Tamar Gendler: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics and Economics | Big Think

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@stevekane6684]

:-)

[@mintoo2cool]

I wish I could meet the professor and thank her personally for sharing her thoughts about philosophy. Her openYale course PHIL 181 is so beautifully structured and explained! I have benefitted a lot from them. There is a certain warmth, wit, grace, besides the wisdom in those lectures that make them stand-out!

[@Flippyboy]

I love bigthink. These long presentations are really a joy. I love how they summarize years and years of study in a given field in a way that the common person can understand difficult concepts.

[@ruinner]

One of the best talks on societal philosophy I've ever been privy to. Straight and to the point! :)

[@rw9207]

...and full of inaccuracies and assumptions!

[@Cooooookiiiieeee]

@@rw9207 like what?

[@alextupou4992]

I had watched this vid about 4 to 5 times to draw on the understanding before thinking about its implications in the real world. It was illuminating. I agree with her about how just two opposing views with different foundamental values can emerge so radically divergent. Excellent presentation.

[@Ukiyo-e-sama]

You should do the readings proposed in the video.

[@MrBGeonzon]

This is the best 45 mins Iv'e had in weeks. It's nice to hear from someone with authority enforce what you were already thinking. I have a bachelors in electrical engineering and I went and got an associates in philosophy so many people told me I waisted my time with philosophy but honestly the way that I approach all problems in ALL ASPECTS of life have completely changed for the better. The Blind Veil idea is prob the best way to making reasonable unbiased choices.

[@snt_gulab]

This is one of the best lectures I've ever heard. But I guess that's what you get from a Yale department chair.

[@genx1966]

I like listening to lectures that stimulate the mind, especially when I can be in the presence of a gorgeous woman, such as yourself.

[@masygunner]

***** I have to disagree to some extent. If youre a leading scholar of your field it doesnt make you a good teacher.

[@masygunner]

***** Your analysis is probably correct.

[@hamdanaziz1809]

a building dosent teach someone

[@videosmusic1794]

Lol, I thought it was completely stupid. This whole video is stupid because the questions aren't based on the laws of physics but projected English language interpretations of reality perceived in the realities of a few people using the English language. Life is not sensical with these kinds of stupid questions. You clean your trash out and are selective about life. Be real, also be selective about language, clean your fucking language and thinking before you express stuff.

[@Paul90896]

My goodness! I was blown away with this enriching lecture! Learning philosophy in just a short time I am changed. My your Name forever be in our hearts! . I will definitely go a little deeper into the subject!

[@arberrr1]

A BBIIIIGGGGG thank you to Big Think for making such lectures available to the average person out there. Beautiful times we live in...

[@narolinreyes1378]

This is one of the best lectures I've ever heard. Thank you much, Tamar!

[@greenmonkeypoo321]

I can't believe she was actually taught by Rawls and Nozic!!! That's just mindblowing!!!!

[@lonelycubicle]

And maybe Hillary Putnam (looks like he’s in photo with her and Nozick)

[@rgaleny]

This woman is a great teacher and speaker! I just love her and hang on her every word. !

[@codydunson6157]

This is my first intro to the subject. I feel very enlightened; also impressed with her elegance and simplicity. 👍🏼

[@Tictacpanter]

Tamar Gendler is great. Her course on Philosophy and Human Nature via iTunes University is fantastic. I enjoyed it so much that I wrote telling her so and she responded!

[@TheKirger]

I believe that we have forgotten the question "Who says so?" It seems to me that the Global politics are getting just a bit ridiculous

[@asecretturning]

Oh? Says who?

[@billy-joe4398]

@@asecretturning 😂😂

[@andrewmah5605]

Greek Cities War and Thuycilides ?

[@andrewmah5605]

Greek City States War. The Trojan Horse and The Rise of an Emerging Power = Thuycilides

[@taura101]

Fantastic lecture that the algorithm showed up 😊☺️ on my phone. Thank you. Great to have an absorbing 44 minutes that engaged me every minute. Thank you Tamar for the great reminders and fresh insights.

[@nextworld9176]

Time well invested. I am significantly smarter than I was an hour ago. This is really relevant, I'm sure, to the rest of my life. Thanks, Tamar, and all of you at Big Think. Subscribed.

[@rw9207]

"Smart" means well dressed. The phrase you are looking for is, ' better educated'. But, I will forgive you, seeing as this is the quality of education that American's are clearly receiving... Full of inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions.

[@patrickconnolly7799]

I do not regret watching this old and unpopular video. Thanks for posting.

[@acm90]

Thank you for this great lecture, Tamar!

[@eCs0y41iuD]

the notion of legitimate ownership depends on the definition of legislation. If rich/corupt people are the ones who make the laws, they will have built in loopholes for them to "legitimately" aquire money by largely unethical means. Laws are man made things that don't really matter as they are built by the ruling class in a society.

[@adrianokemos]

Totally agree, Nozick's argument depends on "legitimacy," which is a concept that humans created in order to live together, i.e. to form a government. His whole philosophy is basically a loop that mingles jungle man's crave for liberty in a state of nature and concept of governance.

[@samaraisnt]

That's why the "should people pay inheritance tax" was one of the 5 fundamental questions. Because people pay nothing on millions of inherited money and that is how the rich retain their wealth forever through generations.

[@kevinmarten]

We read news in the media that doom and gloom is coming and we just accept it, doom and gloom doesn’t always have to be coming, I’ve read numerous success stories of people that are pulling off tremendous gains of up to $250K within weeks in this crazy market and I just want to learn how to achieve such figures.

