourtime]

Roger is once again brilliant here. Terry, I'm not so familiar with, but he reminds me of the Mole from Wind in the Willows.

[@phanaiosapollon2097]

+rob poynter www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/League/OtherLeagues/Singular/Moreau/pic-MrMole.jpg Too true!

[@robyourtime]

That's him!

[@danzel1157]

+rob poynter Scruton gives the appearance of your classic Ivory Tower Capitalist philosopher. His contention that the universities have been given over to socialism would bemuse, to say the least, the two professors of my acquaintance. It would also - given the almost complete absorption of the neo-liberal ethos by society in general over the last thirty-five years - be quite improbable. On a personal note, I find Scruton's continual habit of playing to the gallery quite annoying.

[@TheCrusaderRabbits]

+rob poynter >the mole I lol ed

[@TheCrusaderRabbits]

+Anthony Matthews Bernie sanders, amirite?

[@beerman204]

Which is more important here, the contrasting ideas, or the civility and respect in which those ideas are spoken?

[@safanamakhdoomable]

Good conversations but TE, as much as I love you, should have given more of a chance to RS to speak. RIP RS. Thanks to IQ2.

[@christiankraft2447]

Great point on the thought of leftists' identity themselves as leftists. I only identify myself as on the right because I don't agree with those on the left. Conservatives are always in a defensive posture in that context, reacting to the lefts activism of change. That is their application of the dialectic because they think they need to destruct the normative. It always turns into a power dynamic with winners and loosers. It ignores that there was a hierarchy of hazards that created the normative. Change isn't necessary for the sake of change. What we should to is try to reverse entropy with our every effort. We aren't supposed to cause the entropy in some nebulous thought that the thesis vs. antithesis is going to result in a praxis that is better. When you reverse entropy, you image God according to the Bible. Maybe that's what the left hates? In fact not maybe.

[@andycastro1014]

Eagleton: The trouble with the Right..." Scruton: "Oh, God..." Eagleton: "You see, he even won't accept the word 'Right'..." Scruton: "In the other sense, I do." 😂 (Minute 1:11:20)

[@lawrencethompson8996]

Easterners can push and honour their cultures where they belong - in the East. This pathetic kowtowing to colonisers is ridiculous. Can't they see the irony of moving en-masse to another land (where the vast majority of the natives never wanted them) and systematically undermining and denigrating the cultural knowledge and traditions of the host culture? Are they completely oblivious to the irony? Or do they simply view it as a form of historical/ancestral justice/revenge?

[@davida.rosales6025]

RIGHT and LEFT often display stupidity both, but the LEFT has a monopoly on HYPOCRISY.

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

They have more in common than not. Terry Eagleton implicitly demonstrates Scruton's point about culture given he is only able to participate at this level of debate because he is culturally literate. I sense that both struggle with living in our time, which is like trying to breathe without oxygen. The "high/low" culture dualism is unfortunate and gets in the way of clear thinking. Both would have benefitted from remembering Wittgenstein's notion of "intermediate cases".

[@jesussanchezherrero5659]

55:03 "When we have moved ourselves from the great medieval institutions of Paris, Bolognia, Oxford" and... SALAMANCA in Spain. Idk why but it seems to me English authors always pretend to underestimate the importance of anything historical coming from Spain.

[@BigDaveEnglishTeacher]

The Black Legend, dude. You know that. Explicales a los demás lo que es eso...

[@jesussanchezherrero5659]

@@BigDaveEnglishTeacher as you rightly point out that might be the reason. The problem is it is so deeply ingrained in the European collective mindset that it is difficult to fight.

[@conorlynch8054]

Is that the actress Rosamund Pike at 59:38? Sitting beside the chap with the microphone, wearing orange.

[@jaaprozemeijer712]

+Conor Lynch yes that chap is her husband I believe. Marxist babble does attract beautiful women apparently!

[@TheMushybees]

came here to say this

[@kvonribbenburg]

The girl at the end looks and sounds like Ash Sarkar.

[@Yourismouter]

@@kvonribbenburg that's because It is Ash Sarkar of Novara Media, an outlet and an individual I'm not particularly fond of and I say this as a left-winger.

[@kvonribbenburg]

@@Yourismouter What about Terry Eagleton?

[@WakeupMEDlA]

scruton does well here. once again reminds you of the possibility that left orientated politics espoused by the likes of terry eagleton and his ilk is largely a less intelligent or common sensical, genuinely thoughtful mind set that clings to peoples words- and as is shown here marxism is the most overly milked. his doctrines do the real work for so called progressive ideologies. i.e. the huge but ultimtely necessary task of prescribing a solution for a society that embodies all the ideals they hold (justice, egalitarianism, equality, unity etc). looks more like intelectual laze and hifalutin big word spewing than a deep or complex insight more often than not

[@Moriarty276]

I'm guessing that Scruton gets about 10% of the discussion time and still makes about 90% of the intelligent points. Eagleton is clever, for sure, but anybody who knows anything about Scruton knows that he is a polymath and a genius. And far sharper on his feet.

