Problems with Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Narrative

Steven Pinker's narrative of Enlightenment conveniently dismisses how the dark side of modernity is born in the same enlightenment principles he wants to uphold.
My links:
Support this channel: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
patreon: / pageauvideos
subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
website: www.thesymbolicworld.com
facebook: / thesymbolicworld
twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
The unofficial facebook discussion group:
/ 1989208418065298
The outro to my videos was written by Matthew Wilkinson
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
The music at the opening is Russian Eastern Overture, by Rimsky Korsakov.

[@johnvervaeke]

This was very well said. Pinker’s historical narrative is over simplistic as you argue. I would argue that his view of reason is also overly simplistic. See Fodor’s response to Pinker: the mind doesn’t work that way: the scope and limits of computational psychology. The cyclical nature of cognition that you discuss is consonant with more dynamical models of cognition, such as my own, that have largely overtaken the computational approach advocated by Pinker.

[@Viriyascybin]

Contemporary enlightenment thinkers like Harris, do get into the nature of our psychological wisdom in relation to perfect reason. Read Harris' Islam and the Misuses of Ecstasy, it's googleable, 3 min read.

[@russianbotfarm3036]

> cyclical nature of cognition wut?

[@rabbyssi4392]

Jeremiah Bullfrog maybe they meant self-referential? I would point you to Douglas Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach” or the less poetic, more concise version “I Am a Strange Loop”

[@russianbotfarm3036]

@@rabbyssi4392 I don't think so. Having since watched more of Pageau's video (toward the end), Pageau is speaking of historical processes, or at least, longer-term processes that go back and forth. 'cognition', to me, is something shorter-term, so I'm still not sure what John Vervaeke means by it. He's got a channel though, that looks at least a little serious, so maybe I'll poke around.

[@karolinasz.141]

@@russianbotfarm3036 I think he's talking about the attention and dispersion dynamic of the mind that Pageau describes... Definitely check out Vevrvaeke's channel though! His Meaning Crisis series is great!

[@redbearwarrior4859]

Pinker: The vast majority of people are incapable of focusing on reason. Me: What do you suggest we do about it? Pinker: We give power over our lives to the vast majority of people via Democracy! Me: Say whaaaaat!?

[@jeremyfirth]

I agree. I love Plato's criticism of democracy. If you had 100 people who were all going on a journey together by ship, and none of them had ever been on a ship before, why would you want one of them running the ship, and why would you let half of the people choose who would run the ship? Makes no sense.

[@funkyanimaltheearloffunkdo1871]

Indeed. Universal Suffrage was a mistake. Much prefer the Starship Troopers way of doing things. Service guarantees citizenship.

[@jpedrosc98]

@@funkyanimaltheearloffunkdo1871 what

[@HitomiAyumu]

Democracy does not imply majority rule. Reading his book makes this very obvious

[@hegel5816]

@@HitomiAyumu The democracy that pinker postulates doesn't exist and will not exist in the future....

[@neversurrender6112]

The fetishism of reason is a result of people not realising just how hard it is to be reasonable

[@josephmelton4721]

Dumbest shit I've ever read. If you have a problem that's on you but it's plenty easy to be reasonable. You literally just REASONED why people have a hard time being reasonable. Jesus

[@billtimmons7071]

@@josephmelton4721 That's kinda naive. Plenty easy to be reasonable? Your response proves it aint easy. ... Jesus

[@notloki3377]

@@billtimmons7071 no u

[@JarrodDSchneider]

Pinker's fanatical commitment to Reason is unreasonable.

[@MrJafar93]

gj dude

[@ironmonkey1512]

the pitfalls of 'knowing' are in the book of Genesis

[@TheCausticThinker]

And leads to irrationality.

[@paulfroelich1024]

Sam Harris's commitment to Rationality makes Pinker look lukewarm.

[@shawngoldman3762]

😂

[@josephjude1290]

I always thought the Enlightenment also was about the rich upper classes seizing power without the say of the Church.

[@jasonjones2329]

understand, the Church stole power from the kings, Caesars, so it's very possible.Well, from what I iW

[@MrWesford]

@@jasonjones2329 how so?

[@nickkorkodylas5005]

Yes. It was bourgeois midwits and merchants projecting their vices on their betters, the pious and those of better birth, (I think I do not need to explain what "aristocracy" and "eugenics" etymologically means). Their egalitarianism, rationalizations, moral relativism and blank slate worship were just erroneous excuses to turn the masses against those who ruled by virtue and birthright and usurp them.

[@chrisc7265]

I had a dream I was walking on the beach with The Enlightment through the twentieth century. We left two sets of footprints in the sand. I noticed that during the worst times, the catastrophes, the genocides, the world wars, there was only one set of footprints. "Why?", I asked The Enlightenment, "Why did you leave me in my time of need?" "I totally peaced out during those times bro. I've got to worry about my perfect track record my dude."

[@okmelancholico]

I was lucky enough that my father had taught me exactly this, since that first moment he heard a cynical tone in something I said about religion when I was still a little kid. It wasn't because he's a devout Christian, but he respected Christianity and ancient traditions in general. He grew up in the West (basically a Westerner who looked Asian), and came home to the East (Indonesia) when he was in his 30s to marry my mom (they met in Holland where he was living). Instead of getting irritated by the huge cultural differences, the strange ways of thinking, and the many little (what the West would consider) impractical ways of doing stuff here; he embraced and appreciated them all. He taught me to recognise the good and the bad in both the East and the West, in human nature, Left and Right, and in all aspects in life. Pinker should start to binge watch South Park or something... They (the Enlightenment bunch) keep endorsing this "oversimplifying" storytelling routine, even when the conversation about this issue has become so dynamic today (intensely spreading outside Academia) amongst inquisitive folks to the point that it's generally agreed that "oversimplification" is crucial to avoid. So when very smart people like Pinker keep endorsing and repeating this "Enlightenment = Good, Not Enlightenment = Bad" narrative, and constantly inventing the next "creative" ways to market that, it feels a lot like hearing weird sounds of a broken record intentionally played as part of a contemporary art installation. Pretentious and bloody tiresome.

