You are doing a great job of explaining difficult concepts please keep it up. Thx.

I come for the shirts. I leave intellectually inspired.

I read The Critique of Pure Reason when I was an undergraduate and in graduate school. It was the hardest book I ever read and actually finished and thought I understood fairly well. (I tried to read Heidegger's Being and Time but I couldn't get through it. His jargon was incredibly frustrating and off-putting.) Then I read other philosophical works that convinced me that mathematical equations were merely tautologies; they were analytic, not synthetic. (I don't, however, buy Quine's contention in "Two Dogma's of Empiricism" that such a distinction does not exist.) But the whole question that consumed Kant, "How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?" was spurious to begin with, for there was no such knowledge. Also, the discovery of non-Euclidian geometries seemed to cast Kant's position in a negative light. Then I just got confused, because it does appear as though space and time are categories of the mind and are the preconditions for the appearance of any objects whatsoever. And then I accepted Schopenhauer's position that there can be no things-in-themselves (plural) because if you think away space and time how is it possible to distinguish one thing from another?The noumena (or noumenon), if it exists, is a singular whole, and we all should be reading Parmenides and the Upanishads.

Bedankt voor deze video serie. Het idee om de logische ruimte in een assenstelsel te beschrijven is precies wat de wetenschap doet. Multidimensionale ruimtes. In het geval van machine learning kan het zelfs over duizenden dimensies gaan. Ben ook geïnteresseerd in de verschillen tussen je eerste en tweede vertaling - ik heb ze naast elkaar liggen.

I found your channel because of the videos on "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity". Those helped me a lot and I could not believe my luck when I saw that you made a whole series on the critique of pure reason. I failed miserable at this book when I was a twen but now with your help I currently try to get my head around the paralogisms. This kind of "betreutes Lesen" is fantastic, especially for philosophical amateurs. So any new series on philosophical classics of the 19th/20th century would be highly appreciated. But come what may, I guess by and by I will watch and try to learn from all your videos. Thanks a lot, Prof. Gijsbers.

Time requiring a single unchanging substance sounds like we know that there is exactly one thing in itself underlying experience. (Assuming this a priori principle is about the unschematized category of substance pointing to something non-empirical.) In this is right, then we arguably know too much about things in themselves, viz., that there is only one. But I thought the Principles were meant to govern the use of the categories in experience; in which case, we should think of the substance being in space. Further evidence for this view js found in the Refutation of Idealism, where Kant argues that time-determination requires something external in space. If you mean that the single eternal unchanging substance is inside space, then this would conflict with our use of empirical concepts. We dont experience some unchanging spatial substance, but instead everyday medium sized objects like dogs and cups. I haven't read this stuff in a while, so feel free to correct me if I've misconstrued you or Kant.

Thank you for your expertise!

Yes, I would like to hear more of your personal philosophy. In general, I'm much more interested in hearing what philosophers think rather than in hearing what they think other philosophers think. I'm more interested in philosophy than in the history of philosophy.

Too much of slicing and dicing, logic left the station long back here ..

I was a bit confused by your criticism. Are you saying that since we think our vocabulary is best, that implies a teleological component and thus not contingent? I think it was an ad hoc comment you made, and so you may not want to dig deeper or stand by it. I am watching this two years later. Just curious.

Why MUST there be things without parts? I am not convinced.

I think, one of the key ideas that Rorty is pushing for, is for philosophers to apply their craft to actual and current problems. Not problems made up by philosophers. In Philosophy and Social Hope he quotes Dewey (109), “…the task of future philosophy is to clarify men’s ideas as to the social and moral strife of their own day.” I like this and have been considering doing my own channel of slow reading or deep dive into text (text in Rorty’s sense of philosophy, theology, literature, and poetry) and applied to current culture, maybe like Tillich. A kind of applied philosophy. For whatever reason philosophers are reluctant to do. How about that?

Congrats on the subs! One comment about your consideration to make videos about your own work: in addition to probably being of interest to your current KZbin following, this would be a service to the research community as they could serve as "Video Abstracts" (not sure how common these are in philosophy but more journals encouraging this in stats/ML). More selfishly, this is also likely to increase the impact of those articles. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if, from a purely "h-index perspective", it is more productive to spend some research time making such video abstracts that would have otherwise been spent on the next journal article.

Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of someone on the stoics who actually knows what he's talking about :D

I have been a subscriber for over two years and am always excited to receive a new video from you. I think your coverage has an absolute uniqueness in philosophy and especially in epistemology. Series about books are very interesting and help a lot, I still think you are the best when you are discussing new subjects, e.g. in epistemology, where you bring a fresh perspective on stagnant ideology. I think the same happens when you discuss your own ideas, e.g. about time or in epistemology - because I think your ideas are the best thing about the channel. I would really appreciate getting more of your ideas, e.g. about the concept of time and epistemology. But I listen to everything you post with great interest, and I have listened to many of your videos way too often 😁 Many thanks and congratulations on 10,000 subscribers 💛💛💛

Id like to see argument analysis from the phils you review and articles. some phils are dense and hard to grasp. i like your channel and will keep listening.

Love your videos and how serious they are. Especially that you stay so close to the texts. This helps us learn to read these texts ourselves, and the world does not really need more 10 min videos about Kant. Your own work and ideas I would be very interested in following the process of forming these ideas and in any videos about subjects you are still trying to understand. Maybe you could even invite other philosophers to share their ideas about your work or share a video call with someone with opposing or slightly different views the subject (if you feel "arrogant" about sharing your work, then this might help balance that). Courses After following your longer running series on certain books or subjects, I always end up writing something like an essay on the subject. I would love to have the option to have it critiqued/get feedback. I would love to pay for that. I also think a quick set of remnotes (or another type of flashcards) would be of great value to your audience/students. Different types of videos, an idea: A lot of good youtubers make two or more channels to make the profile of each channel clearer. I think that helps with the algorithm as well. A good example would be political philosopher Vlad Vexler, who has a "main" channel with videos with higher production value, which are faster paced and more aimed at the random people interested in the subject. Next to that he has a chat channel, which is just him talking to the camera. Vlad Vexler main channel: www.youtube.com/@VladVexler Vlad Vexler chat channel: www.youtube.com/@VladVexlerChat Let me know if you feel like coming by the Hague for a chat and a great cup of coffee🙏

You’re an extraordinary explainer. Thanks for the videos. I’m definitely interested in your own work. Not very interested in the trendy ‘practical applications of stoicism’, or things of the sort. Congrats on the 10k 😄

Thank you Professor, I have been very grateful for your channel. I’ve always been very interested in philosophical thought, specifically the branch of epistemology. Your course on epistemology is very helpful towards my life and I really learned from videos like you and others how justification really works. Thank you so much once again, keep going!

Honestly, the idea that you shouldn't put your own thoughts on your own work on your own channel is pretty funny. Like, where else would you put it?

Richard feldman is a snitch

You know it's just nonsense right? I read a section on the transcdental apperception of space.

WOW! What a discovery! Thanks for thinking! Now, we're thinking about you! Salut!

1. I would love to hear about your own articles. I follow lots of young Philosophers and listen to them like yourself and Richard David Precht. 2. why not stoicism? I am very curious. Pop_Stoicism I can understand, but why not the true modern Stoicism like Massimo Pigliucci?

Your videos are appreciated. Is there any chance you could do one on political philosophy i.e dirty hands in politics? , it would be really useful for me and interesting for other viewers I think - anyways, you’re doing a great job, keep going, thanks

Kudos, Victor, on your new translation. If you've ever watched the Bryan Magee videos here on KZbin, where he discusses -- in an intimate tête-à-tête with an eminent philosopher of the day -- various historical philosophers and the problems they tackled, you'd have run across two programs in the series where he discusses the early and late philosophies of Wittgenstein. These two programs are excellent (especially for the beginner), and in one of them he expresses how beautiful and succinct Wittgenstein's prose-aphorisms are in that Tractatus. He calls them "hauntingly beautiful." Did you find this to be true? In your translation were you cognizant of the beauty of Wittgenstein's prose and did you try at all to bring it across in Dutch?

I would really like to see more video on your personal meta-philsophy take on philosphical methods or pedagogical video such as "how I read early modern philosophy as a analytical philosopher".

Hi Victor, I find your KZbin videos on philosophy amazing. I especially appreciate the book reviews you conduct directly with the original text, like your discussion of the Tractatus. I find your three topic areas-book reviews, articles, and individual topics-very well chosen. On your homepage, it says, "My aim is to develop transcendental idealism into a philosophy that is worth defending in contemporary philosophy." This topic interests me immensely. Many heartfelt thanks for your valuable work!

