Lovely to listen in here. Thank you

Love Stephen Hicks ❤️

Professor Hicks, although less pertinent to this interview than to other recent videos, I have some thoughts related to Hume vs Kant, the political spectrum, and psychometrics. I have no degree, am a part-time autodidact, and have a somewhat rudimentary understanding of these relevant concepts. However, in the area of politics, like many I have been focused on the salient critique of wokeness, and the dangers of the left that define the current epoch. Psychometric tests indicate that people who lean to the right are to some extent more agreeable, and especially more conscientious. Those who lean left are higher in neuroticism. Although I'm not aware of a model that abstracts this more precise delineation, this information leads me to posit, that traits related to the political spectrum could involve: left, neurotic ... center, agreeable ... right, conscientious (The only one of these designations that cannot be explicitly abstracted from the research data is: center, agreeable). The most commonly referenced politics at present are most likely: left, Progressive Liberal ... center, Classical Liberal ... right, Conservative According to my understanding, liberal society probably functions with this 'order of emphasis,' although each politic arguably plays an important role: 1st) Classical Liberal ... 2nd) Conservative ... 3rd) Progressive Liberal It has become increasingly clear to me recently, that while I often take a broadly Classical Liberal position in conversations, this is perhaps mostly the result of seeking to defend "liberal society" as such. Furthermore it seems likely to me that, based on current societal issues, the Progressive Liberal politic ultimately needs to be replaced, at least within the purview of what could be considered "good faith discourse". I myself seem to be relatively higher in neuroticism than other traits. I tend to lean center-left, by the standards of the current Overton window. I am not a fan of Kant, and am aware of your analysis that discusses Kant, as being largely at the root of many current social problems that stem from left politics. However, I am very much a fan of Hume, and could perhaps consider myself similar to an undergraduate-level Humian. I understand that while Hume is a skeptical empiricist, his skepticism essentially 'stops short' of Kantian skepticism and deontology. I imagine that I could consider myself a left, Humian Liberal, and that if such a politic were to exist and gain traction, it might replace Progressive Liberalism, and help alleviate current social problems. I am interested in how/why an increase in skepticism, ostensibly leads in the extreme, to a 'snap back' to a highly rule-bound ethics, via Kantian deontology. (Perhaps high neuroticism involves skeptical questioning, and is alleviated in extreme cases, by the imposition of a strict ruleset). One recent article I found on this topic from 2023 is "Hume and Liberalism", by Sebastian Bender. If convenient for future videos, topics I would like to request are: Kant vs Hume, elements of deontology in Hume's work, and/or the Liberal vs Conservative debate as to which were Hume's politics. Another relevant 2020 article is "Hume's Deontological Response to Scepticism", by Hsueh Qu.

you know people have been educated for as long as there have been people. and, people have had beliefs for as long as there have been beliefs. so now in the twenty-first century CE. we should know what and how to educate and we should know that religion is an antiquated concept and really means nothing. there is no god, no soul, no angels, buddhas, or holy men. some people have had experiences. and, those experiences when told are always secondary stories. in other words myth. I'm not going to listen to the rest of this conversation because peterson is not mind. he is someone who gained a following of people who are desperate to please. If people were truly educated they would understand that we are part of the animal kingdom. and we have some abilities that other animals don't. and possibly every other animal on this planet has abilities that we don't. if evolution is true and doesn't have an agenda, we would become wise to accept it and go on. When you put a yoke on a new born it becomes an ox. don't do that.