[@malpais776]

Yes, much of what I hear from "the Enlightenment bunch" I've heard ad nauseum from Madeleine Murray O'Hare and her crew down in Austin, TX, in the early 70s. Sounds like you had a wise dad.

[@eurodelano]

Excellent comment. I appreciate your thoughts about your father and your astute observations about the limits of the Enlightenment.

[@zenden6564]

Yes you have a wise father.

[@_Dovar_]

The only good thing, that came from the Enlightenment is metric system.

[@EmilynWood]

If I could recommend a book to Steven Pinker, it would be Hard Times by Charles Dickens, about the need for imagination and fairy tales and the failings of having an emphasis on reason and facts.

[@jeremyfirth]

No one is convinced by a list of facts.

[@bingxilao9086]

Even the Enlightenment's name is self-congratulatory. They really started as they meant to continue.

[@jansvoboda4293]

Thomas Sowell even called one of his books The Vision Of The Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

[@jarlnicholl1478]

Kant's essay on "Enlightement"...

[@gabrielfrostbrand2754]

@@jarlnicholl1478 The german term "Aufklärung" is quite different from "enlightenment" as it lacks the connotation of spiritual ascendency, which can imply a sort of superiority of whatever is deemed enlightened. Also it is much more negative than positive, as it is about "having the courage to FREE oneself OF ONE`S self-inflicted immaturity". Critical reasoning is advertised as a means of emancipation from doctrine and not as the means to decide which doctrine we should all collectively follow. After all it´s quite authoritative to use your own reasoning as a yardstick for politics as if the matter were already followed and we need only figure out the facts, instead of seeing reason as an openended critical engagement with whatever passes fro the contemporary conventional truths of our time

[@MWcrazyhorse]

At this point enlightenment is beginning to sound a lot like 'women's liberation' or indeed 'social justice'. Wizzardry. Nice words describing politicized shit shows.

[@illarionbykov7401]

@@MWcrazyhorse women's rights, or "the rights of woman" were proclaimed only a few years after "the rights of man" were proclaimed. They were both Enlightenment ideals, one logically followed the other, and both turned out to be very problematic doctrines when put into practice, and both are based on wishful thinking. Nobody has rights if they are not enforced. You can bicycle through ISIS territory (as a couple naive Millenials just did) and proclaim your magic Enlightenment "right to life" makes you safe, but ISIS will still kill you (as they killed the two Millenials). You can proclaim women are "equal" to men, and men have an "equal right" to get pregnant and menstruate, and women have an "equal right" to be NFL linemen, or sumo grand champions, but it ain't gonna happen.

[@johnbuckner2828]

Scientific rationalism IS the new religion. This is the problem with inteligencia; they sit there an abstract until they come up with an ideal, and then try to impose it upon the world;. A blend of pragmatism, romanticism, and higher meaning and purpose is healthier.

[@dragons_red]

"Was" the new religion (starting in the late 19th to early 20th century in the West). It has been on the decline for many years now. Progressive Intersectional Politics is the new religion, but at least that one is already losing ground.

[@johnbuckner2828]

@@dragons_red can I call them PIPs?

[@lookbovine]

Pragmatism? Like the pragmatism put forward by William James...a scientific realist?

[@M64936]

Well put. Reminds me of many of Jung's passages: “The plenitude of life is governed by law and yet not governed by law, rational and yet irrational. Hence reason and the will that is grounded in reason are valid only up to a point. The further we go in the direction selected by reason, the surer we may be that we are excluding the irrational possibilities of life which have just as much right to be lived.” (Carl Jung)

[@jdleland]

Notes from the Underground.

[@sexhaver420]

Problems with Steven Pinker having the same haircut as my aunt

[@user-kg2sk7dc6u]

Best criticism on Pinker ive ever read...)))

[@sexhaver420]

@@user-kg2sk7dc6u Thank you

[@manfredarcane9130]

Pinker is stuck at the first movement of nihilist dialectics as outlined by Seraphim Rose, incapable - as anyone who is still a modernist in this day and age - to see where it leads in spite of two centuries of its unfolding being spread behind him.

[@elidrissii]

Perfectly concise summary of the situation. It's hard to assume people like him are acting in good faith.

[@SpiritualFox]

Thanks for the namedrop. A remarkable lifestory. From Google books: "Eugene reveals the core of all modern thought and life - the belief that all truth is relative - and shows how this belief has been translated into action in our century. Today, three decades after he wrote it, this essay is more timely than ever. It clearly explains why contemporary ideas, values, and attitudes - the "spirit of the age"--Are shifting so rapidly in the direction of moral anarchy, as the philosophy of Nihilism enters more deeply into the fiber of society. Nietzche was right when he predicted that the 20th century would usher in "the triumph of nihilism."" Totally not gay _except for that one time_ San Francisco monk tries every flavour of spirituality the world has to offer before settling on Orthodox Patriarchy, which he grew up with. Laments the degeneration of Soviet Russia into a lie even bigger than German fascism. Concludes that love and brotherhood is the answer. That and toll booths in heaven. Take that, science!

[@stevenanderson4515]

I love rose. And have said he blows Peterson and Pinker out of the water. And did it 30years ago.

[@mostlydead3261]

"Nihilism" can be read in its entirety online (legally, with blessings of its publisher). Everyone with even the slightest knowledge and interest in history and modern philosophy should do so. Remarkable book by a brilliant man whose life story was that of a real life Dostoyevsky character.

[@Matthew-fx7qo]

mostly dead I'm interested in reading it. Could you please post a link to where I could do that?

[@fraukatze3856]

Imagine how to someone living a year before WW 1, it would look like great progress on every front. New inventions coming thick and fast. Scientific breakthroughs too. Ability to understand what caused diseases were giving ways to prevent at least some of them. Slavery outlawed. Then came August 1914. Not connected to religion. But connected to breakthroughs in weapons of war. They were improving too.

[@Kurtlane]

Also there was a major rise in Jew hatred before WWI. Dreyfus affair. Beilis affair. The lynching of Leo Frank. Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Kishinev pogrom. Other pogroms. And there was a major rise in Jew hatred before WWII. And now.

