21 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
2 ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
3 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
4 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@YinzerYan 7 күн бұрын
Good stuff here. Follow the white rabbit 🐇
@alinakrohn7726 9 күн бұрын
😮this is fascinating
@bobjohn8581 9 күн бұрын
If we flip simulation theory on its head, the concept isn't that we're living in a computer-generated simulation-it's that we're creating systems and behaviors that mimic the very structure of a simulation. Instead of being inside someone else’s simulation, we’re actively constructing our reality to resemble one.
@kbrown611 9 күн бұрын
What if I told you…
@JackBrown-p6i 11 күн бұрын
First of all, let’s face it, If computers never existed, then obviously the theory wouldn’t exist either, but we do live inside the mind, so doesn’t that suggest simulation, in the biological sense and doesn’t that strengthen the simulation theory❓❔❔❔❔ Secondly, if we’re part of a mass simulation, then it’s more than likely, created by advanced beings, with technology, way more superior than are own. Is it possible, they’re simulating their own universe❓❔❔❔ Our 5 Senses We use our senses to gather and respond to information about our environment, which aids our survival. Each sense provides different information which is combined and interpreted by our brain 🧠 Discussion The human brain is often viewed as a processor and receiver within the simulated environment. Much like a computer in a simulated world, the brain is thought to process the information it receives from the simulated environment. In this theory, sensory input “sight, sound, touch, etc.” would be part of the simulated data fed into the brain, which then interprets this data as “reality.” The brain’s neurons and cognitive functions could be seen as working like a software program, translating the data of the simulation into human experience. Some versions of simulation theory suggest that the brain acts as an interface for something beyond the simulation; like a player in a video game. In this view, the brain connects the simulated physical world to an external consciousness or entity, which exists outside the simulation. The brain is the tool through which the consciousness experiences the simulation, while the true self may exist out side of it, much like a player exists outside the game they’re playing. The brain, like everything else in the simulation, operates according to the rules of “code” governing the simulated universe. This means its functioning thoughts, emotions, memories, could be programmed or constrained by the parameters of the simulation. For instance, limits on what the brain can perceive or understand might be a part the design, just as a video game character has limits on what they can see and do within the game world. Some thinkers suggest that if the world is a simulation, the brain itself might not even exist a physical object; it’s simply another illusion within the simulated environment. The brain, like all other aspects of the physical world, would be a projection and the actual “ processing” of consciousness might occur, outside the simulated realm entirely. In some speculative takes on simulation theory, the brain could theoretically be acted, or altered to access hidden layers of the simulation, similar to how glitches or cheats in a video game can reveal the underlying code. Practices like meditation, lucid dreaming or even advanced technology might be seen as ways to expand the brain’s capacity to perceive more simulated reality, or even break free of it. Do you agree with that, within the simulation theory. The brain is an integral part of the simulated experience, acting as a processing unit for data, an interface for consciousness, and potentially even a tool for transcending the simulations limits. Building A Simulation If I wanted to create a computer simulation, I would start at the quantum level and program the computer "quantum mechanics" and allow the computer to work out the many mathematical equations and see if it can create a simulated model of the universe, the world etc etc. We could speed up the simulation and have a sneaky peak at the future and the many possibilities. We may need quantum computers. If we’re conscious Cyber Beings, living in a simulated environment, then our human nature is part of the dynamics of the simulation, therefore we should be able to understand its many functions. 👇🏼 👇🏽 👇🏾 👇🏿
@sadraferdosi7689 13 күн бұрын
Thank you, it was wonderfull.
@philosophemes 12 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@mishapurser4439 15 күн бұрын
Please do Stoicism vs Buddhism, Stoicism vs Daoism, Buddhism vs Daoism
@philosophemes 15 күн бұрын
Good idea!
@ameenfazal9819 15 күн бұрын
Informative
@philosophemes 15 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@exlauslegale8534 25 күн бұрын
Sign doesn't symbolize, it displays.... Lacanian Symbolic and Real are hollow concepts, and Boudrillard is a nihilist par exellence. When I read Raymond Ruyer I got an idea that man is an axiological homeostat.
