Name: 2017/03/11:個人を強くする。ポストモダンの政治的正しさと対極にあるもの (2017/03/11: Strengthen the Individual: A counterpoint to Post Modern Political Correctness)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:33:32.000Z
Duration: 1 h 13 min 41 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

程度の副詞

Um, Jordan and I known each other, uh, for a new 15 nearly 50 years.

I always knew he would be a fascinating person.

I thought it's probably time to marry him because if I don't marry him, I won't know what happens.

I mean, he's been talking about these things.

He's been talking about what's going on in our society and how it's moving left on DDE, how things are destabilizing for last 20 years.

And so when In September, he said he came down one morning and he was quite disturbed and he said, You know, I've got a couple of e mails that I can't deal with.

What do you think can I said, Well, you've been speaking to me, and my son was there, too, for for a very long time, and maybe this time for you to tell everyone what's going on on.

So he did, and we didn't know what would happen.

He's only said what he's always thought and what he sees coming down pipes and resonated with tremendous, uh, response and mostly, almost 95% or more.

So although it was destabilizing and family beginning No, it's it's It's a good thing we've wrecked a lot, You know, myself.

I wasn't has learned that it's him, but I sure liked a lot.

And I know you guys have to and you're gonna learn a whole bunch more today.

The things that I have been talking about in well, really is long back, as I can remember, I think that's true.

I wrote an essay when I was about 13 on the on our schwitz.

It wasn't very good essay, but I was only 13.

So it's not that surprising, but and I don't know exactly why.

Except that, of course, it's the sort of thing that should be of concern to everyone.

I think if you have any trouble at the back, let me know what I'll I'll make sure that I'm projecting.

So I said when I was about 13 I wrote an essay on in our sweats and I was trying to understand it.

I think maybe I tried to understand it in a way that was somewhat different than most people who examine historical events, because I was trying to understand how human beings could do that, knowing full well that I was one of them.

And that's the critical thing, because generally when people examined, especially something horrifying that's done by humanity, they make the assumption that it's other people doing it.

And that's a That's a big mistake, in my estimation, because if a lot of human beings have done something terrible.

You can be sure that being a human being, that you're capable of it.

And you know, one of the things that we've been asked repeatedly to do as a consequence of what happened in World War Two is to not forget it.

But it's always bean my contention that you can't remember something you don't understand, and you don't understand what happened in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union, for that matter, until you understand that had you being there, the probability that you would have played a role and that wouldn't have been a positive one is extraordinarily high.

When people do think about themselves as actors in situations like that, they have a proclivity to cast themselves in the heroic role, assuming that had they, Bean say in Nazi Germany in the 19 thirties that they would have taken on the burden of fighting against the Nazis and defending the things that should have been defended.

But that's a very foolish presupposition, especially because it's more or less self evident from the historical perspective that that isn't what people did, and in order for us to come to terms with that, it means that we have to understand how it happened.

We still play as individuals in acting in such a way that such things are not only likely, but desired.

When I was older in university, I was plagued by nightmares, mostly about They were apocalyptic nightmares, mostly about the Third World War.

And I had a very large long series of dreams about about nuclear bombs.

I was living in Edmonton at the time and on the on the south side, and I could remember watching out through my window in the dream and seeing mushroom cloud form over the main core of the city.

And then the dream shifted locals, and they're a bunch of people in the wreckage, and they started to fight, and I thought that's just exactly right.

And that was exactly what my nightmares were like is that no matter how tremendous the catastrophe, we don't seem able to derive the proper conclusions from it and start act in a way that makes such things less rather than more likely.

When I was in graduate school at McGill, which would have been after that.

I was studying political science before that.

Sorry back when I was in Edmonton, and before that I had even thought about going into into law.

But as I studied political science, I got increasingly disenchanted with the explanations that were being offered to me about motivations for human conflict, especially in the upper years of my undergraduate education that the lower years were pretty good, because mostly what I studied was political philosophy and literature, and I found that very helpful.

But in the upper years, the contention of the professors was that people primarily engaged in conflict for economic reasons.

That never struck me as a very deep, deep explanation because it didn't get up the core of the issue, which was, well, okay.

People fight about things of material value, But why did they value those things?

I mean, it's kind of self evident if you think about food and shelter and so forth.

But generally speaking, especially in the 20th century, it wasn't necessarily about the basics of food and shelter that people were engaging in conflict about.

It was it was something much more subtle than that.

Maybe it had more to do with national identity, with identity, that kind of thing.

And so there was a psychological element missing in the analysis of the human propensity for conflict that to me bloom larger and larger.

And so I decided at least in part for that reason to pursue a graduate degree in psychology and in clinical psychology.

And I went to McGill, and that's when I started to read very much more broadly, I suppose, and I spent a lot of time reading.

I read a lot of Freud in a lot of all the classic clinical psychologists who extraordinarily useful Carl Rogers and and Sigmund Freud and and Alfred Adler and a whole host of them all the classic thinkers I could get my hands on.

And also most particularly the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, most of whose major book works I read at that point, and Theodore Dostoevsky, who was writing very similar things to Nietzsche there.

In fact, Nietzsche was quite influenced by Dostoevsky, and Dostoyevsky was a like a master in the literary genre.

His five great books focused on the most difficult questions that face humanity, both socially and individually.

I found those books overwhelmingly powerful and also extraordinarily useful.

Good beyond good crime and punishment, for example, is, ah, brilliant, brilliant piece of work outlining the motivation of someone who regards himself as above all law and who decides that to not kill when necessary is an act of cowardice.

And so Dostoyevsky walks through, his rationalization sent and the murder and the aftermath of it in a way that's extraordinarily enlightening and painful.

Simultaneously and at the same time, Nietzsche and Germany was writing philosophical, tracked on exactly the same themes, their lives ran unbelievably close parallel.

In fact, when Nietzsche finally went insane, he had some illness that has been very difficult to diagnose.

He had he had seen someone beating ah horse in the street and embraced it out of compassion.

And there's a scene exactly like that in one of Dostoyevsky's stories.

So it's the parallels are really uncanny, and I also read a lot of neuroscience because I did my thesis on the biological predisposition to alcoholism and that required a lot of investigation into more hard core science investigation into the structure and function of the brain.

And I tried to weave all of that together in a book that I published in 1999.

I was writing three hours a day for every day and thinking about it all the time.

Like I was absolutely 100% obsessed by by the sorts of issues that I'm discussing with you today.

I read Alexander Solzhenitsyn much of what he wrote at the same time.

字幕リスト動画再生

2017/03/11:個人を強くする。ポストモダンの政治的正しさと対極にあるもの (2017/03/11: Strengthen the Individual: A counterpoint to Post Modern Political Correctness)

potential

absolutely

inevitable

figure