[@sennewam]

@@Kurtlane you can either hate the Jews, or you can understand them.

[@Kurtlane]

@@sennewam , I think I have a fairly good understanding of myself, thank you.

[@ravissary79]

@@Kurtlane I don't think he was saying that as a slam. But... it's quite possible to be part of a group you don't fully appreciate on an "understanding the scope of my cultural heritage" level. People of all groups do it constantly. Indeed famous secular Jews seem to happily deconstruct the religious core of Jewish history with glee

[@rwatertree]

What a succinct way of putting it.

[@xSpiegelschattenx]

The notion that Enlightenment principles have resulted in nothing but positives for Man is preposterous.

[@zubstep]

Sort of agree. It's an ideologically partisan position, and those always refuse any self-critique. In the enlightenment case, it's about refusing empirical critique whilst loudly proclaiming to be for empirical critique of anything. There's your really preposterous bit, heh.

[@SwingDancer61]

Anyone who maintains that idea has to find a way to not include the French Revolution, Fascism and Communism as part of the Enlightenment.

[@dontletherspeak7575]

He's a jew, he probably is in favor of communism and the french revolution considering the role his tribe played in those movements. He is sub human, they all are. Thats why he hangs out with epstein.

[@sandrothenecromancer6810]

True, only REQUIEM is truly positive

[@sunbro6998]

"Life is a series of tradeoffs" T Sowell.

[@PJDMC5306]

So assuming that only reason is what we need to make the world a better place is itself unreasonable.

[@mostlydead3261]

That's a pretty Chestertonian sentence.

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

Steven Pinker should read "Brave New World". He might learn something.

[@gabrielsyme4180]

This fits in with the question I would have asked Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. A lot has been said about Hitler and Stalin who are easily reducible to pure evil, but there are more complex historical figures to examine when we speak of absolutism, tolerance, and enlightenment. Napoleon and Genghis Khan were both absolutist rulers whose armies swept through Europe imposing their rule wherever they could, but both are well-known for their religious tolerance. Or President Plutarco Calles in Mexico, whose interpretation of tolerance and enlightenment was the suppression of the Catholic Church by prohibiting religious education, evangelizing on public airwaves, and public worship, and nationalizing church-owned schools and hospitals. All of this led up to the Cristero War, in which the Mexican government took up arms against its own citizens. How do people like this fit into the Enlightenment and to what extent can they be compared to the SJWs of today?

[@shaft9000]

Stalin -who attempted resignation no less than six times - is not so "easily reducible" as Hitler. H#ll.... even Hitler is not easily reducible, despite our best efforts.

[@jdee8407]

All those people wanted to "change the world" they wanted to make the world in their image no matter how much suffering they cause, this was their version of "enlightnment". The only true enlightenment is to change yourself.

[@nektulosnewbie]

Khan was an absolutist ruler? How could he when he was a barbarian overlord from long before absolutism was an idea? Even if you say that that doesn't matter given that you're focusing on centralized rule of one person in the spirit of Caesar or some other dictator of the past, that ignores how the Steppe nomads organized and lived and is where their tolerance arose from as they were a very pragmatic people focused mainly on what worked to further their ends, not on having things conform to their own specific views. A good example of that is the elective side of the proclamation of Emperor that forbade on punished of death anyone taking that title without the agreement of the Mongolian nobility confirming him to that position, something which applied to anyone the previous leader of the Empire had chose as his successor. Consensus had its part, not something that is typically associated with absolutism "What I say goes, end of discussion." mindset.

[@kaufmanat1]

When people say that they base their decisions on reason and logic what they are really saying is that everything they think is correct and anyone who disagrees with them. Cuz they are trying to compare their ability to discern truth to one's ability to mathematically reduce and solve equations. It's honestly quite underhanded. It is as if they are saying that they are 100% certain about what they know. However if you press them eventually they all have to admit there is an element of faith standing behind everything they believe however they are quite reluctant and in fact many refuse to use that word. The notion that faith and reason are to dichotomous means of knowledge is simply false. On a side note what is particularly telling is when a logical thinker such as Sam Harris rails against Christianity and his arguments are almost universally an appeal to emotion.

[@AaronAMunro]

I read Enlightenment Now last year and felt that his perspective was lopsided. You’ve articulated the problem with his thinking very well!

[@josephmelton4721]

How was providing data and facts and reasoning his points lopsided? Or are you included in the bais of preferring to think stupid shit like romanticism or you're religious?

[@LeoRegum]

joseph melton Did you not listen to the video? Clearly OP was agreeing with its content, which answers your questions.

[@kyledonahue9315]

@@josephmelton4721 Statistics and “facts” as you call them are not transcendent truths articulated ex cathedra, they require interpretation in order to give them meaning. As a historian (which Pinker is not) this is a reality that I frequently encounter when doing research: taking a series of unrelated facts and events and attempting to form them into a coherent story that explains the past.

[@thegoldenthread]

From the novel Sanction, which I'm currently loving: "And the State had failed, not because crime was up, shit it was officially down, but because immorality was up, way up and the things that mattered to each man, things like, could he trust his friends or wife, his employer, his neighbor? all those metrics were all way down. Social cohesion was down, way down, and nobody measured that metric in their Hippy Dippy Steven Pinker parties..."

[@Viriyascybin]

Social trust is amongst the highest in a country like Denmark, which were very early to the enlightenment, preceding an oscillation of kings being hyperpietious and banning things like theater, and back to kings who enabled free speech for some decades before the next king banned it.

[@madduckks]

@@Viriyascybin Well to there happens to be a Danish refugee who recently arrived in America, seeking asylum due to the Danish government's attack on his freedom of religion. He is a Christian who was acting out his faith and praying for the sick and demon possessed... The Danish government told him that he would be arrested if he prayed like that in front of children. So much for the enlightened Danish government.

