BAD Philosophy Videos! (Philosophy Tube on Kant's Philosophy)

"The problems with short intro philosophy video."
Professor Moeller is teaching a course on Kant. He was searching things about Kant on KZbin to see what would come up.
And Professor thought he came across a very bad example of a short introductory philosophy video from Philosophy Tube, a very famous KZbinr, whom I ("the producer") previously actually watched before exams for reviewing purposes, or even as a main source of learning introductory philosophy. I am curious to know how bad can this 5 minute video be.
#philosophy #kant #philosopher
Therefore, we decided to make this video, hope you enjoy it!
A following up video:
Commodification of Philosophy: Professors vs Influencers
• Commodification of Phi...
(video mentioned):
The Problem with Sam Harris' "Morality":
• The Problem with Sam H...
(Beginner's Guide to Kant's Metaphysics & Epistemology | Philosophy Tube):
• Beginner's Guide to Ka...
Kant's Philosophy | Why we Need a New Enlightenment:
• Kant's Philosophy | Wh...
Kant’s Ethics: Homophobia, Child Killing--and Derek Chauvin:
• Kant’s Ethics: Homopho...
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
PS: We understand Philosophy Tube has changed to a new identity and name. This happened a day after this video had been out, we could not foresee it.
And in this video, we are commenting on the content of an old but still very popular video from Philosophy Tube (in which, philosophy tube still identified as a man and OLLY), we are trying to address how a short popular philosophy explainer video can sometimes have many problems.

[@uncle0eric]

I think the most important point is made near the end, here: Watching someone else's interpretive gloss on KZbin is no substitute for working through the actual text and studying commentaries by qualified professional scholars. This is true not only for philosophy, but for many other subjects, as well.

[@magical571]

This is true for academics to retain their aura as 'authorities'. (And i say this as a college graduate... talking from the inside)

[@comu157]

Well, the only problem I see with your commentary is that it is submissive to perceived authority. Working through the text and studying it is way different than swallowing ready to go interpretations. Degrees only serve to ornate, they absolutely do not guarantee knowledge.

[@uncle0eric]

Well, that's a very uncharitable way of reading what I said. My point was that there is such a thing as expertise in reading and interpreting philosophical texts (just as there is in other disciplines). You read and study the original text and also read the commentaries, which have to provide arguments supporting their particular interpretation. You are suggesting that it's a passive process of just accepting someone else's reading as Gospel. That isn't how it works. Having a degree in any subject is, of course, not a guarantee of being right, but that doesn't mean degrees are worthless and that SomerandomguyonKZbin is just as qualified as someone who wrote a PhD dissertation on a topic. By analogy, there are incompetent dentists, but that doesn't generally mean your Uncle Bob arme with a pair of pliers is just as qualified to perform dentistry than someone who went to dental school.

[@7th808s]

Yes, but I also appreciate that he doesn't walk in the area of elitist skepticism, which only functions to enlarge the chasm between scholars and the public. If you would label all pop philosophy videos as "bad" and say "it shouldn't exist", how will the public create interest in philosophy if they don't have relatives or people in their near environment that introduce them to it? There is value to these videos, but there should always be a voice in your head nagging "at some point, you should start actually reading their stuff".

[@SplicedSerpents]

A degree just gives a baseline of knowledge. I'm fortunate to work in a field which produces something tangible and to work with many graduates. Dunning-Kruger is real

[@olindblo]

You should do the same with other pop philosophy videos on Kant, e.g. School of Life and such.

[@hieronyma_]

school of life is painfully bad

[@Pluveus]

I don't think you should encourage someone to watch School of Life. It's part of the categorical imperative honestly.

[@olindblo]

@@Pluveus Yup, can't wait to see it roasted!

[@krisjill5918]

@@hieronyma_ Sooo painful. New Age 'self-help' meets selective readings of great philosophers. It's indulgent pulp for the vapid pseudo-intellectuals of the middle class who think philosophy is fancy psychology.

[@peterbedford449]

School of life is absolute crap. It's not even in the same league as other channels, such as philosophy tube, for instance. Which is surprising given that Alain De Botton went to Cambridge. But the difference is he not trying, he's just trying to make popular videos that make a lot of money. His videos have no core thesis. But they do make him a lot of money and are popular on the internet. This is mainly because he creates arguments that seem valid at first glance in the 5 minutes, but when you dive into it and get into it it is just complete hogwash - there is nothing there of substance to analyse at all. Whereas philosophy tube and other channels are actually trying to do philosophy and politics. Even if some of their videos are flawed, the intent is there to do something good. And that's what matters. Even if people on the internet aren't doing the best work ever, if they are being honest about why they are doing it and how, then at least you approach their content their content with some honesty and reliability. This is why so many channels are better than Alain De Botton. I just don't think he is being honest about his work. I think he is just lying and making up hogwash for money. Which is what a lot of people do, but then this makes him no better than the worst.

[@Rowoool]

I love that youtube's standards for philosophy videos are so low that I was just shocked to actually hear one from a professor talking about something in his field. Imagine that

[@leocossham]

This is so true. For other disciplines like economics you can find content that is as good if not even better than what professors teach. But for philosophy actual lecturers/professors in universities are streets ahead of what anyone's putting out on KZbin. (At Lancaster University anyway)

[@JK-we4wh]

@@leocossham that's not really true at all, in fact you can find a sheer infinite amount of lectures and interviews with "real" philosophers in just a matter of seconds. personally I recommend the channel "critical theory", which is literally just recordings of lectures. I'm also not a fan of instantly assuming anyone who isn't a professor isn't professional. many of the people making videos are well-read, graduates, and so forth. there simply are a limited number of philosophy related jobs, so not everyone can be a prof, but almost everyone has something worth sharing.

[@leocossham]

@@JK-we4wh fair enough there is a big amount of good philosophy out there. But the fact is that those videos on Critical theory's channel are still just uploads from lectures at universities. Those lectures weren't made primarily for KZbin so my point still stands. When it comes to philosophy it still seems to me that it's only really academics who know enough about what they're talking about for me to find it valuable

[@leocossham]

Most KZbinrs who rate themselves as philosophy channels aren't actually very good at philosophy compared to a academics but still have the confidence about them as though they're super knowledgeable and have lots of great insight when really they don't. For example CosmicSkeptic. And most of the channels with any substantial reach are like this

[@JK-we4wh]

@@leocossham fair point about KZbin "exclusive" content, with that one I might agree. when it comes to academic/nonacademic philosophy though I strongly disagree. taking a non-western focus here, one has to realize that essentially the philosophy of entire continents, for example Latin America, was an oral philosophy that is inherently non-academic. while vedic and chinese philosophy are now also present in academia, for most of the world's history they haven't, and still today much discourse there is not necessarily in academia. but even for strictly western philosophy, I would argue that a lot of the most important texts were either separate from, or consciously anti-academic. a prime example would be the CCRU, which developed out of academia into something.. weird and new. but also a lot of fringe philosophy which has (often decades after the fact) only been canonized in academia. many marxist, situationist, surrealist, dadaist writers and poets have retroactively been canonized. the interlace of academia and art for philosophy has always been there, and the two aren't neatly separated at all. yet still Beuys' Philosophy of Art, D&Gs Shizoanalysis and De Sade's Writings, to name just a few, are now often quoted in academia, when during their lifetime they were mostly considered stupid degenerates (well, maybe not D&G). many texts that used to only be considered literary canon now play a major role in philosophy, just consider Baudrillard and Borges. anyway, I think I've made my point about philosophy outside of academia, have a good day!