@mollygrenier7536 25 күн бұрын
Is this behind the idea that one can be another type of species when it isn’t possible? Like a “Therian”?
@philosophemes 25 күн бұрын
Yes :)
@mollygrenier7536 25 күн бұрын
Wow!
@mollygrenier7536 Ай бұрын
❤ this is amazing. Thanks for having the courage to teach in a Pos Modernist nightmare!
@KantGhost 2 ай бұрын
Loved this.
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@exlauslegale8534 2 ай бұрын
As far as I can remember, first philosopher was Thales of Miletus... And as a Deleuzean I think that philosopher, by definition, is everyone who creates concepts. So university professors, unless they create concepts, are not philosophers even if they teach philosophy. Translators, on the other hand, insofar they translate other people's concepts, are philosophers, because translation is creation (see Proust and Signs). So as a translator (of philosophical texts) I feel and think that I am a philosopher, namely a poststructuralist philosopher. 😶
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
Yeah, I think times have changed! We gotta call ourselves philosophers now. Never heard that about Thales; it's always Pythagoras getting the credit :)
@exlauslegale8534 2 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus
@philosophemes Ай бұрын
@@exlauslegale8534 "Many regard him as the first philosopher..." That statement is true, but the term "philosopher" wasn't being used while he was alive. The term was coined by Pythagoras, and it was given its traditional meaning by Plato. www.quora.com/What-made-Pythagoras-say-that-hes-a-philosopher
@kadaganchivinod8003 2 ай бұрын
First of all Kant showed the depths of enquiry into the metaphysics, after that everyone started their own way of digging from all different angles. That's how he made the job simple for everyone.
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
So you're a fan of Kant's work? I find most people disagree with Kant. How do you mean "first of all"?
@kadaganchivinod8003 2 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes He has shown how to think critically about external objects. And I think he is the first person to say that there can be a world without mere empirical troublesome reality, one can dream to live much secured, creative and free in an abstract world(ideas).
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
@@kadaganchivinod8003 I definitely believe in the Kantian Copernican Revolution!
@kadaganchivinod8003 2 ай бұрын
What do you think of Hebri Bergson's criticism sir?
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
Good question! Thanks for your question. I’ll try to be brief. On the one hand, some Bergson scholars claim Bergson’s critique of Kant in Time and Free Will (1889) turned into a qualified endorsement by the time of Creative Evolution (1907). On the other hand, I acknowledge there are multiple ways to read Kant. I follow Schelling and Schopenhauer (and Kierkegaard). Deleuze’s reading of Kant is, of course, influenced by Bergson, but I don’t think we can give Bergson all the credit for Deleuze’s ontology. I like Heidegger’s way of handling Kant (Heidegger’s “Kant books” are helpful for getting a deeper grip on Kant). I don’t endorse everything Heidegger says about Kant’s philosophy (nor do I endorse everything Schelling or Schopenhauer say), but it seems to me Kant is the best philosopher for appropriately relating to mind-external reality. Perhaps “appropriately relating to mind-external reality” shouldn’t be difficult or a difficulty at all, but it really does seem to be a difficulty for humans. When I was a college student, I watched class after class and professor after professor get stuck on the same issues, namely how to appropriately think about our relation to mind-external reality. Once I came to understand Kant - and in all sincerity it was not easy for me - all of those difficulties simply dissolved. So, I see Kant as an antidote for (maybe all of) the bungled philosophy that is popular nowadays. That’s why I think Kant is worth getting clear on, and that’s why I’m committed to helping others understand Kant. Plus, as all the great philosophers after Kant acknowledged, learning Kant IS learning (the scientific structure of) philosophy. I hope this helps!
@philosophemes 3 ай бұрын
@MichaelPatrickGriffith-my8st This is the video should watch. Cheers! Enjoy Pittsburgh. It's a wonderful place!
