I would like to think slowly but steadily. There's a lot to take in. I have to watch each lesson more than once!

@Naomi, I was wondering how far you've gotten.

I don't want to tell you how to approach it, but I had to just go through an introduction series sort of as a survey, and then go at it again and again in specificity. I actually needed the intro to get the whole, and the whole to understand the intro.

In a way it's like trying to read the Bible--you can't start understanding the parts as you consume them one by one until you have an overview of the whole to help with the context of the parts.

Anyway, glad your hanging. Are you enjoying it?

@govols I've been watching the lessons like that, too! In a kind of back and forth manner, so the progress is slow. Of course, each lesson is only 10 to 15 min., and therefor is concise. So, I Google to find a little more information where need be; not too much though because I don't want to confuse myself. I've got to From Enlightenment to Revolution. I like M. S. Roth. I think he explains well, and I can tell that he likes the subject himself.

I've got to Modernism and Art for Art 's Sake.
I found Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert Full Audiobook on YouTube. The reader's voice is not the loveliest in the world, but it's OK (and it's free!). Understanding the background (Flaubert's revolt against his own romanticism) a little, I can appreciate the novel a little better.

@Naomi It's a style of literature that I can't suffer. The romantics and the realists drive me crazy. Now, the project of using a feels-filled style of writing to ridicule its own urges toward glorification does have a certain appeal.

@govols It's not my cup of tea, either. I actually don't like romantic stories very much. I prefer black humour, that sort of things. Flaubert revolted against his own romanticism, and the novel reflects his revolt, and that I find interesting.

Hello. I learned that Hegel had his own vision of the essence of Christianity and Marx famously said “Religion is the opium of the people” which comes with complexity and ambivalence.
I am not religious, but I can try to understand Christianity objectively as a subject (no offense to believers). It is my advantage that I have an objective, open mind.
And I need intellectuals like Prof. Roth to feed me with factual knowledge and without prejudiced or subjective views. You can see how he does it in the video. If you know any other intellectual like him, please let me know.

That's part of why it isn't allowed to die, no matter how many people it kills.

THANK YOU!

Zeitgeist

@Naomi YES! The fact of industrial revolution, cultural revolution, seemed obviously to require social revolution. What would that look like given Marx's almost prime motivation: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” I think he was wrong. Stewing on the interpretation is important. Cultural and social change is best accomplished bottom up rather than top down from an elite class of experts and academics.

and the rest of that thought goes thusly: ...there is NO reason to believe or to expect that communism/socialism will work today any more than it ever has. In fact there is a working example of its failure in process right now - look to Venezuela...give it some honest intellectual analysis and get back to us.

@iThink, I agree. I don't think we're cut out for that system for governance of populations greater than maybe a few hundred people. (who is that number named for?)

@govols It's Dunbar's number
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size.[3] By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[4] Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar" Wikipedia

@govols
Did you know there was an early colony here on the North American Continent (well before the Revolutionary War) that was an experiment of sorts of communal living that became an abject failure? It was Plymouth Colony. Here is a link that will describe the causes of its failure as a Commune - hint; it has to do with human nature. Anyhow makes for interesting and educational reading.
[forbes.com]

"Cultural and social change is best accomplished bottom up rather than top down from an elite class of experts and academics."
Wouldn't you say, though, that it is difficult for the people at the bottom to rise and make a change by themselves simply because they lack power and intelligence to control a situation? It's more like they act in response to the actions taken by the people at the top, e.g., riots against their governments. In that case, they need an elite class of experts and academics to support them and act on their behalf, no?

@Naomi, yes, absolutely, but Christendom managed to conquer the Roman empire from a bottom up position. I would also point toward current wing-bats on the extremes of left and right. Both have elements that are attempting to build ground swells at the lowest possible levels. On the left there are some are trying to form local neighborhood collectives, credit co-ops, etc. Yes, there is active leadership, but the reformation is at the community level, and only later does the strategy involve knitting the communities across a city into a bigger, but still local, unity. Example: [cooperationjackson.org] .

On the right, it's a little more cloak and dagger (because people get doxed, lose jobs, get assaulted, etc.), but the efforts are being directed off-line into real world small, local "mannerbund" type groups. The idea is to rebuild the bonds of masculine brotherhood, share meals, work out with a group of like minded people with whom one can be open and honest without fear of repercussion. Build back up the bonds of families, tribes, communities, sharing time of stress and times of success with a personal group who have bonded over the activities of working together as a bonded group of men. (No example forthcoming...)