[@Painocus]

I feel like a lot of the problems here arise from a trend I've seen in English translations and commentary of Kant to use very imprecise and inconsistant language. Marx translations have the same problem. I feel English is very badly equiped to handle German philosophical language without confusion. I ran into this problem myself when I tried to translate Mainländer a while back. I found distinctions that were really obvious in my very limited German and my native Norwegian to be very hard to make clear in English, especially when it came to things like consciousness.

[@247lethal]

I agree with the translation issues. Every translator's preface I've seen from German texts in some way talks about this issue. It's not unique to German translations into English, but since German is a popular language in Western philosophy it's a constant issue with Anglo-American philosophers. It seems like most of our understandings of German philosophers are presented as approximations of the original interpretation that would come from a faithful reading of the original German text. Side note: did you ever finish translating Mainländer? And what text were you translating? Good translations of him in English are very difficult to come by

[@GDKLockout]

Thats an interesting observation. English is quite maliable and often uses words from other languages where no suitable english word works. I was making a Hügelcultre bed as i was listening to this, using my Gerborange, flanged spade and wheelbarrow. Got German French and Dutch int hat sentence, which is real btw. That is what im doing now.

[@KumailChangezi]

Would you be able to recommend a good English translation of some of Marx's most popular writing?

[@redthread9451]

I studied Kant in German (in Switzerland) but professors and tutors would often recommend that we read English translations of Kant! Kant uses incredibly long German constructions so the short English sentences help in getting a first grip on just the kind of questions Kant was grappling with in the first place. But yes, in order to gain a deeper understanding, it is necessary to handle translations with care and suspicion. Read Kant in German :)

[@Painocus]

@@247lethal It was Die Philosophie der Erlösung, but no I never finished it. Once the translators on reddit started their translation I shifted my focus to the political parts of the work, since those seemed to be less prioritized by them, but I lost a good chunck of it in a hard-drive crash. And by that point there were already talk of a professional translation being in the works, so I put the whole project on hold.

[@peterjones6507]

Thank you. This should be a series - since there's no shortage of bad philosophy videos.

[@rasto62]

School of Life's video on Lacan comes to mind

[@berugaslabor]

"I cant be bothered to actually read the source material so im just gonna watch a five min youtube vid by some hip cool dude and assume it will be the same content"... damn the current state of people today...

[@rasto62]

@@berugaslabor What? We're just complaining that some videos are bad, that has nothing to do with us reading the sources

[@berugaslabor]

@@rasto62 No it was just a general observation on my part that some people will just hit up a 5 min vid on youtube and assume it will do the source material justice.

[@rasto62]

@@berugaslabor Ah okay, good point! Also pretty frustrating and goes to show even more how bad videos can be problematic for lazy people

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

Philosophy Tube, and all the other cartoon philosophy channels, are sad jokes.

[@Qzou7702]

Three years ago I was inspired by Philosophy Tube and decided to switch my study to philosophy. Honestly back then I didn’t quite follow Prof. Mueller’s arguments and didn’t see the significance. Now after three years of studying, I do see the problems clearly, and how crucial it is to point out those lazy mistakes, because they could seriously damage Kant’s system of philosophy. It’s a nice feeling to have this growth :) thank you professor.

[@APaleDot]

As a fan of Philosophy Tube, I think these critiques are fair. You can't excuse the video because it's pop philosophy or just an introduction, or because it was made 5 years ago. You can introduce a philosopher and his ideas in a fun, entertaining way without misusing language or equivocating between certain ideas which are fundamental to their philosophy. As for the timing of the video, it makes no difference that it was 5 years ago because when you make a video, you are responsible for accuracy of that video. If PT had waited and done more research or maybe passed the script by some experts on Kant, these errors wouldn't be there. My point is that it is incumbent on the video creator to use the resources they have available to ensure the accuracy of the video, and if they don't have the resources to do that, then they first need to acquire those resources.

[@chillin5703]

Agree and disagree; the video should be criticized, but is this video the best to use when levying specific criticisms against PhiloTube? I don't know. Perhaps criticize her more recent output?

[@chillin5703]

@@DGately82 i disagree, she should take down the video or make a statement yes, but youtubers who are dedicated may drastically improve their content over 5 years.

[@0fof0fo]

Unfortunately, there is no way of making Kant relevant and interesting to current people without picking out the "salient" bits and ignoring the rest. This is what Philosophy Tube did, and having an academic philospher nitpick the very technical aspects of Kant's writing and complain how they are misrepresented seems to miss the entire point of Philosophy Tube's project. That said, I agree that Philosophy Tube should make sure not to imply that watching this video will allow you to pass a quiz on Kant in a philosophy course, though that is more of an indictment of Philosophy classroom's teaching of Kant than it is of her.

[@APaleDot]

@@0fof0fo I realize it might seem nitpicky, but philosophy relies on this very precise use of language in order to clearly delineate between distinct ideas which are commonly conflated. Like I said, it's entirely possible to make a fun, engaging video which uses language carefully.

[@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand]

@@chillin5703 It seems to me like you're more fixated on her character rather than the contents of the video. "Focus on her more recent input", but why? If there are errors that are left unattended, then the time period is irrelevant unless you are more concerned about how she comes across through her content rather than being focused on the specific subject of the video.

[@officeofpeaceinformation5094]

you know when you've found the remotest corners of KZbin when you stumble on a debunking bad Kant videos video.

[@kenfalloon3186]

Makes a change from funny cats eh?😉

[@grantbartley483]

@@kenfalloon3186 I want a video where cats explain Kant

[@Senumunu]

to many people are looking for ways to export their criticial thinking to others. critiques like this were needed waaay earlier. im glad they are finally here.

[@andishawjfac]

Isn't this video doing exactly that? It's this guy exporting his critical thinking about Abigail's videos to us, and telling us how we should be analysing Kant.

[@Senumunu]

@@andishawjfac no bcs he is not spreading fake news about Kant unlike philosphy tube.

[@shyguy1845]

@@Senumunu Well how would we know we're not the experts here.

[@Senumunu]

@@shyguy1845 don't worry. Neither is philosophy tube :)

[@shyguy1845]

@@Senumunu That's the point Lol, if you want to learn Kant read him, youtube is entertaining at best if you respect yourself you take everything with a grain of salt.

[@LindaDanvers]

I find it rather annoying that Philosophy Tube's obsessive fans are now going after any creator they can find who criticised anything PT ever did prior to coming out. This vid and most others critiquing PT's work or behaviour were made before PT came out. These people honestly did not know and if they had known they could not have correctly gendered PT, because that would have meant outing PT. And this video on Kant is not the only one of PT's vids that could have been worded better or even researched better. Witchcraft, Gender, & Marxism contains sources that have been debunked by historians. Feel free to check this with actual historians. You may want to discuss PT's Sexwork with actual sex workers and sex worker advocates as well. PT switched from actual educational content to performance art a few years ago, but even before this switch, you should not take these vids as a substitute for actual university classes. At best, they are introductions that at times could be more accurately worded as this vid explains. At worst, they contain problematic sources and claims. So enjoy PT's vids for what they are - pop education mixed with performance art - but remain critical. Let them inspire you to critically look into certain subjects, but do not uncritically take them for gospel truth.

[@JackBlack-wi8pz]

"I find it rather annoying that Philosophy Tube's obsessive fans". Not really suprising considering the political bent of the content creator and the kind of person that would watch her junk videos.

