An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics and Economics Watch the newest video from Big Think: https://bigth.ink/NewVideo Join Big Think Edge for exclusive …
How can a degree in philosophy make a bridge into Medicine? whats gives that individual expertise in medicine? two completely different fields. It doesn't make sense.
While this is a great lecture, it is incomplete. Without investigating further into the nature of wealth, redistribution and its consequences (both intended and unintended), this basic theoretical treatment of the topic alone may lead to false conclusion. As put forth by a famous economist, Dr. Milton Friedman, and I paraphrase: "No equal society is possible unless done through force. The use of force to seize wealth from individuals alone (e.g., the so-called progressive tax), if done excessively, violates both justice and liberty." Sure, tax is a way to provide public goods which is needed for the greater good of a society. Tax is a payment to the government to run basic functions such as national defence, enforcement of property right,enforcement of law and order, building hospital and educational institutions, etc. These are necessary, but we have to study further, more rigorously, to see how a more equal society can be achieved and to what degree, and whether or not equality mentioned in this lecture is feasible. For instance, think about legitimate individual wealth obtained through enriching the lives of others such as the inventions of television and automobile. These inventions benefit the mass, mostly the middle- and lower-class, not the elites, not the kings/queens/rulers. In a free market society, a voluntary exchange occurs only when both parties (buy and seller) know they can benefit from such as exchange. These sorts of inventions thus augment the quality of life of the general public, and the resultant wealth for the inventors is an incentive to do so. The implicit assumption in this lecture is also the absence of altruism in human nature which is clearly not the case. There have been many private charitable activities that serve the public interest and not the individual one. This lecture here is also very vague about equality. Is it just equality of current income? expected income (think of a student who is doing very well in university but currently working part-time job)? life-time income? income based on one's contribution? Another example is this lecture suggests that practices such as minimum wage requirement is just and contributes to a more equal society. Quite the contrary, minimum wage can lead to higher unemployment of vulnerable groups – e.g., teenagers from lower income households – whose hourly productivity cannot justify the hourly wage paid to them; thus, denying them the opportunity to learn on the job and build their career. In practice, we cannot simply deny the views such as utilitarianism and that of Robert Nozick. We need to study the motive, the process and the consequence of an act, not just the intention. This lecture serves as a good and detailed introduction into a more rigorous study of economics and politics, but you really need to dig deeper to truly understand the complexity within which we live.
To leave viewers with the assumption that communism and Marxism (which spawned the totalitarian regimes that murdered millions of its own people) as somehow forward thinking "emanicipation" is not only dishonest and irresponsible but downright dangerous. Particularly to younger generations that have already been (generally speaking) systematically robbed of a well-rounded, critically thinking, and historically well-informed education. A confirmation that the subversive attack on Western values and society, that has given us so much prosperity, is still under attack.
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 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.
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!
I find using Wilt Chamberlain as an example to justify the clinging to profits derived from one’s work, a kind of psychological trick, because Wilt was an entertainer(sportsman), performing for peoples’ pleasure. There was no one, directly under him in his employ, necessary to create value on his behalf. Simple equation. He “danced”, people “tossed him coins” being delighted by his performance. Well, of course it’s his money. However, most economic exchanges are based on widgets produced in factories by workers, who are generally exploited and the fruit of their work is sold, with the profit going to the top. This forcing of the workers to “dance” at less than livable wages creates a negative and inhumane impact on society, addressable by increasing their wages and benefits with less profit going to the few at the top. Easily within the possibility of correction, if the owners and captains of industry aren’t given a pass by the likes of Nozick.
Is there any videos–anywhere!–that deals exculsively with the original intent of philosophy. I can't ever find anything that sticks just to idea of "loving" "Sophia," the female personification of Wisdom. The only thing I can find is Jung's more contemporary idea of "the Anima." I'd like to find something from the ancient philosophers that deals exclusively with exactly what it means to "love Sophia" because I think it has more to do with an esoteric description of an inner directed search. This political non-sense bores me, and I also think it's just off track of what the ancient philosophers were referring to. Somebody help!!
How does one get unowned resources? Pre-Leviathan or Leviathan doesn't apply to current owners like indigenous people. Whatever you can grab. The worst theft of all.