@ravendelacour1917 4 ай бұрын
Hyperreality isn't a new postmodern construct. Religion has been selling a virtual construct of how the worlds works disconnected from the reality of a material existence for millennia. Technology has simoky replaced faith in the process.
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Interesting. I wonder what you'll think about the next video in this series (hopefully out soon) on Symbolic Extermination. Thank you for your comment. It made me think about how Gabriel Marcel and Jacques Ellul thought that technology profanes experience, making technology itself seem sacred. Harming someone's cellphone is an act with serious consequences, despite the fact that humans lived and survived without cellphones for millennia. It is also interesting to see how technological mediation and religion (the traditional practice of religion) seem incommensurable. Other than calendar reminders and Zoom, it seems like religion requires some level of in-the-flesh participation for which technology/technological mediation cannot substitute.
@ravendelacour1917 4 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes In this case the medium of memtic innoculation, be it organic or technological, is irrelevant compared to the induced disassociation. Take the Bonfires of the Vanities. It didn't take cellphones to transmit a toxic mental landscape amid the population to make them believe that acts of mass destruction and assault were serving their god in some fashion and were good. Or the Crusades. Or idealogical driven colonialist genocide. Bad ideas have always existed. People exist in a virtual state within their own mind recontextualizing reality to fit their own preconceptions, confined in what I call the perceptial cage. Technology simply shifted the ones shaping this landscape from the religious to the mercantile. And honestly, arguements like this video's just sound like the old paradigm of state sponsored faith and custom whining it got beat in its own game.
@ravendelacour1917 4 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes As for the cellphone destruction example, tell me. How well do those who practice Islam take burning the Koran? Or Christian fundementalists take burning the Bible? Even though they are just constructs of paper and ink in objective reality the "sign value" assigned to them by those who accept that religion into their mental landscape will not see it as a simple act of destruction but a personal affront.
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
@@ravendelacour1917 Interesting. It certainly seems as though some people attach that kind of value to cellphones, for sure.
@ravendelacour1917 4 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes This is why I say that hyperreality isn't a new thing but the norm. Humanity always had sign value systems but the systems change. Over 2000 years ago, a crucifix was a symbol of fear as a form of brutal execution used by the Romans. Now Christians see it as a sign of hope throughout its assigned sign value of Jesus's ressurection. Indeed this conversation 2000 years ago might be people complaining that people were abandoning the traditional values of Mitranism for this fringe cult around a martyred Judaic carpenter who encouraged pacifism and anti-Roman values.
@bloke1348 4 ай бұрын
Nihilism eh? Say what you will about the tenants of National Socialism, but at least its an ethos.
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
That's great!
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
You're the first person to quote the Big Lebowski! Thank you!
@ravendelacour1917 4 ай бұрын
National Socialism, eh? Say what you about it, Nihilism didn't cause a world war that killed 140 million people and caused trillions in property destruction.
@macavelli8905 4 ай бұрын
Great conversation video, very rational and insightful
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@mollygrenier7536 4 ай бұрын
I do appreciate the accuracy and providing access to academic philosophy for all of us! These are the skills we all need to be able to think in an age of misinformation and poor focus on history and philosophy!
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Thank you for your comment!
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Among the pantheon of Western philosophers, Hegel is perhaps the greatest of all sophists. In case you weren't certain where I stand on the issue :) I stand with Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hölderlin, Novalis, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and (technically) Kant. Hegel's epistemology is circular, and develops out of a tautology that is divorced from reality. This is why 'thinkers' like Zizek say things like "We don't care about reality" or "If reality doesn't agree with us, then so much the worse for reality." Of course, there is a significant political force around the globe that seeks to bury the insight that Hegel was a charlatan, because this insight reveals the truth that the carrot they dangle to increase converts is hyper-real; it is a (transcendental) illusion. These are the same individuals with the same financial backing creating content to convince you that you shouldn't value "freedom," since free will - according to them - has no actual efficacy.