[@Viriyascybin]

@Lloyd Braun We don't bend over backwards for Islam, I know danish politics because I live here, the social democrats, which is the major left-wing party, Venstre, and everyone to the right-of-centre is tough on immigration. We're not Sweden, or the U.K., or Germany, and it shows. Both our borders to Sweden and Germany have been tightened. The reason why we aren't multiculturally enriching ourselves, is in large part because we have a lot of rural country, almost all of Jutland, and almost all of all other places. We also don't have much polarization, which in part plays in our high social trust. We're also not a very politically correct culture like the U.S. is. Our main minority are greenlandic inuits, which don't cause much trouble, because they're completely westernized, and they're not any more successful than the other groups, so there isn't the Jewish-style resentment, they also don't have a historical oppression story, it isn't obvious that they're more indogenous to Greenland than the viking settler nations are, if you pay attention to the timeline. The only freedom restrictions we have, are from EU laws, because the EU's pathologically extending human rights codes to weird shit.

[@Viriyascybin]

@@madduckks We're not that much into religion as a protected class, it is afterall a set of ideas like any other. Though it is still a protected class in hiring practices, but you don't get to wear a niqab sleeping bag, or have your fucking right to 'excorcise children from demons', put above the laws that protect children in public. It would be perfectly legal for him to ritualistically exorcise demons from his own kids, but he's not allowed to bother other people. The main libertarian idea, is that rights to be free from others, is put above rights to be free to do unto others.

[@oambitiousone7100]

😏 Timely.

[@peteroleary9447]

Steven Pinker likes piano keys. Man is not a piano key.

[@aliasjones6381]

Are we a song, or are we the player? It seems a bit prideful to say we're the player.

[@peteroleary9447]

@@aliasjones6381 "Even if man were nothing but a piano key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of sheer ingratitude, simply to have his own way…then, after all, perhaps only by his curse will he attain his object, that is, really convince himself that he is a man and not a piano key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated…then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and have this own way."± Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes From Underground

[@raqko]

We reason from our passions, our values, our desires. You can't start reasoning about anything without a goal.

[@EngForArabs]

He was on the *Lolita Express* with Epstein. I've had a bad feeling about him since the 1st moment I've seen him.

[@MephiticMiasma]

"Man is not a rational being. He is a rationalizing being."

[@crowley445]

Consciousness as “waves of attention and dispersion”, this made me think of the serpent and the staff.

[@jameswcoppedge]

12:03 Your insight on the election of Justin Trudeau (or most contemporary elections) was refreshing, lol.

[@oambitiousone7100]

Someone had to say it.

[@bainasaur]

Pinker and Peterson talk a lot about economics and NEVER mention the Austrian School or the Spanish scholastic forerunners. They also talk about human rights, but NEVER mention the Church was the first in the west to give blacks and natives human rights based off of the immortal soul

[@sethtipps7093]

I, myself, am reminded of Hayek's warning against "false individualism" which leads to tyrannies and collectivism. False individualism is a product of the enlightenment, it views people atomistically, and it assumes rationality should be used for organizing society. This view has consistently been held by the intellectual elites and when enacted leads to oppression regardless of original intent. Hume said Reason must be a slave to the passions. I don't know if I agree with that but every society that has emphasized Reason over 'archaic superstitions' has inevitably become ruled by horrifying passions. The French (who coined "Enlightenment") in the Reign of Terror and Russia with its Revolution being just two such examples.

[@vulpes6523]

The austrian economic school is so often forgoten to the great detrement of our world. Also Hans Herman Hoppe has written a great critique on pinker's book.

[@razvaz]

Jordan Peterson has.

[@KRGruner]

Excellent remark! I'm glad others have noticed this. However, I think in the case of Peterson, it's a matter of actually not knowing about these schools, and he might be quite interested in their ideas if he were. Pinker, on the other hand, knowingly disregards them because they don't fit his narrative. That's an other way of saying I see Peterson has very open-minded, Pinker not so much.

[@jansvoboda4293]

@@sethtipps7093 I suppose Hayed did no see the passions as a way to base society on. He mentions the empiric evolution of social systems - it is rather the collective experience versus individual's design whether based on reason or passion.

[@PJDMC5306]

Quite frankly, Pinker needs to read C.S. Lewis's Pilgrim's Regress. In it he tears apart the concepts that Pinker is expressing. 80 years ago no less.

[@josephmelton4721]

Pinkers concepts aren't concepts though? They're backed by data. Sometjing none of you bullshit romantics seem to have or like

[@PJDMC5306]

It's not just having the data, it's what you do with it. And, as Jonathan mentioned, there is a great deal of Data that Pinker conveniently ignored or twisted to support his own thesis.

[@karbut4135]

@@josephmelton4721 You just labeled all of us; romantics. Good job bucko.

[@josephmelton4721]

@@karbut4135 cs lewis was a religious childrens author. The romantic bullshit is getting old kid

[@mmyr8ado.360]

@@josephmelton4721 If you dismiss CS Lewis because of his popular works, then you're no different from Joshua's description of Pinker, as there are more works from the author than just the Chronicles of Narnia.

[@joshjgraham]

Great video. Hume, an enlightenment thinker, recognized that reasoning by itself cannot actually tell you what to do. There must be some sort of emotion that let’s you know which things in life are better. With a “rational thinker” like Pinker, there might be a tendency to only consider the more obvious emotions such as pain, comfort and pleasure. Unfortunately, this limited consideration of the spectrum of emotions has its logical conclusion in promoting cowardice, lethargy and hedonism. Stoicism is a truer expression of the pure rationalist. But the closer one gets to the stoic ideal of being completely uninfluenced by ones emotions, the less reason there is for action, and the more emotionalism stands out as containing a purpose for existence.

[@frankcost]

Steven Pinker has been married three times. He has no children. He has little to say that I find interesting.

[@Minder666]

I would highly recommend checking out Hans-Hermann Hoppe's brutal destruction of Pinker's work. It makes Pinker look like a toddler.