[@jmedlin81]

Clever is the word. Roger is wise.. There's a world of difference.

[@angusspencer627]

Oh bless the old windbag on the left he's doing his best! Rather a convincing display! Sorry, cracked me up.

[@ritalawrence9370]

We would be lost without the Sir Scuton's, Thomas Sowell's and Walter Williams. God bless them for we will all become brainwashed by the media and educational systems full of Marxist ideologists otherwise. It's through these people that most of us who have been brainwashed can gradually emerge from the fog.

[@harryjervis7434]

I'm not convinced that Scruton was a genius. Having read a few of his books, I never get the impression of great leaps of association, and he never succeeded in creating a great work of art, which he probably would have, if he were indeed a genius. Saying all that, his contribution was unique and invaluable and far above the intellectual morass of his time, exhibited here quite well. Why was this? He actually saw through things with the benefit of wisdom. In the theme of the talk, such wisdom only comes through sincere reflection and an acceptance of cultural gifts; the man of the left is constitutionally incapable of such acceptance, and neither is he capable, without taking of the shackles of his dogmas, sincere reflection, for such reflection must always be mediated through the theory which gives his intellectual world its order and language.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Well I don't know that he lived up to that reputation here. I like him too, especially on music, but Eagleton was much stronger on most questions. Roger's reluctance to admit to his own anti-Capitalist instincts (and he did have them, even if only as a logical function of other, prior positions he held) came across as obstinate & stubborn, not principled & wise (even though he was both).

[@amichaelthomas83]

This is so good.. I think it is fair to say and everyone can agree that a culture in which people can disagree reasonably and with deference to one another is the way forward and I don't think that this is open to deconstruction.

[@brianjosephestanislao3511]

Terry * in the middle of a monologue the length of a Bible. Roger: I must say this is all a caricature of history. Terry: You can come in in a moment, Roger. Roger: It will be if this goes on for longer.

[@albertocrucilla5615]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 55:17 *The concept of the nation-state was a historical attempt to unite culture with governance, influencing global dynamics amid today's capitalist world.* 56:50 *Globalization has created a disconnect between local cultures and a cosmopolitan identity, causing people to retreat to nationalism or regionalism.* 59:42 *Cultural elitism remains a contentious issue; high culture isn't inherently nationalistic, and accessibility is a socialist ideal.* 01:00:11 *Contemporary cultural consumption has shifted from elite-driven to demand-driven, raising concerns about declining intellectual engagement.* 01:04:59 *The accessibility of high culture to broader audiences remains a challenge, despite historical aspirations to democratize cultural experiences.* 01:08:53 *There's a call for a conservative cultural critique focusing on internal cultural norms rather than economic determinism, contrasting with Marxist approaches.* 01:15:20 *Cultural debates often ignore non-Western perspectives, complicating discussions on cultural value and hierarchy in a globalized context.* 01:22:19 *Marxist criticism in universities has not only focused on exclusion but also on inclusion, advocating for a broader canon that includes marginalized voices like hip hop and jazz.* 01:23:31 *Cultural criticism and interrogation outside universities often capture cultural tensions better than academic settings, promoting a more dynamic cultural discourse.* 01:24:26 *Adorno's Marxist critique of popular music, like jazz, was dismissive and detrimental, setting back inclusive musicological theories.* Made with HARPA AI

[@IDontLiveTodayJH]

This is how Left and Right should always debate

[@andjelatatarovic8309]

Yes it actually made me more aware of the history of their arguments from a philosophical point of view and I'm very greatful!

[@lucasfernandes4369]

I am enjoying this a lot. Thanks.

[@kevinwoodburn1]

Might be my ability to understand thats lacking but I find Terry Eagleton is using the most complex way of explaining his beliefs, because he can't really explain them. He seems to struggle to put them into understandable terms so as to not have to defend them. However im clearly no academic. I believe great minds find a way to put complex theories into terms simple minds can understand and relate to.

[@normanstratford9329]

Polytechnics were the idea to supply people for work, while universities were more academic. The art colleges were non academic, though became more so with the qualification for the course, however high culture is about learning of the tradition of the past, but expression took a major role in the subject. Culture also moves with time, but when Roger Scruton mentioned supply, then it also implies work knowledge and much depends on education, but not high culture.

[@sebastiaosalgado1979]

What a great debate! Very high level!

[@roblewis8227]

I really enjoyed the debate, hearing two opposing sides speak respectfully. Couldnt make it to the end without some moron saying "dead white men" though😢

[@tomgreene6579]

PhD in pole dancing....try an Irish university. Dumbing down could happen under either system...Capitalism has given us some of our best cultural heritage.

[@MxLee192]

Great discussion and debate between two great English thinkers. Chair should have steered Terry a bit to keep the contributions even and fair, that aside. Very good.

[@theother6505]

As a conservative, I must admit that without the left my music collection would be significantly smaller. I will be more sympathic of the leftist position when it ceases to require me to reject my history, family, morality, traditions and God.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Yes, Stalinism was a disaster. All we require is that you reject conditions of economic domination, exploitation, and extraction. Of course, the really serious Marxist thought does not require anything of anyone, unless they seek to study Marxist thought - in that case, the main requirement is honesty.

