Tamar Gendler: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics and Economics
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
Tamar Gendler, Department of Philosophy Chair at Yale University, Cognitive Scientist Who gets what and who says so? These two questions underlie and inform every social arrangement from the resolution of schoolyard squabbles to the meta-structure of human societies. They are also the basis of political philosophy. Professor Tamar Gendler uses the work of three titans of the discipline, Thomas Hobbes, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick, as a lens to guide us through the taut debate about the role of government in society, asking "Will we embrace the radical state of nature or will we surrender our freedom to the leviathan of the state?" The Floating University Originally released September 2011. Additional Lectures: Michio Kaku: The Universe in a Nutshell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk Joel Cohen: An Introduction to Demography (Malthus Miffed: Are People the Problem?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr44C_G0-o Steven Pinker: Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE Leon Botstein: Art Now (Aesthetics Across Music, Painting, Architecture, Movies, and More.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6F-sHhmfrY
Comments
-
I am naturally attracted to Rawls and turned off by Nozik. Rawls seems to have a more civilized, inclusive approach, whereas Nozik's system seems to guarantee a more brutal society where "the 1%" will scoop up everything, leading to gross inequality, civil unrest and Donald Trump. Rawls would have voted Bernie, I guess. Stepping over homeless people to get to my Bentley is not how i would like to enjoy my wealth.
-
outstanding
-
She is Jewish.
-
Amazing!
-
goooood this is some really really crappy economic philosophy, do these people not even look at people like Marx and Gramsci?
-
IMAGINE IF ALL UNVIRSITY LECTURES BEEN LIKE THAT ??
-
Very interesting and well presented!
-
a very good person excellent video liberty and justice together like Barry Goldwater
-
I have this question I didn't understand about Nozick & liberalism.
Nozick believes that taxation is theft. He also believes that the state should be minimilized to police forces, army, courts etc. But to sustain these forces a state is obligated to tax its citizens. Isn't this a paradox? Seems to be that by libertarian standards, the only way for a society to be just is to return to the state of nature. -
I don't want to sound like a reductionist in my pov, but certainly my long-term (semantic and episodic alike) memory dictates me to think that the whole gamut of PP can be reduced into the ff: SECURITY, FREEDOM (Liberty & Equality), EQUITY, PROSPERITY, JUSTICE (w/ its 5 Venerable Pillars). These are the most fundamental pursuits of all homo politicus, but what about ideology and technology as part&parcel of political economy, I mean sure enough I&T are the residual products of cognition bet. material and non-material culture..here in the Philippines (as you know it, so highly stratified in terms of class but still purports to be a republic) we have an acronym for the Normatives: EPAL= ETHICS, POLITICS, AESTHETICS, LOGIC.. how should you inject those EPAL stuff in the complex domain of Authority, Power, Influence & Rule.. what about the essential elements of nationhood and statehood (Sovereignty, Government, Territory, People)? Given all these dialectic and semiotic building blocks of polity , let alone the perplexities of bands, tribes and chiefdoms that thrive circumstantially within a single nation-state, how then do you employ game theory and decision theory lest that you may arbitrarily surrender or confusingly trade one element or two for/against the other ( and these elements i'm referring to include both the ascribed and achieved statuses of individuals and groups, this may sound sociological, isn't it?). Is there such a thing as Philosophy of Action? What if one attempts to marry Axiology (all sorts of "value judgments") w/ (the "principles" of) Philosophy of Politics, of Religion? sign up for a thought experiment so as to find your way through the tension between the most basic jural relations of all: RIGHTS-DUTIES seen in the wide spectra of legitimacy and contract theory, then take the case of TAXATION at the heart of governance (not to mention eminent domain and police power)
-
Hell is not Justice it is but Vengeance - an eye for an eye - shows how poor religious ideas are. Some guy harmed us, so he is going to be harmed in Hell? How does that help us? If he killed our loved ones, will that bring our loved ones back?
And religion here is also disingenuous - it tells the victims that those that hurt them will be punished by God but then turns to the criminals and tells them that all they have to do is repent - they don't have to repair - make good to the victim, if they looted the victim, they must not only apologize to the victim but must also pay him back
But that is not what religion teaches - just cry some croc tears before God, apologize to God and you get to enjoy heaven? God helps cheat the victim?
Shows how morally bankrupt religions are
But no one, not one person calls them out - it is just incredible, how religions are able to brainwash even the best of them into silence -
That was amazing, went so quick
-
in the age of science...when for more then 200 years we use Systematic and empirical methods to deal with our problems, we still insist to use philosophy (politics) and ancient concepts (ex. democracy) as solutions to our modern problems.
I think Einstein once said something about repetitiveness and stupidity......... -
She is so hot
-
Very interesting how Liberty is opposed to true Justice, yet justice to the individual is supporting of Liberty. Subjective vs Objective.
-
Loved listening to this. Pretty poor description of the tragedy of the commons, though.
-
It comes in one ear and out the other. I think the lecture was meaningful but just material I would be unconcerned about. In an age of information and overload its a subject range to pass on.
-
We can`t get out of the state of Nature, we`re only humans..fireflies - no less, no more..
Ps. do some philosophers talk like sellers..do? ;) -
It looks not like Philosophy but empirical leaflet
-
Is that Hilary Putnam at the left of the picture at 42:30 ?
44m 26sLenght
4094Rating