#PRECHT #SWR1 #Leute
Richard David Precht bei SWR1 Leute: Über Meinungsfreiheit, KI und die Zukunft unserer Gesellschaft
In dieser spannenden Ausgabe von SWR1 Leute ist der bekannte Philosoph und Bestsellerautor Richard David Precht zu Gast. Im Gespräch werden tiefgreifende Themen unserer Zeit analysiert: Von der schwindenden Meinungsfreiheit und dem aktuellen Zustand der liberalen Demokratie bis hin zu den Herausforderungen durch die künstliche Intelligenz und die digitale Transformation. Precht liefert wie gewohnt scharfsinnige Analysen und regt dazu an, festgefahrene Denkmuster zu hinterfragen. Ein Muss für alle, die sich für die philosophische Einordnung aktueller gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen interessieren.
Die Schwerpunkte des Gesprächs:
Demokratie unter Druck:
Warum die Debattenkultur sich verändern muss.
Digitaler Wandel:
Wie KI unser Leben und unsere Ethik beeinflusst.
Bildung & Arbeit:
Prechts Thesen zum bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen und modernen Lernsystemen.
Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt:
Was uns in Krisenzeiten wirklich noch verbindet
Philosophie,
Richard David Precht,
SWR1 Leute,
Interview,
Talkshow,
Gesellschaft,
Meinungsfreiheit,
Demokratie,
Digitalisierung,
Künstliche Intelligenz,
Zukunft,
Ethik,
Bildung,
Arbeitswelt,
Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen,
Nachhaltigkeit,
Politik,
Debattenkultur,
Zeitgeist,
Bestsellerautor,
Soziale Gerechtigkeit,
Werte,
SWR,
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#SWR1Leute,
#Philosophie,
#Talk,
#Interview,
#Gesellschaft,
#Zukunft,
#Meinungsfreiheit,
#Demokratie,
#Diskurs,
#Debatte,
#Digitalisierung,
#KI,
#Arbeitswelt,
#Grundeinkommen,
#Ethik,
#Bildung,
#Nachhaltigkeit,
#Werte,
#Politik,
#Wissen,
#Denkanstoß,
#Kultur,
#Deutschland,
#SWR,
#Philosophisch,
#Bestseller,
#Autor,
#Soziologie,
#Zeitgeschehen,
#Gerechtigkeit,
#Transformation,
#Innovation,
#Menschlichkeit,
#Bewusstsein,
#Reflexion,
#Medien,
#SWR1,
#PrechtTalk,
Philosophie,
Richard David Precht,
SWR1 Leute,
Interview,
Talkshow,
Gesellschaftskritik,
Meinungsfreiheit,
Demokratie,
Digitalisierung,
Künstliche Intelligenz,
Zukunft der Arbeit,
Ethik,
Bildungssystem,
Bestseller,
Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen,
Nachhaltigkeit,
Politik Deutschland,
Debattenkultur,
Zeitgeist 2024,
Precht Interview,
Soziale Gerechtigkeit,
Werte,
SWR Mediathek,
Hashtags
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#SWR1Leute,
#Philosophie,
#Talk,
#Interview,
#Gesellschaft,
#Zukunft,
#Meinungsfreiheit,
#Demokratie,
#Diskurs,
#Debatte,
#Digitalisierung,
#KI,
#Arbeitswelt,
#Grundeinkommen,
#Ethik,
#Bildung,
#Nachhaltigkeit,
#Werte,
#Politik,
#Wissen,
#Denkanstoß,
#Kultur,
#Deutschland,
#SWR,
#Philosophisch,
#Bestseller,
#Autor,
#Soziologie,
#Zeitgeschehen,
#Gerechtigkeit,
#Transformation,
#Innovation,
#Menschlichkeit,
#Bewusstsein,
#Reflexion,
#Medien,
#SWR1,
#PrechtTalk,
Richard David Precht bei SWR1 Leute: Über Meinungsfreiheit, KI und die Zukunft unserer Gesellschaft
In dieser spannenden Ausgabe von SWR1 Leute ist der bekannte Philosoph und Bestsellerautor Richard David Precht zu Gast. Im Gespräch werden tiefgreifende Themen unserer Zeit analysiert: Von der schwindenden Meinungsfreiheit und dem aktuellen Zustand der liberalen Demokratie bis hin zu den Herausforderungen durch die künstliche Intelligenz und die digitale Transformation. Precht liefert wie gewohnt scharfsinnige Analysen und regt dazu an, festgefahrene Denkmuster zu hinterfragen. Ein Muss für alle, die sich für die philosophische Einordnung aktueller gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen interessieren.
Die Schwerpunkte des Gesprächs:
Demokratie unter Druck:
Warum die Debattenkultur sich verändern muss.
Digitaler Wandel:
Wie KI unser Leben und unsere Ethik beeinflusst.
Bildung & Arbeit:
Prechts Thesen zum bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen und modernen Lernsystemen.
Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt:
Was uns in Krisenzeiten wirklich noch verbindet
Philosophie,
Richard David Precht,
SWR1 Leute,
Interview,
Talkshow,
Gesellschaft,
Meinungsfreiheit,
Demokratie,
Digitalisierung,
Künstliche Intelligenz,
Zukunft,
Ethik,
Bildung,
Arbeitswelt,
Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen,
Nachhaltigkeit,
Politik,
Debattenkultur,
Zeitgeist,
Bestsellerautor,
Soziale Gerechtigkeit,
Werte,
SWR,
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#SWR1Leute,
#Philosophie,
#Talk,
#Interview,
#Gesellschaft,
#Zukunft,
#Meinungsfreiheit,
#Demokratie,
#Diskurs,
#Debatte,
#Digitalisierung,
#KI,
#Arbeitswelt,
#Grundeinkommen,
#Ethik,
#Bildung,
#Nachhaltigkeit,
#Werte,
#Politik,
#Wissen,
#Denkanstoß,
#Kultur,
#Deutschland,
#SWR,
#Philosophisch,
#Bestseller,
#Autor,
#Soziologie,
#Zeitgeschehen,
#Gerechtigkeit,
#Transformation,
#Innovation,
#Menschlichkeit,
#Bewusstsein,
#Reflexion,
#Medien,
#SWR1,
#PrechtTalk,
Philosophie,
Richard David Precht,
SWR1 Leute,
Interview,
Talkshow,
Gesellschaftskritik,
Meinungsfreiheit,
Demokratie,
Digitalisierung,
Künstliche Intelligenz,
Zukunft der Arbeit,
Ethik,
Bildungssystem,
Bestseller,
Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen,
Nachhaltigkeit,
Politik Deutschland,
Debattenkultur,
Zeitgeist 2024,
Precht Interview,
Soziale Gerechtigkeit,
Werte,
SWR Mediathek,
Hashtags
#Precht,
#RichardDavidPrecht,
#SWR1Leute,
#Philosophie,
#Talk,
#Interview,
#Gesellschaft,
#Zukunft,
#Meinungsfreiheit,
#Demokratie,
#Diskurs,
#Debatte,
#Digitalisierung,
#KI,
#Arbeitswelt,
#Grundeinkommen,
#Ethik,
#Bildung,
#Nachhaltigkeit,
#Werte,
#Politik,
#Wissen,
#Denkanstoß,
#Kultur,
#Deutschland,
#SWR,
#Philosophisch,
#Bestseller,
#Autor,
#Soziologie,
#Zeitgeschehen,
#Gerechtigkeit,
#Transformation,
#Innovation,
#Menschlichkeit,
#Bewusstsein,
#Reflexion,
#Medien,
#SWR1,
#PrechtTalk,
Kategorie
🛠️
LifestyleTranskript
00:00Friday morning, a new edition of SW1 People. A very warm welcome to Richard David Precht. Good morning.
00:07Good morning
00:08Philosopher, podcaster, and publicist. You're known for constantly sparking debates. Is that the role of contemporary philosophers? What do you say?
00:18I don't just believe in the present. I believe philosophy begins with initiating debates.
00:24So if we go back to the roots of Western philosophy and come to Socrates, then Socrates was someone who stood in the marketplace, who questioned widely accepted opinions, who sparked debates.
00:37What is good, what is right, what is a good life, what is good coexistence? Initiating debates is at the beginning of philosophy.
00:44You just mentioned Socrates, who didn't come off very well in the end. Is that the fate of philosophers? I don't mean to imply anything.
00:51Anyone who not only initiates debates in this way, but also engages in them, has always and at all times taken a certain risk.
01:00And compared to Socrates' risk, it is lower today.
01:04What quality do philosophers need most today?
01:07Well, the term philosophy offers a home to very different people.
01:11There is still the type of the armchair scholar, and there is the type of specialist who spends 30 years working on specialized philosophical questions.
01:21And there are fewer and fewer true generalists.
01:25This essentially means that the greater society's need becomes for generalists, that is, for people who can apply their philosophical tools to the broadest possible range,
01:36The smaller the number of generalists that universities still produce, the more they primarily produce specialists.
01:43And this leads to the fact that there is actually relatively little space for philosophers at the moment.
01:47Do you see yourself as a generalist in philosophy in this field?
01:51Yes, I could have taken a different path and could have spent the last 30 years dealing with problems of analytical philosophy.
01:59That too is honorable, and it's good that there are people who do that.
02:03But when one considers the current situation of Western liberal societies,
02:09When you look at the enormous forces currently shifting the world's plate tectonics,
02:14Then it is perfectly obvious that a philosopher would turn to these matters.
02:19And for such beautiful things as philosophical details, there is, in my view, little room for me personally at the moment.
02:26Yes, you've just written an essay, titled "Anxiety Stagnation," which I found interesting to read.
02:33And that's where you might get by as a generalist again.
02:36They connect this to other philosophers who have recognized movements and developments in societies at other times as well.
02:44Alexis de Tocqueville, I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name correctly, plays a major role in this.
02:49What kind of guy is he?
02:50Yes, a very interesting person, a French nobleman who was sent from France to the USA in the 1820s.
03:00At that time, the USA was the only existing liberal democracy.
03:06And the French are aware that this is probably what will happen to Europe in the future.
03:11and then he should take a look at that.
03:12And then he traveled there and wrote a two-volume work about democracy in America.
03:19And he praised many things and said that everything was better than in aristocratic society.
03:25And that's what made him very famous.
03:27But he also criticized and expressed some fears.
03:29Namely?
03:29Yes, well, the first thing he criticized is that in advanced democracies people are no longer so interested in good relations with one another as in making money.
03:38Because in democracies, money has replaced the concept of honor.
03:42Yes, that means eventually everything will be just capitalism and everyone will become a capitalist of themselves.
03:48A very accurate observation.
