The Limits of Logic (Or: The Academic Agent Attempts World History)

A response to the Academic Agent's video: "Smashing the Boomer Truth Regime"
0:56 “Every era has a truth regime” or unquestioned facts (?)
3:09 Church Corruption and Scientific Revolution
3:58 A New Regime
5:53 The emergence of institutions
10:00 Nomoi, worldscale paradigms
11:25 What is common to all?
12:21 Logic is built upon language*
16:03 Defining outside thought 💭

*Correction courtesy of Evening Star: "The languages of the Inuit possess roughly the same number of root words for "snow" as do other languages, the reason that they are said to have in excess of 50 is due to the fact that the Eskimo-Aleut languages Yupik and Inuit are morphologically "polysynthetic" languages. A "word" in a polysynthetic language is comprised of numerous morphemes, so that a single "word" can convey the meaning of an entire sentence in English. In this way, many different aspects of the concept of "snow" are expressed within a single inflected word, rather than with adjectives as in a less synthetic language like English. This Boasian cliché stems ironically from the same universalisation of logic that you speak of - in English, this same circumstance would mean "150 words for snow", but in the distinct context of the Aleutian languages this same claim is inaccurate."

(I apologize for my voice, I am dreadfully sick at the moment.)

Link to original video:

Support this channel by becoming a patron

[TheScrybler]

"I am dreadfully sick..."
BRO NO IT'S TOO SOON

[michaelpisciarino]

0:56 “Every era has a truth regime” or unquestioned facts (?)
3:09 Church Corruption and Scientific Revolution
3:58 A New Regime
5:53 The emergence of institutions
10:00 Nomoi, worldscale paradigms
11:25 What is common to all?
12:21 Logic is built upon language
16:03 Defining outside thought 💭

[edspace.]

Somethings that didn't make sense about the Academic Agent's video;
1) If there is a singular 'Truth Regime' how can there at the same time be a 'Culture War' (especially one such as the one currently observed where at least 2 of the 3 main factions consider themselves to be in rebellion against a power elite)?
2) If individual self-expression is the highest good, how do we also observe things like 'slut shaming', body shaming of men, an LGBTQIA+ channel earning 1/5 of the average channel, queer characters in movies are often hidden or otherwise obscured in order to appease markets and other such caveats on 'the ultimate good'?

[eveningstar]

A small correction I feel obliged to make - your comments on the Inuit having many words for snow are misinformed. The languages of the Inuit possess roughly the same number of root words for "snow" as do other languages, the reason that they are said to have in excess of 50 is due to the fact that the Eskimo-Aleut languages Yupik and Inuit are morphologically "polysynthetic" languages. A "word" in a polysynthetic language is comprised of numerous morphemes, so that a single "word" can convey the meaning of an entire sentence in English. In this way, many different aspects of the concept of "snow" are expressed within a single inflected word, rather than with adjectives as in a less synthetic language like English. This Boasian cliché stems ironically from the same universalisation of logic that you speak of - in English, this same circumstance would mean "150 words for snow", but in the distinct context of the Aleutian languages this same claim is inaccurate.

[idimo]

I think that AA was talking about the public opinion at those times. What difference does it make if some old philosophers deviated from the establishment if the peasants did not deviate?
Knowing what is being said on television is no different from knowing what the church told the peasants.
What difference does it make if some modern philosophers think that there is no true evil when the public thinks that deviation from cultural liberalism is the ultimate evil (nazi-like, beyond the pale, e.t.c.).

Being universally sceptical of supposed truths is technically the underpinning of certain philosophies, but it doesn't change the fact that only tradition is deconstructed in the propaganda that the public consumes.

[karl]

History is always simplified because we can never fully know the past. We have a limited mind and so we simplify things to better understand them, whether it be politics, anthropology, ... Complexity is built upon simple things so we reduce to a simpler level.

[daniilslavandrushevych]

I have been quite amazed by the Academic Agent's descent over the last two years. It seemed to begin with him getting pretty "black pilled". And genuinely insightful economic content has been superceded by shallow readings (and misreadings) of political theory.