[@srijanagrawal255]

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Notes from underground) - Yes, but here I come to a stop! Gentlemen, you must excuse me for being over-philosophical; it's the result of forty years underground! Allow me to indulge my fancy. You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there's no disputing that, but reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the rational side of man's nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life including reason and all the impulses. And although our life, in this manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet it is life and not simply extracting square roots. Here I, for instance, quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for life, and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one twentieth of my capacity for life. What does reason know? Reason only knows what it has succeeded in learning (some things, perhaps, it will never learn; this is a poor comfort, but why not say so frankly?) and human nature acts as a whole, with everything that is in it, consciously or unconsciously, and, even if it goes wrong, it lives. I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with compassion; you tell me again that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, cannot consciously desire anything disadvantageous to himself, that that can be proved mathematically. I thoroughly agree, it can--by mathematics. But I repeat for the hundredth time, there is one case, one only, when man may consciously, purposely, desire what is injurious to himself, what is stupid, very stupid--simply in order to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible. Of course, this very stupid thing, this caprice of ours, may be in reality, gentlemen, more advantageous for us than anything else on earth, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more advantageous than any advantage even when it does us obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason concerning our advantage--for in any circumstances it preserves for us what is most precious and most important--that is, our personality, our individuality. Some, you see, maintain that this really is the most precious thing for mankind; choice can, of course, if it chooses, be in agreement with reason; and especially if this be not abused but kept within bounds. It is profitable and sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, choice is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason ... and ... and ... do you know that that, too, is profitable, sometimes even praiseworthy? Gentlemen, let us suppose that man is not stupid. (Indeed one cannot refuse to suppose that, if only from the one consideration, that, if man is stupid, then who is wise?) But if he is not stupid, he is monstrously ungrateful! Phenomenally ungrateful. In fact, I believe that the best definition of man is the ungrateful biped. But that is not all, that is not his worst defect; his worst defect is his perpetual moral obliquity, perpetual--from the days of the Flood to the Schleswig-Holstein period. Moral obliquity and consequently lack of good sense; for it has long been accepted that lack of good sense is due to no other cause than moral obliquity. Put it to the test and cast your eyes upon the history of mankind. What will you see? Is it a grand spectacle? Grand, if you like. Take the Colossus of Rhodes, for instance, that's worth something. With good reason Mr. Anaevsky testifies of it that some say that it is the work of man's hands, while others maintain that it has been created by nature herself. Is it many-coloured? May be it is many-coloured, too: if one takes the dress uniforms, military and civilian, of all peoples in all ages--that alone is worth something, and if you take the undress uniforms you will never get to the end of it; no historian would be equal to the job. Is it monotonous? May be it's monotonous too: it's fighting and fighting; they are fighting now, they fought first and they fought last--you will admit, that it is almost too monotonous. In short, one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat. And, indeed, this is the odd thing that is continually happening: there are continually turning up in life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of humanity who make it their object to live all their lives as morally and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all know that those very people sooner or later have been false to themselves, playing some queer trick, often a most unseemly one

[@JiveTurkey1618]

His #1 issue is choosing materialism alone and mostly excluding Spirit. He sees religion as fairytales and doesn’t recognize how Logos is the foundation of the Enlightenment no matter what you believe. Pinker is smarter than me, but TBH he seems like another neurotic Jew who fell away from his own culture and turned his back on HaShem. Brilliant man, but missing the internal part of the picture. Denying the Soul.

[@Augass]

@Andrew Christopher Who is this Swedish Jew you speak of? What's their name? And also would you mind proving that the person admitted the motivations you mentioned?

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@Augass I know I'm 9 months late, but... The "proof" is manifested by Steven Pinker, himself, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. If you do not "see" or "hear" this, yourself, then it is likely because you're as conceited as Mr. Pinker.

[@malpais776]

Thank you Jonathan, for that commentary. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that some of the smartest people on the smart hierarchy keep falling into the oldest religious traps concerning the relations of Good and Evil.

[@jamieyoung9392]

JRR Tolkien had a thing or two to say about that!

[@malpais776]

@@jamieyoung9392 Make me re-read 'im. Just make me. I dare ya. :)

[@Orthodoxi]

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

[@Alex80000]

Will Steven Pinker 'enlighten' us as to why he was so close with Jeffrey Epstein?

[@josephmelton4721]

He wasn't close. Stop reading and repeating stupid shit without any critical thinking. That's also something pinker is for. Hmmm mayne that's why you don't like him. You have to actually use your small ass brain

[@dontletherspeak7575]

because they are both clipped dick satanic hooks.

[@carlotapuig]

Pinker was asked and his explanation was pretty poor in my humble opinion. He went to Epstein's parties but he didn't like Epstein at all. Well, why would you attend the parties of somebody you dislike? What was the benefit of doing so? For sure there is a reason but I haven't heard Pinker addressing his motivation so far. No proof of guilt but very worrying and worth of investigation by the authorities.

[@jarlnicholl1478]

We'll only know that if he runs afoul of someone in power, whereupon the dirt will be dug out and placed in plain view in order to discredit him and end his career. Otherwise,it will be ignored as he is one very, very useful public intellectual.

[@josephmelton4721]

@@cliffpinchon2832 you should use critical thinking in every aspect of life. Clearly you need to go back to school

[@Crandaddy81]

The medieval Scholastics understood that perception of goodness was a proper part of reason. It’s part and parcel of Aristotelian final causality. The Enlightenment’s doing away with final causality as an explanatory principle was a terrible mistake.

[@joostvandegoor150]

Wow, Jonathan. That was an excellent talk. I think you nailed it. This video is not only a good review of Pinker's book, but also a great philosophical view on that ancient tension between reason and the huge reality outside of reason. So I think you are spot on in this video.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Pinker seems to Frame history as he sees it not as it was.

[@MrMaxBoivin]

Human beings have done the rational thing 109 times in history. We need to get back to reason.

[@trucid2]

Oy vey

[@spritecut]

Love is in essence, irrational.

[@aqualityexistence4842]

This is a great description of the problem of believing the subject-object, dualistic worldview is all there is. A great video to link to when discussing this issue

[@brianj7281]

Great video Jonathan. You should really take Sevilla's advice and read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It's NOT California Buddhism lol. It's an examination of the necessity of balance between both reason and emotion.