[@elizabethl6987]

always was and will be a man

[@LindaDanvers]

To be clear, I fully support Abigail as a woman. I am merely critical of some of the things she has done and I dislike the aforementioned part of her fanbase. Down with transphobia.

[@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice]

You really think that fans of a philosophy channel are looking at a critique of a philosophy video through the lens of philosophy academia and their only focus is on pronouns? Of course it's jarring but it's obviously unavoidable. No. We're here because we want to learn, and when we're let down by academia, we have something to say about it. The point that the vids are not the same as a university class is literally the point, otherwise we'd take a course. "At best, introductions"... Yeah, almost as if they were intended to be introductory, huh? Asking us to remain critical of her and asking us NOT to remain critical of academics is ridiculous. And I don't see a single person acting like PT's vids are the utmost paragon source of philosophic knowledge. Get off your high horse. Edit: My point is, holding beginner-level content to high-level scrutiny is EXACTLY how you block people from accessing philosophy and make it just another esoteric boy's club.

[@LindaDanvers]

​@@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice I happen to know that a number of people whose vids were critical of PT's person and/or work were bombarded with requests by PT stans to take said vids down just after PT came out. Said requests were not aimed at vids that were positive about PT's person and /or work that also used PT pre-transition pronouns. PT could have asked fans to leave these creators alone and this has not happened. I am fine with PT making infotainment performance art. I do wish PT had been more thorough and honest in several vids, which would have been perfectly doable. This vid points out for instance that PT at the very least could have been more accurate in describing what Kant is going for. There is a world of possibilities between being overly simplistic which PT was in this Kant vid and engaging in utter ivory tower jargon babble. Sometimes you do need to take a bit of extra time to explain certain ideas such as Kant's in every day speech. PT is rightly criticised for cutting corners a bit too much in this vid.

[@FundFreedom]

I think the important thing when speaking on Kant is pronouncing the word as "Kunt," and then saying that word as often as possible. Great job, Wanderer

[@rumination2399]

I did this by accident once in a bookshop and the counter girls were horrified

[@SNWWRNNG]

It's how his name is pronounced, after all.

[@YisYtruth]

This was one of PT's first videos. It's very rough. I'd love to see a critique of one of their later, more polished videos. Great presentation, by the way.

[@Anna-xh6fk]

*her ❤️

[@grayson0916]

@@Anna-xh6fk to be fair a lot of people still don’t know. I didn’t until like 3 days ago and I watch almost all her videos lol

[@daddyleon]

@@Anna-xh6fk surely "their" is fine too? even if PT doesn't have a team working on it altogether.

[@huwcresswell6996]

@@Anna-xh6fk they can be used to refer to anyone, the word is not specific to non-binary folks such as myself

[@Eladelia]

@@Anna-xh6fk "Their" is perfectly grammatically appropriate in this context. The person is writing talking about the channel PhilosophyTube, not a specific individual. The channel is owned by a specific person, but other people routinely get involved in making the videos (and some of them on a recurring basis), so even if someone sees "they" as not a suitable default for singular, it's not unreasonable to treat this as a plural situation.

[@CarlyonProduction]

Rich drama school kids. Prerequisite for becoming a leftube star.

[@dickgoblin]

TRUE

[@LillySchwartz]

As someone who studied Kant in English first as a German speaker it was always a trip to go back and forth between the English translation and the original, because a lot of the confusions that happened in class were simply problematic or imprecise translations. Add to that the inherent contradictions in earlier vs later writing and it was frankly just one big mess. If some fairly knowledgable philosophy lecturers of mine couldn't keep their language straight in 10 weeks of classes through almost no fault of their own - it was mainly the translation -, then I think Abigail is forgiven for being about as precise in a 5 minute video? I remember many a sleepless night trying to sort out whether my own understanding or the translation or the lecturer's presentation or the original text was imprecise and coming to no definitive conclusion on the subject. There were just too many possible points of failure and I'm pretty sure all of them were lacking in precision to some extent. The only truly valuable conclusion I took from my Kant class was that I definitely won't become a Kant scholar 😂

[@stueyapstuey4235]

The fundamental issue, though, isn't translation, it is, rather, that Kant was objectively wrong. There is no 'pure' reason, philosophy, ethics, meaning etc. . These are all human 'meaning' things. Plato was wrong about the 'ideal' as was Kant.

[@PeterAndersonn2]

This is interesting, because I've heard a flat "no" from many experts when they inevitably encounter a question about whether Kant or Hegel are easier to understand in German. Not once have I heard someone say "see, if we were reading the original here many of the difficulties of Kant's prose would vanish, because of this, that, and so on". In fact, I've often heard the opposite: German-speaking students finding the English translations easier to work with because the translators often break up the clauses in longer sentences into their own self-contained units. Of course, one may argue that the translator is doing violence to the text here, but if even native speakers sometimes agree that this practice is beneficial when it comes to reading comprehension, then perhaps this is a sort of benign violence, or a violence that we should welcome.

[@LillySchwartz]

Oh Kant is definitely easier to read in English, because his style in German is very lengthy and a tad convoluted at times. Most German philosophers I’ve read just weren’t good writers with the worst offenders probably being Hegel and Heidegger. When translating one has to have understood what the person was trying to say though and any misunderstanding or biased interpretation will leave a trace in the text. So even though Kant is easier to read in English, the translation I’ve read definitely wasn’t precise with the terminology at times. This in turn made things confusing again when going into details. So, a surface level understanding was easier to reach in English, but for the more detailed analysis I had to go back and forth between the translation and the original a lot to figure out certain distinctions. And I’m not sure I ultimately succeeded! I had more luck with Husserl and less with Heidegger. And Hegel remains a mystery to me entirely. I enjoyed Marx a lot, but well, Capital has Vampires and Werewolves, so that’s in itself a lot more entertaining 😂

[@SianaGearz]

@@stueyapstuey4235 So what if he was fundamentally wrong? Why does it matter in this context? Why would you want to evaluate a text based on an incorrect representation of it?

[@johnsinclair4621]

@@stueyapstuey4235 Guys, guys we have him! He figured it all out! How lucky we are to live in these times :´-)

[@drew4746]

Your explanations are really clear and understandable. Thank you for clarifying some of these concepts. Your focus on the accuracy of language is excellent and much appreciated.

[@Csilaverte]

At first year in uni I got a big fat 1 ( or F ) because i mixed up transcendental and trascendent. That is how important it is in light of Kant's work.

[@danzigvssartre]

"Time and space are hardwired into our brains" ? If Kant said that, he must have been trying to get grant funding for his brand new neuroscience lab.

[@CmdrShepard1001]

That statement is a huge part of his magnum opus Critique of Pure Reason: what we can know without experience. We cannot have experience at all without understanding change, and we cannot understand change without the internal understanding of time and the ability to mentally separate objects.

[@danzigvssartre]

@@CmdrShepard1001 🤦‍♂️

[@DaviAreias]

@@CmdrShepard1001 just watch the video and he explains in 3 minutes what's wrong wtih that statement.

[@wngbjngwwgk]

@@CmdrShepard1001 for Kant the mind is not the brain you dipshit

[@zeshawnali5676]

@@wngbjngwwgk its a bunch of neurotic bullshit to make the distinction, can be fun I suppose, and valuable at the higher levels, but to not acknowledge that while pointing it out is to also boast an overconfidence. Though there might be semantic errors, perhaps from a historical perspective, I would say that the 5 minute video is still thought provoking enough to serve as a basic introduction. For example this guy used the words sense perception to describe an appreciation of time and space, and distinguishes that as Kant's understanding of these, as separate from being hardwired into the brain. However these words are basically synonymous with functions of neurons and their associated organs as we comprehend them today. Basically philisophy tube merely uses Kant as a vehicle for provocation of thought and introduction of new conceptual understanding and semantic tools, which is what I think a 5 minute video is really expected to do at its best, its not false advertising at all.