[@Walter_hill_]

Well with the economy and stocks at where it is now, I'd be disappointed if people weren't making any error on their portfolio at this time, it was much easier to navigate during the bullrun, regardless I still see and read articles of people pulling over $225k by the weeks in trades, how come?

[@Oly_laura]

I noticed, a lot of folks are making huge 6figure killings in this downtrend, only just that such technques are mostly successfully executed by folks with indepth mrkt knowledge.

[@Walter_hill_]

@Dan Brooks That's impressive, my portfolio have been tanking all year, tried learning new strategies to gain in the current market but all of that flew right over head, please would you mind recommending the invt-adviser you're using?

[@martingiavarini]

Wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about Christine Jane Mclean, I once met her at a conference in California 2019, just before the pandemic. I can testify that she’s very good in trading..Highly recommended.

[@Walter_hill_]

@Dan Brooks I did look her up, I see why she booked up, her creds/resumé is topnotch. I booked a consultation with her regardless.

[@danielkiprov7998]

I`m just writing a comment to summarize what I have learned through this presentation. Firstly the main question posited by philosophy is "Why?", mainly "Why are things the way they are?" and "Should they be that way?". Western philosophy has a descriptive (How things are and how we know) and normative component (How things ought to be). The "descriptive" branches of philosophy are Metaphysics (what there is) and Epistemology (how we know), the "normative" branches are Aesthetics, Moral Philosophy, and Political Philosophy. The main dilemmas with which political philosophy is concerned are What`s the best way for society to be structured, What is the appropriate division of rights and responsibility and how should liberty and equality be balanced?. In the 1600s Thomas Hobbes wrote the book Leviathan, in which he asks the questions What the world would be like without a state? and Would that be a better situation than having a governing body?. He states that if people do not have a state they would be in the state of nature, which brings a lack of the basic security a person needs in order to flourish and live a life with much bigger potential. The problem of the state of nature that Hobbes wrote about is presented by modern game theorists as the "Prisoner`s Dilemma", where a police officer tries to entice two suspects to confess to a crime with creating a structure of prison sentences, where it is most advantageous for each of the perpetrators to confess, regardless of what the other one does. There is an examples that illustrate the prisoners dilemma such as the arms race between USA and the Soviet Union and the breaking of the pattern with the act of truce in the trenches of WW1. Hobbes thinks that the way out of this concerning state is having a body that regulates human interactions. John Rawls wrote the book "A theory of justice" and in the opening it says "Justice is the first virtue of a social institution as truth is of systems of thought". That means that if a political structure is effective is illegitimate of it`s unjust, just like even if a scientific theory looks good is useless if it`s false. Rawls thinks that each person has a certain inviolability, which can not be overridden even if it benefits the society as a whole. That theory runs completely opposite to utilitarists like John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who think that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. According to Rawls a just society is chosen by rational, free and equal individuals. He also thinks that in order for a person to make the best decision about the structure of the society, he has to be unaware of what his role in society would be in, this is the so called "veil of ignorance". John Raw also thinks that if there are inequalities in a society they should satisfy two conditions - The benefits of those inequalities should be accessible to all and that the inequalities should be distributed to the least well-off. When a survey was maid 92% of Americans chose to live in a society with more widely distributed wealth than one with wealth heavily concentrated in the top 1 percent of people, which is actually the current structure of American society. That is because when people aren`t conftented with the vale of ignorance people start thinking in ways that would benefit them exclusively. Robert Nozik oposes Rawls`s view. He thinks that a person has individual rights that just cannot be violated by another person or a group. Nozik gives the main role in his theory not to justice and equality like Rawls, but to Liberty. According to him no one can take a property away from a person if he has legally acquired it unlike what happens with taxation. The problem with his theory though arises when large amounts of people make the same decisions that would otherwise be acceptable when made by a single individual, but when done by many lead to poor outcomes. This is illustrated by "The tragedy of the commons" (Too many cows lead to no grass). Rawls advocates for free healthcare for every citizen, an inheretence tax, draft army and no vote selling, because under the vail of ignorance no rationally thinking person would chose differently, knowing that this would lead to inequalities and no safe bottom. Nozik to the contrary states that a person should be allowed to act as he wishes and that`s why he thinks that universal healthcare can not be achieved without infringing someone`s rights and that`s why there shouldn`t be a draft army, inheritance tax or draft army and people should be allowed to sell their vote if they think that would help their life the most.

[@lukea.j4620]

That was amazing, went so quick

[@DarkSkay]

The word "philosophy" combines intuitions about curiosity, the human condition, ambition and modesty; it elegantly invites explorers to an open field with no defined borders: "love" has no universal definition - "wisdom" has no universal definition.

[@Zeljia]

Man. If my high school had simply shown us videos like this as lessons I might’ve actually tried and done much better. Wonderful series!!

[@krishnantampi5665]

Great lecture and brilliant performance from a great professor. One of the best lectures that I have heard after years back in law school.. It answers every thing this century wants that's all

[@kennedykennedy1975]

thank u so much madam for help me understand these philosopher as continues with my study in political and economic philosophy.

[@tigertiger1699]

She gives amazing access.., and her accent.. is it that thick New Jersey..? Fantastic . Just amazing when it feels like you can hear an entire community in one persons voice..👍🙏

[@alkistisTV]

Thank you from Athens, Greece !

[@gregiep]

I'm not typically one to put much stock in philosophy, but I just sat down and watched a 45 minute KZbin video about it. That tells me, this video was very well done in a number of ways. The presenter was very engaging, the filming and editing were well done, and the graphics were useful and interesting without being distracting. I really enjoyed this, and I might have accidentally learned something along the way. Good job, BigThink. Also, the "f u" logo is cracking me up. Icing on the cake.