Both ideas reflect a growing cultural awareness that humans aren't cut out to exist as global creatures. The real work gets done among closely related (bonded) individuals for the sake of an identifiable and locally knowable group with which all involved identify. On the larger scale it's the populist rise of "make x great again" nationalism vs international globalism. It's also evident in the whole "tear down the patriarchy." The disaffected are realizing the the trickle down change directed from on high doesn't work, and the big picture outlook doesn't result in meaningful positive impact in the day-to-day lives of the little people.

It's fascinating to see the similarities among the radicals on the left and right.

@iThink, yeah, I'm well aware. I'm also aware of the revival of such efforts in the 19th century. There's one fairly near me that's no longer a commune, but a historic little strip on a little used road, the homes all under strict regulation over what the owners are allowed to do with them.

[historicrugby.org]

@govols "It's fascinating to see the similarities among the radicals on the left and right."
Funny you say that. Some time ago I came across an article with a headline saying something like "capitalism and socialism are actually aiming at the same goal". Of course, it's a bit of exaggeration there. I must find that article and read it again.

@govols interesting - very cultish looking brochure enticing people to visit and to stay. BTW I think you meant to say 20th century? Nevertheless, that basic idea was NOT new when Marx and Engels published their communist manifesto. Plymouth colony was established 1620 and The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 - so that's a span of 228 years. Marx was NOT the wise and benevolent philosopher some people would have us believe. He was actually pretty lame as a "thinking man". LOL

@iThink No, I meant 19th, mid-late 1800s saw a resurgence of efforts to almost go Aristocratic Amish, collectivist style. Back away from industrial modern as a lifestyle, but not quite so anti-tech... It's almost like they were after the manor life, minus the peasants, a commune of gentility.

@govols

ah, good. good observation.

The point here (which I think will be lost on @naomi ) is that what we know as socialism/communism is not only an ancient idea (is there anything new under the sun?) it is aggregate of mere pedestrian wishy washy thinking.

Those who push for a so called "progressive" agenda have NO basis in reality for their notions and claims that it (Communism) has not been given a fair chance to work.

Hello. I think it is important to learn a philosophical observation in association with the social, economic, political and cultural factors at the time the observation was made.

@Naomi those things are no different today than they were then

Hello iThink.
Zeitgeist. We agree to disagree.

@DrN1 "Don't waste too much time!" I see what you mean. The M-word proves to be hard to overcome... I'm only learning it as a subject.

Oh, thanks! I think it's prejudice. When prejudice sets in you mind so firmly against something, it prevents you from learning further about it.

Hello. My focus is not on whether I agree or disagree with any of the philosophical ideas that are introduced during this course. Also, with all due respect, to say that Marx is shortsighted somehow trivialises the fact that he has been described as one of the most influential thinkers in human history.

@Naomi Marx indeed was one of the most influential thinkers but not in a good way most of the time after his death.

I wonder if Marx would still believe what he believed if he lived today after what others used his thinking to create.

One can be both an influential thinker as well as short sighted. Take Nobel for instance...

Hello ScottforKing. Marxism was "innovated" in different ways, terrible ways. That's why many people talk about him in a very negative way. If he was still around, he might've said "that's not what I meant!". The description of him as "the father of communism" is so well-known that people talk of him as if he led the communist states in the 20th century. No, he did not.
I am separating myself from that general notion about him. Some people can't seem to, which is a shame. I am learning about thinkers and their ideas from the academic point of view along the timeline from enlightenment to postmodernism. I like this professor because he has no political orientation. He delivers what he delivers as academic topics.

@Naomi philosophy by its very definition is detached observation. However, there are multiple levels of detachment. Perspective is very important. Marx thinking limits all growth to commodity. However, true growth is individual as well as economic. I consider him short sighted because he rarely addressed the area specialized excellence or the idea of personalized skill. So that detracts from his observations.

@Naomi, what you're embarking on is quite the trip, and I won't discourage you, BUT, if you can manage to find the time, a little effort at "the classics" is very useful. Almost everything you're learning about is attempts to answer questions raised by the ancients, and the big three, Socrates/Plato, and Aristotle made some really fascinating stabs at Virtue, Happiness, Politics, Good Governance, Social Hierarchies, etc. The Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers were building on foundations they assume any who would read their own works would have as basic education, framework, and context.