[@user-ck9lm6xi1o]

I explicitly warn my students about trying to Google or KZbin explanations of philosophical concepts or arguments. In today's internet culture where short, entertaining, and aesthetically pleasing videos are the ones that tend to blow up, there will inevitably be many ill-explained or ill-researched explanations out there. I actually found that plagiarism happened much less when I told them all this (as opposed to merely reminding them not to plagiarize) lol. Thank you so much for your in depth analysis of this video. I will share this with my students.

[@dointhebiz]

But this is a video and a KZbin explanation of philosophical concepts. Maybe point them in the right direction, or like any sourcing get them to see multiple different sources -in this case videos to help your students, it's hard to steer away from pop anything maybe it's a good lesson in critical thinking in and of itself! :)

[@Jaigarful]

I think this phenomenon is most evident in cooking videos. For example, channels likes 5 minute crafts put out videos with a certain rhythm set up to be very ascetically pleasing, but its obvious to those who have even the slightest bit of cooking knowledge just how bad their stuff is. I always wonder how many videos I watch in unfamiliar fields that are the same way yet I just don't notice.

[@oidaz8402]

As a long time fan of Philosophy Tube I appreciate this exploration of their misconceptions and misrepresentations, it's a reminder that talking heads on KZbin are never a replacement for reading the books and doing the work yourself.

[@ivannisevic6685]

Uhh. The narcissist was taken apart.

[@dirty_diver]

She quoted an article I wrote. I informed her that she misrepresented my position (not in a way to vilify me, but to use my writing to support her position). She didn’t even take the time to understand what I said.

[@Lucyfeli]

Wow, I'm sorry, was this the newspaper article in the latest video?

[@jzoobs]

Which article?

[@devansh3700]

Can i get more context on this ??

[@7th808s]

Did she respond though? And yeah, which article?

[@BWGmedia]

Why does this register as typical rather than atypical.... fr this almost seems expected but I’m someone who doesn’t like PT or their ideology so I’m of course drenched in bias. It just seems easy to believe considering everything else, like hiding those Patreon dollars.

[@grantbartley483]

You are right to call out such sloppy use of concepts. Just because something is made to be popular doesn't mean it has to be inaccurate.

[@larshalvorsen5990]

I very much enjoyed this video as a fan of Abigail Thorn. Seeing more like this would be interesting, no matter if you are looking more into the works of Philosophy or something else entirely. KZbinr like PhilosophyTube and Contrapoints have for a time been creating longer more theatrical videos that are also presented as informative. If you would be interested to look into and say something about longer videos like that, it would mean the world.

[@adel885]

who the fuck is abigail thorn

[@TheNicolombiano77]

Contrapoints doesn’t blatantly spread lies like philosophy tube

[@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice]

@@TheNicolombiano77 Which lies?

[@TheNicolombiano77]

@@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice the subject of this video. Anytime she speaks on economics, misrepresentation of her wealth, etc

[@TaraBryn]

@@TheNicolombiano77 how does she misrepresent her wealth?

[@silentsmokeNIN]

Doesn't take a genius to see that philosophy tube is style over substance.

[@Kaje_]

This. Philosophy Tube has a lot of stuff swept under the rug, by the way. You might wanna read the mega topic on kiwifarms. Not agreeing with the purpose of that site, but it has a lot of valuable information. It reveals what the person behind Philosophy Tube has done in the past and how that person is copying Contrapoints in many instances. It's just cringe at this point.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@Kaje_ I always had a feeling PhilTube was just ripping off Contrapoints but had no idea it was so deliberate and forceful. Thanks for the heads up.

[@rhalfik]

A review by a guy who can philosophy, of a guy who Kant.

[@vp4744]

Both Kant but only one can.

[@DeadJack1999]

The funniest thing about this video is that it came out a day before philosophy tube came out.

[@troyarchers]

"Philosophy should not be commodified...I say this as a professional philosopher." I find what you're saying so true. I was horrified even in graduate school at how many of my fellow students were skipping a lot of the readings of many major works. However, I am struggling to see how you writing a book on philosophy is any less a commodification of ideas. You are literally selling your ideas, no?

[@legendarylunatic4738]

Imo the difference is intent. You can sell philosophy with the primary intent of making money, or with the prinary intent of educating people about philosophy. Making money is essential for life, so it's hard to live without doing so in some way. Issue arises when people try to act educated for making money, and haven't done their reasongs as thoroughly.

[@linusverclyte4988]

A professional philosopher who by definition gets paid to do philosophy. The pot calling the kettle black. He doesn't even seem to get the irony...

[@troyarchers]

@@legendarylunatic4738 I think this is a pretty gray area where intention is concerned. Regardless, one's "primary" intention isn't really the point. If one wanted only to teach, one could give away the knowledge for free. Plenty of academic publications offer you a platform to publish your ideas without compensation. My issue was that selling a book means that one's intention is to turn their ideas into a product. How is this not commodification? I'm not even against the commodification of ideas, as I think it is the only way intellectuals can make a living outside of teaching (which is itself, often, partaking in the commodification of education), but I just don't see how one's level of education makes them more or less engaged in commodifying their ideas.

[@Cantbuyathrill]

Writing a book is not always a money-makjng scheme, many books have been written as a labor of love, as a cathartic endeavor, or BELIEVE OR NOT, for many other noble reasons.

[@troyarchers]

@@Cantbuyathrill How does this negate the fact that a book is a commodification of one's ideas? Something doesn't have to be a "scheme" for it to be a commodity.

[@thomdotexe]

transcendent vs transcendental was always taught to me by my professors to be interchangeable, that some scholars argue there's a fundamental difference, but the first edition of the critique has passages where he seems to use one to reference the other

[@hendricka3029]

My philosophy professor told us that Kant himself made a few mistakes in his first edition of CPR because it took him over ten years to write it. Every mistake he made was printed, and editing such a book was not easy. There is a clear distinction but it is hard to discern because of the time it took to produce the text. He came up with all of those "concepts" and terminology himself in a way.

[@더러운전쟁]

If there is a fundamental disagreement on such a crucial theoretical point, it is a due diligence task to inform the audience of the nature of disagreement, regardless of what the presenter's personal opinion is

[@z3ro5um]

Here the professor is handing one: transcendent, to the forms; transcendental belongs to the irrational branch he indicates. These then correspond similarly to Chuanghsu versus Confucius across the spectrum of the Tao. Polar opposites. What do you say to my synthesis of his interpretation?

[@Brien831]

@@z3ro5um No they arent opposites, they are just different concepts.One describes the process of generalizing experiences into principles and the other describes a method of reasoning and a mode of universal knowledge.

[@virabearshiva703]

I love listening to him talk. His critique is very helpful and guides me in the direction of higher awareness. Thank you! I'm a new subscriber now!!!

