Can we really make progress? | John Mearsheimer and Steven Pinker clash
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Professor of political science, John Mearsheimer, and professor of psychology, Steven Pinker go head to head on the betterment of humanity since The Englightenment. Which ideals are the best to guide human flourishing?
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-enlightenmen...
The Enlightenment advocated reason, science, democracy, and universal human rights as a grounding for human morality and social organization. In the quarter millennium since, to what extent have these ideals been realized? Has the Enlightenment in fact been successful in bringing about moral progress? Are there viable alternatives to the Enlightenment vision?
#TheEnlightenment #CanWeMakeProgress #HumanFlourishing
John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and is considered to be one of the most influential international relations theorists of his generation. He is the author of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy and The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities.
Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and one of the most prominent public intellectuals of our time. He has been named as one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” Pinker is the author of Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
I think Mearsheimer important argument and criticism against Pinker is this, among the flaws of Pinker argument is that he equate morality with Enlightenment or morality with liberalism. Mearsheimer is right when he said you don't need Enlightenment to know about morality (e.g. killing innocent babies is wrong). The truth is, even before Enlightenment appeared in the West, morality is already exist and seriously uphold in non-Western world
I don’t think he equates those. How exactly did you conclude that he equates those two?
mearsheimer is a putin shill, idk why you can take hom seriously. all he did the whole debate was: "even though i'm so smart, i disagree with you, and therefore you are wrong"
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe after watching the whole debate. This just an edited video
I try to think about that myself. For example i have noticed how a section of floor is 12" tiles like at the entrance. I probably at 165lb, while my brother over 300lb. So ive noticed how some grout was chipping and devoloped cracks. I guess im not sure if a gentle step is effective because of the damage over the years.
John came so close to understanding Steven Pinker's point: moral quandries *have* become trivial because we have progressed as a society. 200 years ago, these issues weren't so obvious, and there is a bias against understanding these moral principles as issues in the first case because of the unanimous consensus today. Examples like slavery is bad, lessening fossil fuel dependency is good, reducing poverty is good, etc. have driven international change and progress so that it became trivial in the first place!
3:43 “I think that’s so obvious as not to be interesting”. That’s where John acknowledges moral progress and at the same time dismisses it as uninteresting…
Pinker's point sounds very much like a Fukuyama-ist neo-liberal, "end of history" position. I think Mearsheimer is simply saying: Yes, we all agree that we want to live healthy, wealthy lives but there is absolutely NO consensus on how we do that. That seems pretty hard to argue with when you consider, for example, that societies like Russia, China, the Middle East and many others do not seem to consider democracy an inherent good. Yet, despite their crushing of political dissent and individual rights, they have become MUCH richer (in line with "what we all want"). Pinker sighting UN agreements almost proves Mearsheimer's point - can you imagine a more impotent, symbolic institution than the UN? The fact is, there are many places in the world where women ARE treated like second class citizens, where homosexuals ARE considered disgusting, where war IS considered a manly, glorious virtue. And these forces are getting STRONGER, not weaker. Mearsheimer is simply pointing that out and saying "it's a reality - deal with it". The Star Trek future is an illusion.
@@shenanigans3710 you summarize Mearsheimer's argument pretty good.
@@shenanigans3710 Well said.
@@shenanigans3710there are places where things seem to be going backwards, true, but on the whole? On a large timescale? Go back a thousand years. Project into the future a thousand years. Do you see a world where women’s, gay’s, etc rights are reversed? Where slavery is re-introduced along with torture, God and King, etc.? Of course there are bumps along the way. How couldn’t there be. I’d argue what will prevail is the structural superiority of global economics, which feeds cooperation whether certain pockets accept it or not.
Pinker once again demonstrating he's largely disconnected from reality and the bigger picture, abstracting things away from phenomenality again. Yes, nearly everyone agrees on the outward appearance of what a better world looks like, but what people have drastic disagreements on is HOW you get there, what they should value, and HOW those values should be prioritized.
Very well said.
The problem with this debate is that the topic question is unclear. On this video, the title is ‘can we really make progress?’ (but the thumbnail title is ‘can humans progress?’), but the original video by the same poster is ‘has society improved?’. These are all different questions and we in the comments section are all largely talking past each other.
You have a contradiction in your statement.
@@Josephus_vanDenElzen which is?
@@Josephus_vanDenElzen Well, I'm a frequent user of paraconsistent and intuitionalistic logic -- you must relegate it to your gut, not simply your brain.
As an unapologetic creature of the left, my feelings both twords Pinker & Hillary are in lockstep- the more i see the less i like.
I cant believe ive been familiar with Pinker this long and NOW he clarifies that this universally agreed upon definition we have in the English language of the set term 'progress' to him is no where close to that standard & therefore Pinker understands in his own mind that 'progress' (of which he oft speaks) is far more elusive, an impossibility or as he said a 'miracle' ?!?!
C'mon Pinker- Its really ok to say "i was wrong before but now i have additional data" instead of changing the contors of the definition of a word to save face. Ridiculous & insulting!
I don't know this Mearsheimer fellow, but in less than four minutes I was already getting annoyed by his deflection of Steven's challenge of his "morality" comments. The phenomena Steven mentioned (i.e. clean water, care for children, etc.) ARE moral issues, because they're based upon care and concern for others!
I agree with you completely, You are not alone.
This is probably because you're unable to appreciate your own presuppositions about modernity and how these propositions are not Objective and Universal but subject to time and place and mores. Pinker was unable to grasp what Mearshiemer was pointing to because he's enveloped within his own constellation of ideas that he sees as ontological. It's very simple and Pinker lacks the humility.
It seems so obvious now since so much of the modern project is falling apart before our own eyes.