[@huynhthiensach]

Thank you for your online lectures! Tamar Gendler. I think these knowledge good enough to infuence people around the world.More Wonderful, if there be Vietnamese subtitles on your Yale open courses!

[@danielhutchinson6604]

the view of US Capitalism from a Vietnamese point of view seems to be something that might enlighten us? Does your heritage include the influence of the attempt to Colonize Southeast Asia? I have friends who continue to deal with visions of shooting at Vietnam Citizens who were attempting to enter the Embassy in 1975. The concepts of Political Philosophy as it relates to world citizens seems to be an important discussion that Americans tend to overlook.....

[@RobertSmith-vr4vm]

I started my bachelor in philosophy, politics and economics just under a week ago, and I subscribed to this channel yesterday. What are the odds? Thank you!

[@kurt8263]

SO clear and informative, loving the unbiased nature in the delivery of this content. Simply insightful!!! 👏🏻🙏🏻

[@colossalko]

My aerodynamics professor would rock this channel. His lectures are better than standup comedy.

[@jayforce17q54]

I thought this was a very good course/lecture and well organized. I would recommend watching it a few times. Thank you Tamar! My question is, how does Rawls derive the elements of a just society without defining what is Justice?

[@Jakobe_Wan]

I reckon he doesn't - behind the veil of ignorance where one is at risk of being born in the bottom of society you would want the least privileged people to have the best possible outcomes - so equality and justice naturally arise from this premise.

[@MatthewLawrence-s6k]

This might be the best video I have ever watched. She just taught a Canadian grade twelve social class in 45 minutes

[@najibmohamud2445]

one of the greatest video i ever watch about philosophy, she is a good teacher, do you agree with me.give it like

[@PBAmygdala2021]

Who should get what? = left/right Who says so? = top/bottom Political compass. Neat. I use 'who benefits' and 'who decides'

[@madisondampier3389]

Love this, you're so right

[@maersklandro]

25:19 - a higher income average income doesn't mean I will be guaranteed to make more there. Median and average are completely different things. Just because the average is higher doesn't mean I will have a higher income.

[@flytoheights1]

The point was not about income. The point was the risk an individual is willing to take to forgo his/her fundamental right in order to be in a society where he/she can make more money. Even when only 15% might not get fundamental rights, 92% of individuals did not want to take that risk. They valued their fundamental rights more.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

Higher income seems to indicate a level of crap that people seem more willing to defend. The idea of property rights seems due for discussion? Is the concept of Capitalism sacred? Are humans capable of independent thought?

[@danielshade710]

Her voice is magical despite any discussion on such. Like a singer she points to perfect part to listen to. Like Hendrix she doesn’t really need to exactly say stuff agreeably to understand a way bigger better idea. Damn, the facts of of this blues solo make her the teller of the ages like those silent thinkers she illuminates.

[@a1no1x]

Very interesting how Liberty is opposed to true Justice, yet justice to the individual is supporting of Liberty. Subjective vs Objective.

[@MK-je7kz]

That depends how high you put the Liberty in the hierarchy of rights. That hierarchy matters for instance when freedom speech is used to harm other people, freedom of speech is against freedom of religion, parents' freedom of religion is against rights of their child. In many cases one's right end up hurting other's rights, because those rights do not have set hierarchy and the situation is solved based on political and personal views.

[@ashwinisarah]

What a fabulous lecture. Worth watching over again. If you listen to this with your eyes closed, does anyone else see and hear Joan Cussack? ☺

[@austinrogers2632]

For the most part, this video is very good and informative. But Gendler's treatment of Nozick seems unfair. She shows the actual distribution of America's income and says Nozick would say this isn't unjust because Nozick holds liberty as his fundamental value. But this doesn't account for *how* the American wealthy got so wealthy. What if their wealth was facilitated by government actions (bailouts) and policies (tax loopholes) which benefit the wealthy and trample on liberty? Would Nozick be okay with that? Absolutely not. But then again, I'm not the one who had Nozick as a dissertation advisor...

[@adrianokemos]

Well Nozick thought nobody should take away anything acquired legitimately, government defines legitimacy, so the wealthy Americans did acquire wealth legitimately. Wealthy Americans then can in turn dictate how government defines legitimacy. Think about how American pioneers acquired titles of land from native Americans according to English law. That I think is fundamental flaw of Nozick's emphasis on liberty. He somehow forgot why we even cooperated to form a government in the first place as Thomas Hobbs argued. Why should 90% of people choose to cooperate with 10% if the 99% know that they will be poorer than 10%? The linchpin of Nozick's argument is legitimacy, which is a concept created by the government in order to govern, and not inherent to human condition. Therefore, I prefer veil of ignorance argument.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@adrianokemos Is the entire talk centered on the concept that Capitalism is infallible?

[@Lescandalefinir]

Thank you Tamar Gendler. Your explanations were digestable and rekindled what I learnt.

[@howtokravmaga]

Great Video! Saw the whole thing. Really interesting .. also pretty funny how there's a big FU at the end of each video

[@samlederman]

Education is the most important resource for a growing society

[@go9025]

That was a wonderful lecture!!! Thank you so much

[@MrWhooy]

The problem is that once we accept the idea of fundamental inequality of all people, it raises the question of how fundamental this inequality really is.

[@DavidAxelrodP]

an amazing teacher, you are

[@rgaleny]

Liberty Vs Equality is a dilemma the enlightenment never solved.