03:49And the second correct observation is that he says, of course there is no longer a ruler to restrict freedom of expression, but there will be a tyranny of public opinion.
03:59We had just stopped at a certain point when the wrong-way driver came in.
04:02Perhaps you could start again with Alexis de Tocqueville at this point.
04:05Yes, so the second point with Alexis de Tocqueville is that he says that in aristocratic societies, monarchies and so on, it is perfectly clear that there is censorship from above, there is little freedom of expression.
04:17However, even in liberal democracies, there is the possibility that freedom may diminish.
04:21And he already saw and predicted this back then, namely through what he calls the dictatorship of public opinion.
04:28And that a certain public opinion is essentially established, and that deviations from it are then punished.
04:35And that is something that liberal democracies are very prone to.
04:39And then one has to say, oh yes, if we look at the developments in this country as well, yes, even liberal democracies can have a problem with freedom of expression, and not only autocracies.
04:49The counter-argument for freedom of expression is always that we are of course allowed to say anything, but it has certain consequences.
04:55Oh yes, autocracies are like that too. In Russia, they can say anything. In China, they can say anything. They just have to face the consequences.
05:01Now there is an important difference. The important difference is that, depending on what you say, you could end up in prison for years in Russia or China.
05:09That doesn't happen here. But here, certain expressions of opinion are still associated with certain social costs, which can lead to a kind of social ostracism.
05:18And that is, of course, normally a rather high penalty.
05:22If I understand you correctly, the reason for this, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, is the progress of democracy.
05:27Yes, even democracies have one of his; you have to consider how brilliant that was at a time when democracy in America had only existed for 30 or 40 years.
05:39It is already possible to see what the signs of degeneration are, or what happens when democracies age or live longer.
05:48And he says that the progress of democracy does not necessarily have to lead to liberalism becoming stronger in democracy.
05:56But it is also possible that liberal democracies develop mechanisms from within themselves that undermine this liberalism.
06:05Did he have a proposed solution?
06:07No. He didn't have a solution yet, because at the time when democracy existed in the USA, it didn't yet exist in France.
06:15And his task was, in a way, to think about the fundamental question: is this something for us or is this not for us?
06:21That was the starting point.
06:24And he actually wrote a very, very sober, concise report and didn't take sides on any issue.
06:32So basically like an ethnographic study, as if he had become part of some indigenous tribe,
06:38He would have looked at their customs and traditions and, of course, described them like an ethnologist.
06:42He wanted to document the current situation.
06:44He wanted to document the current situation, but of course at the same time he said where he saw the strengths and opportunities and where he saw the dangers.
06:51Now, other analyses from you are being added, namely that the focus is no longer on work, but on the question of meaning.
06:57That's definitely a positive thing.
06:59Yes, well, I wrote a book a few years ago, three years ago, about the future of the working society and the future of work.
07:06And it is interesting that advanced democracies, with so much wealth as has accumulated in liberal democracies,
07:14Eventually, we will no longer be classic working societies, but increasingly, and this will now be evident to everyone under 50 and everyone under 30,
07:23especially, will now nod and say, the most important questions we ask in our lives,
07:27It's no longer, as it used to be, "the main thing is that you have a job," but rather "the main thing is that you have a good job, the main thing is that you still have enough time for other things."
07:34The most important thing is that your work has some meaning and makes you happy, and that you have time for your children, your gym, and your friends.
07:41And that's why I say we no longer live in a classic work society today, but in a meaning-oriented society.
07:46Because things are going so well for us, can we even afford to ask the question of meaning?
07:51That's right. In the past, all societies were scarce.
07:55Even in the time of Alexis de Tocqueville, there was not a single society of abundance on the planet, but only societies of scarcity.
08:01This means that what was produced was always too little for the size of the population.
08:05There have always been hungry people, outcasts, and underprivileged people in society.
08:09Today we live in a society of abundance; the term dates back to the 1960s.
08:13Since then, economists have defined our societies as affluent societies, and from there one can gradually begin to ask the question of meaning.
08:22When you write that the grandparents primarily wanted one thing, namely not to stand out, how has that changed over the generations?
08:30Yes, well, nowadays it's very important to stand out. It's not just a psychological need, but also a societal expectation.
08:39We live today in a state of cultural capitalism. This means that in a society where everyone is essentially encouraged to be a capitalist of themselves,
08:49To market oneself optimally, to perform, as it's called today.
08:53And he can only do that by showing that he is something very special or that he can do something that others cannot.
08:58And it's about using these positive skills to stand out in society.
09:03And we also want to stand out with our positive emotions, with our correct opinions, with our correct morals.
09:10Yes, we're always automatically the good guys and the others usually aren't.
09:14And this leads to the fact that we have a completely different form of self-presentation today than our grandparents had.
09:20On the other hand, conformism has not completely disappeared.
09:24Yes, we want to stand out, but of course we don't want to stand out in a stupid way.
09:27We don't want to get any shitstorms on social media and so on.
09:31On the one hand, we are forced to be as individual as possible within a fairly narrowly defined framework.
09:38But hasn't it always been the case that the loud ones, that's basically what you're saying, the loud ones are heard?
09:46Yes, but in the past, petit-bourgeois morality discouraged people from wanting to belong to the loud crowd.
09:54So, children who were loud were considered cheeky.
