Martha Nussbaum on 21st Century Enlightenment

Matthew Taylor and Martha Nussbaum discuss ways in which the attitudes, values and practices of 21stC enlightenment could help more of us lead the good life in the good society.

[ShalomFreedman]

As usual Martha Nussbaum is extraordinarily insightful and humane in outlining ideas for 'Enlightentment' in the Twenty- First Century. Her insights are always informed by deep knowledge both of the philosophical tradition and contemporary scientific researches and thought.
She is also humble and balanced, as for instance in the remarks she makes about the importance of having empathy for others while understanding our limitations in understanding, even self- understanding, in doing so.

[fechermichael]

So refreshing. Martha Nussbaum is the reason I can talk about humanity in a reasonable fashion. I think the study of humanities in university could be improved so much if people would go back to some of the ancients.

[guzsaj]

she genuinely wants it to be better and for me this is enough

[tomlucia]

a proper balance between the head and heart

It's good discussion, I was assign to read her paper. I found her idea are positive fundamental for desision maker who find equality for human being.
It's good to have her more than Joseph Nye to possess US International Policies.
If someone cover their brains by Interests & Securities, I don't know how the world trend would change in a good direction. Today, there are many conflicts and they are form Priority Interests between them.
I think "Where is the love (The Black Eyed Peas)" is LEGEND.

[selvmordspilot]

That ring on her finger breaks my heart.

[faelismaegnus]

@tyrannicoystercult Who are you to judge what is flawed, what is wrong, or what is "critical thinking". You are the reason we NEED an EQUAL RESPECT for all doctrine.

[DirkBroenink]

@uhrw3rk I am Dutch, lived in Holland all my live, am 20 years old. English is not my native language, and yet I could understand perfectly what she was saying.

[rtoennis]

@tyrannicoystercult Although I agree with your point about "simple wrong-ness" I think to be effective a distinction must be made between the philosophies of anti-clericalism and what I would call "pro-rationalism". The goal of any human endeavour aimed at being productive should be to be effective in achieving goals. In the context of this century anti-clericalism is not going to be effective as approach to social change as religion is now too diverse as an influence on society. (continued)

[somor]

Equal respect is not consistent with enlightenment thinking, because we may find that some belief systems - such as the geocentric world view - are false and hence not worthy of our respect. Tolerance does not extend itself to falsehoods.

[phoenixway]

Martha Nussbaum on 21st Century Enlightenment。
April 17，2022。

[creemej]

For me the 21st Century Enlightenment is philosophy under control.

[ccorbin]

I thought the RSA channel was for intelligent people discussing different points of views, always in a intelligent way.... why so many stupid comments??? you guys aren't ready to look at this material, study a bit and come back later...

[Prformula]

@LifeinaRaindrop Sure thing Chief, tell that to the Westboro Baptist Church which is carrying out one of the most successful conversion campaigns of the 21st century. It's sad.

[rtoennis]

@tyrannicoystercult (continued) This diversity in religion prevents the rationalist from effectively "rallying the troops" into a cohort that will result in positive change. In the context of a global society that is now more highly connected via the internet than at any other time in human history, the more effective model is to be "pro-rationalist". Pro-rationalism is about educating and informing people so well that a majority become self-critical thinkers allowing rationalism to prevail.

[darsdarsdarsdars]

it's simple, but you should perhaps try to google it before posting it here as a "question" when in fact it's quite clear you pose only to disguise your question no as the "attack" to that position that you in fact intend it to be. Human dignity refers to the fact that we humans are under the same conditions or constraints, that we need to fulfill common basic needs but mostly that we are all fragile and that we should care for the fragility of others that it's exactly the same as ours.

[StephenDeagle]

At 12:45 she suggests that most of us are familiar merely with our animal heritage, acting on tribalism and family values--a mob of fundamentalists. But then, she goes on, there are those few (herself included, no doubt) who can be proud to think of themselves as transcendent of that animal heritage, more human than the rest. Astoundingly, yet painfully predictable, she follows this up with the condemnation of those who would seek to belittle those who are different by comparing them to animals.

[ccorbin]

@MadCTR sorry, I meant to say "some guys"

[uhrwrk]

I'm 24 years old and lived like 7-8 years in the Staates - but to completely understand her I would have to look up like 1 word in every second sentence she says... for me that ain't "21st Century Enlightenment "

[Paraponra]

@brothamouzoune Creating and using technology is inherently part of us. It's what (intelligent) people do, and it's the only reason we're the dominant species on this planet. If you strip away man's technologies, all that's left is a naked ape that has to hide in trees and caves. We don't have sharp teeth & claws, thick hides, or huge, powerful bodies -- our brains and hands are our only assets, and with them we have, over the millennia, created tools that compensate for our innate weaknesses.