[@mariusj8542]

Thank you for the lecture. I find it almost funny how the us is structured heavily towards Nozick, and that most Americans believes it’s correct. The problems with Nozick values of justice is that the decisions are based upon self interest and not taken from “behind the vail”. If Nozick was to take ie inheritance tax, I think he would come to the same conclusion as Rawls as long as he chose from “behind the vail”, thus leading me to conclude that Nozick valuation of justice is a bit skewed based upon his point of standing. Let us ask if a relatively poor man, ridden by war and famine with low future expectations would write this book ? We all decide from a point of self interest, but as this whole lecture describes, from Greece to the Tea Party, self interest,even when defined as justice, alone is never decision-optimal for success.

[@Eay5paev]

I liked this video. It's actually a pretty good clarification of some political issues we have nowadays. I particularly liked the way she finger-quoted the word "theft" at some point. It confirms me in my impression that a few philosophers have recently been puzzled by the "Taxation is theft" meme, which is a good thing imho. Great video anyway.

[@LouFederer]

Wow, this is amazing! I love Professor Gendler. A great video - more please!

[@williammedford5891]

Big Think rocks!

[@TwilightInChocobo]

Amazing, it's really help my understanding. Thank you!

[@random-characters4162]

Decent video in its simplicity and surprisingly deep at the same time

[@BethJohnsonSM]

A Big Think Video that Should Make You THINK: Deep Thinking about a topic, whether you agree or disagree with the author's viewpoint, creates neuronal connections and strengthens various areas of your brain. This is just as effective, if not extremely more effective, than "Brain Training Games" for overall cognitive development and training.

[@amehak1922]

Professor chidi anagonye, moral philosophy and ethics. The good place.

[@ClearerThanMud]

Very interesting and well presented!

[@jteichma]

Wait! Isn’t it liberty AND justice for all? Maybe we need a philosophy that addresses them equally. Great talk!

[@Savagexrcom]

Thank you for this nice introduction, Tamar Gendler! :)

[@richarddismore5901]

No....Thank-you Professor. You are one smart lady.I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed this. Very informative.

[@nthperson]

The philosophical debate over the just distribution of wealth was best addressed, I suggest, by those who embraced the principles of the French Physiocrats, Turgot, Quesnay and du Pont de Nemeurs. What they argued was that the most fundamental right of all persons is our equal birthright to the earth. They concluded that the system of law that extended property rights to nature to individuals or private entities violated this human right. The historical conversion of nature as a commons into private enclaves created a rentier elite (i.e., an elite empowered by law and protected by the state to claim a portion of what others produced). This amounts to an initial redistribution of wealth by force, fraud and theft. The Physiocrats were ignored, of course, by the landed interests who controlled societies. Their writings influenced Adam Smith, who was also ignored. And, Benjamin Franklin declared his adherence to physiocratie, and was also ignored. Thomas Paine's great essay 'Agrarian Justrice' echoes the physiocratic call for the landed to compensate society for their privileged control over land by the payment of a "ground rent" therefor. Sadly, modern political and moral philosophers largely ignore the land question. The last serious effort to raise public conscience on the matter came from Henry George in the late 19th century. George, in the end, was unsuccessful. His social movement dwindled to just a few thousand adherents, but among them were some rather thoughtful individuals, including Winston Churchill, Sun Yat-sen, Leo Tolstoy, Louis F. Brandeis and philosophers John Dewey and Robert V. Andelson.

[@jakofozz]

How does any institution take shape if it is not given the right (by way of payment by the way) to exercise certain liberties on certain areas of land. The person or entity whom purchased this land DID PAY a price for doing so and in most countries a significant portion of the purchase amount is taxed by the government (peoples representation) either directly or indirectly. So it is clear that Physiocratic doctrine forms only part of the solution and the most idealistic position is something between pure capitalism and physiocracy. Adam Smith's core belief was of minimal government and allowing the "Invisible Hand" to drive production. An abandonment of government entirely leads to anarchy. Too much government leads to, well, North Korea... Great comment Edward Dodson.

[@nthperson]

Jack Dyason Adam Smith was, as you may recall, a professor of moral philosophy. His interest in political economy was in modern terms "interdisciplinary." His views on the necessity of people to form a government is well-described by the physiocratic language "laissez-faire laissez-passer laissez-aller," translated as best I can as 'clear the field and leave things alone." Justice required the elimination and prevention of privilege or (as John Locke described it) "licence." Where property in land was concerned, Locke argued for the proviso that society must intervene when population size means there is not enough of equal quality for all. Smith joined with Turgot and others who came to the conclusion that the best way to enforce Locke's proviso was the societal collection of the rent of land. One of the better responses to your argument that land owners have in most cases purchased the land held from another party is provided in the book "Progress and Poverty" (1879) by Henry George. He asks whether an initial theft of nature by private interests should be ignored because of subsequent sales to parties who exchange legitimately earned wealth for land. He reminds his readers that universally-embraced principles dictate that stolen property be returned to the original owner, even when held by an innocent third party. However, Henry George did not call for the elimination of private ownership of land or return of all land to public ownership. He argued, as had Smith and Turgot, that the reasonable remedy was for societies to collect the potential annual rental value of land and land-like assets (e.g., the broadcast spectrum or take-off and landing slots at airports) to pay for public goods and services and even issue an annual citizens dividend to all.

[@Blue-bd4vs]

this presentation from 2012, still better than my lecturer presentation

[@Kindaya1]

Fantastic video!!!! Im completely stunned! Great perspectives, amazing presentation - love it!

[@lancedrake4585]

This video completely explained - in a reasonable, rational manner - what's going on in the heads of Democrats and Republicans. It is patently clear and obvious why there's gridlock in Washington when you understand what is presented in this lecture. This could be one of THE most amazing revelations to which I have ever been exposed.