09:56And one should sow one's wild oats, and one was restrained, and one is told during puberty and afterwards,
10:02that one is not yet an adult and as long as one still lives under one's parents' table
10:06and that one has an opinion on everything, but no clue about anything, and so on.
10:11And this kind of petit-bourgeois domestication, that mostly doesn't happen anymore today.
10:18I don't want to sugarcoat it at all, it's just that we've gone from one opposite to the other.
10:23Now you say that most conflicts in our society are identity-driven in nature.
10:28What do you mean by that?
10:29Yes, we also greatly inflate our identities in public spaces.
10:33We present ourselves via social networks, among other channels, but also in other ways.
10:36Who we are, the good guys, how great we are, and what we do.
10:39And we are very sensitive about this.
10:41Yes, because we live in a society today where emotions are legitimate.
10:45This hasn't been around for very long.
10:47A few decades ago, that wasn't the case.
10:48If someone did something based on their feelings, they were labelled in a very, very bad way, especially if they were a woman.
10:54Sure, women feel, men think.
10:56Such classic social clichés.
10:59Yes, hysteria.
11:00Yes, exactly.
11:01Don't be such a baby.
11:01And what about the feelings and stuff?
11:03So another generation of politicians like Helmut Schmidt's went down to the basement to feel their emotions.
11:08Yes, they never showed any emotions.
11:10And that was the classic understanding of men and their roles.
11:13Today we are showing these feelings.
11:14We have these feelings.
11:15It is legitimate to have those feelings.
11:16But we are also very sensitive and very delicate.
11:19Our feelings are very, very, very easily offended or hurt.
11:22Does this mean that the content of the discussion has shifted from a factual topic to a personal one?
11:29Or what conclusion can be drawn from this?
11:30We personalize every debate because we always feel personally attacked.
11:35And what's also interesting is that in the past, feeling personally attacked was considered a weakness.
11:41You were not allowed to show that you felt personally hurt or attacked.
11:45Today, it's about strength.
11:46The concept of victimhood has changed in society.
11:49Svenja Flassböhler has attributed some very interesting things to it.
11:52A philosophical colleague of yours?
11:54A clever philosopher colleague.
11:55Yes, she said that the interesting thing is that the victim role is morally ranked very highly in society today.
12:02Now we need to look at where there might be influence.
12:06And in the past, people said, yes, there are role models in politics.
12:10However, as you analyze, this victim mentality is also present in politics.
12:14They cite different examples.
12:16Robert Habeck, for example, is a moron, and Agnes Strack-Zimmermann of the FDP has filed up to 250 criminal charges per month at certain times.
12:27So the role model function in politics has been lost.
12:31And it was lost, among other reasons, because in 2022 we experienced a very significant change in the law, which was mostly unnoticed by the public.
12:40The consequences of the Corona pandemic and the attacks against politicians at that time were that politicians are now under very, very special protection.
12:51And that they are much more easily and quickly offended or defamed than a normal person.
12:58Incidentally, this also applies to other people who are in the public eye.
13:00Politicians, therefore, are subject to particularly sensitive boundaries.
13:03And so it could happen that a retired lawyer from Bavaria, who published a meme on the internet, i.e. a picture of the company Schwarzkopf Professional.
13:15And Schwarzkopf, who replaced his likeness with a portrait of Robert Habeck, had the words "Professional Weakhead" written above it.
13:24This man has been charged, and with the consent of Robert Habeck, his apartment was searched, his computer was confiscated, and so on.
13:34Ultimately, it was all because of satire and because of a term like "moron".
13:37And my conclusion from this story is that the damage Robert Habeck has caused to democracy by prosecuting such a harmless term as "idiot" is greater than the damage caused by the pensioner from Bavaria by calling Robert Habeck an idiot.
13:58These examples now extend to Friedrich Merz's statement on the cityscape.
14:03Are there also defamation lawsuits against him? What does that say about our society? What are you analyzing from your philosophical observations?
14:11So I would like to know exactly who was defamed in the statement about the cityscape.
14:16So if I start to apply the very serious criminal offense of defamation to such a vague statement as the one Merz made, then this society has a problem.
14:27So, exactly as I said before, sensitivities mean that we obviously can no longer tolerate someone making statements that deviate even slightly from the mainstream or expressing themselves in a slightly cruder or more blunt way.
14:40"Cityscape" is really a harmless phrase.
14:42And that shows how oversensitive we are.
14:44And the consequence of this oversensitivity is that politicians no longer dare to use clear words, which is precisely what voters expect from them.
14:52And that leads precisely to this state of fearful paralysis, which gives my book its title.
14:58That tolerance turns into intolerance against those whose concept of tolerance is broader or different.
15:05Do you have an example of that?
15:08Yes, in the last ten years we have seen the emergence of a societal mindset that is mistakenly called left-wing green.
15:20The right wing calls it left-wing green, or with emphasis such as left-wing green filthy or something like that.
15:26Well, let's just say I wouldn't call it left-wing, but a certain moralism about what you are allowed to say and what you are not allowed to say.
15:35And these people want an understandable motive: they want to defend liberal democracy against right-wing infiltration or the danger of the right wing coming to power and then establishing autocratic structures.
15:48But if you defend it in the way Nancy Faeser intended with her Democracy Promotion Act, which involves urging people to found associations and initiatives whose sole purpose is to scour the internet for information on who has made strange comments, in order to prosecute them if necessary...
16:07This creates a climate of denunciation.