@@786Plotinus I beg to differ. Yes, moral ideas _can_ be subject to the passage of time and the whims of society. But there ARE notions that are beyond such considerations, and can even be regarded as OBJECTIVE moral ideas, and I believe Pinker was careful (as he always is) in his choice of examples. Reality is much more complex and nuanced than you seem to believe.
And, yes, we are experiencing some turbulent times right now, and it's difficult sometimes to not be overcome with feelings of doom and gloom. However, your assessment of Pinker suggests to me that you're the one "unable to appreciate your own presuppositions." Someone doesn't "lack humility" merely because they don't share your fear that the sky is falling.
@@pcbacklash_3261 Dude, Pinker never went beyond trying to pass of advancements in science and technologies as moral advancement. We know those are objective, but not cultural mores predicated on your episteme. This is a very elementary argument. Come on.
@@786Plotinus That's not how I saw his argument at all. The fact that you do suggests your own 'doom and gloom' confirmation bias is going to strawman anything he says. _"Presuppositions,"_ indeed!
Computational plow is to academics as to what Jethro tulls plow was to farming on human labor
Lol. After watching half of this video, I realize this is just edit of old video of their debate. I encourage all of you to watch the whole debate
it's pay walled
Meh, they are not even really arguing with each other.
@@alexg4462 The truth is, I think they still agreeing about Enlightenment and doesn't give (or even trying to give an) alternative to Enlightenment. Mearsheimer goes so far as to highlight the flaws in Enlightenment thinking of Pinkers but not give an alternative or trying to replacing Enlightenment as whole
@@yonaoisme yup, that's such disappointment
Boring
Intentional progress, as manifested within plans or designs, forms a priceless form of capital. The contrast between the outcomes for a model with, or without, can be seen by the current designs for civil energy.
Tesla, on purpose created the grid concept, in order to operate with no mass. He connected it to Niagara Falls. In contrast, Kelvin's system, one based on supporting empire, requires enormous amounts of mass to work.
Tesla also came up with electric motors, as well. Motors could do work more effectively than either the muscle of man, or beast.
Showcase, brand, anthologize, and support intentional progress plans, or cases of such, just like business plans have been developed over the years.
Philosophers don't have a good reputation been known for being practical
Open source is the way forward - this tempting and than coming up with conditionality to continue is based on poor judgement - let me block aia
Most people will just be „Rich“
Mearsheimer forgets that in most of the places of the world that reject Enlightenment values kids are indeed mistreated. It is not obvious to most that treating kids well is a moral value that should be embraced. Mearsheimer has no business being anywhere near these kinds of conversations. Once again Mearsheimer proves he is less than an intellectual lightweight.
What are you talking about? Are you saying ppl are intentionally harming their kids?
substantive human rights choice for divine central authority unity
Mearsheimer is so incisive. Pinker is no match. He has so bought into the myth of progress, worshipping at the altar of secular liberalism while claiming he is not religious! He is deeply religious - ideologically committed to secular liberalism.
This is a horrible edit. They should have stated in title it was an abridged debate.
“Embedded in liberalism is the belief in progress, the belief that it is possible to make the world a better place. Realism says that you can’t do that. International politics is a tragedy - it always has been, it is today, and it always will be. Those who believe that you can escape the iron cage, and transcend this Hobbesian world, are delusional. My argument disturbs liberals greatly.” John Mearsheimer speaking to Gavin Jacobson. From "The tragedy of John Mearsheimer: How the American realist became the world’s most hated thinker" - The New Statesman, Ideas, 27 September 2023
Mearsheimer's assumption that states act as rational thinkers and his reckless theorizing that the US and NATO caused Putin to order the invasion of Ukraine led Anne Applebaum to accuse Mearsheimer of being Putin’s useful idiot. Ideological thinkers will seemingly prefer theory, "first principles" and indefeasible assumptions to any encouragement, any efforts made for better solutions.
This is a mishmash. The "full" interview is behind a paywall? Useless.
There is no such thing as progress, never was. There is simply change, which suits some people sometimes, and others at other times.
then go back to the stone ages
100% .
J. M. gets it, its one thing for countries to agree one something, its quite another to undermine your own interests to implement things on a bilateral basis
John Mearsheimer: "Stop bring up facts that expose my underlying lack of a positive notion of society".
You mean material progress?
@@Mmzk155 Exactly. Sometimes I feel like I'm in an anti-intellectual echo chamber where everyone is more interested in the chorus of "We Are Right". Serious lack of humility about a very basic point Mearsheimer is pointing too. Take Reality as it is and don't bend it to your particular and parochial definition.
@@Mmzk155 Compared to?
Mearsheimer is an admitted realist not an idealist. He weighs his statements in light of what has and is going on and is being promoted at the controlling power levels of society. Hard to be optimistic when dealing with what the US and the west has been involved in this entire century and since the fall of the Soviet Union. Sad to say that a more optimistic future appears to be surfacing from the east and south with the BRICS win-win approach to international relationships.
Pinkers a dope
aha the moneychannel i see, lol now that is what is wrong with our modern societies, its all about money .
the rest of this is behind a paywall
Socialism or barbarism.
What?! They're both terrible.
@@t.j.payeur5331 How horrible a society where people contribute based on their ability and receive to based on their needs!
@@t.j.payeur5331 Political parties are terrible and no one can come to grips with the matter because private ownership prevents it.
@@glenncurry3041 Who decides what ones ability contribution, and what the needs are? The model itself moves to a centralization of power. The 150 million odd deaths for the various strands of socialist models from 1917 forward speak directly to the horror. In Cambodia's case, some 25% of the population was killed for the utopian ideal.
@@markwrede8878 Private ownership is fundamental to the concepts of the social contract and the roots of the political Enlightenment that undergird civil rights law. Its erasure is where the blood letting begins in service of the collective.