[@Alexgoozy]

"Do you wish to no longer be natural?" Most people: "Aye"

[@TheScamDealer]

Truly amazing video. I'm very thankful that I live in a time were I'm able to view it.

[@EWKification]

The problem with Nozick's position is that the wealthiest often got their advantage through ILLEGITIMATE means and then capitalized on it through further illegitimate means, otherwise things would be relatively equal because people have similar capacities. But nobody is going to admit that they got their advantage because their family had slave plantations. This could be considered "legitimate" according to the laws of the time, but ultimately was absolutely unfair to the slaves. So we'd need to find a much better definition of "legitimate" than whatever the law happened to allow. Further, Nozick doesn't consider the results. If the vast majority are doomed from birth to a life of struggle and poverty that's OK with him as long as the few who lord it over them got their advantage "legitimately". Thus you could have a radically unfair world, and he'd have to give it his stamp of approval. If 90% of the population starved and 10% had millions of times more than they needed, he'd have to agree with it. Even if it was just 1% he'd have to agree. He allows people to be completely selfish and irresponsible as long as they follow laws which they are likely to have used their own advantage to tinker with bringing into being in order to further their advantage. I'm sure he is loved by the 1%. But he's not really a philosopher as much as an apologist for slave holders.

[@timbuckley5437]

I like your argument, but the second half seems self defeating-if I am getting your vibe. You say that Nozick wrongfully assumes that rights have always been considered in the accumulation of property, in that respect I totally agree. Then you go on to say that he would be okay with your hypothetical situation involving massive inequality, I also agree with that. But you mention that if human rights are considered, massive inequality will not happen and the hypothetical situation cannot take place. Toward the end it seems as if you are advocating wealth redistribution (I could be wrong), but it seems like the logical conclusion is to have laws that clearly respect human rights-not wealth redistribution.

[@ZackGisme]

Tim Buckley I read his last blurb to be more about the powerful manipulating the world/laws around them to benefit themselves even more so. Less "Human Rights" and more "dirty pool." Like say the 2008 financial crisis for one example. Those in charge of mortgages decided to lend to people who never had a hope of paying it back. Bet against the loans and made incredible amounts of money. They took this money and funneled it into the political system so they could avoid any serious punishment and so they could receive a massive injection of money by way of a bailout. It can be argued the people who accepted the mortgage should've known better I suppose. That's just a very skeletal example but encapsulates how the powerful can prey on others and exert their power in order to acquire more money/power. They didn't exactly acquire their wealth by legitimate means in the example but to the same end they are such heavy hitters that they can rise above the laws. Nozick's ideas hold up well in individual circumstances but can have some disastrous consequences when the lines around "legitimate" are blurred.

[@maersklandro]

Private property, right of inheritance and the right to issue money are all illegitimate, arbitrary privileges. Not just outright feudalism or slavery.

[@timbuckley5437]

***** I like to call this the "authority complex", which is basically a failure to advance out of childhood. It has to do with people who do not believe in private property because the logic behind it essentially does not coincide with the logic of fairness in childhood, which is based on the idea that everyone lives equally under the parents and that resources must be shared equally because the parents are the ultimate providers. This, however, is not how the world works. Useful resources are just innately here, they must be created through the time and effort of specific individuals with specific intentions. There is no deity who bestows them upon us with the intent that they be doled out equally, the universe is not a parent, it is indifferent. There is nothing arbitrary about me working hard to pay for a mortgage on a home I claim ownership over (because it is my contribution of time and energy that is maintaining it, not everyone's),but people who cannot overcome the authority complex view it as similar to a child hogging a toy that all of the children were meant to play with.

[@watermelonygoodness]

theprivateer83 There is a difference between private property for personal use (personal property) and private property that will be used to exploit others, or infringe upon their rights and freedoms. Also, if you are talking about land ownership specifically, how did this land come to be anyone's property? Was it initially acquired through legitimate means? Did someone simply assert the land as their own? Did they defend this assertion through violence? Is that legitimate? Does the use or threat of violence make something legitimate? Or is violence only legitimate if it is being used to defend one's natural rights? If the land was never given to any one person, what makes this assertion legitimate? The initial ownership has to be legitimate according to Nozick. How can something legitimately go from unowned to owned?

[@danieljones26]

This is my first exposure to the Teachings of Tamar Gendler. I appreciate Her efforts to reveal the opposition of the thesis and anti-thesis in the works of Hobbs and Others that have responded to Hobbs. Tamar Gendler asks important questions about these oppositions and shows the ways to begin to answer these questions. I find this to be very helpful. Thank you Tamar Gendler, for doing this important work and sharing it here in "You Tube". My gratitude, also, to "Big Think", who helped Tamar do what She has done. Making a transcript of this presentation available is very helpful too. Now, if only I could achieve some personal growth out of this Work.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

Greece may be a historical point that might not probe far enough into the past to reveal the origins of our political and Economic roots. Coins were first produced by Sumerians among others. Before that the value of goods and property was not relevant to philosophical discussion. The future seems to hold promises of discussion of economic depression as well as power trippin..... Is the concept of Capitalism a Sacred Cow, that shall not be touched, like a third rail? The entire talk centered around the fact that property rights were some sacred privilege and shall not be violated.....

[@danieljones8483]

@@danielhutchinson6604 shared: "The entire talk centered around the fact that property rights were some sacred privilege and shall not be violated....." Good Sunday Morning to you, Daniel. I have Thought a little about "Property Rights". The discussions, or mentions of them, give no indications of "Limitations Of Decency" regarding this concept...probably because there are no formal "Limitations Of Decency" developed for this Idea yet. Questions: Have you written your Ideas regarding "Property Rights"? And do you have a place I can go to to see what you have written?