It is fascinating that those thinkers figured out so much about human society in all aspects, already in the 18th and 19th centuries, and their observations and analyses are still valid today.
Thanks ever so much for your advice. X

I'll get to Socrates/Plato, and Aristotle - eventually!

@Naomi Yes Marx was very influential. His philosophy inspired great movements of death and destruction in the 20th century. Names like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ortega...and more recently the late Hugo Chavez were without argument firm believers is Marxist theory. To name only a few. Please if you will - kindly tell us of some one or some country or gov't that follows more or less the Marxist ideal that is not despotic, violent to its own people and a genuine threat to concepts of liberty of the individuals.

@iThink
I think you've got the wrong idea... I'm NOT a Marxist, if that's what you think.
If you read the thread carefully, you will find that I've been following Prof. Roth's philosophy lectures on YouTube. Not sure if you actually watched the video. He simply describes Marx's observations and analyses of the society he lived in. During the time he lived, the term "Marxism" wasn't even coined yet.
Before this video, Prof. Roth explains Hegelianism, and a few lectures before that, he talks about Kant and Rousseau. I'm just learning their philosophical ideas as academic topics, because I only skimmed the surface of philosophy when I was in college. govols and DrN1 understand what I'm up to.
Learning about Marx doesn't make me a Marxist.
Learning about Hitler doesn't make me a Nazi.
Learning about Islam doesn't make me an ISIS supporter, and so on.
Please don't worry...

@DDots67 Is that a fact or your opinion? At this stage, it is very important for me to get the facts right about the philosophical ideas I'm learning rather than collecting personal views on them.

@Naomi
I never said you were a Marxist. However when you defend Marxs' ideas with the argument that - how was it you put it..."He was one of the most influential thinkers..." as though being influential imbues his dogma with any kind of moral validity or even any basis of understanding of human nature itself then it begs the response I gave.

Being influential in and of itself is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. You could say that Hitler was a very influential speaker and you could say the very same thing about MLK and you would be right about both of them.

But applying that quality to either of them requires some context to the kind of influence they had and some discussion about the relative good or evil that sprang from that influence would give your statement some credibility.

So perhaps you ought to think about what you say and whether or not it is what you intended to convey before you post. LOL

@Naomi dictionary.com states.... Philosopher | Definition of Philosopher at Dictionary.com
"a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. ... a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason. a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, especially under trying circumstances".....So by that very definition a detached observer who offers views or theories? Not necessarily facts.

@iThink
You are not my Dad.

@Naomi Bwhahahaha true. However I am a mom. You DID ask if my answer was facts or opinion. Philosophy by its very definition is based on theories and opinion not necessarily facts. I just gave you my observation. You don't have to like it or agree. I am fine with that.

@Naomi
Classic! LOL! exactly the kind of retort one would expect to hear from a young and underdeveloped mind - a Plebe of sorts. ...LOL!!!

@DDots67 I appreciate your inputs.
My comment "You're not my Dad." was to iThink.
He always enjoys patronising and bullying me, assuming that I'm a young female. I am beginning to think that he's been stalking me so to speak. He gives me a creep, to be honest. I wonder if he would stop stalking me if I told him that I am actually old enough to be his mother. Lol Ah well, anything can happen in the virtual world, I guess. That's the bottom line.

Hello.
"He is mostly garbage."
Is that so? Who else would you recommend? Yourself?

@Naomi

Ludwig von Mises

@Naomi for someone who says they are NOT a Marxist you sure do defend Karl Marx with great vigor.
@politicalatheist is right. Marxs' ideas are very naive, pedestrian, juvenile even. He either completely ignores or his is completely clueless about human nature itself.
It is no coincidence that for the most part those who argue most vehemently in defense of Socialism/Communism are those who have very limited experience and almost no personal investment in maintaining their own existence much less any contribution toward anyone but themselves...in other words, the mentally underdeveloped, emotionally over stimulated minds of the youth. Jr High age and up through post grad college.

Hello. Yes, I'm grateful to GeeMac for introducing Prof. Roth. My day job involves a lot of reading (technical and legal), and I must admit that I have little willpower left to read anything serious when I get off work. This kind of short lessons suit me. Perhaps, I can study in more depth when I stopped working.

@Naomi I for one hope you retire early!

A loooong way to go!