[@jennb3387]

‘An ugly marriage of confidence and ignorance’ - lol. That really sums up how PT comes across sometimes. I’m not really knowledgeable enough to comment who is right on the philosophy, but I enjoyed this, helped me get my head around some difficult concepts (and a couple of weaknesses of both the English language and UK education system). Thanks for posting it.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@lowblowchloe8859 I guess, but it inadvertently creates a new problem: sensorial spectacle as filler when I would be better off just reading a book lol

[@namenloss730]

PT isn't too bothered by facts and reality. A lot of the philosophy videos are quite uninformed. The housing crisis video is entirely devoid of facts. A recent video on work was self contradicting. You'll get perls on "I've never talked to Javier, but [insert detailed back story of Javier]" A few years ago the salem witch trials were blamed on capitalism. etc... If you scratch under the surface you notice that most of PT's videos are all flash no substance

[@roland3104]

I'd like to report a murder

[@mattd8725]

If he feels like this about Philosophy Tube then I would love to see the reaction to Carl of Swindon's introduction to Hegel.

[@videowifie]

Carl ov Swindon. Terrific Honorific, that.

[@thomaswest4033]

Could you link me it?

[@lumpofclay9505]

Personally, I like Sargon of Applebee's better. I just do.

[@mattd8725]

@@thomaswest4033 If I remember it was just Carl saying he read all of Hegel and understood it perfectly, but it was just a load of old rubbish and nobody else should bother reading it.

[@GDKLockout]

@@thomaswest4033 Carlof Swindon is a joke name, long story. Search for Sargon of Akkad on youtube.

[@johnnywilley8522]

I find it impossible to overstate my appreciation for this video (and others from the channel). Thank you professor!

[@sidarthur8706]

to be fair no one's actually read kant

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

kantbot has

[@naayou99]

15:00 Prof this is the second time I see you giving too much credit to Haris. I believe the original statement goes to Bertrand Russell: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

[@okzoia]

Right! Concepts ( e.g. substance/attribute, causality) are the province of the understanding, time and space concern the way sensory intuitions are "packaged": successively and extendedly.

[@addy_hits]

Having the Stroszek DVD on display is a pimp move

[@hunterpowell3319]

an absolute power move, this man is untamed

[@ihavenoname2569]

Video: A genuinely good constructive criticism of Abigails content. The comments: *bUt hE stILL a hE* *DeluSiOn* *buT whAt aBouT de BafFwoOms*

[@someguy8732]

But he still a he tho

[@m92-h5r]

Keep seething

[@ihavenoname2569]

@@m92-h5r Keep being a transphobe.

[@ihavenoname2569]

@@someguy8732 But she a she tho. 🥺

[@someguy8732]

@@ihavenoname2569 but no

[@rm9308]

Phil. Tub. problematically sloppy? *_surprised-pikachu.jpg_*

[@michaelmccloskey8718]

Are any of PhilosophyTubes videos good? I've tried so many times to watch her content and the channel has always disappointed me with shallow explanations and poor interpretations.

[@Scro10m]

Lately not at all.

[@IAMSTRINDOM]

a lot of "breadtube" has been diluted by flashy theatrics and petty internet drama, which is a shame but not a shock. kinda wish some of em would just drop the half-assed "educational video essay" pretense and go full bore on being theatre, they might be able to communicate more effectively that way honestly

[@abovestrent3666]

'her' lmao

[@AReiReiChufly]

They are. I think Abbie is more focused in introducing philosophy in everyday life situations instead of just focusing on the pure philosophy of philosophy (epistemology). I mean, to learn about philosophy as a career or in a professional setting you should go to school, I think. As entertaining content that IS well researched (maybe not as well interpreted sometimes) I do enjoy them a lot. Try to watch the series on mental health. And her coming out video. Those really hit in the feels while being very enlightening about self centrism. And if you have lived your life in any way of unprivileged setting (racism or discrimination of some sort) they can be very educational about those discriminatory behaviors within oneself. The video about work ethics is also really good. I do enjoy them. But again. Maybe it’s acquire taste, who knows.

[@GayTier1Operator]

i can’t stand her videos. i think she was best when she was replying to popular conservative ideas. i really don’t find anything valuable in her videos about philosophy or academic texts generally. i actually even find them to be misleading at times

[@AD-zu8uc]

I agree with most of what you say in this video. The point I am about to make might be beside the point, but I don't believe one must be an academic or scholar to do philosophy. I have a BA and MA in philosophy myself, and I learned more about philosophy by reading and working with the primary texts myself, not from what I learned at university. Let's not forget that academic philosophy is the study of philosophical texts, and not actually philosophy. Of course, it depends on how you define philosophy. A Stoic should not be compared to Kant, for example. Besides, you speak about these videos as a commercial product, which I fully agree with, but does that not also hold true for academic philosophy? Schools and universities need to teach, and to be able to teach, they must have students. Is that not the same thing? The only difference is that universities have a sort of accepted cultural reality-they must be good because they teach to make students better humans who serve society. But why does that privilege belong only to university professors and not to some very skilled philosophy KZbinrs? Are you not here to sell us a product (your book for example) as well? Do you not earn anything on these videos? Not meant as an ad hominem argument by the way.

[@KKMDB]

He's got scrolls on the shelf :) how cool

[@geoffreyhughes1]

This is why Wikipedia and KZbin are not used as sources.

[@ancientdarkmagic1409]

Anyone who has study philosophy and those that majored in it will agreed that every argument, idea or statement that is being said by anyone needs to be put under critical evaluation and shouldn't be accepted on first impression. I feel the Profesor didn't do anything wrong by clearing the misconception that Abigail has said in her video about Kant. I think it's good for the viewer to be aware of this misconception or the details that she missed to address because it would help us understand more about the idea that is being presented about Kant. It's important to make a distiction about the idea that has been said and detached it from the person that has said it. In the topic of Kant and Abigail videos addressing it, she may have said things that came out incorrect, that has been pointed by the profesor, now it's us as the audience to do our research about the subject to know more. Because at the end it's what it is about, knowing more and making sure that the information you have about, in this case, Kant is valid. One last thing, I want to say that I am a fan of PT, Abigail has done some interesting videos on topics that had gave me a new perpective. But I don't think her argument and ideas are perfect, because you can point at flaws, flaws that leads to interesting conversation and explore interesanting ideas. And if we can take something from his video, is that we should be skeptical with each vídeo we watched, in this case about philosophy, and we should do our research on the topic. So that way we don't limit our selves to someone's interpretation about the text, but also we get to directly engage and know what about it makes the text amazing.

[@Tozzie50]

this is a good comment well said

[@lol22332]

But he is saying that philosophy tube naively made that video as someone who wanted to talk about Kant. When studying I will admit that Abigail did what she could to make the best video but we should take everything with a grain of salt. It would be like me, someone uneducated in the subject reading all I can find on Wikipedia and online sources, maybe even some of the source material to make a polished video recapping a few surface level facts and some opinions on the subject, while holding no true authority on the subject. I am also a long time viewer of Philosophy Tube but unfortunately I believe that the product has gotten in the way of the actual education and information. The costumes are just an example of this, the jokes and sarcasm has gotten to the levels of just copying contrapoints for views and it overshadows the philosophy. I believe it has corrupted Abigail’s credibility. I see it as nothing more than flashy surface level exposure to information that has become too Woke for healthy consumption. No longer do they make you question, they employ sarcasm to influence to feel a certain way on a topic.