I'm pretty amazed by his laziness in some instances.

Firstly, I'm not sure who's a "renegade intellectual" (on his own moral terms) if Foucault wasn't one.

Secondly (like with his references to the English Civil War in his Schmitt video), I don't understand why he talks about the medieval "truth regime" at all. Even if we accepted his points about the medieval and boomer truth regimes (faulty for all the reasons you pointed out). What regime or regimes existed in between?

Also, to argue that the boomer "regime" was somehow less truthful than others would seem to undermine the whole idea of truth regimes as I'd understand them (someone can feel free to correct me on that).

[wilsonsilva]

Hey mr sunday, i've got a question and i think you maybe the most qualified to answer it to me, though it's a bit off topic.

About the segment on gender and gender norms, i am confused about the usage of the expressions "social constructs" to talk about them.

To my understanding, social constructs are broad collective understandings applied to individuals by their society, for example, an asshole is a social construct, and likewise, if i were to call you an asshole it would not make sense for you to answer "no i am not, i don't identify myself as an asshole" for even if you have a individual construct of what an asshole is, that does not override the greater social understanding of the word asshole, otherwise you could individually construct any word to mean anything and communication would not make sense.

However, if that is the case, then how can one identify as a gender if it is a social construct? should they not just accept whatever broader definition of gender is in their society?

And if it is a individual one (the construct of gender), then they logically would not be able to enforce that construct on others, lest we end with the same problem i described in the third paragraph, correct?

Sorry if this is off-topic and not your are of specialty, just wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

[Redrios]

PS plz consider discourse as in Lacan's usage of it as a concept (forget what it means, you don't need read him. It's like Foucault's episteme, one could do away with a wiki page or less as long as you know structuralism 101 and I'm confident you do; it's de Saussure with Levy-Strauss and in linguistics Roman Jakobson, who did to de Saussure what Lacan did to Freud what Marx did to Hegel, a reversal of some sort: u'll find convenient the tool of discourse analysis (not speech) with the 4 discourses of Lacan's Theory arranged just like Aristotle Square of Opposites (Every S is P ∀x[Sx → Px] in logical notation) which in turn each has 4 terms and 4 places that rotate along with the angle/position along the square. The caveat is this configuration only holds for modernity (after Descartes, Scientific method rigor and the consolidation of the individual)

[txikitofandango]

I read the Borges before I'd ever heard of Foucault, Marx or anyone, and I think Borges radicalized me more than anyone else

[eternalrhodesian]

I think the better example of a "truth regime" is the Sovereign and his institutions. All laws, customs, even structures below are molded by the Sovereign, in so far as he is able to mold them.

[JohnDoe-orpo]

Logic is a thought process much like the thought process of morality. We use it to determine true from false.

[shauncroft]

How could you respond to this with Foucault and not point out that AA is plagiarising him with a poor understanding of what a "Truth Regime" is? XD

[developerdeveloper]

AA is clearly talking abstractly about concepts of change and time, he is not pinpointing to a particular point in history and trying to argue facts with his video, it's about an abstract idea he is exploring, clearly. You complete miss the point trying to nitpick it and asking him for his sources, maybe like Keith Woods you have a hard time visualizing abstract concepts.

[damianbylightning]

I watched AA's vid - your response is wholly and completely unfair and, frankly, a bit bats in the belfry. You seem obsessed by him and I think this is the root of the problem with your output.
He is not presenting an academic paper or a considered response to the contemporary relevance of - say - Lovejoy or whatever, he's presenting a vid for a youtube channel. This is an entertainment medium and things have to, in ordinary circumstances, give, somewhere. Your literal-mindedness suggests a communication disorder.
Having said that, it's a pity all youtubers don't have your solid sense of academic and scholarly behaviour.
Mr President, have you considered therapy?

[alumi]

1. Strawman
2. He refers to the period of God Honor Fatherland (up to the WW2)
3. Machiavelli and the like we're against the truth regime, which is why he is to this day vilified
4. He refers to the difference between the aforementioned period and the digital age
5. You yourself have commuted the same logical fallacies that you begin to address after 4.