[@post-baudrxllardian7608]

Absolutely incredible how Scruton can spend three quarters of an hour doing nothing else than throwing out one straw man after the other…absolute lack of substance in anything he says

[@rasheedlewis1]

What points did he make that were strawmen?

[@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign]

Identity politics and cancel culture at universities has proved Roger to have been right on and Terry lost in the bushes.

[@NosyFella]

Not at all. You misunderstand Eagleton.

[@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign]

@@NosyFella in what way?

[@janosmarothy5409]

@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign people have this totally unsubstantiated idea of what college campuses are like. I can tell you from firsthand experience and as a Marxist that they are nowhere close to the hotbeds of radicalism whatever cherrypicked cringe compilation from 2015 may have convinced you they are. couple this with the empty victimization narratives of the right that Scruton trots out, and yeah, Eagleton's position turns out the more tenable one

[@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign]

@@janosmarothy5409 when and why did you become a Marxist, I don't understand why some one believes in such a failed religion, where were you indoctrinated other than in an educational institution, subsidised by taxation?

[@janosmarothy5409]

@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesignyeah you're proving my point for me. you've never actually been to college have you? or if you had no one would be the wiser, you least of all

[@TheYopogo]

As an extreme leftist I must say that Roger Scruton is one of those relatively rare conservatives who actually has something to say, and some of the time it's even worth listening to! My list as it stands, each in their own idiom, is limited to him, Peter Hitchens, and G. K. Chesterton. A huge portion of conservative outlets and writers are just transparently broadcasting the lowest propaganda, and there is simply no point in engaging with it. These men are the exceptions which prove the rule. Do any of the conservatives in this comments section have any more recommendations for right wing thinkers who actually have something worth hearing to say?

[@acropolisnow9466]

Thomas Sowell.

[@albertloan396]

Michael Oakeshott is a pleasure to read and will change your mind about what a conservative perspective can be. Read the essay "A Place of Learning," if you liked the themes of this Eagleton/Scruton debate. And if you want an intellectual challenge, read the essay: "The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind." Find me on Facebook and I'll send them to you.

[@albertloan396]

@@acropolisnow9466 Sowell is excellent on many things and is an intelligent and thoughtful speaker. However, Sowell has more in common with Eagleton, on cultural issues, in that he thinks he knows what cultural values should be imposed, despite his defense of economic freedom. Scruton said more than once, during this debate, that he was not there to tell people what culture to adopt; he's more concerned with creating an environment of freedom where cultural values can be inherited, conserved, and built upon, rather than abandoned and replaced by intellectual or political authorities who think they know better. Eagleton mischaracterized Scruton's position as attempting to preserve culture in "amber," but this misses the nuance of the argument: that all successful evolution is the result of prior learning. Imposing change through power is neither evolution nor the consequence of learning. Eagleton's constant interruptions and insistence on putting words in Scruton's mouth prevented Scruton from clarifying his position.

[@balladewilliams]

Have you read what Hitchens has to say on GKC?

[@oo88oo]

Thomas Sowell

[@syourke3]

Marx was a determined champion of human liberty, a child of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, and he abhorred dictatorship and oppression of all kinds. He also recognized that capitalism was a revolutionary force that was changing the world radically and in ways that, in some respects, were beneficial for mankind as a whole. If you read the first part of the Manifesto, you will see that Marx had enormous respect for the way in which capitalism had increased the productive forces.

[@syourke3]

The fact is that "dead white men" have created most of the greatest art, music and literature in the world. If that offends some people, well so be it.

[@OH-pc5jx]

It’s not that it’s offensive, it’s just inaccurate

[@andycastro1014]

Eagleton: "If Marx had believed that it's strange why he was so concerned with political struggle." Scruton: "I know, I know, he was confused, wasn't he?" 😂 (@42:00)

[@fernandofaria2872]

Did I hear it correctly or did Terry really said that one of the reasons he is a marxist is because he doesn't like to work? Also, that lady at the end just HAD to ruin a productive and interesting debate with that comment, didnt she? -.-

[@mattgilbert7347]

Marxists want to reduce the hours spent working as sellers of labor to owners of capital. Ultimately, we want to abolish the condition altogether, so that what we call "work" is transformed into something far more productive, creative, and human. He's talking, quite simply, about alienated wage labor. He's not talking about "doing nothing" Yes, I agree about Ash Sarkar making a fool of herself at the end. She must have been terribly young at the time. She's perhaps improved a little, but it's ironic that it was this turn towards Identity Politics and the culture of accusation and cancellation that created the conditions which made it practically impossible for someone like Jeremy Corbyn to win the Prime Minister's job. The very leader she supported was brought down by the right of the labor party, empowered by the kind of IdPol we heard at the end of this video.

[@SkyFoxTale]

*asks a normal question Roger: a HUGE question

[@willwaning3476]

It’s a huge question to a huge brain.