[@turtle8871]

@@lol22332 philosophy tube is a narcissistic person with deep obsession with Contrapoints (i think they had some sort of relationship as well) and other mental issues, i'm surprised many find PT likeable

[@MrMikkyn]

This is the same with videos on Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche he comes across as a rambling megalomaniac. But that never comes across like that with short profound snippets of his quotes and introductory videos on his theories on youtube. Its more entertaining and exciting, spooky music and artistic backgrounds, and the video author’s commentary on modernity, rather than Nietzache’s actual words itself. Nietzsche appears as a beacon for heroism, against group think, and individualism in these short snippet videos. But he’s actually not this simplistic figure at all. Even Thus Spake Zarathustra is limited to the stories of the serpent and the eagle, the tightrope, and the last man, which is only like 0.1 percent of the whole book.

[@liamsweeney4754]

His videos on Kant, Nietzsche, Schmitt are all riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and often outright lies about the philosophers. It's disheartening to see the amount of reach he gets.

[@thevo4100]

When I was studying Kant I found that the best way to explain 'forms of intuition' in English was with the word 'format'. Analogies with computers can only go so far but are valid.

[@Luke-zw5el]

I've always tried to imagine if Kant time traveled to our time, like, would he find part of artificial intelligence technology analogous to his philosophy?

[@TRENKROM]

I always compared them to "whatever it is in your TV that turns radio waves into tv shows"

[@vp4744]

There's another youtube professor, Daniel Bonevac, who uses the TV analogy quite well to explain the same.

[@Dayglodaydreams]

It's hard for us to have access to Franco/German philosophy those of us in the Anglo/American world.

[@alexandertownsend3291]

You have a point. You either have to get a translation which means you sacrifice accuracy and clarity, or you have to learn a second language which requires a lot of effort and is time consuming. Either way it is difficult to access these materials.

[@jonathanbailey1597]

I always wondered why Philosophy Tube didn't just talk about them (time and space) as the 'conditions of possibility' for experience at all. Really good explanation here by the way! And a very apt analysis of the common mistakes that anglophone philosophers make concerning Kant.

[@elgado]

Precisely! Looking at Kant's epistemology primarily as a project for grounding what the 'conditions of possibility' are for knowledge: that was what was drilled into my bachelor-level study of his transcendental philosophy. This is a great video, and I hope it inspires people to sit down and try reading Kant.

[@LeftIsBest]

I think it was bc the creator was like 20 years old when they made the Kant video. They're much better now, imo.

[@ingsertname6074]

'a lot of mansplaining' ... slightly awkward now lol

[@Bindestrich]

If you really believe in Gender as social construction it IS mansplaining because Abigail was presenting as a man in the video.

[@tieflingcorpse9817]

@@Bindestrich thats not how gender works

[@tieflingcorpse9817]

@Ash ok transphobe

[@tieflingcorpse9817]

@Ash i mean your transphobic because your invalidating a trans person's identity. how am i misogynist or homophobic? (i dont even know where homosexuality came into this)

[@abetterhandle]

Well he still is a guy so....

[@zntx]

Professor Heisenberg here straightening the facts like a boss

[@stueyapstuey4235]

But there are no 'facts' in 'idealism' - that's a large part of its charm (for philosophers)...

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@stueyapstuey4235 wrong

[@stueyapstuey4235]

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 Insightful, perhaps - but you have no facts to back up your claim.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@@stueyapstuey4235 German idealism for Kant is completely based upon the fabric and structure of logic, both formal and transcendental, do you deny this?

[@stueyapstuey4235]

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 fabric & structure? So, logic is made of... denim? Is the structure of... bricks? These 'ideas' are made of bits of language... things you say. Nothing transcendental (I guess you can have formal denim in a square dance!). The 'idea' of 'idealism' is immaterial. No 'real' stuff attached. That's kind of why it is so fundamentally stupid. The question the Greek philosophers were trying to out think each other with. was: is the fundamental basis of experience - X or Y or T minus potatoes. They went - water, nah air, nah fire, nah .... Plato said (via Socrates) - it must be the righteous eternal... which never changes - 'concept', pure in the mind of God... Dumb solution to a dumb argument. Kant is merely another, slightly better educated, one of Plato's schoolboys!

[@matthewludovici1072]

I was grinding my teeth when I watched those Kant videos. Glad you posted this.

[@tubeguy4066]

Dude takes Kant and makes him say what he wants to say.

[@mchlle94]

I thought this was really interesting, because, yes you're right, it's not academic and it's commodifying, even though PT brands herself as an academic intellectual & marxist

[@wegood563]

That’s a man

[@huwcresswell6996]

@@wegood563 this is an old video of hers, she has recently come out to the world as a trans woman

[@wegood563]

@@huwcresswell6996 that’s a man. Your sex is immutable though. You can’t change that shit. He larping as a woman

[@huwcresswell6996]

@@wegood563 that's not how it works dipshit, do some actual research

[@peterbedford449]

@@wegood563 I know other people's gender threatens you, We Good.. But in time you will come to accept that trans people will do you no harm and are just people who have a different gender identity to the one they were given by other people at birth. They are just normal people who are doing nothing wrong. You are not right about their gender - they are the experts on their own gender, not you. And your ideas about gender in general are wrong. In time you will come to accept that. And if you don't, you continue to wallow in mediocrity.

[@slmille4]

I think this is much more helpful than watching just a scholarly video or just a lay video on Kant, that's the power of dialectic.

[@samanthathompson9812]

I think the issue is partly one of colloquial use of language versus a more specialist use. When ordinary joes say "brain" they mean mind. And the word "concept" is used very loosely by ordinary people. Not sure how you convey Kant to laymen frankly.

[@genericgorilla]

I don't see what's the big crime here. I presume any philosophy student should know better than to rely on a 5 minute intro to Kant. For anyone wanting to merely consume some thinky thoughty content, this "crucial rift" doesn't even begin to be important. My point is, Peter Singer has been out there misleading people about Hegel for far longer and nobody seems to care lmao.

[@VALENTINEBEAMS]

'Any'? 'ANY'?!

[@andrewfrankovic6821]

@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? First, you didn't offend me in any way, and I hope I don't rift you. I like to optimize the odds my comment get read by someone, otherwise iT's almost certainly just going to be graffiti. Crime is sort of a keyword with me, but I'll stay away from iT, mostly, just to say iT's a crime for 'for profit' philosophers to collect customers on youtube. That's the nature of the whole reading empire, building writing careers, getting a brand name out there and then swimming in the gravy of past success. That's oHH K if making writers were a man-wide goal, and maybe iT should be. In closing, I think time, space, GOD and infinity are all man-made fallacies. People talk about time and space as iF they belong on the periodic table. That non-stuff simply isn't there except as a handful of words. Then there's the claptrap about dimension. A bridge has been made from 3D as width, depth and height, which are all one manner of length depending on your point of view, to there being three and four and ten and counting dimensions that are other worldly. iT's borderline illiteracy where iT isn't blatant irresponsibility as math and science toy with words. Length and timing measure dimensions and we're stuck in one dimension in escalating decay, and even that might be a good thing iF one's head isn't screwed up one's ass a priori.

[@patricktan7120]

can you elaborate a bit on the Peter Singer part, am not familiar

[@くそくらえ-p3n]

Peter Singer needs to put in jail for his crimes against Hegel. the amount of bullshit singer is responsible for is nuts

[@chrisknopp1864]

I'm curious what you think of the Philosophize this! podcast. I really like it, but I'm curious if there are major flaws there as well.

[@Hreodrich]

I’d also like to hear an opinion on philosophize this. One thing I find very refreshing about philosophize this is that it’s very difficult to draw any idea of Stephen West’s personal beliefs from the videos. He presents and argues opposing trains of thought much more so than philosophy tube. That’s not to say it’s necessarily correct or better but I’ve come to see that philosophy tube consistently smuggles in a lot of “oughts” in his videos derived from his interpretations where philosophize this tends to just present the ideas.