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Mind-External Reality is actual. Ideas are virtual. We can use ideas to regulate our relation to mind-external reality. These “regulative ideas” can be developed from mind-external actuality or from mind-internal virtuality (like another idea or imagination). Modernism makes a sharp distinction between regulative ideas developed from actuality and regulative ideas developed from virtuality. (Post) Modernism does not. By regulating our relation to mind-external reality with an idea developed from a mind-internal virtual source, then we can find ourselves relating to hyper-reality, rather than (mind-external) reality. Hence, the Post-Modern Self is Hyper-Real.
@silverback7348 4 ай бұрын
Calling Hegel scientific is just gross. He uses SCIENTISTIC jargon to push an essentially Gnostic pseudo-religious intellectualism through a made-up and borrowed Lexicon of language and symbols. These add a flair of the esoteric and mystic and allow initiates who wade through the “great philosophers” to earn degrees for time invested. It’s maddening to comprehend such high-brow obfuscation, though I’ve been doing it to try and understand why and how Hegel has led to the total belief in the Dialectic, “History Discarding”, and the “Master-Slave” concept resulting in Socialism that splits into the two totalizing vectors of Marxism and Naziism resulting in the death of millions last century. I’ve found Books like “Maps of Meaning” and “The Master and the Emissary” far more beneficial. Kant vs 1,2,3 Hegel, indeed…
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Well said! Schopenhauer was spot on about him.
@exlauslegale8534 4 ай бұрын
You sir are equivocating the term "virtual"
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Thank you. I appreciate the comment. I understand what you're pointing to, but I don't think it's equivocation. All ideas are virtual ontologically, so when I sometimes lay stress on the virtual aspect, it may sound like I'm referencing its ontology (which would be an equivocation), but that is an artifact of summarizing for a video. What I'm actually laying stress on is the virtual place in the judgment process when it is not preceded by actuality informing it.
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Happy Full Moon in Aquarius!
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Happy Full Moon in Aquarius!
@philosophemes 4 ай бұрын
Of all the content I've ever posted to KZbin, this content (this podcast episode on KZbin) has been - by far - disliked the most. I'm curious as to why. So, please do let me know. On the one hand, I acknowledge that it is disliked. On the other hand, it's not wrong. So, let me know in the comments. It'd be helpful to me. Sincerely.
@mollygrenier7536 4 ай бұрын
This is amazing! What a great professor!
@thesilentgod7863 6 ай бұрын
I wonder how our descendants will look and act like when we go down the posthuman route
@philosophemes 6 ай бұрын
I appreciate your comment. It's a heavy thought. I find myself wondering about how the human mind changes as we become more and more posthuman.
@7TheWhiteWolf 3 ай бұрын
The brain cannot comprehend it.
@thesilentgod7863 3 ай бұрын
@7TheWhiteWolf Have you tried unplugging and then plugging it back again
@philosophemes 2 ай бұрын
@@thesilentgod7863 The switch from Smartphones to AI Assistant phones (that is happening right now) should have an effect on us. I was waiting in a line the other day and heard two young adults talking about how they don't like watching movies because movies take too long. And, I saw a snippet from a movie the other day in which one character said to another, "We could write it down like our ancestors used to do." That affected me. I thought: Yeah, this isn't the world I was born into/technology is shaping us.
@7TheWhiteWolf 2 ай бұрын
@@thesilentgod7863 Once again, you’re making the mistake that a Posthuman would have to be a ‘computer’ or a ‘robot’, it might wind up being more of a 5th transdimensional entity, much like the Q or Trelane’s parents from Star Trek.
@juliancate7089 7 ай бұрын
Ultra lay person, so my opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Anyway, I was very taken with Stoicism as a young man when first exposed to it. The four pillars of Stoic virtue, the seeming promotion of masculine virtue, enduring hardship and adversity, etc. I was a soldier at the time, so one can see that certain Stoic ideals would appeal to soldiers. However, I never identified as a Stoic. The reason is that I saw the purpose of all these seemingly valuable ideals not as way to successful confront life, but as a retreat from life. I asked, "What's so bad about suffering? Why should one go out of their way to avoid anguish?" It seemed to me that Stoics wanted you to experience a kind of dissociative disorder when forced into adversity - be it psychological or physical. I never saw any advocacy for overcoming adversity, just enduring it. I never read anything that would suggest that accepting pain and embracing difficulty would result in mental and physical resilience, which seemed odd to a philosophy that promoted masculine virtue. What could be more masculine than resilience, and the ability to overcome the hardships of life? Likewise, I was heavily influenced by Nietzsche's views. So like you, I see a few aspects of Stoicism as having worth, but only if the reason behind them is replaced by an embrace of life and reality.