[@chelloveck]

Didn't we do an social experiment of marksism on territory of USSR, Chine and North Korea? I thought all the world saw how it worked and didn't try on own territory.

[@vampireducks1622]

1:19:30 "Outrageously tendentious" - to describe Scruton's example of British activity in Bengal - is exactly right! (One might also add, "unworthy of a philosopher".)

[@malpreece5008]

Really? It seems to me it was a necessary point to make. Too often British colonialism is characterised entirely by reference to the negative, so it was nice to hear an alternative point of view.

[@tapan97]

@@malpreece5008 Do you have the same complaint about the predominantly negative characterisation of Nazism? Obviously a phenomenon overwhelmingly negative in it's impact would have more negative implications. Some of you act like an "alternative" point of view is always useful, and cannot be simply obfuscation. Is it also necessary point to insist on the supposed "good" treatment of slaves when discussing slavery?

[@malpreece5008]

@@tapan97 Your argument is ridiculous! You can’t compare the British Empire to Nazism, not least because it sacrificed itself to defeat Nazism. Do you characterise modern India by its worst moments and compare it to Nazism? Perhaps modern India should be characterised by corruption, inter-communal violence, terrorism, operation Blue Star, wealth inequality, poor sanitation, and high infant mortality. The UN have estimated that around 2 million children under the age of five die every year in India due to malnutrition and preventable diseases, but the Indian government still maintains a space programme costing $1.9 billion per year, and builds the worlds largest statue costing more than $420 million. That’s appalling! They also erect statues to fascist sympathisers such as Subhas Chandra Bose, so India is obviously full of fascists! What do you think? Is that a balanced perspective of modern India? Some of you act as though you understand an empire that existed for more than 350 years, when all you’ve read are anti-colonial/Marxist diatribes. Come back when you’ve done some proper reading on the subject!

[@tapan97]

@@malpreece5008 so many logical errors, where to start. First of all, being against Nazism doesn't mean that you're good in yourself as well. Stalinist USSR fought on the Allied side as well, so by extension you find Stalinism and the gulags to be a good thing? Second, Britain decided (not the entire Empire, but we'll come to that shortly) to fight against Nazi Germany- and not Nazism- in pursuance of it's own geopolitical and strategic interests, and it's naïve to think that any country "sacrificed" itself out of some mere ideological or moral opposition to Nazism in the War. Otherwise, they would have attacked Germany in 1933 or at least soon after. Regarding the Empire which Britain ran, by the way, India was forced to send it's soldiers without any prior consent or consultation of Indians themselves. That is just a case of classic colonialism making our decisions for us in order to fulfil your own interests. Then, your comical attempt to rile me up over Indian historical and present wrongs is cute, but I'm afraid that it doesn't prove your point. You see, I said the British _Empire_ was an exploitative and oppressive phenomenon. Obviously, it would be wrong to "characterise modern India by it's worst moments," much as it would be wrong to characterise modern Britain by it's worst moments. Thing is, colonialism _was_ one of those worse "moments" by which I wouldn't judge your (?) whole country. If you had bothered to make some cursory engagement with these "anti-colonial/Marxist" diatribes, you'd know that most Indian freedom fighters made the distinction between British colonialism- which they saw as an odious excrescence , and British civilisation and culture- which they generally had huge respect for and even borrowed many ideas from. As an aside, some of the problems you listed as facing modern India have often not been without some serious contribution of your beloved Empire. Poor sanitation? Infant mortality? Inter-communal violence? Malnutrition? Hullo! You accuse me, free from any evidence, of only reading "anti colonial/Marxist diatribe" (the conflation between anti-colonial and Marxist is also curious). It seems some reading beyond the apologetic diatribe of Biggar, Ferguson etc (see how assumption without evidence works?) would help yourself see some real instances of decline of crafts and textile manufacturing, trade restrictions and disadvantages, famines, and escalation of Hindu-Muslim conflict happened in the 19th century under the Brits. Yes, there has been continuing mismanagement post-Independence too, but India at the time of freedom was lagging under piss-poor development and welfare indicators, as a sort of damning report-card of the legacy of colonial Britain's performance. Would you care to perhaps inquire into what proportion of children in India the UN said were dying in 1947 as the Brits left the helm?