[@danieljones8483]

@@danielhutchinson6604 asked: "Is the concept of Capitalism a Sacred Cow, that shall not be touched, like a third rail?" I Thank Daniel Hutchinson for this valuable question. Capitalism certainly is a "Sacred Cow" to Many of Us...from Workers to Entrepreneurs to Oligarchs. Capitalism has enhanced Prosperity for Many Of Us. Better it seems, (as far as Our Numbers that have benefited from it), than Feudalism and older forms of tyranny of the "one", or the "few". But, it seems to me that We can do Better than the present state of Capitalism...which I like to call "Inferior Capitalism". Ideal Capitalism, which I like to call "Superior Capitalism", is still largely a potentiality for Our Species and World. It still could Evolve to a Better Thing for More Of Us. To help this "Evolution" happen, Capitalism needs to receive influences of certain types and strengths of Morality. "Morality" such as "Standards Of Decency"...more specifically "Prosperity Quest Limits of Decency". Basically, this infusion would establish (in Our New Laws) a "Cap" on the accumulation of wealth, for Individuals and Corporations. What this "Cap" for Capitalism would be should be decided by Most Of Us , but I think a Limit of One Billion spending leaves (or some representation thereof) for Individual Prosperity Questors seems Reasonable...makes Sense to me. Then apply this Principle to Big Business as well...maybe Ten Billion? Of course, We have to be able to implement and enforce this remedy and other measures have to be done to reinforce it. To do this would entail Us preparing an entire Social Construct package to give this True Evolutionary and lasting Strength. So, I propose that We, The Good Citizenry Of Our Nation, touch the hell out of it!

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@danieljones8483 My writing is mainly centered on transportation issues. My reasons for bringing a subject like the issue of economic issues comes from 50 years of dealing with Capitalism. Naomi Klein suggests that Capitalism is the basic issue that is driving Global Warming. The issue seems to imply human doom and great suffering as the heat drives humans in a Global Migration, along a path to cooler areas. Europe's open borders, while enabling a free exchange of Cultures among the Continent, have delivered some issues that even Romans may have found challenging. I seem to feel open borders are a feature that is as important as any feature of hospitality, to enable us to associate with our neighbors. Capitalism seems to cling to some notion that while we may not want to share our beds with the migrating folks who may not speak the same language, our supposedly adequate supply of wealth should welcome the advancing individuals..... The concept of private property as well as open borders seems to block the sharing of our supposedly vast wealth with those who flee the heat we supply. I ask if you believe in the sacred nature of Borders as well as Private Property to deny Hospitality to the victims of economic warfare?

[@kahlessconroy616]

Nice to see social libertarian argumentation reduced to a caricature that basically says, "Cave men had freedom, and that was no fun, right?"

[@TheEmptySki]

+Kahless Conroy you couldn't see that coming from when the lady said she taught at Yale? She could have easily used Rothbard instead of Nozick and had a more substantial comment on overfishing. This was awful. She's a philosopher creating childish hypotheticals and taking polls to justify the meaning of morality implicit in her presentation of authors and topics. The best part of Kant's Second Critique is where he polled the public on what they thought about income distribution. Where is the Big Think video on 21st century propaganda?

[@cultmecca]

this is a good video. not only is the topic very thought provoking but the person teaching it is also pretty easy on the eyes haha

[@abdullahben3882]

IMAGINE IF ALL UNVIRSITY LECTURES BEEN LIKE THAT ??

[@MrPobanz]

Well, if you scratch the top of the iceberg on any topic, nearly anything can be interesting (and presented like it is in this video). But to get a real grasp about how certain things work (mathematics, physics, economics and so on) there is no way of keeping a lecture the way its presented here. At least thats what i experienced in college.

[@samaraisnt]

​@@MrPobanz Have you seen her other lectures? They're all phenomenal. In order to be a GREAT professor, one has to be able to explain complex matters simply...which she can better than most, many saying it's the best lecture they've seen. Deligitimizing her success as a lecturer is lame. Reeks of "I know more than the teacher!" bitterness. The reason advanced professors never explain things well or simply is because college boards (very often) don't bother to hire good teachers for advanced classes, rather they hire people who are advanced in their field, existing in a publish or perish dynamic which allows them to retain their job without actually helping their students....it's also assumed that the further along you are the more you could handle a bad teacher because you know the material & can fill in the blanks. The problem that would cause in early course classes is that it causes future professionals in the field to drop out.

[@wasantube]

these long videos are the best of KZbin.

[@TheMFossum]

Wow, this was really good.

[@FirstPersonSTFU]

Thank you Tamar Gendle and Big Think for giving us such great insight on philosophy and politics. We all have are own individual beliefs in what principles we should uphold, and there really is no absolute as to which system can give us the greatest quantity of freedom and equality in a society. As a Libertarian I place individualism and freedom above everything else, and while I want to achieve equality as much as any other socialist, we need to first ask ourselves... "at what cost?"

[@nicholasgergetz5941]

Want to win a debate? Frame the question. If you determine what is being debated and in what terms and context that thing can be debated in, and you've framed the question in a calculated way, you've "won" the debate before it's begun. Keep that in mind as she explores these two questions she frames. Think about what she presupposes when she poses these questions: "What is the appropriate division of rights and responsibilities?" "How should the legitimate concerns of liberty and equality be balanced?" I think one of the most obvious observations one could make by hearing these two sentences is that she has already implicitly accepted the assumption that both liberty and equality are legitimate concerns. That's a lot of normative judgment entering in, or at the very least it's a lot of positive judgments not elaborated on here. Either way, just be aware that this isn't just an exploration of political philosophy; it's an exploration of political philosophy according to her. Which is still valuable to listen to, I just think some people commit themselves to smallthink after having watched a Big Think video.