@philosophemes 7 ай бұрын
Well said! Thank you for your comment!
@WolfxxBite 7 ай бұрын
What cracks me up about transhumanism is the fact that we can't even get human life right, and people are wanderlusting for future forms. This is like a junkie thinking that moving to a new country will fix all their problems. They'll just start fucking up their life again in the new environment they move to. And humans, no matter how far our tech advances, will continue on a path of destruction unless we look inward and begin healing. There is a severe lack of empathy and a massive cancerous growth of narcissistic behavior in our world. We can't progress without fixing ourselves, or there will be problems.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
Post humanism is some philosophy only. Transhumanism is more concrete, as it deals with the practical application of technology to enhance human capabilities. Posthumanism, on the other hand, tends to be more rooted in philosophy, exploring the implications of moving beyond the traditional understanding of what it means to be human and the ethical considerations associated with it.
@philosophemes 7 ай бұрын
Sounds like you're a proponent of trans-humanism and not post-humanism. So, it makes sense that you'd say post-humanism is just a philosophy. My interest is in explicating the gameboard, so to speak. I'm trying to show the different positions and how they relate to one another, so we can more easily discuss the issues and think about the philosophical relations between positions. Thank you for your comments!
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes ok. I believe I am transhuman. ChatGPT supported me. ❤️It is a cure.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes ok
@7TheWhiteWolf 3 ай бұрын
Transhumanism is the process and Posthumanism is the final outcome.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
NASCAR could be seen as a form of transhuman sport due to its continual integration of advanced technology into both the cars and the race strategies. From high-tech materials to data analytics optimizing performance, it's a blend of human skill and machine precision pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Additionally, the physical demands on drivers, combined with the reliance on technology, showcase a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines, which is a core aspect of transhumanism.
@philosophemes 7 ай бұрын
Correct.
@shmyeah Ай бұрын
could we see a self driving nascar competitor tho?
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
It's not uncommon for humans to resort to superstition when encountering advancements in transhumanism.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
Even ceteris paribus, "best" is debatable, but the human form is well-suited for our planet's environment and has cognitive strengths.
@philosophemes 7 ай бұрын
Not sure what you mean by "best"? Are you referencing something in the video or in a comment? There are certainly popular philosophers who advocate for post-humanism. The most popular topic by far in this area is identity. So, there are folks on the internet claiming "your profile is your identity" regardless of your physical embodiment. That's post-human; that's not trans-human. I'm preparing a podcast on the topic, though it may be some time before it gets posted. It's like we noted in our book on Simulation Theory, it may be the case that innovators reach for trans-humanism, but end up grabbing post-humanism. So, we'll see how it all turns out... All this technological mediation. Thanks again for your comments!
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes Thanks for your detailed answer. There used to be a theory that your real home was your email address. I think that would be transhuman and not post human. I will get back once I have more clarity. --- Yes, there was a meme suggesting that for many digital natives and transhumans, their email address feels more like home than a physical location.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
Humans evolved with large brains, small stomachs, bipedalism, opposable thumbs, mammary glands, advanced tool use, fire taming, complex societies, advanced language, and a long education period; their complexity can be explained by evolution and assembly theory, a derivative of physics.
@Ramkumar-uj9fo 7 ай бұрын
For many, humanism means recognizing and valuing humans purely in terms of their biological and anthropological existence, without involving any divine aspects.