[@malpreece5008]

@@tapan97 Did I say that the British Empire was ‘good’ because it opposed Nazism? No. I said you can’t compare the British Empire to Nazism. The USSR had a pact with the Nazi’s between 1939-1941, and they occupied the eastern half of Poland in 1939. The Soviets only went to war with Nazi Germany after they were attacked in 1941. Hardly a fair comparison with the British, who entered into a war with Nazi Germany after the invasion of Poland, and could have compromised with the Nazis in order to preserve their empire, but chose not to. Few recognised the threat of Nazism in 1933, or throughout most of the 1930’s. The British stand was not merely opposition to German expansionism, but against what Churchill described in 1940 as the ‘lights of perverted science’. He was well aware of the pernicious nature of Nazism, unlike that anti-colonialist and Japanese Imperialist stooge, Bose, who looked forward to India producing a ‘synthesis between communism and fascism’. When you attempt to present the British Empire’s involvement in WW2 as Great Britain dragging its unwilling empire into a conflict, you should note that all of the dominions were largely independent after the 1931 Statute of Westminster, and they voluntarily joined Britain in declaring war on Germany in 1939. It’s also worth understanding that although Britain still maintained control of India at a national level, the 1935 Government of India Act had given autonomy to Indians at a provincial level, and no Indians were conscripted to fight for Britain in either of the world wars of the 20th century. Indian soldiers were all volunteers. Also, the vast majority of Indian servicemen stayed in India during both world wars. So, maybe you should put down your copy of Tharoor’s ‘Inglorious Empire’ and go back to the library. You wouldn’t judge modern India or Britain by their worst moments, but you will judge the entire British Empire by its worst moments? That makes no sense whatsoever! Modern India is just another power structure, which can be compared to the power structure it replaced, I.e. British rule of the Indian Empire. It is absurd to judge any of these nations/empires merely by their worst moments, and only a halfwit would do so. Also, why are you singling out colonialism for criticism? Different human groups have always expanded and contracted in power and territory throughout history. It is true that not all colonisers were as benevolent as the British, but presenting colonialism as uniquely/inherently evil is a technique of the historically illiterate. I didn’t make an assumption about you, I presumed that you had been indoctrinated by Marxists/anti-colonialists because you implied that the British Empire could be compared to Nazism. My response was based on probability and is therefore not an assumption (see how that works?). I’ve done slightly more than mere preliminary reading of Marxist historians. I studied British colonial history for four years at graduate and postgraduate level in the UK, where I was fully exposed to all the anti-colonial/Marxist dogmas. The separation of British colonialism from British civilisation by Indian nationalists is rather bizarre, as the one (colonialism) delivered the other (civilisation) to the world, and they are therefore interconnected. Perhaps I’m wrong though, perhaps most Indians acquired a taste for British civilisation when they were on a package holiday to the Cotswolds in the mid 18th century! It’s also curious to me that academics conflate Marxism with anti-colonialism, but they do! Most postmodernist/Marxist lecturers push the same vapid anti-colonial talking points, and their recommended reading lists are loaded with left-wing thinkers. Very few of the alternative perspectives are considered in academia. Ferguson was the only alternative perspective at my uni, and his work was only included so that undergrads would have a book to criticise for their mandatory book review. But when you read outside of the Marxist recommended reading lists it’s evident that the British Empire, for all its faults, was one of the most benevolent empires that has ever existed. Ferguson and Biggar are interesting, but I would recommend Zareer Masani, Tirthankar Roy, Jeremy Black and Katar Lalvani to counter your distorted view of empire. The British made improvements in sanitation and infant mortality in India. The most dramatic drop in infant mortality occurred between 1900-1910, mostly as a consequence of the 1880 Compulsory Vaccination Act. Throughout the colonial period significant advances were made in the development of hospitals and medicine in India, which benefited Indian and European alike. The EIC established the first hospitals and medical colleges in India, building the Madras general hospital in 1679 for the relief of Indians and EIC employees. By the turn of the 20th century there were almost 2,500 hospitals and dispensaries in British India. In 1903 alone 26.5 million people were treated. Also, British rule largely prevented large scale invasions of India, as had occurred in the early 18th century during Mughal rule, and significantly reduced internal conflicts between Hindu and Muslim. Only when the British left India did those long standing animosities return in some of the worst bloodshed since the pre-colonial period. I think you should spend more time thinking about modern India’s ‘report card’, rather than trying to blame India’s current problems on British rule. Especially when British rule vastly improved India. Anyway, good effort, but you still need to do a lot more reading on the subject.

[@UncleBoratagain]

Oddly vapid posturing from the student Marxist in failing to acknowledge Roger's evidential point regarding Sati in particular along with the British regard for Indian high culture. Being anti-colonial yet willing to inflict tyranny and command economy Socialism on our tiny nation indicative of the relentless dissembling which is the notable feature of far left 'thought'.

[@albertloan396]

Well said.

[@RD-uf6gw]

Mr. Scruton certainly seemed to grasp the direction in which that penultimate question was heading early on. The discussion had obviously been framed in the context of the Western canon, but the young woman was determined to make it about oppression and perceived Imperial chauvinism.

[@garyk.nedrow8302]

In our discordanat times, it is always reaffirming to see two intellectual men disagreeing civilly. Our politicians could learn much from them about good manners. Unlike most intellectuals, however, Scruton's comments rest firmly on a philosophical or moral premise rooted in human experience rather than than an ideology. He is one of the few voices defending the right to make moral judgments in a world that is naively non-judgmental in order to appear tolerant. In other words, he recognizes and defends merit, translated into workable standards that guide conduct in human affairs. The socialist left, by contrast, wishes to deconstruct standards and even the meanings of words themselves to reduce all human achievement to the level of the lowest common denominator in the name of equality. In fact, civilization advances primarily on the work of extraordinary thinkers and artists, who defy any attempt to reduce excellence to democratic sameness. All men are endowed with equal rights by birth, but they are not endowed with equal abilities, and we should not be embarrassed to recognize it. Roger Scruton was one of those extraordinary minds. We will miss him.