[@mrs.reluctant4095]

Dear Mr. Pageau. I enjoyed this very much and I subscribed. I was raised in this dichotomy and later found out, that the world doesn't work this way, neither do humans. Also I absolutely agree that there is a conflict, a tension field between reason and democracy. These are topics that I'm very much interested in. So glad I found this channel. With kind regards from Germany, E.H.

[@giominus7402]

I was actually just thinking about this topic the other day. What a convenient video for me!

[@drarsen33]

One more thing that should not be ignored in Pinkers thinking is his Jewish background. If I am not mistaken, Jewish outlook is that by increasing the overall righteousness and holiness of the world it is moving towards the promised Messianic age. So, a long march towards the end goal of bright utopian age is in the line with his cultural background.

[@yassinemotaouakkil3530]

"Dieu se rit des gens qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes." Bossuet

[@gurugeorge]

I think there's a tolerable good/bad distinction between the Scottish (and _some_ of the English enlightenment) thinkers on the one hand, and the "continental" enlightenment thinkers on the other hand (though some of the continentals were more aligned with the Scottish/English version too). The distinction is neatly encapsulated by whether what the English philosopher Michael Oakeshott called "rationalism in politics" is present or not. The common feature of the Enlightenment is to bring the rule of reason into human affairs. So far so good. But there's a difference as to whether one takes more of a gardening/cultivation approach or an architectonic/architectural approach. The former is on the right lines (work with the material you've got, tease it into shape, a "ground up" approach) the latter not (impose a grid, force the changes you want by fiat law, a "top down" approach). It's the latter strand of the enlightenment that's led to the worst excesses of liberalism and the Left generally. What I'm saying here would obviate some of the criticisms you're making (for example, someone like Herder, who the likes of Pinker and Hicks would no doubt put on the naughty step because of his connection to nationalism, is actually more aligned on the Scottish side, which sees the nation as _already_ the extant organic entity we have to deal with, to mold, to ameliorate the condition of, to make prosperous, etc.). (Interestingly, the most important philosophical influence on America wasn't so much Locke, at least not for the American masses, but rather the Scottish "common sense" school, which more or less ruled the academic philosophical and educational roost in America right up until the end of the 19th century.)

[@kahwigulum]

Normally when Canadians disagree with each other, it's over who's going to hold a door open and who's going to walk through first.

[@sunbro6998]

A sickness of the spirit is not readily apparent. Just because a couple of stats increase over a short time, does not mean that is sustainable. You can take out a loan and show a 400% increase in your bank account, that doesn't mean it is absolutely a positive thing.

[@maxoftheinternet5206]

Amazing analysis. My new favorite KZbin channel. You are the first channel I've found that isn't playing the "my team good, other team bad" narrative but instead something more like "its complicated and if we just deem the 'other side' as bad we are no better than them".

[@thefreerangehuman4804]

I have read maps of meaning and watched multiple years of the MOM lectures, however i seem to be having trouble giving a succinct definition of "meaning", i recall Johnathan gave a definition in one of his videos. Would anyone be willing to share this with me?

[@patriotteacher7254]

I think you missed the heart of the lies embedded in Pinkerton 's assertions: the value of the heart. I could expand that. I could explain that. I could describe interior and exterior life without our heart's strength to emphatically illustrate the timeless centrality of the heart . But then should I opine eloquently to prove water is wet? How sobering that the importance of a strong heart directing choice does not feel obvious--no--how decimating that our hearts exist thusly maligned.. The uncoupling of the heart and mind itself functions as the only rip needed to ruin the fabric of civilization.

[@Mahaveez]

Two words: pure sophistry. And it's a shame, because I was hoping to learn something from that Peterson interview. I found it boring instead. Peterson reaches insight using reason. Pinker just mounts a positional defense with previous insights.

[@notloki3377]

this tells you what you need to know about pinker... he wrote a whole book on the enlightenment and never mentioned the french revolution once.

[@AdurianJ]

You should talk to Tom Woods he's a Conservative Catholic Economist and Historian of the Austrian school of Economics.

[@grMrkvk]

At 21:00 min... that is something you should expand on very important i would love to hear your view. And possibly learn. Thank you.

[@neonpop80]

Can someone explain what he means by reason? As far as I see reason, it is the human ability to put logical explanations to events. It is basically theoretical and can be a form of rationalization hence conforming to a particular constructed narrative. Everyone has a reason for doing what they do but it’s just them doing it and the mind creating reasons for it. This was actually demonstrated experimentally by severing the hemispheres and noticing one mind takes commands and the other rationalizes behavior.

[@Jacob011]

I wasn't going to read Pinker, because I strongly suspected where it was going. Oh look! There is actually what I thought was there. I don't understand how anyone with such a childishly naive and simplistic worldview can be a professor at Harvard. Truth be told, I haven't really been amazed by the thinkers from Harvard lately. Goes to show that this guy just got attached to one idea really badly - how unenlightened of him!

[@bearifiablepau2095]

They're amazing wizards, that's how... and by wizards, I mean logic-driven wordsmiths.... and by wordsmiths, I mean worm-tongues. They *are* actually good at that.

[@Viriyascybin]

Jacob011 Read. Engage the logos. Read.

[@sennewam]

I wouldn't suggest to read his book!! Savage! Jonathan I love you!

[@invin7215]

Loved the summary at the end - so well put.

[@jovankojic2840]

It would be great if you cloud make some videos on how to live day to day life.What would be some genral Christian rules and how you unerstand them.Video on after life would be great too.Your description of person as wheel has halped me a lot. Much happiness to you and your family and keep up the great work....

[@bradrandel1408]

Thank you so much for this view. I can’t wait until we all start talking about Rene’ Girard I love the principle of not wishing to negate any of it... no preferences, but do your work... Pharmakon. Also like Derrida’s essay in violence and the sacred...”remedy” and “1poison”

[@An123Observer]

I wish I had more likes to give. Well done. I think Jordan Peterson should bring you into the discussion he proposed between Pinker, Ben and himself. Jordan needs your clarity on these topics in order to sort out the other two. Peace all

[@apologiacontra6992]

Very good talk Mr. Pageau.

