On 5 September 2024, I was on Judge Napolitano’s podcast — “Judging Freedom.” We talked about big picture issues as they relate to the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
I watched it on Saturday evening. I very much appreciate Professor Mearsheimer's analyses and insights. They enhance our understanding of complex issues and how the world works.
I’m a big fan of John Mearsheimer because as far as I’m concerned he’s been exactly correct in everything he’s weighed in on. I know this isn’t in his bailiwick but it seems to me that if one looks at what he’s had to say and uses the type of critical thinking and logic he’s used to arrive at his conclusions one could use that same type of critical thinking and logic to try to figure out what’s at the root of the problems he’s describing. And in my opinion that would require a kind of comprehensive examination as to why things are the way they are. And once one is able to get a handle on why things are the way they are one might be able to start to examine how one might go about changing those things so that those things that are less than ideal could be made to be much better. These are the types of questions we should be asking.
With regard to that which John and the Judge analyze which is part of my course is the fact that we have had and have very poor leadership in the United States. This is especially true of the top leadership. At the root of the problem with our leadership is the fact that What we have is self selected narcissists running the show. The “class” in my “course” that addresses this phenomenon is made up of videos from M Scott Peck, Frank Yeomans, Brian Klaas, and Jason Stanley. Without spending the time to explain all of this in part what amounts to is the fact that our political leaders are more concerned with staying in power than staying in the right side of history. This misalignment of priorities will lead to trouble every time. It’s the theoretical domestic equivalent to the concept that nationalism trumps liberalism every time. If you allow creeps to run the show you end up with the mess that we’ve currently have on our hands. A mess that sensible people like Jeffrey Sacks and other guests on the Judge’s show warn us that could lead to nuclear holocaust.
And I know this isn’t in John’s bailiwick either, but now that artificial intelligence has been let out of the bag it’ll become more important and more urgent to both pose and answer the deeper and more profound questions as to what is at the root of all of these old school problems. The urgency with regard to the fact that these questions will need to be answered is because AI will most likely become an accelerant for the host of old school problems we’re facing. It will also present us with an entire new set of problems that will have to be contended with and managed. So in addition to the questions that John poses and answers, we’ll need to ask ourselves and try to answer the question as to what is the best way to try to have AI aligned with the most beneficial long term interests of humans in mind. That question posed in a slightly different way is - “is there a way in which we can have our cake and eat it too?” My contention is that the answer to that question is my “course”. My course lays out the fundamental way in which artificial intelligence has to be intrinsically self regulated so that the fundamental principles in my course act as artificial intelligence’s governor and sole ultimate objective. (I borrowed those concepts from Nick Bostrom and Mo Gawdat). This is the only way which artificial intelligence will work to our collective advantage rather than being part of that which will result in our undoing.
Amazingly, in my opinion, my course goes a long way towards getting at the root of the old school problems John and the Judge talk about and offers up some concrete ways to overcome those problems.
In part what it amounts to is the type of human psychology that John Mearsheimer’s logic points toward without ever actually addressing them specifically. It is this underlying psychology that is largely that which is at the root of these old school problems. In most instances we’re not asking the right questions head on with regard to the mess we’ve created let alone how we might go about trying to remedy them. In addition to what Cool Hand Luke said “what we have here is a failure to communicate” I’d add that we aren’t asking the right questions in order to get to the root of the problems and try to remedy them. (Without beating a dead dog, that’s what my course does)…
In a way my course is the equivalent to answering the bigger questions as what we need to try to accomplish regarding the entire ball of wax as to allowing John Mearsheimer to run the US’s foreign policy. If John were allowed to run our foreign policy we would quickly put an end to the war in Ukraine. We would come up with a sensible way to solve the problem in Israel. And we would manage the security competition with China on a way that it doesn’t spill over into a hot war. Those are the reasons we should be taking John’s advice and it’s my contention that for the same type of reasons that’s why we should be paying attention to what my course has to offer.
The insatiable spoiled child (Israel) and the stupid dad (US) willing to burn down the house to satisfy him. How shameful is all this!