[@rauldjvp3053]

@@Hreodrich quite good. But if you’ve already read the material, he doesn’t teach anything you wouldn’t know.

[@NathanLucas5]

@@rauldjvp3053 yeah he's a good intro but only an intro, I enjoy Philosophize this but I'm routinely disappointed when I listen to episodes on philosophers I've read or taken classes on

[@mikhailratner7091]

THIS!! It would be great to hear if Steven West makes a better job in avoiding such major flaws.

[@mikhailratner7091]

​@@Hreodrich I also enjoy this aspect of it. The only drawback is that he uploads sooo sporadicly.

[@jaymata1218]

i dont know wtf either one is saying, but I love how he's roasting the british guy

[@barrygormley3986]

Unfortunately, philosophy is one subject where anyone who can read thinks they’re qualified to talk about it.

[@adamjames6953]

I believe the person in question has a first class degree from a good British uni, it just seems a hastily researched video that doesn't reflect their other (newer) videos. Not that you're necessarily wrong in general, just seems a harsh comment in this case, y'know.

[@mycaleb8]

@@adamjames6953 I've not been impressed with Abigail's more recent videos. The video on Confucius was amusingly poor.

[@barrygormley3986]

@@adamjames6953 If all you have is an undergraduate degree, then Kant is almost certainly above your head.

[@sr-gc6vh]

@@barrygormley3986 Elitist snob. Anybody can talk about philosophy. You don't need a degree for it.

[@barrygormley3986]

@@sr-gc6vh You don’t need a degree. You just need countless hours of intense study as with any other rigorous discipline. And yes, philosophy is a highly rigorous discipline and thinking it isn’t is how you end up sounding like a complete idiot when talking about it.

[@dongshenghan1473]

KZbin must think of me as smart to recommend this. I understands nothing and here comes my childish humor: Kant is a funny name.

[@PeterAndersonn2]

Let me throw this out there, from Plato's Republic 376e-377a: -"Aren't there two kinds of story, one true and the other false?" -"Yes." -"And mustn't our men be educated in both, but first the false ones?" -"I don't understand what you mean." -"Don't you understand that we first tell stories to children? These are false, on the whole, though they have some truth in them. And we tell them to small children before physical training begins." -"That's true." Let amateurs throw their stuff out there. The problem here isn't with deficient or overly-simple content. The problem lies with media literacy more generally. There's no one to bamboozle if we all read well in the first place. Then, I suppose, the problem is that we don't all necessarily read well, or read well all the time, and these are different problems... These videos have their place. They're primarily for children, laypeople, and for those simply looking for some entertainment. They're not for academics, or for those with academic aspirations. I would have appreciated them years ago when I was just dipping my toes into it, and I appreciate them even more today when I like to think it gives me a read on how these topics are apprehended generally. Plato's Socrates constantly refers to what he takes the opinions of 'the many' to be on a given topic, correct? Pop-theory videos like this provide a great window into precisely this. In this sense they're doing philosophy a service rather than a disservice. Let us traverse, with guidance, both the simple and the complex in such a way that allows us to see each for what they are. It's only by working through the simple that we will ever arrive at the complex. Entry level stuff. We don't throw children in the open ocean to teach them to swim.

[@I1caro]

I thought you're talking about religion.

[@SockLove]

@@I1caro Religion was the first "philosophy". Only later did it become philosophy, and now it became science so yeah, we keep improving things

[@iamjurell]

@@SockLove The earlier term for 'scientist' was 'natural philosopher'

[@petraarkian7720]

I completely agree. Plus people only learn about things they have exposure to. Without channels like philosophy tube far fewer people would ever formally study philosophy. If PT brings someone to start reading Stanford encyclopedia and that bring them to the origional texts then its doing a valuable service. Yes things will get lost in translation but I think its most important to get people interested and discussing these topics in general. Not everyone can be a philosopher, but if more people care about philosophy in general thats a good thing imo.

[@r.d.marshall9383]

I'm not sure the lines you're quoting really support your argument here to be honest. Here are the lines with some more context surrounding them: SOCRATES: Come on, then, and like people in a fable telling stories at their leisure, let’s in our discussion educate these men. ADEIMANTUS: Yes, let’s. SOCRATES: What, then, will the education be? Or is it difficult to find a better one than the one that has been discovered over a long period of time-physical training for bodies and musical training for the soul? ADEIMANTUS: Yes, it is. SOCRATES: Now, won’t we start musical training before physical training? ADEIMANTUS: Of course. SOCRATES: And you include stories under musical training, don’t you? ADEIMANTUS: I do. SOCRATES: But aren’t there two kinds of stories, one true and the other false? ADEIMANTUS: Yes. SOCRATES: And education must make use of both, but first of the false ones? ADEIMANTUS: I do not understand what you mean. SOCRATES: Don’t you understand that we first begin by telling stories to children? And surely they are false on the whole, though they have some truth in them. And we use stories on children before physical training. ADEIMANTUS: That’s true. SOCRATES: That, then, is what I meant by saying that musical training should be taken up before physical training. ADEIMANTUS: And you were right. SOCRATES: Now, you know, don’t you, that the beginning of any job is the most important part, especially when we are dealing with anything young and tender? For that is when it is especially malleable and best takes on whatever pattern one wishes to impress on it. ADEIMANTUS: Precisely so. SOCRATES: Shall we carelessly allow our children to hear any old stories made up by just anyone, then, and to take beliefs into their souls that are, for the most part, the opposite of the ones we think they should hold when they are grown up? ADEIMANTUS: We certainly won’t allow that at all. SOCRATES: So our first task, it seems, is to supervise the storytellers: if they make up a good story, we must accept it; if not, we must reject it. We will persuade nurses and mothers to tell the acceptable ones to their children, and to spend far more time shaping their souls with these stories than they do shaping their bodies by handling them. Many of the stories they tell now, however, must be thrown out.

[@mimief7969]

Philosophy is insane. I was never taught any of this, it's as complex as mathematics, trying to keep up because I'm curious tho 💖

[@stueyapstuey4235]

It isn't really that complex. Philosophy is the art of concocting ingenious answers to badly conceptualized questions.

[@mimief7969]

@@stueyapstuey4235 Wish it was this easy! Being able to understand these "ingenious answers" requires a lot of familiarity with the canon and with specialized language that are lots of work to develop if you're uneducated. Don't take it for granted.

[@stueyapstuey4235]

@@mimief7969 That is true - every specialization has its own vocabulary and genre of discussion, but in philosophy as in 'cultural/literary theory' some of the nomenclature isn't helpful, especially so when a word which exists in common usage is applied in a technically rigorous way. That in itself is not so problematic when you are familiar with how the discipline functions. What is problematic is when the 'technical term' is accepted without being properly elucidated, or challenged. This is essentially the issue in this discussion about Kant. To that extent philosophy (and lit/cultural theory, for that matter) is its own worst enemy by failing to ground its claims with sufficient clarity. The 'ingenious answers' claim is actually fair when you address the claims philosophers like Plato and Kant are trying to make. Plato's idealism is just plain wrong, but Kant buys it and tries to extend its scope. So, y'know...!

[@mimief7969]

@@stueyapstuey4235 Yeah, "...when you're familiar with how the discipline functions," was my point. It's a struggle to build that, as an adult with only basic and vocational education, that's all I'm commenting on.