16:10This means that, in order to protect liberal democracy, one does something that is actually poison for liberal democracy.
16:17And this is something we are experiencing, and it is not only criticized by the right wing, but it can also be criticized, as in my case, with left-liberal arguments, and it can be said that
16:26What a shame that we no longer have, for example, left-liberalism like that represented by Gerhard Baum, as previously advocated by Hildegard Hambrücher.
16:33Yes, they would have been very sensitive about that and would have said, we can't do something like that.
16:37Does such behavior ultimately create more ground for the right or the extreme left, i.e., for extreme positions?
16:48Yes, I believe that's indeed the case. I believe that the way the so-called center tries to protect liberal democracy is causing enormous resentment.
17:00because it can rightly be said that the range of acceptable opinions in public spaces is becoming increasingly narrow.
17:06And if you look at the political landscape in Germany, just 10 or 15 years ago, less than 10 percent of the population voted for parties considered fringe by the center.
17:19Back then, the Left Party got about 7 percent of the vote. The rest voted for centrist parties.
17:24If we look at opinion polls today, we still have about 60 percent and 40 percent in the middle; these are the opinion poll results for the AfD and the Left Party.
17:35who are no longer seen by the center as the center of society, but as the periphery.
17:40And this is partly due to how the center tries to defend the liberal values of democracy, namely partly with illiberal means.
17:49Now we wanted to talk about solutions. What might solutions look like?
17:53Of course, I would like to see significantly more social tolerance. We have a very good firewall in Germany.
18:00We've had that since the founding of the Federal Republic. You are not allowed to insult anyone in Germany.
18:05So, no defamation. You must not incite violence or engage in hate speech.
18:10And I think it's very, very good that these criminal offenses exist.
18:15But if we also start trying to close off the corridor of opinion regarding these four legally punishable offenses...
18:24and to fail to distinguish between what is permissible and what is impermissible, we are making a huge mistake.
18:28I am in favor of opening up the space for debate. I am also in favor of opening up the space for debate in the media.
18:34We had a very limited space for debate during the Corona pandemic.
18:38We had, and still have, a very limited space for debate regarding the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine.
18:43We have a very limited space for debate regarding Israel-Gaza.
18:47And in all these matters, I would like to see things done within the bounds of the law, that is, far removed from insults, defamation, and so on.
18:56It should be discussed as broadly as possible in society. But the opposite is true.
19:01There is one more point we would like to address, because there are some listener comments.
19:06For example, the story involving Robert Habeck and the discussion about the dimwit concerns Schmidt, Blecki Marie from Bruchsal or Karolin Storch from Überlingen.
19:15And Karolin Storch from Überlingen, for example, writes that they concealed the fact that the accused was charged with incitement to hatred.
19:21For God's sake, he isn't. There, dear listeners, you are falling prey to fake news.
19:27The Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation (Bayerischer Rundfunk) had once reported this. Felix Banerczak, the Green Party chairman, had said it on Markus Lanz's show.
19:34The claim that a complaint was filed for incitement to hatred is factually incorrect. You're falling prey to fake news.
19:41No, that didn't actually happen.
19:43What about Felix Banerczak?
19:44Felix Banerczak said on Lanz's show that the man had not yet had his house searched because of the term "idiot" or because of the "idiot" meme.
19:54But the man was reported for incitement to hatred. He had also allegedly committed many other right-wing acts and so on, or made certain statements.
20:02And it turns out that's simply not true. No, the house search really was because of the idiot meme.
20:08And this man from Bavaria is not known for or has been charged with incitement to hatred.
20:15Is it possible to determine to what extent Felix Banerczak made this statement? On what basis?
20:20Based on information. He had seen something that Bavarian Broadcasting had aired.
20:25And he said that based on this information, which unfortunately was incorrect.
20:29But this also shows that once a piece of misinformation is out there, it is still considered true afterwards.
20:36Yes, especially if it finds a receptive audience among some who are naturally pleased and think,
20:41Ah, so that's how it was. And then perhaps thinking of sympathy for Habeck,
20:45Oh yes, it wasn't so bad after all, and nothing bad happened or anything.
20:50Unfortunately, the facts speak against it.
20:52We are working on finding solutions to help society return to more meaningful discussions.
20:57And also things, you mentioned sensitivity, perhaps also learning to endure things more easily.
21:03What do you need there?
21:04Well, actually, what's needed is a different kind of upbringing.
21:08Children today, young people very often simply no longer learn with difficulties, with conflicts,
21:17to deal with things they don't like.
21:21And in this way we cultivate our sensitivity, which is beautiful on the one hand,
21:25It's very good that we can do that today compared to earlier times.
21:27On the other hand, we become oversensitive and lack any resilience to deal with it.
21:33When things go differently or don't suit us, we tend to feel attacked incredibly quickly.
21:38Yes, the magic word would be resilience. The problem is, appealing to parents is always ineffective.
21:43Many parents would probably disagree with you at this point.
21:46They say our children face so many challenges. School life is so difficult.
21:51We have reports about cyberbullying in the news.
21:54So the challenges are definitely there. Why do you say...?
21:58School life used to be much more difficult before concepts like toxic masculinity and cyberbullying and all that existed.
22:05I mean, there were also children in the past who were dissed in class, who were beaten up in the schoolyard, and so on.
22:11Of course, none of this is pleasant, but we don't want to pretend that these are all new phenomena.
22:15What has changed is that we are now, not entirely without justification, more sensitive to it than we used to be.