Prisoners' dilemma doesn't really apply to complex interactions. You don't have to disarm completely. Especially with nuclear weapons, what if your policy was to spend 90% of your adversary's spending?
Bravo. Great lecture. This really is the big question of our time, isn't it? Is liberal democracy capable of surviving in the face of global catastrophes? What happens when the whole world becomes a "tragedy of the commons?" Unwavering respect for the rights of the individual will lead us all to ruin. We may have no choice but to embrace a future of "Duty" over "Liberty" … we are not ready in the slightest.
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!
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.
33:52 money is not liberty. Money does not have your name on the bill. Money is belong to your government. Nozick believe that money give you power when and philosophy is the money that own your ideas and the same money limit your power. This though is a lights through capitalist Utopian serves to collectivities which will never have enough money because power does not want to offer itself to collectivity. In this path of view UDS army and NASA dont have the right to exist… 37:00 Yeah its call: knowing its limit and adapt to his upgrading knowledge.
25:05 You must get knowledge to take the third choice. a society based on monopoly does not count the portions that is distributed either but only the portions that's inputting and cuts on the portion that outputting. I live in the 3e society and 50% of the pay is going back to social services with low crimes rates.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: https://bigth.ink/GetSmarter
How can a degree in philosophy make a bridge into Medicine? whats gives that individual expertise in medicine? two completely different fields. It doesn't make sense.
While this is a great lecture, it is incomplete. Without investigating further into the nature of wealth, redistribution and its consequences (both intended and unintended), this basic theoretical treatment of the topic alone may lead to false conclusion. As put forth by a famous economist, Dr. Milton Friedman, and I paraphrase: "No equal society is possible unless done through force. The use of force to seize wealth from individuals alone (e.g., the so-called progressive tax), if done excessively, violates both justice and liberty." Sure, tax is a way to provide public goods which is needed for the greater good of a society. Tax is a payment to the government to run basic functions such as national defence, enforcement of property right,enforcement of law and order, building hospital and educational institutions, etc. These are necessary, but we have to study further, more rigorously, to see how a more equal society can be achieved and to what degree, and whether or not equality mentioned in this lecture is feasible.
For instance, think about legitimate individual wealth obtained through enriching the lives of others such as the inventions of television and automobile. These inventions benefit the mass, mostly the middle- and lower-class, not the elites, not the kings/queens/rulers. In a free market society, a voluntary exchange occurs only when both parties (buy and seller) know they can benefit from such as exchange. These sorts of inventions thus augment the quality of life of the general public, and the resultant wealth for the inventors is an incentive to do so. The implicit assumption in this lecture is also the absence of altruism in human nature which is clearly not the case. There have been many private charitable activities that serve the public interest and not the individual one. This lecture here is also very vague about equality. Is it just equality of current income? expected income (think of a student who is doing very well in university but currently working part-time job)? life-time income? income based on one's contribution?
Another example is this lecture suggests that practices such as minimum wage requirement is just and contributes to a more equal society. Quite the contrary, minimum wage can lead to higher unemployment of vulnerable groups – e.g., teenagers from lower income households – whose hourly productivity cannot justify the hourly wage paid to them; thus, denying them the opportunity to learn on the job and build their career.
In practice, we cannot simply deny the views such as utilitarianism and that of Robert Nozick. We need to study the motive, the process and the consequence of an act, not just the intention.
This lecture serves as a good and detailed introduction into a more rigorous study of economics and politics, but you really need to dig deeper to truly understand the complexity within which we live.
awesome lecture and she is very easy on the eyes 🙂
The philosophy of politics is CORRUPTION.
To leave viewers with the assumption that communism and Marxism (which spawned the totalitarian regimes that murdered millions of its own people) as somehow forward thinking "emanicipation" is not only dishonest and irresponsible but downright dangerous. Particularly to younger generations that have already been (generally speaking) systematically robbed of a well-rounded, critically thinking, and historically well-informed education. A confirmation that the subversive attack on Western values and society, that has given us so much prosperity, is still under attack.
why is there a podium behind her if she's not using it
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 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.
When you don't have time to listen to all of Sandel's 'Justice' lecture 😉
Astute prof .please keep up the good work
A BBIIIIGGGGG thank you to Big Think for making such lectures available to the average person out there. Beautiful times we live in…
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!
