Mortimer Adler ★ The US Constitution 1787

Mortimer Adler ★ The US Constitution 1787

[@victorsauvage1890]

He is genuine! A great educator!

[@barriefeatherstone9397]

Thank you for posting this. Dr. Adler should be as well known to high schoolers as is Einstein.

[@jasonbaber1526]

What an extraordinary teacher and intellectual!

[@darrenmaxwell1085]

Just watching this as I’ve just begun reading this book. An interesting point, a student brought up Tyranny of the Minority and Adler said never, not in a constitutional republic with a majority vote. But today it seems there are many issues, stances, causes that are minority positions in terms of number and sometimes for groups that is forced upon the majority without vote but executive pen that is able to prevail now not because it’s just but instead it’s now the position of a majority of the media. Media is no longer interested in journalism but has chosen sides in activism. I’m not sure that was quite the case then when Adler says no, never. It seems to me today that potentially the most powerful institution is the media , when mostly all side together and choose a political lens with which to report and persuade, facts are no longer the driver persuasion is, leading to propaganda. When it’s aligned with one party it is no longer a check that it once was on power but an enabler to centralized power. Maybe I’m wrong, it’s my opinion but I wonder if that is something that ever or never entered into Adlers thinking because it was not an issue of that time or much smaller and isolated?

[@BeckyDJD]

Thank you so much for posting!!!

[@thomasd2444]

26:10 - All humans are , by nature , equal .

[@ImMuzikmaven]

I found the discussion most illuminating from the following standpoint. The Constitution was forged in a particular time and place by particular men with specific ends in view. Fast forward 200 years and that document--as is--can be viewed as UNJUST. Why? The original document, while containing the seeds and promises of equality, was delimited by society as it existed. Only by the Amendments was a gradual transformation toward equality inching toward social equality of opportunity. Those who would declare our Constitution to be an "inspired by God" writing trap themselves in a time warp of paternalism, racism, and noblesse oblige. We are none of us born "equal" because we are born as individuals with DNA unlike others. Progressive impulses are merely variations on a theme of state-run redistribution-of-wealth schemes, certainly. As Adler points out, that can be a good thing or a very bad thing depending on the particulars. As the student at the conference table interjected, there is an undeniable "injury" to the HAVE's in society when the HAVE NOT's become their burden by force of law. How all this will, in our time, be solved may devolve into the domain of Jefferson's statement about a "revolution" every so often! No political party is doing much listening to their competitors as their fellow statesman. Without a meeting of minds, revolution is a certainty. Thankfully, I'm 70 years old and won't live to see the fallout when it comes :)

[@airborne2767]

It's not unjust. And no we don't, because God himself is a racist, and hates all other races that are not white, because they are not His creation. We are born equal, us white men.

[@thomasd2444]

27:57 - A Self-Governing People come together to secure the conditions by which they all may live decently to pursue Happiness (or a good life well lived as a whole)

[@JimMcGriffJr]

Let us not forget the Declaration was addressed to the king. He ruled by Devine right. Our founders said we are equal to him; all of us were created equal. We now read a lot more into this statement. Our founders did not think all were equal after birth. They believed equality was conditional.

[@chicago618]

7:09 “I am unamused.” ☹️ 10:49 That’s Vivian Kensington from Legally Blonde. She went to St. Johns before going to Harvard Law.

[@thomasd2444]

27:25 - MORTIMER ADLER: Talk about happiness now as a whole good life well lived. That’s an end. The means to pursuing it are being alive, being free, having certain economic goods, having certain other of your human needs fulfilled. Then, it seems to me, what we say is you have a right to all the things you need, you know, in the pursuit of happiness. But some of the things you need, you need virtue, as well, moral virtue, but that you get yourself. You don’t need government to give you moral virtue. But all the other things you need to pursue happiness can be within the power of government to help you get.

[@thomasd2444]

MORTIMER ADLER: And you have to say that our Founding Fathers allowed for that. I have a quotation here that. I want to read you from Madison, who was one of the more conservative writers of the Constitution. BILL MOYERS: And who is really considered the architect of the Constitution. MORTIMER ADLER: This is in 1819. What could not but happen and was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution, that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in expounding terms and phrases necessarily used in such a charter, and that it might require a regular course of practice to liquidate and settle the meaning of some of them. I mean, he was conscious of the fact that judicial interpretation and amendment would have to take place.

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same. The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure-terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

[@standinstann]

A few of the things you said here are incorrect. First: you seemed to describe western democracies like Englamd s being at least partially socialistic and then invited tbat slcialism always leads to the same outcome. This is demonstrably untrue in western democracies that have adopted socialist policies while maintaining property rights, like England and the United States. Second. You said rhat the ultimate goal of socalism is the abolition of private property. In fact the goal of socialism is the democratization of private property and the ubiquity of its The solution that marx, dnd communist states that followed his prescriptions, employed to democratize private property was the abolition of individual property rights, (which its self, according to marx, abolished the right to own property by situating it in the hands of a tiny minority class), and creating a dictatorship of the workers who would, naturally, distribute said oropery equitably because it was in their class interest to do so. The error was in the means by which property was to be democratized. Not in the goal of making property ownership ubiquitous.