I personally would love to see videos on your own ideas and work! I also wanted to say thank you for the great videos. The channel had a very positive direct impact on my life (was one of many impressions convincing me to switch to philosophy for my masters, one of the best decisions I've made ever)

Original contents would be interesting.

Thank you very much for all your videos! When you talk about "Stoicism videos" (around the 6' mark), do you mean all those fake personal development videos on KZbin which seem to be made by generative IA and evolved to be completely unrelated to real Epictetus?

This channel is such a goldmine. Thank you for all your hard work over the years! I'd love to see more videos on stoicism for sure.

You mentioned in the Kant lectures that your own thoughts about causality was quite similar. I'd love for you to talk about how you conceive causality, and how that relates to Kant's thought.

👍

As a person with an undergraduate philosophjy degree, my favorite by far are the videos you make on a topic, like you did on epistomology, which allows you to cover classic works, and then get to more recent developments in the field. I also like some of the articles you cover, but eould preffer if they are in some kind of order (i.e. a few articles in which philosophers debate a topic; this is something that this other channel I suscribe to does well: www.youtube.com/@SimonCushing). I would definitely be interested in your own work. I would also be super interested in your opinions on the work of others. But for me it would be more interesting if it was part of a series on a topic where you ended with a video or two on your ideas/conclusions/thoughts on the topic. This could also be done when you cover a set of articles on a philosophical debate. I feel like you do share your ideas in the videos make, when you say things like, "and that seems reasonable" or other similar comments, and I definitely appreciate that, I'm not sure about videos telling people that they should become this or that. Finally, trying to make sense of the Tractatus is not for me.

👍

Give is your articles! 🤌

Thank you Prof. I have learned a lot from you and in some quiet way inspired by you as a teacher myself. And of course congratulations.

Would be lovely if you did Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. Anything you do is great tho, Love the way you teach. Actually a practical video at your approach to leaning and then teaching these texts would be cool too.

First of all, thank you very much for your excellent videos. I would be interested in learning more about your own philosophical views. In particular, I would like to learn more about your views on Transcendental Idealism and how it could be made attractive to philosophers today. In addition, I remember reading a very good blogpost you wrote in which you criticize the way certain philosophers, like David Lewis, think about philosophy. Further Exploration of your criticisms of mainstream philosophical views, in light of certain (somewhat neglected) traditions like German Idealism (and perhaps its reception in the Pittsburgh-Chicago School) would also be very interesting.

Congrats! I've recently returned to academia pursuing a degree in Philosophy and have found your channel to be incredibly helpful!

Veel dank voor de interessante filmpjes, ik zou het ook leuk vinden om wat eigen werk van u te ontdekken!

Excellent page

the way you understand the material and explain and communicate hands down the best available anywhere. Even things that are not interesting to me I end up watching the video because you make it interesting lol. Ty

Congratulations Prof. Gijsbers! 🥳Your videos on Kant has been immensely helpful for me, and I am sure lots of other people too, in parsing through the text and its ideas. Would love to see more insightful videos on major texts from you in the future!

Please share your own work, would be very interesting. Thank you for making the content you do, has helped me through both life and uni

I am very happy to learn that you are planning future videos. As far as I am concerned, any video that you took the time and effort to put together would be valuable.

Glad to hear that you want to continue to share your classes and also begin posting your own work ! Every project you mentionned awakes my interests. Maybe a suggestion for another video topic : hillary putnam, end of fact - value distinction

I’m personally open to any type of content. I have noticed that popularizers on youtube typically have 3-4 different types of videos. Some only produce the type of content you’re hesitant to do e.g. Lance Independent. I think it’s a valid worry that, even if you flag it up, that it will be extra persuasive to the subset of the audience unfamiliar with the philosophical landscape. He also uses rhetoric that I think unfairly over generalizes and presents himself as a lone outsider critical of the establishment when it would be more accurate to say that he's part of a not particularly new intellectual current, critical of traditional 20th century metaethics/analytic philosophical method. But I think the audience should be sophisticated enough to know that there are different interpretations with idiosyncratic elements and that the more formal videos are a summary of the literature, aiming for a more neutral point of view

I hate the word "content" so much. Whatever you do I just hope you continue what you do; I just discovered your stuff and I think they are going to be great for reviewing books and articles I've read a long time ago. So thanks for making them available on here for free!