22:21That's actually a positive development.
22:22That's a positive development, I would say at any time.
22:25Only if, in the end, people emerge who have not learned to deal with resistance and enter a society that contains gigantic challenges and very, very big problems,
22:38Then they are not prepared for it and then they cannot handle it.
22:41That's the downside of what is actually a positive development.
22:44We recently had a lady on the show who deals with cyberbullying and bullying in general in schools, with children, and with parents.
22:52She coined the term "lawnmower parents".
22:55This means that parents preemptively eliminate problems for their children, resulting in fewer challenges.
23:01Yes, it is...
23:01That is...
23:01Your statement, namely that you sign it.
23:04I agree with that, and ultimately it's the narcissism of the parents.
23:08So this attitude, that one wants the children to...
23:11It's nice; every adult, if healthy, wants their children to love them.
23:16But doing everything you can to be the very best friend and make the children think you're absolutely wonderful, and so on,
23:22That is not the parents' responsibility.
23:24I mean, the biological purpose of parents is to make themselves redundant.
23:28And if the children then want to be friends with you afterwards, that's a great gift.
23:33But during upbringing, working towards the children being, in a sense, an extension of oneself,
23:39that they thus remain the innermost, most personal companions throughout their lives, and so on.
23:44We're overdoing it in that direction because we're not making the children resilient or mature enough this way.
23:51for this difficult future that lies ahead of them.
23:54In your essay "Angststillstand" (Stagnation of Fear), you write about what is needed when we look at the solutions.
24:00Brotherhood is a key word here.
24:02This is something we are currently experiencing in society.
24:04Some older people in particular complain that there used to be greater social cohesion.
24:10It doesn't really exist like that anymore.
24:12How do you get back there?
24:13Yes, well, first you have to understand why he's no longer there.
24:16It's not like older generations always think that younger generations have somehow lost their minds or something.
24:22It's not that simple.
24:24Rather, the decline in civic spirit in our society is a consequence of our economic system.
24:30And that, taking that second step, thinking that, is difficult for many people.
24:34because we have a very successful economic system.
24:37We have no alternative.
24:38We know of no practical alternative.
24:40But if everyone becomes their own capitalist, then they automatically become more of a competitor.
24:46who wants to be different from everyone else and actually needs to be different in life in order to succeed.
24:52And if everyone is different from each other, meaning everyone wants the same thing, to be different from the others,
24:57Where is any sense of community supposed to come from in that situation?
24:58This is actually a very, very logical development, where one simply has to be honest with oneself.
25:02that it arises from the structure of our economy, from what is now not only economic but also cultural capitalism.
25:10Nevertheless, everyone would naturally support the desire to maintain prosperity.
25:14Of course.
25:14And of course not now.
25:15The theory cannot be that, oh, when things are bad for us, we have a greater sense of community.
25:19Yes, well, it's actually true that if things were to get worse for us, it depends on how things would get worse for us.
25:25Community spirit would increase.
25:27Yes, for example, if we were in a war situation,
25:30then cultural capitalism would disappear quite quickly.
25:33The individual differences would no longer matter; the point is to include them.
25:37But that would be the scariest thought I can possibly imagine, that among other things,
25:43to preserve the sense of community in this country, embarking on a military adventure.
25:47I think everyone can agree that this is not a solution.
25:50No, that would not be a solution at all.
25:52I mean, this solidarity would be so terribly bought and paid for that I absolutely do not want it.
25:58How can we regain a sense of community in the current situation?
26:02Yes, well, I believe that every movement in society always brings about its own counter-movement.
26:08At the moment, we are seeing, in a sense, that Obama enabled Trump,
26:13Although he really didn't want that, one could say that what we call left-wing green,
26:17which made the AfD strong, which of course they did not want either,
26:21but which is, so to speak, the dialectical counter-reaction to that.
26:25And then, of course, I'm already asking myself the question for the future: what will follow the shift to the right?
26:29Yes, because I could certainly imagine that it could happen.
26:32that in three and a half years we will have the AfD in the government, and if not in three and a half years, then in the election after next.
26:37But that's not the end of the story.
26:40I mean, the AfD won't solve a single one of the problems we've talked about.
26:44and all the other economic problems that Germany has been able to solve.
26:47And then the question is, what would be the reasonable common sense, so to speak?
26:51to which one can then return after these mistakes.
26:54So I'm actually already starting to think about what I'll be like in ten years.
26:58As a philosophical generalist, are there any solutions that can be found in history?
27:04I think that's quite difficult.
27:09So we can of course recognize certain basic patterns from history.
27:12And that shows us how opportunistic people are.
27:15And we can also recognize this by the fact that when countries experience economic decline,
27:20Radical solutions are being sought.
27:21Unfortunately, we have far too many historical examples of this, not only in German history.
27:25But we don't really have such a philosophical magic bullet.
27:30But I would be happy if there were many more colleagues,
27:32If there were many more intellectuals, whether in the public sector or at universities,
27:37who might be thinking about it,
27:39how we actually get back into a society,
27:42in which community spirit can be strengthened
27:44and how a liberal democracy can be strengthened in its fundamental values.
27:49Even when they fulfill the promise of prosperity,
27:53that this country has been held together for so long.
27:55That was the common denominator, the shared sense of community in this country was the increasing prosperity.
28:01However, you write in your essay,
28:03that universities in particular are no longer a place of freedom of expression
28:07and complain about it.