Just fyi the captions include more information than she presents starting around 28:39
I find using Wilt Chamberlain as an example to justify the clinging to profits derived from one’s work, a kind of psychological trick, because Wilt was an entertainer(sportsman), performing for peoples’ pleasure. There was no one, directly under him in his employ, necessary to create value on his behalf. Simple equation. He “danced”, people “tossed him coins” being delighted by his performance. Well, of course it’s his money. However, most economic exchanges are based on widgets produced in factories by workers, who are generally exploited and the fruit of their work is sold, with the profit going to the top. This forcing of the workers to “dance” at less than livable wages creates a negative and inhumane impact on society, addressable by increasing their wages and benefits with less profit going to the few at the top. Easily within the possibility of correction, if the owners and captains of industry aren’t given a pass by the likes of Nozick.
IS THE QUALIFICATION FOR BEING INTERVIEWED FOR THIS CHANNEL JUST BEING A LEFTY?
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? ☺
Thank u
Que linda
one of the greatest video i ever watch about philosophy, she is a good teacher, do you agree with me.give it like
This is my first intro to the subject. I feel very enlightened; also impressed with her elegance and simplicity. ??
Always love this channel
She sounds like the 'nutty professor' – having said that, she is very good.
Wait, so why did you guys use an anachronistic painting of Aristotle?
Not helping is not the same as harming, that example against utilitarianism is just wrong, its a false equivalency.
Holy Shit, an academic Professor admitted that Taxation is theft? is this a dream?
The problem with many political philosophers is they ignore a fundamental question: does anyone have the right to rule?
Is there a way to download these graphics for notes?
Is there any videos–anywhere!–that deals exculsively with the original intent of philosophy. I can't ever find anything that sticks just to idea of "loving" "Sophia," the female personification of Wisdom. The only thing I can find is Jung's more contemporary idea of "the Anima." I'd like to find something from the ancient philosophers that deals exclusively with exactly what it means to "love Sophia" because I think it has more to do with an esoteric description of an inner directed search. This political non-sense bores me, and I also think it's just off track of what the ancient philosophers were referring to. Somebody help!!
Excellent presentation making the subject easy accessible and comprehensible. Thank you. I enjoyed it enormously
I liked and she is lucky to learn from both the stalwarts…
Great overview of "what is politics about?" from a fundamental level!
How does one get unowned resources? Pre-Leviathan or Leviathan doesn't apply to current owners like indigenous people. Whatever you can grab. The worst theft of all.
Prisoners' dilemma doesn't really apply to complex interactions. You don't have to disarm completely. Especially with nuclear weapons, what if your policy was to spend 90% of your adversary's spending?
Bravo. Great lecture. This really is the big question of our time, isn't it? Is liberal democracy capable of surviving in the face of global catastrophes? What happens when the whole world becomes a "tragedy of the commons?" Unwavering respect for the rights of the individual will lead us all to ruin. We may have no choice but to embrace a future of "Duty" over "Liberty" … we are not ready in the slightest.
The tragedy of the commons was already solved by Bart Simpson and his "Don't have a cow, man" theory.
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!
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.
To be clear, the United States of America is not a democracy. It has democratic elements, but it is a constitutional republic. Worlds of difference.
33:52 money is not liberty. Money does not have your name on the bill. Money is belong to your government. Nozick believe that money give you power when and philosophy is the money that own your ideas and the same money limit your power. This though is a lights through capitalist Utopian serves to collectivities which will never have enough money because power does not want to offer itself to collectivity. In this path of view UDS army and NASA dont have the right to exist…
37:00 Yeah its call: knowing its limit and adapt to his upgrading knowledge.
25:05 You must get knowledge to take the third choice. a society based on monopoly does not count the portions that is distributed either but only the portions that's inputting and cuts on the portion that outputting.
I live in the 3e society and 50% of the pay is going back to social services with low crimes rates.
Taking one life to save millions take away the concept of safety in a society and that worth billions…Problem solve… slow claps to your argument
Mediocre lecture that would feel at home on government sponsored presentations in Venezuela, North Korea, Russia or China.
Professor chidi anagonye, moral philosophy and ethics. The good place.
Amazing women!
Bloodshed anarchy degradation ignorance spread the wealth