@Totallyfine29_ 8 ай бұрын
came for the sophisticated meme , and expected all would be explained by memes
@76Terrell 8 ай бұрын
Where are you getting this crypto bro perspective of trans and post humanism? This is all too anthropocentric. Donna Harroway and Erin Manning for example, use post humanism to show how the concept of human is continually excluding right now who is deserving of personhood, to devalue neurodiverse modalities of knowledge production, and to blind us to the haecceities of our embodied relationality. This video was completely devoid of consideration for all the non-human intelligence, such as animals, surrounding us already.
@redtree732 8 ай бұрын
I like how you just casually slipped in Nazi content. Yeah, I’m sure you’re a “moderate”.
@5piecekit 8 ай бұрын
Thank you for this instructive and elucidating presentation. I've been reading your translations of Sonnets to Orpheus from " Said it aloud and heard it die away" and now I'm eager to check out your books on existentialism.
@philosophemes 8 ай бұрын
Thank you! I'm going to be posting videos on existentialism eventually. I hope you come by and make more comments! I enjoy your drum playing!
@5piecekit 7 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes Thank you so much for listening Frank and I'll definitely check out more of your videos.
@kadaganchivinod8003 9 ай бұрын
What are the top three greatest philosophical teaxts written in the 20th century sir?
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for your question. The standard answer is (not necessarily in this order), Heidegger's Being & Time, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and Deleuze's Difference & Repetition.
@kadaganchivinod8003 9 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes I heard a similar kind of example in Deleuze also like Hammer, "while driving a car you aren't aware of the car". Are there any similarities between these two philosophers sir?
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
@@kadaganchivinod8003 Good question. I wonder if you have the Deleuze swimming example in mind. Almost all of the Heidegger and Deleuze scholars I know definitely study them together. It can get complicated pretty quickly. However, I would say that what Deleuze calls Difference is Being in Heidegger. The folks studying this connection tend to look at the later Heidegger texts, not Being & Time. Do you have a particular interest in Heidegger or are you pursuing a particular philosophical question? In general, I would say, Analytic philosophy simply doesn't understand - or, rather, just isn't interested in - Being. Analytic philosophy seems to be concerned solely with language. As they continue to accept (Brandom's correct assertion) that Analytic philosophy is a development of Hegel's philosophy, we'll see if they develop their tradition of philosophy into something other than philosophy of language. In other words, I think Analytic philosophy is not where true seekers of philosophy should look.
@kadaganchivinod8003 9 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes I'm going through Todd May lectures on Deleuze sir, he used that example. While I was watching your video on Heidegger somehow I got connected.
@kadaganchivinod8003 2 ай бұрын
@@philosophemesI'm an aspiring filmmaker sir, would you suggest any particular philosopher or theory to me.
@sikandersalahuddin 9 ай бұрын
Great service for philosophy lovers.
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@jpturnage 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for this summary. 43 years ago I read Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy." My young, soft brain thought, "Wow, most of this is gibberish and word games." Some things don't change.
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for the comment. That's Adorno's critique of Heidegger as well: It's all "jargon" and gibberish. Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" is responsible for a lot of the unreasonable critiques floating around regarding "continental philosophy." Imo Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately develops Kant's Transcendental Method than the development that can be found in Husserl's phenomenology.
@kadaganchivinod8003 6 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes What do you mean by "Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately develops Kant's Transcendental Method"? As most scholars say Kant"s whole project is nothing but proving external objects, in a way answer to Hume's skeptical doubts regarding external world. What's exactly Heidegger's main goal in Being and Time?