[@thomasd2444]

No, Robin-Hood-Social-ism is not the path

[@thomasd2444]

Types of SOCIAL-ISM : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism . AFTER the advent of Karl Marx's theory of capitalism & scientific socialism, socialism came to refer to ownership & administration of the means of production by the working class, either through the state apparatus or through independent cooperatives. The essential characteristic of socialism is the "denial" (or the alteration of control) of (what was once understood to be an isolated or) individual property rights; ... under (some forms of) socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Progress taught the educated that what once appeared to be an isolated property is in fact part of the whole earth's eco-system No longer could any individual claim a right to dump Poly-chlorinated-by-phenols in ponds on any private property because the surface of such property is connected beneath to the ground water of everyone So the progress of human learning taught all that the control of private property by the self-governing , through their representatives , preserves the right to drink water & live only when each private property owner is forbidden to dump & poison the water beneath the surface . Modern Living in a self-governing republic is complex .

[@jerryklooster438]

I've read and heard dozens of definitions for socialism. As with you, the majority of people choose a definition that they can most easily attack.

[@thomasd2444]

29:16 - No one in the 18th Cen. or much of the 19th Cen. even thought _________ of AFFORDABLE ECONOMIC HUMAN RIGHTS & our awareness _________ of them is our extraordinary advance in our 20th Cen.

[@nthperson]

It would be quite interesting to bring together the St. John's students who participated in this seminar with Mortimer Adler to find out how the education they received impacted their future lives, attitudes and belief systems. Perhaps Bill Moyers could make this happen. Missing from Mortimer Adler's discussion of the beliefs of the founding fathers is the influence of Thomas Paine. Paine challenged many conventional wisdoms of his day. We remember him mostly for 'Common Sense" and the 'Crisis' papers. His other major contributions to moral philosophy and political economy deserve be be included in the list of essential readings embraced by Mortimer Adler. There are few equals to Paine's 'Rights of Man' or 'Age of Reason' or 'Agrarian Justice'. Edward J. Dodson, President Thomas Paine Friends www.thomas-paine-friends.org

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

The young man with the terrible haircut is 100% right!

[@bogeyman38111]

Which ones?

[@Dasein2005]

No, he really isn’t. He comes off as a posturing imbecile who, because he read a few lines of Ayn Rand, thinks he’s an intellectual superstar. Complete garbage.

[@Juan-hn9vg]

isn't there a spanish version?

[@thomasd2444]

24:30 - James Madison wrote in 1819 :

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

I love how Bill is trying to direct Adler to support radical marxism lol

[@Dasein2005]

Stop listening to conservative propaganda. "Radical Marxism"? This is embarrassing. Think before you type.

[@thomasd2444]

You REALLY need to dialog with Bill Moyers & learn just how little you know him

[@thomasd2444]

26:10 -

[@tomrjego]

(17 Seconds) 39:17-39:34 "look at our present military establishment-HUGE in size and arsenal. Globally dispersed, biting deep into the nation's budget- thoroughly embedded into the industrial, technological side of our society....(all the while Dr. Adler is nodding) cloaked in secrecy so often..(at this last comment Dr. Adler responds "oh, yea?")

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

Adler is fantastic when you want to study the past. Ayn Rand is much better for dealing with the present and future.

[@avidfilmbuff7830]

I’m a strong admirer of both of them. I consider them the greatest representatives of Aristotelian ideas in the 20th century.

[@Dasein2005]

Ayn Rand believed in a capitalist fantasy, just as Friedman did- and both encouraged our present neoliberal age towards that direction. How’s that worked out? Would she approve of Paul Ryan and Trump? Please.

[@thomasd2444]

The future is our American Affordable Economic Human Rights

[@jerryklooster438]

Please. Adler is not an educator and Rand is barely a writer.

[@RobPoppy]

@@jerryklooster438 thank you.

[@christopherstump8302]

AdLER is fucking hilarious. So you are saying we exist for the state? "That's right....", says Adler in his Freudian witticism. Immediately realizing his mistake, he changes his response to" NOOooO0oo". Can be seen around 35:12. Still love this man for his books, and all his other readings. I would recommend anyone looking to get a true, real liberal education to read everything by this gentleman. Top picks would be: How to read a book, how to speak/how to listen, an introduction to the great books and to a liberal education ten book series, the great conversation by britannica.

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

'It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.' Sounds like Adler but it's Hitler

[@thomasd2444]

That is in NO WAY a reflection of M J Adler's life on earth

[@joshyman221]

He would completely disagree with the first line. The individual is all that matters. The constitution exists to protect and support the welfare of individuals (or well, at least families). The “state” or “nation” to Adler is not what matters. The constitution, and the ideals it puts forward, are what matter.

[@nthperson]

An additional comment is worth being made. In all of his writings, Mortimer Adler does not address the absence under human systems of law of the most fundamental of all human rights, the birthright of equal access to the earth and to those natural resources provided free of cost by nature. Private claims to control over any portion of the planet are, therefore, claims to privilege, enforced by use of coercion, on result of which (for most of history) is the redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing "rentier" elites. The most penetrating analysis of this history and moral implications of this system injustice is to be found in the writings of the nineteenth century American writer Henry George.

[@c4call]

quite disappointed in Adler's progressivism

[@hexagondun]

was thinking the same thing, but surely adler had his reasons, and surely they were rooted in his views on natural law. He cited Monsignor Ryan's A Living Wage at 28:35 -- added to the 'ol reading list, fersure.

[@eastcoastenzo3654]

Adler was an old school Liberal but most of his ideas today would be considered fascism

[@thomasd2444]

@@eastcoastenzo3654 - Nonsense

[@thomasd2444]

Dr Adler was concerned with JUSTICE for ALL

[@kinnish5267]

We didn't listen to him and now we have woke students everywhere supporting socialism -- very sad