I generally think the comments should be about the content of the video, but I just gotta say dude, then and now is my favorite channel. There are hot shots like philosophy tube and contrapoints who make very interesting compelling and entertaining videos, but these are like legit essays, so well structured and logical and fair. You’re the man, my guy, I just hope you don’t run out of shit to talk about lol
Grats on starting 2020 with 50k subs! I started watching your videos with your two-part series on John Stuart Mill and your growth encouraged me to make my own channel and content. Thank you for your work, your dedication and for inspiring us!
The main problem with Elias is that it lies on the assumption that medieval people were somehow more violent than modern people. Although we are less ostensibly violent today - not being the types to make big conspicuous displays of violence since the 19th century - our society has just as much violence as then, albeit swept under the rug, and pushed into the unseen corners of society.
I think what you mention sounds like Elias' exact point. It's not about the actual eradication of violence - it's about channeling it away from obvious display. A striking example that shows the weight of such a change is the unwillingness of the EU countries to stand up in a military way against e.g. Turkey but, at the same time, their perfect willingness to participate in the network of exploitation of poorer countries as long as this is indirect.
His concepts about interdependence and "figurations" is broadly used in a discourse about the "mediated construction of reality"; an attempt to modernize the phenomenological approaches from Alfred Schütz and Berger/Luckmann. They are tools to anaylse the reciprocal influence of technological process and social change. I guess the relevance of Elias will rise with the acceleration of digital media devices and platforms.
I'm reminded of the original series Star Trek episode where they discovered a society in which old-fashioned warfare had been replaced by computer simulations in which people who the computers deemed as having been killed voluntarily walk to their deaths because it's seemingly preferable to direct physical conflict.
Somehow it seems as though civilization started to appear with and after the Middle Ages. What about Antiquity? The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, and all the great "civilisations" that preceeded them too. Pretty sure citizens weren't quick to draw swords and punch each other at the Agora. He does make a compelling argument - a convincing story indeed - but I'm not sure that most Historians would go along with him without sharp criticism.
I read Elias last month, in French, and I never encountered the word ''logic' and the word "negotiation"'. You condensed Elias with your Anglo-American categories. You simplified the relationship between the king and the aristocrats. In France, the king "curialised" the warriors but it was not the case in England and Germany. The King of France was primus inter pares, not more wealthy, not more powerful than other feudal landlords. With the State building staff with bourgeois, for example, Colbert, the aristocrats stopped having military and landlord functions and stay in Versailles. To be polite and civilized was the only means to be in high regard of the king, the control of the violence was centralized in State with a national army, and between aristocrats, for example, the duel between aristocrats was strictly forbidden. So in France, the king has built his power through the emergence of the Nation-State with the bourgeoisie and "paysans" against the aristocracy. In England the king build the Nation against the "paysans" with the aristocracy, Elisabeth I was not enough powerful to protect the "paysans". The enclosure movement in England kicked out of the countryside the laborer and without land people. The landowner: aristocrats and gentry became so powerful, quite equal to the king, and could control the Parlement and the government against the crown.
I was thinking about The correlation between the ideas from Freud, Foucault, Aristotle, Marcuse, even Nietzsche with the dialectic of Apollonial-Dionysian, and the protestan ethic and the spirit of capitalism of Weber as an explanation about how morals change the economy. The obvious thesis is how the super ego people, the moralist people are richer. Then a youtuber suggest me to read to Elias and I fell in love with this theory, I am really really thankful of your effort of sharing this. If someone has another recommendation I would love to study it.
Yes. I suppose the big question is why did game theoretical thinking become more common across certain periods of history. I feel Elias has half the answer, I'm searching for the rest!
so basically being against individual affirmation and crime (which is the epitome of individual instincts, symbolically the individual putting himself above "other-than-him") means supporting the monopolisation of power and violence by the government and supporting people slowly turning into controlled and brain-washed slaves of the government instead of controlled and brain-washed slaves of their own instincts. so basically this centralisation process is turning humanity into a single organism, some sort of collective ego aiming to become an individual ego. so many turning to one. from many kitchens to JustEat. from many cars to buses. from liberty to centralisation and standardisation. everything seems to be going in this direction. ok, but why? what does it mean?
I think you meant that uncivilized behavior lead to court. Actually you make a very good point, however I think that the court want to civilize people to control the number of people that need to go there.
I would have never imagined that even this channel has little understanding or anarchy and/or misuses the term to make the language more accessible to some weird part of the audience.
I agree, that's not how it should be. Feminism should be a revolutionary process, not a normalising one. Maybe the incels would understand the critique of patriarchy then.
@@OH-ev8ew Alt-right cucks are famous for taking surface level ideology at its word and condemning the entire edifice of a doctrine in full confidence that they've struck at the root.
I generally think the comments should be about the content of the video, but I just gotta say dude, then and now is my favorite channel. There are hot shots like philosophy tube and contrapoints who make very interesting compelling and entertaining videos, but these are like legit essays, so well structured and logical and fair. You’re the man, my guy, I just hope you don’t run out of shit to talk about lol
Wow, a most intriguing subject. Totally new to me.
Very underappreciated work for a long time!
Grats on starting 2020 with 50k subs!
I started watching your videos with your two-part series on John Stuart Mill and your growth encouraged me to make my own channel and content.
Thank you for your work, your dedication and for inspiring us!
This is a lovely message, thank you! I'm so glad you and good luck with your channel! Send a link when it's up and running!