@philosophemes 5 ай бұрын
@@kadaganchivinod8003 Very good question! So, when I was getting my undergrad that's what everyone told me too: Kant's not really worth knowing because he had some strange ideas that no one believes. I walked around for a long time believing that was true (without ever deeply studying Kant), and when I was getting my PhD, I realized what a great disservice those people did by pushing those prejudices. If you read the great German philosophers in Kant's wake, you hear them all saying the same thing. It's definitely worth knowing what that is! I'll put it this way to be as brief as possible: Kant's "Copernican Revolution" truly revolutionized philosophy. So, it really is like Lewis White Beck said, "You either philosophize with Kant or against Kant, but you can't philosophize without him." That's not just praise - it's literally true. Part of Dr. Peterson's rise to fame included talking trash about Kant, but if you listen close to Peterson, he doesn't understand Kant. So, to answer your question more directly, there's an interesting topic running in the background regarding Husserl and Heidegger. Husserl (exactly like his classmate Freud) started off by attempting to take all the credit for phenomenology himself. Then, when his student Heidegger became more popular than him, and Heidegger's definition of phenomenology (from, for example, Being & Time) had won the day, Husserl responded by showing that (in his opinion) he was only developing Kant's philosophy. That's why you sometimes hear Husserl's phenomenology called "transcendental phenomenology" (there's, of course, more to say about this but not in the confines of a KZbin comment). The problem with Husserl's phenomenology - and, I know that people treat him like the "underdog" they want to win, but... - is that it is too Cartesian. Heidegger famously made that critique, and Heidegger was right. Just think, for instance, about Husserl's "Cartesian Meditations." Hence, it is possible to see both Husserl and Heidegger as two different attempts to work out/further develop Kant's Transcendental Method (which, by the way, is what Fichte, Novalis, Hölderlin, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard were all avowedly doing). And, because Husserl's development of phenomenology was ultimately too Cartesian, Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately developed Kant's Transcendental Method. Don't listen to "most scholars" when they are dismissive of Kant. It's a huge mistake. There's a movement among the young KZbin crowd to hate on Kant's philosophy because of personal things about Kant. All that is silly. It's like Goethe said of Kant, reading a page of Kant is like walking into a well lit room. The German philosophers in Kant's wake thought that he had to have been divinely inspired to write the Critique of Pure Reason. For us to disregard that is a mistake. I'm putting together a bunch of content on Being & Time. So, I'll hopefully post about it sometime in the near future. What I would say to that question now is something like this: Regardless of what Heidegger's main goal for Being & Time may have been, if you study Being & Time, it teaches you to develop what Heidegger called a kind of "circumspection." For example, "the moment of vision" is one of the most profound things ever written in a philosophical text in the 20th century. It is related to circumspection; it is in Being & Time; and, it comes from (though Heidegger doesn't tell us this) Kant's 3rd Critique, the Critique of the Power of Judgment. If you go down this path, you'll be walking in the footsteps of the greatest German philosophers of all time, but contemporary scholars will push back because they - some explicitly - think it's not politically correct to say anything critical about Husserl. But, that's silly. And, it's not philosophy, it's social-club glad handing. Cheers!
@kadaganchivinod8003 5 ай бұрын
@@philosophemes Yes sir, imo KANT is evergreen. It's like an Ocean, one cant put boundaries.
@philosophemes 5 ай бұрын
@@kadaganchivinod8003 I love it! Love it! Love it! I wouldn't be able to formulate half of the philosophical thoughts that I can formulate were it not for Kant! He's every bit right there with Plato and Aristotle for me! Thank you for your comments!
@nataliaturner4845 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for laying it out so beautifully 👏👏👏👏👏👏 🥰 (this is exactly what I landed on a few years ago but couldn't articulate it & it's been so fkn frustrating to not be able to talk about it! 😭 but now I have a video to show ppl, so thank u!😅)
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for your comment! I'm super happy this helped!
@alexkuhn5078 9 ай бұрын
Present-at-hand: "Stop" Ready-to-hand: "Hammer time"
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Love it! (Or, maybe we could say, "Stop! Un-ready-to-hand hammer time") Nah, I like yours better ;) Cheers!
@mikecaetano 9 ай бұрын
"Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possibly way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology." --Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 1954
@rusalkin 9 ай бұрын
"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh..."
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Great quote!
@philosophemes 9 ай бұрын
Happy Full Moon! & Happy Lunar Eclipse!
@krzysztowbzymek8003 10 ай бұрын
I feel that conversation about these possibilities will become more and more frequent in the coming years. I just hope that these technologies will be used wisely.
@philosophemes 10 ай бұрын
I think you're absolutely right. And, I hope so too.