3 ms·

I really love his documentaries, but he is essentially a conspiracy theorist for the thinking man. He always tries to glue different disconnected stories into o

I really love his documentaries, but he is essentially a conspiracy theorist for the thinking man. He always tries to glue different disconnected stories into one overarching narrative. The world is not that coherent. Things happen for no reason at all.

317070 6y ago
I disagree. There is often no conspiracy or intent by the people in the individual stories he uses, he is putting them together to show in broad strokes things in society which were not there before or which he thinks are changing. You need to read Max Weber or David Graeber, and you will recognize the sociologist or even anthropologist lens he uses to look at the modern world.
- shimonabi 6y ago
  Thanks, I was not educated in the humanities, but I know of Max Weber. David Graeber's works sounds interesting; I will read some of it when I have time. Sorry he passed away.
sooheon 6y ago
Connecting ideas in a historical narrative is not equal to alleging conspiracy. Reading that into his documentaries says more about your perspective.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
> Things happen for no reason at all. Correction, some things happen for no reason at all. Some things do happen for a reason. Deductive and inductive logic helps us decide which is which. I greatly dislike this "all conspiracies are false" approach to understanding the world, as it feels like a "logical safe space" that is intellectually bankrupt, but especially given the state of public discourse and other events, there is such a stigma for being associated with any sort of belief in "conspiracy" that there seems to be a huge knee-jerk avoidance that just doesn't stand up to the test of history. Conspiracies are real, and are the breadstuffs of history. Failure to acknowledge this will leave one always a few feet off the mark when trying to understand the past, which means failure to understand the present and hence, is an obstacle in helping one to guide the future.

317070 6y ago

I disagree. There is often no conspiracy or intent by the people in the individual stories he uses, he is putting them together to show in broad strokes things in society which were not there before or which he thinks are changing. You need to read Max Weber or David Graeber, and you will recognize the sociologist or even anthropologist lens he uses to look at the modern world.

shimonabi 6y ago
Thanks, I was not educated in the humanities, but I know of Max Weber. David Graeber's works sounds interesting; I will read some of it when I have time. Sorry he passed away.

sooheon 6y ago

Connecting ideas in a historical narrative is not equal to alleging conspiracy. Reading that into his documentaries says more about your perspective.

arminiusreturns 6y ago

> Things happen for no reason at all. Correction, some things happen for no reason at all. Some things do happen for a reason. Deductive and inductive logic helps us decide which is which. I greatly dislike this "all conspiracies are false" approach to understanding the world, as it feels like a "logical safe space" that is intellectually bankrupt, but especially given the state of public discourse and other events, there is such a stigma for being associated with any sort of belief in "conspiracy" that there seems to be a huge knee-jerk avoidance that just doesn't stand up to the test of history. Conspiracies are real, and are the breadstuffs of history. Failure to acknowledge this will leave one always a few feet off the mark when trying to understand the past, which means failure to understand the present and hence, is an obstacle in helping one to guide the future.