28:07We'll talk about that in the next round.
28:09Richard David Brecht among us SNS people.
28:20We wanted to talk about universities,
28:23Actually, they should write about places of freedom of expression.
28:24They are being appropriated to support a particular worldview.
28:28To what extent have you determined this?
28:33Yes, it is interesting.
28:34Universities used to be similar to art,
28:37Society's experimental laboratories,
28:40in which future boldness should be considered.
28:45And on the one hand, we have through the massive empiricalization
28:48social sciences
28:49We have experienced a very strong depoliticization of our universities.
28:53And on the other hand, there are many examples of this,
28:56how narrow the corridors of opinion have become at universities.
28:59So, precisely where one would say,
29:01These are the natural spaces for debate within a society,
29:04where the new and the different also have their place
29:07and can be thought of, that's precisely what we no longer have.
29:10A famous example is that at Humboldt University
29:14a researcher was invited who holds the thesis that
29:17There are two genders, and only two.
29:20So, whether you agree with this or not,
29:21That's something we can discuss.
29:23And that's something we should discuss.
29:24And there's plenty of room for debate.
29:26but to uninvite someone because that is obvious
29:28is a politically untenable opinion
29:30This demonstrates such profound intolerance.
29:33Especially at a university,
29:35which is precisely what the debate space is supposed to be.
29:37You can invite the researcher
29:38and if one has a different opinion,
29:40Then you can have a friendly discussion with her about it.
29:42But that opinions are excluded
29:44and then another opinion,
29:45which is probably shared by 90 percent of the population,
29:48That's absurd.
29:49Is this a phenomenon that occurs more frequently?
29:51They are now coming up with one example,
29:52That instead of discussion, the disinvitation is being handled?
29:56Yes, this has happened more than once.
29:59This happens quite often, or sometimes you don't even get invited in the first place.
30:01or certain debates,
30:03which should not even take place there in the first place.
30:05Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
30:06And our universities have lost this role,
30:11Basically, to move society forward.
30:14That's due to the way it's done.
30:16how professors are selected.
30:18Great importance is placed on this.
30:19not to promote overly contentious spirits
30:22or to take up professorships,
30:24out of fear that he might rub someone the wrong way.
30:25or there could be trouble.
30:27And the university is worried it might get a bad reputation.
30:29If he says anything again.
30:30Why is all this happening?
30:31Because the range of acceptable opinions is so narrow.
30:33If the range of opinions were wider,
30:34University directors would also need them.
30:37The chancellors, rectors, and deans are no longer afraid.
30:39But they do.
30:40Wouldn't it be the very core responsibility of university administrations to say,
30:45Well, cancelling is not an option for us.
30:47but we bring these different views together
30:49and we'll let the discussion begin.
30:52because that's the space where we also learn how to have discussions.
30:54That's what I wish for,
30:56But these people are afraid.
30:58They are afraid it will backfire on them.
31:00It reflects badly on the university,
31:02There's a shitstorm going on somewhere,
31:03There is outrage,
31:04The university needs to clarify or set straight something.
31:07because some opinion was expressed,
31:08which the university doesn't officially share, and so on.
31:12That's the big problem.
31:13We were just talking about resilience.
31:15Of course it's nice,
31:17If the resilience of each individual were strengthened,
31:19But what is a hundred times, no, a thousand times more important,
31:21Is this the resilience of those in positions of responsibility?
31:24that is, from program directors,
31:26from publishing directors,
31:28by exhibition organizers,
31:30from university officials,
31:32These are the people who are being addressed most of all.
31:34to be more resilient
31:35and don't be afraid immediately,
31:36to have their own job,
31:38If, during a conversation at the university, sentences are perhaps uttered,
31:40the others think
31:41They should scandalize them.
31:43That's simply part of an open debate space.
31:45Yes, and that was once its very own task,
31:48to stand up for the debate.
31:49So, is this your appeal to those in positions of responsibility?
31:53These debates used to take place.
31:54Well, we didn't have that problem 20 years ago.
31:57There used to be a public broadcasting service,
31:59he indulged himself on the left side,
32:00a Klaus Bettnarz
32:02who was definitely very left-wing
32:04or a Gabriele Krone-Schmalz.
32:06And on the other side of the spectrum
32:08There was a Gerhard Löwenthal
32:10my parents
32:11the one they saw on television
32:12the milk turns sour,
32:15the beer goes flat,
32:16Löwenthal is speaking on television.
32:17Yes, that was a very, very, very proper church service.
32:21And both took place on public broadcasting.
32:24They are now calling for more moral humility.
32:27How can this be obtained?
32:28Yes, more tolerance of opinions in general,
32:31within the limits defined above.
32:34Of course, no racist remarks or anything like that.
32:36We are in complete agreement on that.
32:38So, everything that is rightly considered a criminal offense.
32:41But I wish,
32:42that we with more reason
32:45and less moralizing in these debates,
32:48because we,
32:48Morality is a fine and good thing,
32:50but we are using morality immorally,
32:54when we moralize everything.
32:56Then we come to society
32:57into a total standstill
32:58and prevent
32:59that this society in which direction
33:01and can continue to develop.
33:03And that is completely unhealthy.
33:05I mean, that would be terrible,
33:06When we come to the economic standstill,
33:08in which we are currently getting into,
33:09also resulting in a societal standstill,
33:12in which we no longer even consider alternatives
33:14or via other variants
33:16or about major changes
33:17We are allowed to think within the social system.
