https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=zgQFr3W4QYE
I see the left as really sensitive to the fact that human beings are, I’ll use a Greek term here but you’ll find a Christian analog I’m sure, that human beings are really subject to fate. That there is just shitty things that happen to human beings because they’re finite and they’re limited and the world is an overwhelming machine and there are historical forces and material forces, you know, you might even say powers and principalities at work, right? And people are just subject, right? And that we have to do, and that people therefore deserve our aid even if they haven’t earned it because if we don’t do that, we are, and this is like the aspect of Seneca, we’re ignoring the fact that we are finite and we are subject to forces beyond our control. The left gets that and I think the right tends to forget that and that’s why the right often comes off as cruel. But what the left forgets is what the right is, no matter how haphazardly they do it and stupidly they do it, is the right tries to remind people that even though we are subject to fate and people should be aided beyond what they deserve or have earned, human beings are nevertheless also responsible. They need to cultivate virtue because every human being is beset by self-deception and the only person that can get out of self-deception, I can’t get you out of your own self-deception, I can give you guides, but you have to go through it, like you have to go through it. I can’t do that for you, right? So to put it in a slogan, you know, the left remembers fate and forgets virtue and the right remembers virtue and forgets fate. And so what I’m trying to get at is how could we change this discussion about justice so that we could put it back into what it was supposed to be paired with, which was sufferers. We pursue the external justice of trying to reduce the suffering of others that are caused by history and fate has to always be counterbalanced by sufferers, the cultivation of the inner justice of virtue and that those for the Greeks, it was axiomatic that you had to talk about those two things together. Somehow we have gotten to the point where we only talk about one side of this. And I find that also a very lopsided thing. Sorry, that was a long thing to say, but you know, you’re a deep thinker. I want to give you a lot to wrestle with. Yeah. Well, it seems like the way that at least when I look at the way that things happen in the Bible and kind of the way the emphasis that Christianity has put on it is obviously Christianity is obviously very, very preoccupied with the poor, preoccupied with the poor in the broadest way you can interpret that. And those that have less, those that have little, right, whether it’s, you know, whether it’s the poor in terms of their own, let’s say spiritual poor or it’s poor even physically in terms of their material poor or it’s the sick or it’s those that have no recourse like the widow and the orphan. This is something that Christianity is extremely concerned about. But the way that Christianity seems to have concerned itself about it mostly is to ask those who have to give, right, to put responsibility on those who have to care for those who need to be cared for. Sure. Rather than tell those who are lacking to go get theirs, right? To like to take it from those who have it. And that’s really the difference between the revolutionary mindset and the Christian mindset. And some people might say, well, why, why can’t it happen? Like, why can’t those that have less just take, right? Take, take it back. And the reason is because the reason is very practical reason. It’s because it’s a self-defeating pattern. Yes. The pattern which will which will destroy itself because there’s always someone who has less than you and there’s always someone who will be there to take from you, even though you think you are the one who you’re the one who has less. And so you take from that one above you. But there’s always someone below you who has less than you and will take from you. And as soon as you take from that one above you, the power especially, then you become the the you become the one who is now in the. You know, who’s who’s going to be shot like the story of Robespierre is obviously the most classic example of that happening. And so that seems to be the way that Christianity deals with it. And there are consequences if you don’t. And the consequences need to be kind of put in the right position. The way I kind of say it is. I don’t excuse the peasants for killing the king. Right. But I still think it’s partly the king’s fault. Right. It’s still it’s still because the king didn’t care for the peasants that the peasants ended up killing him. And I’m not justifying the peasants actions. But I am saying that if you don’t care for the poor at some point. It’s going to happen like the people will come and take theirs if you don’t care for them. But it’s not morally justified that they do. I don’t know if that makes sense. No, it does. I get what you’re saying. But what I was what I was trying to. Well, maybe this way of bringing it back. Yeah. Like I’m trying to get to this notion that isn’t just about equality or even equity. I’m trying like, yeah, you know, you’re right. Jesus does. Both you see Jesus and the Buddha both. And what’s interesting is they both do this. They both criticize equally something like cruelty and something like hypocrisy. Right. And so what I’m saying is the what we’re trying to bring in here as we’re trying to encompass the nature of human beings is that the notion of social justice, especially if it becomes just the pursuit of equality, does not have the machinery to deal with it. Jesus and the Buddha are neither left nor right. Like it doesn’t make sense to talk. Right. Yeah, exactly. But it doesn’t make sense at all. Exactly. Right. And so the point is in a very profound way, they’re kind it’s not that they’re non-political, but they’re if you’ll allow me, they’re meta-political. Oh, yeah. Right. They’re trying to get what what are the values or the virtues people should be aspiring to that are the most responsible. And I mean, both senses of the word responsible to human nature. Right. That’s what I see them doing. And that’s what I’m not seeing in this movement. I’m not seeing the wisdom of, you know, like we said, of trying to balance these things together, of getting a deep understanding of human nature. I’m hearing a very, very superficial theory about human nature and human history and human culture. And and and I don’t think that the version of justice justice is what really concerns me is this version of justice. It sounds so easy. And that means that to me means it’s got to be wrong because I mean, what I get from all the great philosophers is justice, real justice. I mean, John Rawls writes this huge book, right? Like real justice is hard. It’s really hard because human beings are so incredibly complex and they have, as we’ve been talking about here, these, you know, these opposing forces and poles at work in them. That was a point I was trying to make. Sorry. You’re totally right. And I think that like if you look at this, if you look at how Christ deals with it, it’s interesting because, you know, we talk about responsibility and you can see that in you can see the way that Christ talks about like he talks to the Pharisees and he says you’re a bunch of hypocrites. And he he he talks to woe to the rich if you don’t care for the poor and woe to, you know, and blessed are those who are poor for they will receive and all of this like there’s all this and is but he also has several parables where he talks about the poor who don’t care for what they have and the consequences of that. Like he also has that. He also has the parable of the talents where he talks about the servant who receives something and doesn’t make it fruitful and therefore has to face the consequences of not making fruitful. That’s what she has. And so Christ talks of talks at all levels at the same time. No, I always say, like you said, he’s meta political. He’s a he’s a judge and a victim. He’s the king and the servant. He’s all these things at the same time in a very paradoxical way. And so he kind of transcends politics. And it’s interesting to watch politicians, the politically minded, because they see in Christ a kind of weird mirror of themselves. So the people on the left see Christ as a kind of revolutionary figure. And the people on the right see Christ as a get your act together type figure. Yeah, it’s like, well, you know what? Neither of those really. Yeah. We can’t we can’t win by playing the game. That’s right. My way of trying to understand what it is to not play their game and to shift over to a totally different game, shift the culture.