
English: 
I want to begin with something that Churchill wrote in the 1930s.  And he said this:
"One of the signs of a great society is the diligence with which it passes culture from one generation to the next.
"When one generation no longer
"passes on the things that are dear to it -- it's
"heroes and their stories in its religious faith -- it's in effect saying that past is null and void.  It's of no value."
He goes on to say: "That leaves young people feeling a lack of direction and a lack of purpose, and
"opens them to the dictum of Karl Marx -- that our people, derived of their history, are easily persuaded."
Have we stripped our young people of purpose and meaning, and left them open to being bullied around?  Well there's

Croatian: 
Želim početi, s nečim što je Churchill napisao.
1930-tih. I rekao je ovo...
Jedan od znakova velikog društva
je marljivost s kojom ono prenosi kulturu
s jedne generacije na sljedeću.
...''Kada jedna generacija više
ne prenosi stvari koje su joj drage
njene junake, njihove priče u svojim religioznim borbama
tada time efektivno poručuje da je prošlost sada ništavna
bez vrijednosti je.
Nastavlja dalje govoreći - to ostavlja mlade ljude
s osjećajem nedostatka smijera,
nedostatka svrhe, i otvara ih
riječju Karla Marxa
zbog koje su naši ljudi ispražnjeni od svoje povijesti lako uvjereni.
Jesmo li ogolili od svrhe naše mlade ljude, i mnoge druge
I ostavili ih otvorene da budu zlostavljani uokolo
Pa

Croatian: 
Postoje dvije stvari u vezi toga
za koje ja mislim
da su zaista vrijedne izložiti ovdje
prva je analiza svrhe sjećanja
sada, pošto ljudi misle da je svrha sjećanja da zapamtimo prošlost
A to nije svrha sjećanja.
Svrha sjećanja je da izvučemo iz prošlosti
lekcije da strukturiramo budućnost
i to je svrha osobnoga sjećanja, i tako da ste završili
sa sjećanjem kada ste izvukli sve informacije koje možete upotrijebiti
da vodite sebe u odgovarajuću budućnost. Tako ako imate traumatično sjećanje
za primjer, koje vas stvarno opsjeda
ako analizirate sjećanje
do točke kada
shvatite kako ste se stavili u rizik
i možete odrediti kako izbjeći to u budućnosti.
tada i emocije povezane s time odlaze.
Tako da, sjećanja imaju pragmatičnu funkciju.
I sjećanja kulture ista stvar
radi se o potrebi za izvaditi priče iz naše prošlosti
da strukturiramo našu budućnost. I trebamo to zbog
pa prije svega, ako nemate svrhu recimo

English: 
there's two things about that, that I think are really worth worth laying out.  The first is an analysis of the purpose of memory.
Now because people think that the purpose of memory is to remember the past, and
that's NOT the purpose of memory.  The purpose of memory is to extract, out from the past, lessons to structure the future.  And that
that's the purpose of 'personal' memory.
And so you're done with a memory when you've extracted out the information that you can use to guide yourself
properly in the future.  So if you have a 'traumatic' memory, for example, that's really obsessing you -- if you
analyze that memory to the point where you figured out how you put yourself at risk and you can determine
how you might avoid that in the future, then the emotion associated with that goes away.
So memory has a very pragmatic function
and 'cultural' memory is the same thing.  Is that
we need to extract out stories from our past that structure our future.  And we need that because

English: 
first of all, if you don't have a purpose, let's say, it isn't that your life becomes neutral in a meaningless sense;
it's that your life becomes
characterized by unbearable suffering,
because the baseline condition of life is something like unbearable suffering.  And what you have to set against that is a noble and
worthwhile purpose.  And hopefully
hopefully your determination of that purpose is buttress -- to some degree -- by the wisdom of the past, because you can't conjure something like that up
on your own.  And if you provide people with
nobility of purpose, then they can tolerate the suffering of existence without becoming entirely corrupted by it.  And
cultures that don't do that..it isn't even so much that they die, it's that cultures that don't do that are DEAD.
They're DONE.
They don't have a story anymore.  And they don't have a call to adventure.  And then, well, then everyone suffers stupidly as a consequence.
It's a very bad thing.  So
Churchill made the same observation that many of the great psychologists and philosophers made in the early part of the 20th century.  It's like:
Bring the story forward.  And

Croatian: 
nije da vaš život postaje neutralan
u značajnom smislu
već je da vaš život postane karakteriziran nepodnošljivom patnjom
jer je osnovno-stanje života
nešto poput nepodnošljive patnje
i ono što trebaš postaviti protiv toga je
plemenita i vrijedna-truda svrha
i nadajmo se određenje
te svrhe je poduprto do određene mjere mudrošću prošlosti
jer nemožeš stvoriti nešto tako sam od sebe
i ako snadbjevate ljude plemenitošću i svrhom
tada oni mogu podnositi
patnju postojanja bez da postanu u potpunosti iskvareni njom
i kulture koje to ne rade
nije čak ni toliko da umru, već su kulture
koje to ne rade mrtve
one su gotove!
Nemaju priču više. Nemaju poziv na avanturu.
a tada, svi pate glupo u posljedici.
to je veoma loša stvar, tako da je Churchill
učinio isto zapažaje koje su mnogi veliki psiholozi
i filozofi učinili u ranom djelu 20. stoljeća, to je kao
donošenje priče unaprijed

Croatian: 
i propagirti je, i učiniti je najplemenitijom mogućom pričom
I onda motiviraš ljude
da učine, da nadiđu sebe, što trebaju učiniti
tako da -da. On je točno pogodio u svojoj dijagnozi.

English: 
and propagate it.  And make it the most noble possible story.
And then you motivate people to transcend themselves -- which they need to do.  So yes,
he's exactly right in his diagnosis.