[@jsong8282]

Wow great point.

[@firstal3799]

That's because there are manifestly important human values. This is real life human sciences not some silly parlor games

[@theincandescentman685]

Can I be consistent from now on please? This idea is what makes the world a better place.

[@eleonoraantonakakigiannisi8849]

It is amazing how much of a simplistic outlook can a professor of Yale have, saying that a series of political works have all been generated from one work. I am not saying that a work as such cannot generate a sphere of influence but all kinds of works must be placed in their historical time and understood as a symptom of that time and not the other way around. Marx ended, with his critique on Hegel's notion on the way that history develops, this metaphysical way of thinking. Of course the subject can have a vast course of action but not one person can have this kind of influence without the right fructuous conditions to support the prementioned influence. There must be a carefull, dialectic consideration of all the material, cultural and political aspects of the trains of philosophical thought. And some still believe that the liberation of man will only come in a communist society,not the way it was depicted in the Soviet Union. State only exists to restrain people not because of some necessity that depends on human nature but because it follows certain interests,favoring specific social groups. Political philosophy does not simply evolve as a sphere separate in its autonomy, it is developped by people and realized by them. The attribution of those externalisations of thought merely to those who outspoke them first as much as we know is a bourgeois conception which overviews history as a evolutional process based on the accumulation of unique events. Both Rawls and Nozick speak about capitalism as if its characteristic are to be unchanged in any other societal form. As long as the economy is characterized by the production of commodities these problems will keep coming up without ever being able to be solved except if the structure of this system changes.

[@M4551kt]

+Eleonora Anton You have to remember what a Yale professor is and also her title in the university is not only philosophy professor but also cognitive science (something very fashionable these days). Ideology, as I think it is what you are referring to, is already present in her title. She comes from an American positivist scientific oriented liberal tradition. Of course, she could be a critic of that, but usually the american background goes this way (Zizek x Chomsky or Chomsky x Foucault, both helps us to understand the european and american approach to many fields and philosophy in general) Her initial description of what philosophy is and it's purpose was already very specific. To say all cultures had a philosophy it's a very modern (or postmodern perhaps) view. The way she divided philosophy on the beginning wasn' very good in my opinion. We will always have to deconstruct the content these universities teach; just look at the related videos bar. Most of it is just poor philosophy (Sam Harris and Mitchiu Kaku for fuck sake?)

[@eleonoraantonakakigiannisi8849]

I posted my thoughts so that someone that watches this can actually read a critique and also to start a discussion below, so i am really happy that somebody answered. I come from a european communist tradition and this is why i find her viewpont on the side of bourgeois ideology, trying to prove that there is no other possible societal form. I don't know who Sam Harris or Mitciu Kaku are, can you tell me a bit about them? We are seeing nothing but poor philosophy these days and I am a fan of deconstructing their hegemonical structures. Where are you from?

[@eleonoraantonakakigiannisi8849]

julio massi I posted my thoughts so that someone that watches this can actually read a critique and also to start a discussion below, so i am really happy that somebody answered. I come from a european communist tradition and this is why i find her viewpont on the side of bourgeois ideology, trying to prove that there is no other possible societal form. I don't know who Sam Harris or Mitciu Kaku are, can you tell me a bit about them? We are seeing nothing but poor philosophy these days and I am a fan of deconstructing their hegemonical structures. Where are you from?

[@M4551kt]

+Eleonora Anton I'm from Brazil and I can only say that I come from a very conservative society that struggled with half a century of dictatorship supported by US money. But I don't have a love or hate relationship with US or anything. I love marxism, but do not call myself a socialist or anarchist whatsoever; I'm inclined towards the left, but that's how far I tend to go and assuming my backgrounds I think you can understand my perspective a little better. I'm assuming you're familiar with Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault? Given the debate they had on human nature - there is a video on youtube or the transcript on the web -, I believe we can start to understand, even considering the american left, the main difference from european to american philosophers. US has a more scientific and positivist (not to say liberal as well) posture in it's intelectuality, while europe - I refer mainly to France and Germany -, have another tradition. A simple example that helps us understanding these differences is the use of the word "framework" in anglo-saxon countries contrary to "ideology", yet they are usually talking about the same structure. Ideology surely comes form marxist tradition, while framework has a more scientific/liberal approach. Chomsky will use framework - even though he's very critical of liberalism, don't get me wrong -, while Foucault will use Ideology. The Zizek x Chomsky debate was, mainly, an epistemological one (in my view), given that Chomsky often dismiss european philosophy (except on the fields of logic and cognitive questions, Piaget and Wittgenstein), and Zizek comes from this philosophy. Zizek is a psychoanalyst that uses Lacan, Freud, Hegel and Marx; an interface created by the French school during the vivid time of Louis Althusser and Lacan. Chomsky claims that psychoanalysis is nothing but pseudoscience, doesn't explain or proves anything and that it's thinkers are often people who write in complicated manner so they seem inteligent (there is an interview that he defends this point). You can start to understand that you don't have to leave the "Leftish views" to find the epistemological, cultural and theoretical differences from US and Europe. It can be explained, of course, by history. The thinkers that went to teach in US, the preferences of the american school for some theories rather than others, what the university and research means and it's social role in the american society (very different from the european academia), etc. It's rather interesting and when things get a bit clear in your mind, you're able to read through what an american university professor; be harvard, yale or whatever; can teach you and what is nothing but reproducing tendencies and ideologies from that society. You start to understand why it sounds weird or simplistic this course; perhaps one-sided. Or why Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Michiu Kaku - scientists that defend a new kind of positivism (August Comte?) -, all that scientific worshiping and religion hate (as if reason x irrationality). Anyway, a country from a communist tradition? Which one? Sounds very interesting, at least more than the capitalist ones.

