Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy

Costin Alamariu's scandalous book.

[gcarym]

Omg i knew costin at MIT, he would get me stoned and insist i listen intently to bach and build castles in my mind. What a character

[TorMax]

Philosophy is "What is going on around here?" When everything's groovy and everyone's belly is full of food and wine and the house is warm, everyone has a nice long sleep. It's when custom breaks down that people wake up and start asking questions. Deep questions. Going back to first principles.

[RhiannonSenpai]

Costin Vlad Alamariu is Romanian, as a fellow Romanian I'm proud of this new generation philosopher.

[georgehristov]

Much slave morality in these comments, yes many men of nomos, few men of true phusis

[Stalfos]

Your lighting is a bit too bright my man, for a second I thought maybe you were recording in heaven.😆

[nupraptorthementalist]

I watched this already, but happy to rewatch now that I'm reading it.

[borisniksic]

Isn't this merely rehashing the old theme of the "Genealogy of morals" by Nietzsche?

[Queenfisher]

Michael might be the only human alive most comfortable dancing on the knife’s edge between genius and cancellation.

Would love to see you do a similar analysis of Marx - Capital. (Or please direct me to it if it already exists).

It would be a shame to limit this level of analysis solely to right wing philosophers.

Again, Thankyou.

[raycosmic]

At its best, Philosophy is an integral Way of Being, Knowing and Doing.

[cb]

Extremely provocative… I’m going to be thinking about this angle for a long time. Also, I now see why Hans-Herman Hoppe has written extensively on the virtues of an aristocracy in relation to democracy. I had not seen the connection before. Amazing, thanks for this!

[_theaxiom]

PROFOUND!!! Really adds to the notion of the Nomadic people who were said to be the original aristocratic, those outside the city even ruling the city and in the works of Wilhelm Schmidt were the closest to the knowledge of the original religion of man unlike the other 2 paths of man, agricultural (farms, matrilineal) and cities/tradesmen (city centers, patrilineal).

Love the Plato's cave part, you have to experience something before you can even start to abstract it into its essences and the last part you forgot is priceless!

[Confucius_]

This talk of the "weakening of custom's hold on your thought or practice" as being the precursor to philosophy echoes the thinking of John David Ebert, specifically in his lecture series "The Evolution of Death and Burial", where he posits that technological and societal breakthroughs in ancient societies typically occured after a weakening of the "cult of the ancestral dead", which he says was the default religious mode of early humanity.

[EL_]

a 2nd hand interpretation of reality passed down through a presist cast rather then a direct interpretation

[maxsirius]

Very interesting and thought-provoking thesis. I don't fully grasp it, but its premise seems to be akin to the so-called "Self-Domestication" or "Survival of the Friendliest" theory, meaning, as I understand it, that aristocracies and aristocrats practiced a sort of selective breeding "Process Philosophy & Theology" a la Whitehead, that selected for what I've termed a "Win-Win Utilitarianism Infinite Games Mindset" in their gene pools and bloodlines.

[randywaldron]

This theory seems consistent with the conditions under which philosophy developed not only in ancient Greece but also in ancient China during the Warring States Period. Unfortunately there's enough assumptions here to make William of Oukham spin in his grave. A leisure class is necessary to the development of philosophy. This is true. Philosophers and tyrants both challenge custom. True again.

Still, the familiar narrative addresses the issue of custom vs nature. Agriculture developes. Nomadic peoples settle down here and there, each with a slightly different set of customs and beliefs. Trade developes forcing these peoples to learn the customs and beliefs of other people's. The question of human nature is suddenly thrown into sharp relief. There are now such persons as rulers and a merchant class - in other words, leisure time has been invented.

Simple and sufficient.

Another thought: Rulers and merchants become more cosmopolitan while the farmers stay more wedded to their tribal customs and beliefs. Now, within each culture two tribes develop. Moving forward there are now progressive elites who blend new, foreign ideas with the old, and also there remain conservative rural types who cling ever more jealously to old ways.

