Join the Conversation

  1. Fortus Victus

    This book contains so many bits of insight to provide clarity as to what is actually going on in public argument and social unrest, yet it is above most high-schoolers reading level.
    I really do think there is an opportunity to break these elements down to a middle or secondary school level where the understanding is probably most useful. Once kids get locked into their worldviews around late teen years it is near impossible to get them to even bother considering other viewpoints under the omnipresent pressure of mass media.

    Reply
  6. Justin Matthews

    The right believes in pattern recognition, intuition, and a priori beliefs. The left rejects all of that. But they're position is essentially an a priori position. You cant logic out the need for these things without an infinite regress to the point that nothing is true. This is the basis of nihilism and postmodernism. In order to directly argue against constrained visions, you must object to reality itself.

    Reply
  9. Otoshi God

    Based off this video's explanation, I would fall into the unconstrained on everything up until around 12:05. I haven't read the book, only heard of Thomas Sowell talk about it and seen this video before reading it, but I think this makes sense of what I know of Thomas Sowell. I know for example he doesn't buy into racial differences in IQ for example, although I have heard he is open minded to discussion about it. Even though Thomas Sowell wrote the book and claims to be of the unconstrained view, I'd argue this portion isn't entirely accurate of what unconstrained should mean. Saying that people are all just about as intelligent and moral, while this would still fall into the theme of man being fallen, it's also not too far off liberal ideas that were influenced by Rousseau and that of "tabula rasa" or blank slate theory as it's commonly called. I recall an in interview the man interviewing him said this was a book that covered ideas of the two visions of the last 200 years or so, but I suppose it's because it doesn't go back far enough. While I do consider Thomas Sowell a conservative in some sense of the word as he would claim to be, this section of the video sounds very libertarian in nature and not much like the ideas of the right of earlier eras in the times of kings. This could also be a mistake though of the video creator however, as I would note that I have heard Thomas Sowell say that people are not at all equal in reality like unconstrained thinkers would suppose, which is what leaves me a bit confused here. This supposes that people are nearly all the same and are capable of being rational thinkers who know what's best, but this is idealistic and not at all a constrained realistic view of man. The unconstrained view should be that people may be equal in the eyes of God, but are not at all equal in ability, and so therefore man tends to hierarchy as all of nature tends to be hierarchical. I don't believe in utopian societies, I don't think human will is unlimited, and I don't believe there are solutions but only compromises. I would say it's naïve though to start with the assumption that man is equal in mental ability and just anyone can be the leader, if any, to put forth these social pressures and ideas down so that man can live in a cohesive society which although maybe not perfect, is stable and ultimately does good for it's people.

    Reply
  10. Robert Fox

    It's simply the wise vs the childish. It's as old as time. I'm not talking about age. But mentality. Unfortunately the childish are destructive. And out of youthful ignorance often end it for all Through violence wisdom only wins when thay can build in peace, that's prosperity. The other only end in death and destruction.

    Reply
  13. Eric Kim

    This whole Idea can be summed up in one sentence: Do you believe human nature is fatally flawed or can humans become benevolent? The answer to both questions is YES but only through GODs transforming power. JESUS is the only ANOINTED one. Anyone else trying to be the anointed will fail and bring destruction/tyranny. Man can't overcome his SIN nature without GOD. Those who believe in the unconstrained vision put their faith in the goodness of man while the constrained vision puts their faith in the wickedness of men. The bible mentions the sinful nature of man many times. Jeremiah 17:9 "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?" BOTTOM LINE—–Humans can't overcome their nature without GOD.

    Reply
  15. Math Man

    Excellent video — thanks for the added creativity — nicely done. I read the book recently, which is why I came to video to see what others might be saying about it. I appreciate this video renaming constrained/unconstrained to limited/unlimited, but I would one more step and go with Hadfields/McCoys. It is very interesting that the same word can connote very different and sometimes opposite ideas — not surprised the Pinker would find these ideas triggering. I was just getting to the point of sketching out my own version of the simple spectra presented in this book/video. If you label each dimensions, such as: Quality of Human Nature, Complexity of the World, Knowledge (systemic experiences and tradition to fully articulated logic), Sincerity of Intentions etc (might be five or six more dimensions). Then think of them as rated from 0 to 1, and you get the picture that the Hadfields and McCoys are at opposite corners of the hypercube. Are there people who are "balanced"? their views sit right in the middle of these dimensions? What would that look like?

    Reply
  18. Charles Brown

    Excellent job! Love the visuals as you explain. My personal favorite book is Sowell's, "Vision of the Anointed", but will add this one to my list. I'm really intrigued, because I've heard it is the Authors personal favorite book of the 30+ books he's written!

    Reply

Post Comment