[@eleonoraantonakakigiannisi8849]

+julio massi I come from Greece, I am sure you have heard the political situation here and in Europe in general right now. We are going through a rather unstable political situation with our population(greek working and middle class as well at this point) denying the harsh austerity measures. At the same time Greece is being flooded with refugees mainly from Syria because of the civil war. In the midst of all this and after i have read Marx and lately Lukacs i strongly believe that emancipation from this mode of production, and the social relationships that reification and alienation imply, through the conscious praxis of the people is the only way out of this extended capitalist crisis. The last one, so large resulted to two world wars. I believe that ideology and praxis should have a direct link and that one should act upon the injustices that come with wage labor. Philosophy must be corelated the same, with the social reality and this is why the american universities are like that. They take anything radical and as Guy Debord would say they coopt it into something as a mere concept with no practical end. I am not familiar with the brazilian history other than knowng generally about the dictatorship. What is it from your backround that draws you away from being a bit hesitant about communism?

[@AthenianPride]

Philosophy doesn't mean "Love of Wisdom" but "Friend of Wisdom". Philo = Friend or friendly towards something e.g. Philanthropy = friend of humans

[@viewlesscheese]

Philosophy to some people is like modern art - they don't get it and consider it pointless. They do not question are thus are like sheep.

[@stevenreed6802]

In order for Nozicks premise to be true he must assume that all prior transactions were fair, voluntary and entered into with equal knowledge and power. And since we all know that isn’t the case…

[@AkshaySrinivasan123]

Brilliant the thugs i grew up with who laugh derisively at me for talking philosophy in dumbai mumbai lol should listen to the close of her statement (smart woman) statement on the usefulness of philosophy :) Brilliant lady wonderful lecture will read all three books

[@danielhutchinson6604]

Mumbai the Wall Street of Southern Asia seems a location for the love of Capitalism to flower? Do you assume that her teaching credibility at an Ivy League institution may reveal some prejudice to the donations of wealthy individuals who seem to desire more Desciples of the worship of profits be produced by this Woman's Words?

[@SCHaworth]

There should be lectures and classes in formats like this.

[@acksonsaisha2694]

i'm not trolling or anything but this is a bit focused on history than philosophy

[@Inmatinus]

Well said. I think more of this kind of ''dedication'' should be more used in todays society.

[@juancho7274]

Well I would rather preffer to live in Rawls society

[@neoepicurean3772]

But have you thought about that? Nozick's point is that almost on a daily basis the state would have to make things equal again - in means a constant interference by the state in your daily life. It also means that there is no incentive to try and create a money making business or idea - we'd have to rely on the state to develop technology. If you seriously think of the consequences of a Rawlsian world - it would be close to a Communist dictatorship. As the market mechanism isn't used to control what is produced and to pass messages about the demands of the people - a state run system is open to corruption and just getting things terribly wrong - as seen with some of the great famines under planned economies. The answer is to share, voluntarily, not to have a state that enforces equality of outcome.

[@atavismvision]

And underestimating the prison-industrial complex and military-industrial complex but it cannot be helped from attempting to convey such an important point so concisely. Great lecture.

[@stevej5185]

She is so hot

[@ChrisOrillia]

Wonder if she cares enough or checks back here. I know if I made something like this, I'd see no harm in reading comments once every year or so. If she can't comment due to contract, there is no way to tell if a fake account was used--always deniability. So... you here, or what?

[@svperuzer]

Yes she is

[@lifecloud2]

I enjoyed this very much. The thing I valued most from this was the stitching together of a lot of ideas and thought that I learned separately. The benefit for me is being able to see how they not only fit together but how they contrast. To me, the most important part of developing ideas about these subjects is information ... and this comes from the insight of other thinkers. Tamar Gendler helped me fill in the blanks and see the whole picture. Thank you!

[@danielhutchinson6604]

i was rewarded with the thought that it was a Capitalism Propaganda presentation......

[@easygreasy3989]

WOW!! can't believe that was free. So Good.

[@wegreenall]

As is the argument regarding the draft. Notice the comment that the fact that those who volunteer for the army have "few other choices" is apparently a fair complaint against Nozick, whereas the draft, ie, NOBODY has ANY choice, is somehow better.

[@nuscholar1979]

The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. Very accessible, very concise, and a good starter before getting into the heavy stuff.

[@j168limhkmusic]

thank you very much indeed for this lecture! I will definitely read more about Philosophy!

[@jacobestes]

Tamar Gendler is a great lecturer.

[@Helioscore1]

wish this was how lectures and education were produced today

[@wQQter626]

Some would disagree. While most sciences have some sort of formula to follow that will lead to a correct answer, philosophy forces a person to use critical thinking to determine answers. And even then philosophers are constantly going back and reevaluating those answers to find better ones. This does not sound like laziness but dedication.

[@rgnko7]

Well done video!!! Thank you Bigthink/Floating University,I hope there is more to come!

[@witwisniewski2280]

What I haven't seen the philosophers tackle is the inequity (as measured by our value system) caused by the multiplicative nature of wealth. The principal prerequisite for gaining wealth is wealth, and for remaining in poverty is poverty. We have an alleged meritocracy conjured to support social justice, and it would work if wealth and contribution to wealth weres linear and additive, but the multiplicative functionality bypasses our efforts of meritocracy.

[@Thezuule1]

You said he was a pure philosopher, he's a physicist.