Name: 2017年の意味の地図10：創世記とブッダ (2017 Maps of Meaning 10: Genesis and the Buddha)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:45:23.000Z
Duration: 2 h 18 min 45 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：

様態の副詞

I told you at the beginning of the class that I started working on this material partly because I was interested in why people were so inclined to to go to any lengths to protect their belief systems.

I wanted to understand, and I knew that those were systems of value, right, that that belief system is something that enables you to ascribe value to things so that so that you can act in the world towards things and away from things roughly speaking.

程度の副詞

And I've already made a case to you that belief systems regulate people's emotions, but not not as a consequence of decreasing their death, anxiety or anything like that, or even directly decreasing there.

Their threats, sensitivity or uncertainty, but more specifically bye, helping them orient themselves in the world so that what they do match is what they want in the social environment.

And it's an important set of distinctions because the emotional control that belief systems allow is mediated by success in the social environment.

It's not as if you're holding a belief system, and that's directly inhibiting somehow your emotional, responsive ity.

You have ah, motive orienting yourself in the world so that other people can understand what you're up to so that you can cooperate and compete with them without conflict and the fact that you could do that without conflict and maybe even with cooperation.

So it's not only the fact of the police belief system, it's the fact that it's shared with everyone else.

And so people are willing to defend their belief systems because they're defending the territorial structure that enables them to make sense of the world and then to act out making sense of the world with everyone else around them.

What if two different groups of people have different belief systems?

Another answer might be that you come to some consensus about how the difference between those different belief systems might be mediated so that you can inhabit the same territory without subordination or without conflict.

But if you're going to come together in agreement, you can't do that simply by abandoning the belief system because the belief system is what orients you in the world.

And so the negotiation is very tricky, and because of that, it often ends up in subordination or conflict.

Another question that might arise out of that rat's nest of questions is if you have belief, system may and you have belief system be and they're in conflict.

Is there any principles that you can use or any guidelines you can use to take the belief systems apart?

To understand, to try to understand what might be of central value in either of them are both so that if you do bring them together, or even if one supersedes the other, that there's some evidence that they're predicated on principles that are actually viable.

And, of course, that brings up the question of what constitutes viable principles.

I got interested in that more particular question because when the Cold War was raging, there were two ideological system set up in the world.

Roughly speaking, there were, of course more, but we can simplify it for the sake of argument down to two and one was predicated on the communitarian principles that were put forward by Marx and the other was a consequence of, you know, the I would say, Western, individualistic, free market capitalist democracies, roughly speaking.

And then you might ask yourself, What were those?

Only it was that only a difference of opinion, Right?

If what's underneath it is arbitrary, then, eh?

It doesn't matter which system wins, roughly speaking be There's no right and wrong in the discussion, right?

It's that that would be something that would be more akin to a postmodern claim.

It's just Groupe puts forward their claims to power and Group B puts form their claims power, and they're both equally valid and well have atter fundamentally because there's no way of of solving the problem.

But it struck me that that I didn't think that we should leap to that conclusion so rapidly.

I think I started to investigate the sub structure of Western thought.

Not so much communist thought because I thought of communism as an interloper on the scene.

It was a system that wasn't devised and formalized until the late 19 hundreds, late 18 hundreds and I didn't see it as part of what you might describe his organic development.

There's no mythology, so to speak, at the basis of the communist perspective.

And one of the things that's very interesting is that although those ideas were roundly defeated by the end of the 20th century, they're making a comeback so rapidly that it's almost unbelievable.

You know, I got Ah, email from a medical student yesterday at the University of Toronto and now their courses that they have to take the mandatory.

These air social justice courses include modules on equity and equity is equality of outcome.

People are having the equality of outcome.

Notion pushed on them in mandatory training, in universities everywhere again.

And equity isn't equality of opportunity.

No, that was the central dictum of the Communist states in the 20th century is like, What the hell?

And the idea of being is, if there isn't absolute equality of outcome within an organization, that the thing is corrupt and needs to be restructured from the bottom up, and then the question, of course, is who decides that outcomes are equal by what means and with what groups.

You can produce an infinite number of groups of people with equally validly in some sense.

And you're never gonna get equality of outcome across the infinite number of ways that you can parse up society into groups.

It's not even technically possible unless everyone has nothing.

So anyways, these are obviously very powerful ideas.

And the mere fact that they killed 100 million people already or more in the 20th century wasn't enough to put them to rest anyway.

Is there a set of ideas that Western civilization is predicated on that air?

That's the question, because if there isn't, well, then what do you what do you do about that?

You just holding it for no reason whatsoever.

All of those things, like it takes the it takes the core out of it.

When that was nature's claim, right, he said, You take the core metaphysical pre supposition out from underneath Western civilization or any civilization for that matter and the whole thing loosens, shake un's shakes and crumbles well for nature.

The metaphysical presupposition was God well, And then the question, of course.

And on one hand it means, I suppose, adherence to a dogmatic set of beliefs.

But then you might ask yourself, Well, is there something else that it means?

It means at least the hypothesis of some transcendent value.

So you know, Nietzsche announced the death of God.

And so one of the consequences of that no, Dostoyevsky was working on exactly the same set of ideas and in crime and punishment in particular, which is a book.

That's the thing is there's a number of books that were written in the last 120 years that you really have to read, and crime and Punishment is one of them.

And I think the Gulag Archipelago is another and probably beyond good, and evil is another.

But you know, Dostoyevsky and meet You were writing in parallel.

It's remarkable how much their their lives intertwined, and Nietzsche knew more about Dostoevsky than than is generally known.

There's been some recent scholarship indicating that, but in Dostoyevsky's book, Crime and Punishment, he has, ah, his main character.

Raskolnikov decides that he's gonna commit a murder, and he has very good justification for the murder.

He he puts his characters into very, very difficult moral situations and gives them full justification for pursuing the the, uh, pursuing the pathway that they're pursuing.

And so, Raskolnikov, he's broken, starving.

His sister's about to prostitute herself rough, roughly speaking, by marrying a guy that hates her that she hates, and that and he has contempt for at least acts in that manner.

He's trying to rescue his mother as well, who's also in dire financial straits.

He he goes to a pawnbroker to pawn his meager position so that he can continue to scrape by.

I believe it's your niece that's not very bright, who she basically treats as a slave and is horrible to and and so the carrot that the pawnbroker has this money.

Look, I'll just killer, because why the hell not?

字幕リスト動画再生

2017年の意味の地図10：創世記とブッダ (2017 Maps of Meaning 10: Genesis and the Buddha)

sort

ultimate

matter

arbitrary