Eventually, crazy stuff like democracy and 'enlightenment' values such as the universal rights of Man develop. The conservative tribe becomes too frightened. Here and there would-be strong men promise to restore the old order back to where it was before foreign influences began to creep in. Racial and ethnic purity are the buzz words. Or rather, dog whistles.

Now we get to the part involving tyrany.

[hannibalbarca]

I think there is a mistake in the way you presented the aristocratic idea of "nature". It is not exactly "degrees of intensity of life". As I understand it from the book, nature in the aristocratic sense refers to a creature's basic physical and behavioral characteristics such as in this sentence: "Wolves have an aggressive and independent nature; whereas sheep have a submissive and social nature." So nature is those bodily and behavioral characteristics that define a species in general. The discussion of "human nature" in philosophy conceals the bodily foundation of the word nature. Instead philosophers give us an abstract idea of human nature which is not physical. Philosophical concept of nature is a mummification where they suck the life out of a word and universalize it to the greatest extent possible.

[CherubCow]

Excellent overview!
This is third on my coffee table at the moment. Gonna need to get to this soon.

[william]

You gained a subscriber

Thank you for your clear overview of this book.

[JorgeRodriguez-myej]

Dont think we need an LGBT like BAP lecturing us about breeding but whatever.

[retarazao]

That sounds like a "shameless" reading of the Gorgias, not to mention others. Callicles is treated as an inferior man by Socrates: the one that keeps talking after Polus and Gorgias left out of shame (according to Callicles). Socrates dumbs down his arguments to the point of absurdity. Alamariu himself says so: "Now, Socrates’ replies to Callicles in the Gorgias are weak and inadequate to the point of absurdity;". Yes, Socrates shows that the shameless rhetorician can't deal with dialectic and is reduced to silence by bad arguments, meaning: Callicles can't even defend himself with his flattery (that is the refutation!). Socrates goes on to say: "I envy you, Callicles, for having been initiated into the great mysteries before you were initiated into the lesser. I thought that this was not allowable". That reads like: "oh, you are so great, even though you can't deal with easy stuff, my boy". So much for the tyrant greatness... Socrates' arguments are indeed bad: "hey, look at what I throw at them. See what they do? Nothing. They can't think, they only flatter. Now, see some more bad argument against them. And they say that I can't defend myself!". Now, look at Alamariu's commentary: "It is not clear why Plato would have Socrates make the arguments he does or why Socrates would make these in the order that he does to this particular audience—an audience of orators seemingly unwilling to accept any of his premises". This is a failure of understanding that reveals the character of the reader. As dumb as a sophist. Apparently, Alamariu was initiated into the great mysteries, only...
And Alamariu goes on into the great mysteries: "In his argument with Gorgias, Socrates introduced the question of justice at a point at which it was by no means necessary to do so to continue the discussion. Indeed, it was plainly rude on the part of Socrates to embarrass his interlocutor in this way". Well, Alamariu, you best of man, since Polus ASKED Socrates for HIS definition of oratory, unable that Polus was to sustain any, and, as you certainly remember, Socrates' definition was: oratory is an imitation of JUSTICE, then it seems quite necessary, and not at all rude, that the "question of justice" may be introduced. Or do you suppose it was unjust to introduce it, my friend?
More Alamariu: "The conclusion is based on the premise that the stronger in purely physical force is the better, [488c, 488d5] which is not a premise that Socrates, or even Callicles, accepts. Now, why would Socrates be making an argument in which he does not believe?"
Oh, not even Callicles accepts, said Alamariu. Let's take a quick look at 488d then:
"Socrates: (...) This is just what I bid you declare in definite terms—whether the superior and the better and the stronger are the same or different.
Callicles: Well, I tell you plainly, they are all the same."
Yeah, plainly. Callicles takes the stronger, better and superior to be the same, so, he does accept! And, maybe, that's why Socrates makes the argument, to refute the tyrant. Is that also rude?