[@timothykeenan3743]

I agree with your first two sentences, but then it gets a bit debatable. Surely you mean 'All people' in your penultimate sentence?

[@Freezyaspen]

How do you define “equal abilities”? One’s ability is not innate, but comes through education which is highly related to one’s social class, family background, race, gender etc. The assumption that ability is born different sounds suspect. Even it is right, how do you guarantee those who have good ability get the same opportunities and access as those of the upper class?

[@tommot7755]

Wonderful combination ! Both outstanding awesome!

[@ENoob]

Eagleton seems to have an odd view of the conservative position as articulated by Scruton. It doesn't attempt to preserve things in aspic without change of challenge, but to make changes carefully and slowly with much thought always keeping in mind that those of us in the present making the changes know a great deal less than we think we do and should respect the fact that any cultural output that has survived a long time must have been thought worthwhile by a great many very intelligent people. The conservative position in this way in fundamentally one of humility before the accumulated genius of History.

[@acropolisnow9466]

Exactly. This is thoroughly if not deliberately misunderstood.

[@albertloan396]

Well said. Your point about humility is spot-on.

[@divinuminfernum]

that answer at 41:05 that Scruton gives is effectively a cop out, he agrees with Eagleton but doesnt want to admit it, so rather than just focus on just want Marx was interested in, he makes an allusion to Stalinism/20th century communism - all of which came after Marx and are no less contrary to Marx's writings themselves, than the 3rd Reich was to Nietzsches - but all this is beside the point in regards to the conversation being had.

[@justindavidable]

Rosamund Pike @ 1:00:00 !

[@JonysiguelVEVO]

DUDE! I noticed that too and I was looking for a comment about her. what a beautiful woman she is.

[@MrWallinor]

Haha i noticed the same thing and was amazed! Attending something like this makes her the most desirable in the world to me. Looks and brain

[@Trifixion22]

Love both of these guys.

[@Mhumaikani1993]

Terry Eagleton is epic. He brilliantly evaluates concepts to their ends. He does reflect extreme intelligence and confidence of being able to find beauty in as well as critize accumulative wisdom. On the other hand, Scruton finds solace in positioning himself as a person who flourishes in high culture, and it seems that his seemingly intelligent capacity of sticking to a point is just a lack of critical thought.

[@justathought274]

Such a reductive and ridiculous comment about Sir Roger

[@willdenham]

I'm not sure why Scruton continues to site Marx as an example of cultural criticism. Marx's primary criticism was one of utility and economics. Marx is the scapegoat punching bag of right wing intelligencia, they never site anyone else, when there is quite a list of philosophers and grear writers who are critical of the status quo and critical of the ruling. class. I think they invoke Marx because we are trained in the U.S., UK, etc. From an early age to be afraid of communism/socialism. It's a crutch to say the name Karl Marx, Focault, the Frankfurt school when talking from the right. Notice also that they never site Marx.

[@benitocorleone]

A very good debate. Scruton gives a good account of himself, in the face of Eagleton's superior rhetoric. I found myself in sympathy to both accounts of culture, in particular.

[@Amalgafiend]

I don't think you know what rhetoric is; both interlocuter's are plain speaking, here. Eagleton's opnions are just more detailed

[@Amalgafiend]

pauljones651 I am still under the impression that neither of them are using rhetoric, unless you just mean skill in expressing what they are saying, but really that is different; in common usage, the word "rhetoric" implies artificiality in order to sway people with "fancy" phrasing and emotionally charged words rather than reason. Whatever benitocorleone was trying to say, if my criticism was unfounded only he can know. So you might be right or you might be wrong, but the usage is wrong just in case someone implies something with the word when what they intend is actually not true, if it accidentally happens that the word they use can have the more general meaning aswell it does not mean that that is what they were trying to express.

[@Amalgafiend]

All you say is true. I am British, more particularly English. I think in this case the American English and British English standard and common usage are similar. But I think we have digressed, interesting though it may be. The only person who can tell me what he meant and indicate that my criticism was unfounded, at the moment, is benito, and by the looks of things, it does not seem that he is going to reply any time soon. This might be because my way of engaging was a little assertive, but I would rather say something assertively (and clearly) and be wrong, than sat it ambiguously. All criticism amounts to nothing more than a conjecture that someone is wrong, best to say it clearly.

[@rastiali2311]

I have read some of Eagleton's books which show his snobbish Ivory Tower, he does not even reognize his own snobbery in his Academic Language.

[@fernandofaria2872]

He is notoriously hard to read.

[@patriotanswers162]

If you want to live a cheap life, you don't have to work hardly at all. It's because people want to have a high standard of living that they work a lot. You can live in an apartment with one car and have decent stuff for not a lot of work. That is a dramatic improvement over 150 years ago.