[@elkwoodarrow]

Nothing to do with the subject matter, but I really like the room your in - it has a really cool slapback reverb effect to it. Just thought I’d let you know. Thanks for the vids!

[@bettermentprojectnotes808]

Really good! I do think it is important however to distinguish between wanting totalitarianism in general and wanting totalitarianism against that what you fine problematic. The latter I think is about the breakdown of democracy, which fundamentally is a breakdown of how well we communicate and how well we integrate others (outsiders) into our personal and social sphere.

[@northernbright7602]

Haha, laughed out loud at the example of Trudeau & you’re correct in your assessment. My mother voted for him due to his handsome physique, to which she still defends. Boomer blindness.

[@soulfuzz368]

Almost everyone I know voted for him to legalize cannabis. I think it’s strange how everyone (users and non) downplays what a big step that was for Canada, like it or not.

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@soulfuzz368 that matter certainly didn't out-weigh all of the negatives that Trudeau brought to the table...

[@soulfuzz368]

@@csongorarpad4670 *lights up a doobie… I feel you man…

[@vsear5911]

Reason cannot dictate what you should value, it's merely a means to get you closer to that. If you believe your ideology has a monopoly a reason you are either unbelievably arrogant or downright ignorant of your unspoken assumptions.

[@SpiritusBythos]

Thank you for that! Your talk made me think of many things but the one i would like to share is this; Planck's constant which was decribed in one way as the smallest unit of measure that reality works on and at that level the individual photons are checking in and out of this reality at a rearly infinite rate, thus informing both ' sides ' constantly. PEACE

[@zenanon7169]

I really enjoyed this video....I like most of your videos.....I learned a lot from this one.

[@jamieyoung9392]

This is excellent. Also, I note that the proposition that we should base all our actions on Reason cannot itself be derived from Reason.

[@rainhardkerrman8366]

Isn't pinker the guy that appeared on the epstein flight logs?

[@EngForArabs]

YES

[@eurodelano]

The atheist materialists evangelizing is crazy. “If you only do good things then the world will be perfect.” But what is good? Who gets to decide? Worshipping Reason is idolatry. Worshiping emotions is idolatry. Finding your primary meaning from suffering is idolatry. We were made to give ourselves in love and faith to God, which is the highest good.

[@JH-ji6cj]

Without actual quotes from his book cited, I cannot I'm good faith give any of your points credit. Poorly structured.

[@CharlesHaywood]

Mr. Pageau's point that Pinker's definition of Reason is opportunistic and protean is well taken. Another problem is that PInker ascribes to the Enlightenment successes, mostly scientific, that have nothing to do with the Enlightenment, which after all was a political movement based on emancipation from supposed oppression. Pinker just likes to pretend that the Enlightenment is responsible for material progress, something that is completely false. Some more thoughts here: theworthyhouse.com/2018/02/16/book-review-enlightenment-now-the-case-for-reason-science-humanism-and-progress-steven-pinker/

[@greenbank4800]

Reason is not a sufficient cultural narrative on which to build a functioning culture

[@Fackinfine]

How is it possible to think Kant led to postmodernism!? The man literally told that good values are objective and universal.

[@flymecourageous6313]

Thank you for this message!

[@matangox]

It would be great if you could do something darker, like a Lovecraft or Junji Ito video?

[@williamharriss3363]

Wow! Thank you.

[@matthewclark2941]

Jonathan, thank you for addressing my question more specifically on how we are not learning lessons from ww2. Much appreciated! Thankful for all your content

[@sransijakinjic9679]

Thanks for this perspective! Would you say then (I mean if you, in some very unrealistic scenario, see this comment) that Pinker is wrong in explaining all the progress he documented in the book by reason and the principles he attributes to the Enlightenment? Or would you also question the whole claim that there is real, significant and sustainable progress in the history? Is it possible that common good for the group of people is fueled by following what Pinker calls reason, and by ignoring the tendencies and ideas that are contrary to it - despite the facts that humans are inherently "unreasonable" as much as "reasonable"? Or maybe you would argue that the progress is attained also thanks to some tendencies that are not "reasonable"?

[@user-rs4ci3fn2d]

Who doesn’t think they are thinking based on reality?!?!!???

[@larsfaye292]

I was just ruminating on this when Jon said that. When someone says "That's just not how reality works", I immediately begin mistrust the information I am receiving. Not a single soul that has walked this planet has all the pieces that culminate to "reality" and can accurately ascertain much of anything with 100% certainty, beyond strictly empirical (ie..sugar is sweet). Nevertheless, come to conclusions of how complex metaphysical constructs play out within the human psyche. I grow so tired of everyone speaking as if they know the answer to these massively big questions and concepts.

[@rustymason3860]

"Real reason has never been tried!"

[@coolyeahsure]

Can you talk about Iain McGilchirsts The Divided Brain :)

[@TopoAhogado]

Could you do a video explaining the symbolism in Alita: Battle Angel?

[@karbut4135]

Great Video. Your explanation is professional. Keep up the good work

[@lightninginmyhands4878]

Thank you Jonathan. Always appreciate this content

[@peribabbles8603]

The way I understand what you're saying is that there is a collective "shadow" in society; just and Jung uses it for the individual. And Pinker's is, if not ignoring, diminishing its power over the collective. But if we embrace it, and find "positive" ways to express it and blow some steam, we'll have much better results in the long turn. Does this make sense?

[@SmultronsyltNatha]

Interesting. I think you’re right. I will try to think about this when I encounter thoughts like Pinker’s.

[@malpais776]

"The mechanisms of democracy lead to its own, it's own problematic of reality". I have had the experience of what I thought was a good intention and a good action turn out to have the opposite result than what I wanted. I admit how good can come out of something bad and vice versa is still problematic to me. Would the doctrines and presupposition about representative government come about w/o the experience of monarchical oppression and misuse of power by the English government? Do Good and Evil truly have a relation of dependency whereby they are co-dependent? I don't know. I understand what integrating one's shadow means. Does believing in religious truth and positing faith statements about what is good and holy automatically produce from within themselves their opposites? I don't think so, but I simply don't know how to respond to this. We do seem to be have this problematic born into us. Hegel and Marx believed in a symmetrical dialectic of opposites. This "logic" itself somehow inheres in unfolding events ( e.g. historical revolutions in government ) and makes itself explicit in greater and greater understanding of "the bigger picture". I don't believe in the dialectical symmetry of the basic moral paradoxes of existence. But I admit I dont have an answer to those like Nietzsche who insist they do. Except, of course, the answers given by John's gospel and epistles. Can we transcend all these moral paradoxes with a new grammar and self understanding?