Thank you so much! This helped me so much with my uni assignment! I will be subscribing - keep up the good work! :)
The main problem with Elias is that it lies on the assumption that medieval people were somehow more violent than modern people. Although we are less ostensibly violent today - not being the types to make big conspicuous displays of violence since the 19th century - our society has just as much violence as then, albeit swept under the rug, and pushed into the unseen corners of society.
(great video btw)
Yeah, the narrator addressed this exact concern in the video at 12:50. The violence is more concealed, if not redirected.
I think what you mention sounds like Elias' exact point. It's not about the actual eradication of violence - it's about channeling it away from obvious display. A striking example that shows the weight of such a change is the unwillingness of the EU countries to stand up in a military way against e.g. Turkey but, at the same time, their perfect willingness to participate in the network of exploitation of poorer countries as long as this is indirect.
This book is pretty old, I always take insights that are over 80 years old with a grain of salt.
His concepts about interdependence and "figurations" is broadly used in a discourse about the "mediated construction of reality"; an attempt to modernize the phenomenological approaches from Alfred Schütz and Berger/Luckmann. They are tools to anaylse the reciprocal influence of technological process and social change. I guess the relevance of Elias will rise with the acceleration of digital media devices and platforms.
I'm reminded of the original series Star Trek episode where they discovered a society in which old-fashioned warfare had been replaced by computer simulations in which people who the computers deemed as having been killed voluntarily walk to their deaths because it's seemingly preferable to direct physical conflict.
This is an excellent video yielding numerous links and insights! Thanks!
Somehow it seems as though civilization started to appear with and after the Middle Ages. What about Antiquity? The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, and all the great "civilisations" that preceeded them too. Pretty sure citizens weren't quick to draw swords and punch each other at the Agora. He does make a compelling argument - a convincing story indeed - but I'm not sure that most Historians would go along with him without sharp criticism.
That's a different civilization.
Favorite channel to watch before bed.
Thank you for your time making this video!
Trying to read the book these last days. Its huge though
I read Elias last month, in French, and I never encountered the word ''logic' and the word "negotiation"'. You condensed Elias with your Anglo-American categories.
You simplified the relationship between the king and the aristocrats.
In France, the king "curialised" the warriors but it was not the case in England and Germany. The King of France was primus inter pares, not more wealthy, not more powerful than other feudal landlords. With the State building staff with bourgeois, for example, Colbert, the aristocrats stopped having military and landlord functions and stay in Versailles. To be polite and civilized was the only means to be in high regard of the king, the control of the violence was centralized in State with a national army, and between aristocrats, for example, the duel between aristocrats was strictly forbidden. So in France, the king has built his power through the emergence of the Nation-State with the bourgeoisie and "paysans" against the aristocracy. In England the king build the Nation against the "paysans" with the aristocracy, Elisabeth I was not enough powerful to protect the "paysans". The enclosure movement in England kicked out of the countryside the laborer and without land people. The landowner: aristocrats and gentry became so powerful, quite equal to the king, and could control the Parlement and the government against the crown.
I was thinking about The correlation between the ideas from Freud, Foucault, Aristotle, Marcuse, even Nietzsche with the dialectic of Apollonial-Dionysian, and the protestan ethic and the spirit of capitalism of Weber as an explanation about how morals change the economy. The obvious thesis is how the super ego people, the moralist people are richer. Then a youtuber suggest me to read to Elias and I fell in love with this theory, I am really really thankful of your effort of sharing this. If someone has another recommendation I would love to study it.
The Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel
Good video, saved me six hours of reading👍
Thank you mister &Now
You're welcome mister Patisserie, glad you enjoyed!
Thanks a lot
Very interesting. Thanks!
What a beautiful voice!
Very interesting prelude to game theory - all but the name!
Yes. I suppose the big question is why did game theoretical thinking become more common across certain periods of history. I feel Elias has half the answer, I'm searching for the rest!
I'm amazed
Thanks for the awesome content! I'm in the process of binging your entire back catalogue. Agamben coming up?
Interesting
so basically being against individual affirmation and crime (which is the epitome of individual instincts, symbolically the individual putting himself above "other-than-him") means supporting the monopolisation of power and violence by the government and supporting people slowly turning into controlled and brain-washed slaves of the government instead of controlled and brain-washed slaves of their own instincts. so basically this centralisation process is turning humanity into a single organism, some sort of collective ego aiming to become an individual ego. so many turning to one. from many kitchens to JustEat. from many cars to buses. from liberty to centralisation and standardisation. everything seems to be going in this direction. ok, but why? what does it mean?
The history of double dipping.
I'm confused. Why would courts lead to civilized behavior? Wouldn't civilized behavior lead to the court?
I think you meant that uncivilized behavior lead to court. Actually you make a very good point, however I think that the court want to civilize people to control the number of people that need to go there.
@@seyma-xx i still think i mean civilized behavior comes first
Evolutionary psychology is difficult.
Absolutely. It's a topic I'm looking into a lot at the moment. Expect some more!
I would have never imagined that even this channel has little understanding or anarchy and/or misuses the term to make the language more accessible to some weird part of the audience.
I'm not using the term in the modern political sense here
You can use a term in multiple senses.
'Anarchy' is not a singular concept.
Feminism is being used as a civilising process now
Would you rather be a barbarian?
@@legoneb
czcams.com/video/u2ukte-je8k/video.html
You sound like a virgin.
I agree, that's not how it should be. Feminism should be a revolutionary process, not a normalising one. Maybe the incels would understand the critique of patriarchy then.
@@OH-ev8ew Alt-right cucks are famous for taking surface level ideology at its word and condemning the entire edifice of a doctrine in full confidence that they've struck at the root.