[@monkeymox2544]

Wouldn't it be nice if Jordan Peterson would actually talk about Marx's real thought, in the way that Scruton does here, rather than spouting off an endless stream of strawmen. Of course, no Marxist will debate him apparently.

[@UncleBoratagain]

Such an articulate debate, the racist remark by the demented commie woman lowered the tone to the sewer, fortunately right at the end: wittily dismissed by Prof Scruton.

[@Franklin-eL]

Culture isn't taught, its every day life

[@SaintNektarios]

Two very intelligent men having a civilized discussion.

[@andyisdead]

two gentlemen

[@ChrisOgunlowo]

Incredibly enlightening.

[@stonepaintertim]

it's the nature and substance of what gets passed on in an educational setting, which is going to be more valued and intelligently kept in tact than by the liberal guy. Look at art history, and the nature of tradition is more based on a disciplined absorption of traditional conventions before a worthwhile radical creative departure is made. It's the nature of creative intelligence. Scruton's position is more valuable in terms of the humanities as handing down wisdom. (we now have that "bed" and today the taped banana to measure this. )

[@bluemouth8066]

So Ash Sarkar was contriving excuses for hating white men even before she was famous. At least she's consistent.

[@scottvska]

Does Eagleton have to end his sentences with "yes?"

[@excelsior999]

Yes, yes?

[@margotbw4660]

hes a windbag

[@listenerab]

Scruton talks about the Enlightenment as a good idea yet he loves Burke who was completely unaffected by this movement.

[@thesnakecharmer2531]

It's called Independent Thinking

[@juechhakchhuak4979]

"Let's assume that there is some truth in what you say" ~Roger Scruton

[@dougwebley9359]

Early appearance of luxury communist Ash Sakar at the last question. She hasn't learnt a thing.

[@matthewstokes1608]

To the Indian lady at the end "what happens when High cultures collide?" The same as it always has: the dominant takes on the best of the lesser into its cannon - if it's any good. Great Art always remains... Sanskrit is after all part of our high culture, too, of course - as are legends and myths, writings, poems, music, artifacts, etc, so from all over the world... But language is also a factor, nonetheless for universality - and it seems that 'the gods' have chosen English (at the moment) to have us TRY to communicate (as now you do)... The greatest change on this planet is the fact that we can see it from space and have explored its land mass (white man and his evil to have made this possible of course)... We know we are all together sharing our globe for the first time. Now we have, increasingly, international high culture, certainly we do... But, whether you believe white man some demon or not is besides the point, my dear, because greatness in the Arts will survive ( unless Islam has its way) and the Occidental classical cannon of music will never die internationally because of its unequalled excellence... The same goes for the achievements of Shakespeare - and a thousand other British, European and western classical writers, poets, painters, architects, etc.... We are blessed to have translations of Indian poetry, photographs of your marvelous buildings and sculptures, recordings of great Indian music past and present, thanks to the western invention of the recording machine, (you see the marvels of the white man past?) coming into our high culture and enriching it, just as we have countless examples of ancient art we have assimilated into our story - the lexicon of Arabic or Egyptian art in our libraries and museums of High Culture for example.... You are being unnecessarily rude (as too many of your type are) to a people that have long venerated all peoples and all cultures. We are not the racists... There is a dreadful willingness internationally to lie about the British, which is actually a great shame for the world I fear.

[@safanamakhdoomable]

Matthew Stokes so what’s with the slur on Islam? What do you know about Muslim and Indian cultures’ beautiful marriage?

[@dixonpinfold2582]

I decided to find out about the guy sitting next to Rosamund Pike who, in the course of a 90-second question-speech 59:28, pointedly called Eagleton an elitist, then alluded about half a dozen times to "controlling" elites. As might be guessed from her spectacular eye-roll at 1:00:06, he was, and is reputed to still be, her boyfriend and partner, one Robie Uniacke. From his tendentious question one would think he is as far as can be from privileged, controlling elitism, surely? Not quite. Details are few and perhaps unreliable, but he is called a businessman and "mathematical researcher". An Old Etonian, at 22 he married the daughter of an earl. While married to her, he reportedly gave up a job in the City to scuba dive for sunken Spanish treasure for several months. The marriage ended after about five years, multiple sources claiming both he and his wife were treated for serious heroin addiction not long afterward. In 2004, when he was 43, the 19-year-old daughter of former Tory minister Lord Hesketh (once the owner of a £50m mansion) had to publicly deny that she was his girlfriend. The two had been seen out together at London cinemas and restaurants. "Just good friends," she said of Uniacke, who was more than twice her age. He was at the time "a City speculator." A company of his went insolvent and folded a few years ago. It was reported he failed to pay £179k in taxes and was overdrawn by £133k, although he had withdrawn £144k for personal use. He has six children with his two wives and Pike. His current partner's net worth is variously estimated at $6 million and $9 million.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