Already watched it superb as always 👌
I watched it on Saturday evening. I very much appreciate Professor Mearsheimer's analyses and insights. They enhance our understanding of complex issues and how the world works.
I’m a big fan of John Mearsheimer because as far as I’m concerned he’s been exactly correct in everything he’s weighed in on. I know this isn’t in his bailiwick but it seems to me that if one looks at what he’s had to say and uses the type of critical thinking and logic he’s used to arrive at his conclusions one could use that same type of critical thinking and logic to try to figure out what’s at the root of the problems he’s describing. And in my opinion that would require a kind of comprehensive examination as to why things are the way they are. And once one is able to get a handle on why things are the way they are one might be able to start to examine how one might go about changing those things so that those things that are less than ideal could be made to be much better. These are the types of questions we should be asking.
Maybe Congress suffers from Stockholm syndrome.
The judge said you wrote a 'masterpiece,' but I didn't catch the name. Is that available to read?
I have been watching all the Judge's shows and their is NO DOUBT in my mind that these experts are being ultra-careful. Meersheimer is backing down.
With regard to that which John and the Judge analyze which is part of my course is the fact that we have had and have very poor leadership in the United States. This is especially true of the top leadership. At the root of the problem with our leadership is the fact that What we have is self selected narcissists running the show. The “class” in my “course” that addresses this phenomenon is made up of videos from M Scott Peck, Frank Yeomans, Brian Klaas, and Jason Stanley. Without spending the time to explain all of this in part what amounts to is the fact that our political leaders are more concerned with staying in power than staying in the right side of history. This misalignment of priorities will lead to trouble every time. It’s the theoretical domestic equivalent to the concept that nationalism trumps liberalism every time. If you allow creeps to run the show you end up with the mess that we’ve currently have on our hands. A mess that sensible people like Jeffrey Sacks and other guests on the Judge’s show warn us that could lead to nuclear holocaust.
…And this is why my course is so important…
And I know this isn’t in John’s bailiwick either, but now that artificial intelligence has been let out of the bag it’ll become more important and more urgent to both pose and answer the deeper and more profound questions as to what is at the root of all of these old school problems. The urgency with regard to the fact that these questions will need to be answered is because AI will most likely become an accelerant for the host of old school problems we’re facing. It will also present us with an entire new set of problems that will have to be contended with and managed. So in addition to the questions that John poses and answers, we’ll need to ask ourselves and try to answer the question as to what is the best way to try to have AI aligned with the most beneficial long term interests of humans in mind. That question posed in a slightly different way is - “is there a way in which we can have our cake and eat it too?” My contention is that the answer to that question is my “course”. My course lays out the fundamental way in which artificial intelligence has to be intrinsically self regulated so that the fundamental principles in my course act as artificial intelligence’s governor and sole ultimate objective. (I borrowed those concepts from Nick Bostrom and Mo Gawdat). This is the only way which artificial intelligence will work to our collective advantage rather than being part of that which will result in our undoing.
Amazingly, in my opinion, my course goes a long way towards getting at the root of the old school problems John and the Judge talk about and offers up some concrete ways to overcome those problems.
In part what it amounts to is the type of human psychology that John Mearsheimer’s logic points toward without ever actually addressing them specifically. It is this underlying psychology that is largely that which is at the root of these old school problems. In most instances we’re not asking the right questions head on with regard to the mess we’ve created let alone how we might go about trying to remedy them. In addition to what Cool Hand Luke said “what we have here is a failure to communicate” I’d add that we aren’t asking the right questions in order to get to the root of the problems and try to remedy them. (Without beating a dead dog, that’s what my course does)…
In a way my course is the equivalent to answering the bigger questions as what we need to try to accomplish regarding the entire ball of wax as to allowing John Mearsheimer to run the US’s foreign policy. If John were allowed to run our foreign policy we would quickly put an end to the war in Ukraine. We would come up with a sensible way to solve the problem in Israel. And we would manage the security competition with China on a way that it doesn’t spill over into a hot war. Those are the reasons we should be taking John’s advice and it’s my contention that for the same type of reasons that’s why we should be paying attention to what my course has to offer.