[@marklefebvre5758]

One key point that people often miss is that reason and logic can get you anywhere. This is true because they depend upon your starting point. Different axioms lead you to different places using the same logical paths - I used to prove this to people all the time when I was younger (perhaps over-eager to show people who thought they were smarter than I was that they were not). The basis for logic and reason being able to 'get you there' is that objective reality is a thing and that we can agree upon it and that it is knowable and that it has the property implied by the term. Sadly, none of those things turn out to be true, it is shocking to me that anyone believes objective reality and the theory of relativity - if you think about it, those are opposing viewpoints. The view of a simple strike of lightening is different for two people at the same time but different distances from the event - how would objective reality explain, or function, in such an environment? People often don't stop to think what else would have to be true for a given statement or condition to be true....

[@Harbringe]

I'm someone who's brain is different than the vast majority of people. over 30 years ago I was part of a study , people will be generally left or right hemisphered , meaning they will rely either on the intuitive or calculative (emotional/rational) parts of there brain centers. The ratio'''s are 80/20 or 70/30 to either dominant side , a mixed brain is 60/40 to 65/35 to the dominant side. I'm exactly 50/50. Neither the intuitive nor the calculative dominates my thinking. Instead of one part being balanced by secondary thoughts that countervail the first ie an emotional impulse that the rational counters , in my brain it all happens at once. Jonathan is right you can't have one without the other.

[@TheAttila1995]

I just finished the latest podcast with Pinker on JP's channel. I had a bit lengthy comment, which I will just copy with a bit of editing: I am not yet familiar with Pinker's work, but I am certainly going to read his books. He is objectively a great mind. What I have noticed with the types of Pinker and Sam Harris for example, is that they oppose every kind of western religious explanation, or any reasoning that is based or at least involves the values of these ideas. Right after Jordan gives an example why certain values are rooted in religion for example, Pinker immediately starts to bring up the faults of religious thinking, forgetting that the enlightenment started with the french carnage. Jung said that the suppression of strong functions - like religion - is very harmful to the individual's psyche. He explained that the suppressed energy (libido) empowers the archaic content of the subconsciousness. Thus the bloody riots of the french revolution (This explanation is a bit too elusive, and doesn't sound that professional to the today's man). I agree with Jung, I think too that religion is an important aspect of human life, and it has its use. It has its place. You can make a really strong case for it, even if you're someone who is "outside" of that aspect of life. So I can't really comprehend their position on this subject. To me it seems like they are willfully blind to the next logical step in the argument. And it's not like anybody would deny religion's and religious thinking's faults. Boy, it has its faults, no doubt. But instead of investigating religion, and religious texts, and trying to extract the value from them, they deny it all. They rather just avoid it all. And I just can't wrap my head around it. Why? It's not necessary spirituality what they oppose. Because these types like the eastern "religions", like buddhism. They don't have any problem with the idea of enlightenment or elevated consciousness. But as soon as it's about christianity, they draw the line. Is it the concept of God they don't like? The idea that man is not at the top of the hierarchy? Or the father figure? The concept of being a subject to God? But we're not just that, I agree with Jordan. You need to aim high, even if we're talking about God. I think you need to best God, only to help him up after and kneel before him. That is part of life, maybe even that is what life is about. And these people don't want to acknowledge it. And I just don't understand why.

[@michamroczkowski3568]

There are many factors for such approach(pinker/harris-case) . I discovered following: they have a mission/crusade so its narrowing a field of possible consensus, big ego, being in public eye - harder to change opinions, easier to attack religion than defend it, easier to get followers playing a rational anti medieval type, etc.

[@TheAttila1995]

​@@michamroczkowski3568 Yes, but you could say the same about Jordan Peterson, or Jonathan for that matter. Both have a "mission", a calling is a more proper expression I would say. Yet they stay open-minded. They are both willing to learn and to negotiate on the road. They are willing to sacrifice their treasures, their knowledge about the world in order to have insight. And you could say the same about Sam and Pinker to a certain degree. I mean they're both people who are intelligent, who can change their opinions if they face a fact that doesn't fit into their view. Maybe that's the key here. It is facts, but nothing else? I appreciate your answer, I just don't feel like it explains the phenomena deeply enough! :)

[@TheAttila1995]

@yabon banania Maybe I will. But I am not there yet.

[@michamroczkowski3568]

@@TheAttila1995 notice what are the axioms of those individuals. Jbp and jp share the same corner stones. There are significant difference between jbp/jp and others especially regarding to good and evil. Bible is really helpful to understand that but also biblical lectures jbp. Btw it's really hard to write something with more sense under yt film, wishing you good fruits in exploring your doubts.

[@TheAttila1995]

@@michamroczkowski3568 Thank you very much my friend! :) I have already finished the biblical series, but I just got my hand on Dostoevsky's Crime and punishment. Maybe that will get me a step closer to my realization :) I wish you good fortune, and God bless you!

[@KRGruner]

Bravo, you nailed it. I am an agnostic, but I recognize that Pinker's worldview is naive and self-serving. He seems to have no understanding of complex systems and how they work. Nassim Taleb, on the other hand, is a secular writer who understands religion and complexity. He calls Pinker an "entertainer," which is not very generous but, well, not entirely inaccurate.

[@maligjokica]

Nassim Taleb is actualy a Orthodox christian:)))he is from Lebanon. I dont know how religios is he but he mensed to Gaad Saad that he fasts(in that time was the orthodox fasting period).

[@Metaphist]

If you pledge yourself to the Goddess of Reason, she will show you the good (as carefully operationalised based on strict analytic definitions and statistical proofs).

[@Bellial12]

Great video - as always! One of the funniest as well