Criticism

[Soul_of_Shu]

And Dana, I take that back. You have been an amazing admin and contributor to this forum, for him to shoot you a quick "appreciate it" would have been a good idea.

Mark ... I have no idea what it is you feel obligated to take back. My only point is that any efforts to bring these critiques to BK's attention, whether here, or on twitter or elsewhere, lately appear to have no effect, in that it is not getting him to engage with the critics. According to Jeffrey Williams, both before and after he posted his critiques, he invited BK to talk face-to-face to discuss his ideas, but BK never responded. So whatever his reason, it's not because he is unaware of the critiques, but is a deliberate decision not to respond, and not to offer any reason for his lack of response. Might make a good interview question to put to him though.

[idlecuriosity]

But let's not forget that his interviews are to just about anybody - as you say, even those with just a few followers. And he doesn't hold back at all- personal stuff included. That's democratic! There's nothing left to give. My beef would be with the interviewers, who mostly don't seem to have a powerful enough list of queries or nuanced points for elucidation.

True enough ... Who knows if Jeffrey Williams (Too Late for the Gods) has extended an invite to BK, whose approach to doing interviews would seem to be based on simply getting an invitation, with little regard as to how 'high profile' the interviewer may be, or numbers of potential viewers. Case in point, a chat with Jordan Peterson—which BK has said he would be open to— would garner a lot of attention, but as long as no invite is forthcoming from JP, Bernardo is not about to pursue it just for the sake of publicity. The most recent interview is with a guy who has about 30 YT subscribers, the full version only available to Patreon donators. Personally, I'm most eagerly awaiting the invite from Ashvin, albeit AP may first have to create a youtube channel

I would be up for creating a channel for the sole purpose of asking BK questions and raising our various objections to his critical idealism. But I have a feeling the guy with 30 YT subscribers had an infinitely better chance of getting BK to accept than I would have. I would explain the nature of my inquiry to BK beforehand, so as not to surprise him with a "gotcha" interview, and that would probably be the end of discussion.

I'd certainly subscribe if you did a channel outlying the overarching premise of much of your ideas.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would be up for creating a channel for the sole purpose of asking BK questions and raising our various objections to his critical idealism.

FYI, I did get around to watching Jeffrey Williams' chat with Craig Reed (the Craig Reed who also chatted with BK), and while its flow is frustratingly impeded by CR's rambling interruptions, and some audio glitches, it does shed some light on why and where JW (whose hero is Heidegger) departs with BK (who seems to ignore Heidegger) and while not ruling out the primacy of consciousness, can find no compelling reason to accept it—especially insofar as it becomes any reason to believe in God. Anyway, it leaves me feeling that a conversation between BK and JW would actually be quite compelling, and worth pursuing if given a chance, however unlikely it may be given BK's lack willingness to engage. However, if you do get that youtube channel up and running, a chat with JW might also be worth the effort. Failing that, if anyone else feels inclined to watch JW's chat with CR, I'd be interested in what some other takes on it may be.

[Ben Iscatus]

JW (whose hero is Heidegger) departs with BK (who seems to ignore Heidegger) and while not ruling out the primacy of consciousness, can find no compelling reason to accept it—especially insofar as it becomes any reason to believe in God. Anyway, it leaves me feeling that a conversation between BK and JW would actually be quite compelling, and worth pursuing if given a chance, however unlikely it may be given BK's lack willingness to engage.

I see no chance of this happening. BK's philosophy is a lived philosophy (in the sense that philosophy used to be). Hegel and Heidegger do not resonate with him.. A discussion about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer would work.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I see no chance of this happening. BK's philosophy is a lived philosophy (in the sense that philosophy used to be). Hegel and Heidegger do not resonate with him.. A discussion about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer would work.

Even if just confining it to a discussion on their respective interpretations of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer—given that JW has actually delved into their writings, whereas the likes of Sam Harris can be brushed aside as lacking in that regard—it could make for a far more interesting and challenging discussion than BK just chatting with someone who mostly nods in agreement while deferring to BK's take on those thinkers. But alas, it would seem that our pugilistic protagonist in idealism's corner remains disinclined to enter the ring with such challengers and go at it face-to-face these days, perhaps now seeing it as a pointless distraction from his role at Essentia, more focused on swaying those who might be swayed—which somehow seems unlikely to happen in JW's case.