@Conor O’Brien A bit of a flair for misinterpretation and straw-manning there. No, wealth does not automatically entail elitism; I've known that quite well for a very long time, thank you. But I didn't say so, did I?; nor did I mention his fortunate financial position alone. My point is that he is a pompous --- 'Now hear this, plebes! Everybody listen to my rambling speech! Set your lives aside for a full minute-and-a-half! Important guy speaking!'' --- privileged, long-time, fully-paid-up member of the elite, complete with a clearly selfish and entitled attitude, and as such has only a very dubious right to whine about the elites. And my point about the eye-roll is merely that it is something especially likely to be done by any woman whose partner happens to be an insufferable putz, period. Thanks for your reply. It turns out I had a little more contumely left anyway! Best to get it all out. Cheers. ; ) : )

[@AURORA08A]

could have some respect for the eagleton creature until he cited Trotsky. " we lefts have always lived on tradition" ( or whatever) Trotsky was not less evil than Stalin, but only less able in the art of the bureaucratic machinations of realpolitik. Trotsky was the butcher of Kronstadt, the general commander of the suppression of the revolutionary Ukraine. There is room to criticicise the ideology of the working people of both regions without afirming bolshevism, or its cultural marxist bastard epigones. And Trotsky himself deserved the icepick, regardless the infamy of the ultimate arsehole Stalin

[@ouldonaunt3262]

in the segment at 38:50 Scruton is not in disagreement with Eagleton that the current condition we are in is one of, a means to an end. Scruton is saying we are not as we might like to think we are, ends in ourselves, but rather that late capitalism now uses our culture as a means to its own ends. this is what is meant when they say instrumentalization. try telling gamers that the energies being harnessed for the sake of someone else's profit will in large part, not be of much profit to them themselves. a game environment provides goals which simulate fruits of real goals of real environments, but those are ultimately used as a means for the benefit of those who own the games and profit by them. it's the same way that facebook treats the users data as a similar means to similar ends. both these gentlemen agree that this will result in culture becoming dragged down and vulgarized as it happens. current events in fact bare out this criticism of culture.

[@statelypavinglandscaping1426]

1:25:34 dead white men.. lol..

[@MrAdrianOldfield]

Vile little witch Ash Sarkar

[@dolphineachonga8724]

My view is neither the Marxist nor the capitalist has any concerns with culture. They're both traditional concepts of economic systems. The capitalist is concerned with the practical value of maximum gain or profit. While the Marxist is concerned with idealistic values of equity and fairness in production and distribution of economic resources and gains. Terry seems to argue that capitalism is conservative and right wing. But, what would you call modern bilionare technocrats, and Hollywood showbiz moguls such as Orprah and Bill Gates? Aren't they leftists and capitalist? In fact there are more left wing capitalist bilionares today than right wing ones. A capitalist can fit into both conservative and progressive movements since his main concern is to make money from whoever he can. And they don't need a political revolution to achieve it. They can simply follow the market wherever it goes. Marxism is concerned with protection of labor from exploitation by the greedy capitalist. There's a disdain for the feudal lord who pushes the laborer to the point of collapse to gain maximum profit. Leninists and Stalinist who claimed to be Marxist thought to prevent this and ensure fairness, capitalism must be destroyed and replaced with a system that ensures equity. Thus, they adapted communism. When communism became economically unfeasible, they bolstered it with state capitalism. However, this became even more authoritative, restrictive, merciless and exploitative than feudalism. Which is why it collapsed though it is currently practiced by China with economic success. However, many freedoms have been curbed and people are worked extremely hard to ensure the system maintains order and high productivity. Terry with his disdain for routine work would not survive this system. The reason I like capitalism, is because of the element of voluntary exchange. If you don't like a product you can choose not to buy it. If you find the company you work for exploitative or routine , you can quit and find another job or start your own business. Thanks to capitalism, teenagers are making money in the online platforms without doing some tasking manual labor or referring to feudal authority. The capitalist of today isn't some feudal lord but more of a creative supplier. The Marxist on the other hand, can only achieve his objectives through political movements and forceful implementation. This is because people are inherently selfish thus are not morally inclined to be fair or share their wealth. This can only be effectively achieved through force or threat of prosecution. However, there's no country that practices pure Marxism or capitalism. Most mix the two to a varying degree through taxation and other social programs. I suppose you could say there's varying levels of social-economic ideals. So, Sir Roger being a conservative capitalist wasn't a paradox. He was sentimental about old traditions but reasoned like a practical businessman.He believed we should learn to appreciate the classical culture that's shaped us and preserve as much of it as we can then pass it down to future generations. If change comes let it happen naturally, through everyday activities and interactions such as family, music, commerce e. t. c. However, he cautioned that proposed changes should be observed attentively before being adapted. While Terry is an idealist who believes in the promise of new, better things which he argued is achieved through cultural and political revolution.

[@expressionofwill5307]

A lot of Terrie's argument was just a dismissive display of "whataboutism" rather than really engaging in disagreement.

[@thejdogcool]

if I see that word one. more. time...

[@douglasmilton2805]

@@thejdogcool That word? What about it? (Joke, I'm on your side).