33:20This must not happen.
33:21Then we really are a dying society,
33:23if it comes down to that.
33:25Sensitivity can only be increased,
33:27as composure increases,
33:28Richard David Precht.
33:29That's a sentence from your essay "Angststand" (Anxiety Standstill).
33:32They've certainly had their fair share of shitstorms.
33:34have to endure it.
33:35How did you become more relaxed?
33:37Oh yes, I'm a wolf now,
33:39who has already seen a lot of snow.
33:41And at some point you realize,
33:44You don't die from that anymore.
33:46So it is still the case,
33:47Every shitstorm is unpleasant.
33:50One never becomes so insensitive,
33:52that one couldn't care less.
33:54Then you would be a sociopath.
33:56So in that sense, it always affects you deeply.
33:58But eventually you learn,
34:00to assess what is realistic.
34:01And I don't want to say,
34:04that one learns with it,
34:05to handle it calmly
34:06but more relaxed than before.
34:08Many comments are coming in
34:10the listeners in.
34:11I would like to pick up on what Tanja Weißer said.
34:13She writes,
34:14We urgently need to practice flexibility again.
34:17Will this fit in there?
34:19Yes, so be more flexible,
34:22less rigid, less encrusted.
34:24You simply have to consider this,
34:25Life is always,
34:27To paraphrase Hegel,
34:27a balancing act between the poetry of the heart
34:30and the prose of circumstances.
34:32In earlier times, people
34:34with the idea that
34:35Life is not a wish-granting machine,
34:37grew up.
34:37That means,
34:38They therefore have the actual power
34:39the prose of the circumstances accepted.
34:42Today it's the other way around.
34:43Today, the poetry of the heart reigns.
34:45and we get annoyed,
34:46that the world is not like that,
34:47how we feel them.
34:49And this completely one-sided focus
34:51on one's own emotionality
34:53leads into the trap
34:55of eternal moralizing
34:56and moralism.
34:57And you have to think about one thing,
34:59If one now argues from a moral perspective,
35:01And morality is an important thing,
35:02I want to make the world a better place with it.
35:04or I want to show others,
35:05That I'm good?
35:07These are two completely different things.
35:09Yes, so at the moment it is governing
35:10the ethics of conviction.
35:11Good intentions count.
35:13and whether the good intention
35:14ultimately leads to something good
35:16or perhaps to an insane
35:17defiant counter-reaction
35:18for example, the rise of the right wing,
35:20That's not even being considered.
35:22And I advocate for
35:23that we from this ethics of conviction
35:25Go outside after overexertion
35:27and more again
35:28to take a position based on ethical responsibility
35:32where we stand in our moral demands
35:34and with our moral sensitivities
35:36always ask questions
35:38What will that achieve in the medium term?
35:40socially?
35:42Because often, tracking can
35:43a good intention
35:44in the end, they turn into the complete opposite.
35:47And for that I would like to say a little bit
35:48reopen consciousness.
35:50Yes, and argue more about the issue itself.
35:52than the actual people.
35:54Yes, that's the worst part.
35:55in our present time,
35:56because everyone is personally affected,
35:57People are always being shot at.
36:00We decontextualize sentences.
36:02Yes, someone said something somewhere.
36:03We grab each other,
36:04regardless of the context,
36:05a single sentence out,
36:07to be outraged by it beyond measure.
36:09See Merz with the cityscape.
36:10We are shooting at the people.
36:12We assume Merz,
36:13He would be a racist
36:14and who knows what else, and so on.
36:16It is good,
36:16when we discuss our cities.
36:18And it's very, very sad,
36:20that our Chancellor
36:21made not a single suggestion
36:23how he wants to improve the cityscape.
36:25So, and about that we can
36:26They are right to discuss this.
36:27We can also accuse him of that,
36:28that he says nothing about it.
36:30We would like to have that
36:30listened to something concrete.
36:32These are all legitimate discussions.
36:34They're good too.
36:35But to pull out the maximum hammer,
36:37Racism and someone as a human being
36:39to discredit to the point of no return,
36:42That doesn't solve a single one.
36:43social problem.
36:44Regarding the approach to a solution
36:45Then quote again
36:46Her fellow philosopher Svenja Flasbühler,
36:49who said,
36:50who wants to prevent enmity,
36:51He must allow opposition.
36:52And that can be one approach.
36:54This is a very central point.
36:55and one very important sentence.
36:56Yes, that's a sentence.
36:57Basically, one would have to...
36:59to be engraved in the Bundestag.
37:02Yes, that's a big sentence.
37:03Anyone who wants to prevent enmity,
37:05must allow opposition.
37:07Or as Helmut Schmidt says,
37:08a democracy
37:09where there is no arguing,
37:10is not one.
37:11Yes, and there is a difference.
37:13between argument and strife.
37:14We are a democracy,
37:15who argues constantly.
37:18Those who are not involved in the matter,
37:20Yes, with different views
37:22deals with
37:24but those against persons
37:26which in turn are directed against people
37:27are directed, quarreling.
37:29And we need to get out of this squabble.
37:30and into the productive debate.
37:32Then I say thank you very much.
37:33for the visit this morning
37:35in S1 people.
37:36Yes, thank you so much for the conversation.
37:38Thank you.
37:43Thank you.
Schreibe den ersten Kommentar