[Ben Iscatus]

perhaps now seeing it as a pointless distraction from his role at Essentia, more focused on swaying those who might be swayed

Yes, I agree. He's definitely not into academic discussion for its own sake.

[Jim Cross]

perhaps now seeing it as a pointless distraction from his role at Essentia, more focused on swaying those who might be swayed

Yes, I agree. He's definitely not into academic discussion for its own sake.

Maybe he's self-validated his positions sufficiently that he has no need for distraction from more useful activities. Besides the brand would ruined if he changed a position.

I find it difficult not to change my mind about anything (even about idealism).

[findingblanks]

Ben, I sort of understand what you mean by Bernardo's being a 'lived philosophy,' and I've heard him say similar things. But a slight distinction may be in order.

BK often says that we have to live our philosophy. We must care deeply about the implications of each idea and what they actual do in the world, in ourselves, how they imply real consequences, that we must feel into our bones that our thinking is important.

Anybody who watches a BK interview sees that he certainly lives this way. But so did Heidegger and many others who have very different ways of expressing themselves.

Bernardo's philosophy as such is not very 'lived' in that sense. He does this on purpose. He says over and over the the core of his thoughts are merely to show that idealism is more reasonable than physicalism. He doesn't add anything to this core that requires passion or even goes into the implications.

Some people feel Bernardo speaks deep wisdom on any topic he opens his mouth about. I think it is hit and miss. Which is to be expected. BK is the first to say that the only thing he is an expert at is the ontological arguments.

Somebody mentioned that perhaps Bernardo is more interested in swaying people these days that very specific debates. Maybe. I don't get the impression that he is currently aiming for specific debate. It seems he is very interested in teaching people who are already very eager and inclined towards idealism. He's pretty straightforward that 'war' is a good metaphor for how he views his mission at this point. I do see him at war, intellectually and emotionally, with others and with himself.

Now that he has written numerous books that comprehensively explain why he believes idealism is a more rartional conclusion that physicalsm, it seems his passion is to cultivate a movement that persuades as many people as possible. The persuasion includes the rational arguments but is defined by many criterion far outside the realm of reason.

I would certainly bet my money that he will eventually be inspired to have debates on more specific issues with those who disagree.

[Mark Tetzner]

And Dana, I take that back. You have been an amazing admin and contributor to this forum, for him to shoot you a quick "appreciate it" would have been a good idea.

Mark ... I have no idea what it is you feel obligated to take back. My only point is that any efforts to bring these critiques to BK's attention, whether here, or on twitter or elsewhere, lately appear to have no effect, in that it is not getting him to engage with the critics. According to Jeffrey Williams, both before and after he posted his critiques, he invited BK to talk face-to-face to discuss his ideas, but BK never responded. So whatever his reason, it's not because he is unaware of the critiques, but is a deliberate decision not to respond, and not to offer any reason for his lack of response. Might make a good interview question to put to him though.

Why would BK necessarily respond to videos that include words like hubris, nonsense etc.,
charging him with "twisting" things etc.
But you are still right, BK has sometimes mentioned combatitive he his, and when there is a chance
for a real combat we dont see too many. In the end its his life and he can do whatever
he wishes to do.
Myself, I would have been interested in this particular debate to clarify some terms and
because he would be talking to someone who is looking at Shopenhauer seemingly
from a different angle. There are not many people who claim to understand Shopenhaur
and in that regard he would be a gem to have a discussion with. And if there were, they
would mostly be Germans. This guy has read Shopenhauer in whatever language, a
conversation would be valuable.

[JeffreyW]

Mark: Vielen Dank für die Einladung!

It’s late here and I’m going to bed but will be happy to return tomorrow to answer all the questions. I’m looking forward to an interesting discussion. In addition, if any of you would like to discuss this live on my YouTube channel, I’d be glad to host it.\