[@4grammaton]

If you can demonstrate with certainty that Plato's idealism is "wrong", then I invite you to do so and make public your findings and your argumentation: there's a lot of fame and money waiting for you. Until then, a counter-argument by Nobel prize winning physicist Werner Heisenberg: *I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.* (Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34) Mind you, I am not a Platonist. The consideration here is that influential philosophical ideas aren't generally judged to be right or wrong, but rather they lead to a reframing and refinement of the questions they set out to address in the first place, and in doing so, lay the groundwork for new approaches. The greater value of philosophy does not lie in making claims or judgments (although that is a prominent and important part of discourse), but in questioning and exploring the frameworks that such claims are made within, the implicit claims or assumptions that underlie explicit claims (what you might call the 'grounds' or 'grounding'). Approaches can be shown to be inadequate or insufficient for a particular problem, but seldom outright wrong: when judgments are made regarding them, those judgments tend to address the applicability or utility of an approach within a certain context, rather than its truth value in an absolute sense. You accuse philosophy of "failing to ground its claims with sufficient clarity", but that appears to be a very broad stroke. All disciplines are based on some methodology, which in turn is grounded in a certain epistemological position. Science itself is a subset of philosophy. I would also like to know what your criteria are for "grounding claims with sufficient clarity". You have brought up philosophy in conjunction with literary and cultural theory, so it appears your criticisms have in mind primarily those parts of philosophy which have a lot in common with those disciplines, and that is very understandable.

[@jalius7878]

Anyone else get recommended and then feel inclined to click on this video because they saw it referenced in previous videos? Is this a common thing that the KZbin algorithm does?

[@jalius7878]

Because it was effective

[@HiHi-iu8gf]

Someone else said a similar thing: appreciate the critique, the psychoanalysis not so much. I think some of the language is, intentionally or not, more accusatory than it should be considering the limited scope through which you are viewing this video, as isolated from the rest of Abigail's person and content. I understand the statement of overconfidence, but to claim things like a complete lack of research, total ignorance, and rather the intention of a fame of sorts is a bit presumptuous, no? It's one thing to say someone hasn't engaged with the content as much as they should if speaking with such authority, or to say someone is misinformed - but is another to claim that they did not try to meaningfully understand the material at all. To my understanding Thorn's main motivations for doing what she does is to create a larger interest in philosophy, greater accessibility to philosophy (she was prompted to start her channel in response to rising tuition fees), and as a creative outlet. Politically, even if it's not explicitly said, it's also pretty clear there is an ideological/political underlying motivation for explaining how philosophy informs her stance and (unclear intentional or unintentional) how it might convince others (in that way her videos are also persuasive; I'm aware she often does make the effort to separate personal opinion of the subject matter, at least for the first half of videos - but when speaking of things like philosophy it can be difficult to be entirely objective I suppose). Despite the name, PhilosophyTube is more of an individualistic channel than the name proports. There are issues again of overconfidence or unwarranted authority you could discuss there, but I think it would be counterproductive to claim a sort of "corporateness" or "willing ignorance" (those aren't great terms, can't think of a better way to phrase it - you get the gist tho). I just think it would be as if I watched this video in isolation and made the conclusion that the Professor was only doing this as some sort of power trip, some other form of solely self-interested motivation - as opposed to correcting and critiquing an issue he has identified, to inform those who have been misinformed, and to warn people of blindly listing to charismatic presenters, and said presenters of biting off more than they can chew. I believe the latter is more likely the case and that it would be presumptuous of me to assume the former by extrapolating elements of the video which I disagree with and conflating them with more generalised assumptions which may or may not apply to the subject. But, all in all, nice video lol. I feel as if I have come away with some understandings of mine better articulated and have been provided with some good insight and more things to ponder on. As the great philosopher Albert Einstein once said, "cool beans, and godspeed ;)"

[@claragrica]

You are being overly critical about the production of the video. Great, go deeper than that, sntrongly agree, if one's like it, should go search for more. BUT, is not an ineharant problem to put more into the production of the video and having a better video, doesn't mean that is why she was not that accurate with the subject. Seing just as a plain product with out considering that if someone is making a video, it is not a problema to make that video a insteresting one. Video language demands visual stuff.

[@Pike2]

What the fuck did this guy keep calling me?

[@JamesIdentity]

This is great stuff. Thank you! You should absolutely do more of these.

[@zainmudassir2964]

Good philosophy vid thanks

[@jasonvargas441]

Professor: I dont like that the host in this video is overconfident and the videos purpose seems to be to enrich the host's status Everyone in the comments: we want YOU to point out the mistakes on other people's video, pls make a series starring YOURSELF doing this.

[@10hockeyrocks10]

It's because the people commenting aren't actually interested intellectually, they just want to feel smarter than others.

[@GingerDrums]

​@@10hockeyrocks10 It seems like the Professor is interested in becoming a public intellectual. He aims to do this through substantive arguments rather than flashy presentation, and for this reason his audience is justified in encouraging and applauding that effort. Ironically, you @benkzr are implying that you know something about the other commenters (which makes you appear smarter)

[@SomethingImpromptu]

I like Philosophy Tube, but very good critique. Also, it’s insanely funny to me that Sam Harris would accuse anyone else of “an ugly marriage between confidence & ignorance.” That’s just about the most succinct description of Harris & Jordan Peterson & all the other conservative demagogues who masquerade as public intellectuals while constantly making claims (especially about political & social subjects) which are completely lacking in academic rigor, intellectual honesty, or the background knowledge necessary to make sound judgements about these subjects... And yet all the while they speak in this extremely authoritative, confident tone which is very convincing to a lot of people who unfortunately lack the background knowledge too to know better. To be entirely fair, I will say that both in the case of Philosophy Tube & Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris & all the rest, the intellectually toxic environment of online discourse, there are enormous pressures which incentivize people to speak with this kind of unearned or misguided confidence. It is simply an extremely effective rhetorical technique, & the people who use it seem to rise to the top whether they deserve to on the basis of their ideas or not. And when it comes to political issues, I think that whether they realize it, whether it’s fully conscious or not, I think a whole lot of people have this feeling that as long as they judge that the consequentialist outcomes of an action are a net positive, some amount of misinformation, or at very least stating claims with a degree of confidence which is inappropriate, is justified. When Jordan Peterson straight up LIES to his audience with a claim like “Marxists & leftists just refuse to debate me because they know they’ll lose in an open debate,” while all the while behind the scenes we now know that numerous prominent Marxist academics & intellectuals were e-mailing him to invite public debates & it was Peterson who was denying them the opportunity, I don’t think Peterson *cares* that much whether it’s true or not... Because Peterson truly believes his propaganda line about what Marxists are (uninformed as it is), & he is very firm in his belief that Marxists are horrible, that they are undermining Western society, etc.... So in his mind I imagine it’s very easy to justify what he might deem a “white lie” if he believes the result will be to steer hundreds of thousands or millions of people away from any possibility of hearing out Marxist arguments. And when the person has a personal economic or class interest in people believing those lies or bits of mis/disinfo, as anyone on KZbin whose videos are monetized, any podcast host, any author, etc., potentially perceive themselves to, that makes it all the easier to tread on the wrong side of intellectual honesty. When you can tell yourself “Not only will this help me make money, but it also will serve a greater good,” you can rationalize just about anything- and people often do retroactively to justify actions they took for more self-serving purposes, regardless of their politics. I will say that I’m not sure this is the case with Philosophy Tube, because his “brand” is being a big-brained philosophy communicator, & the audience this brand attracts is going to include a lot of people who have a broader interest in philosophy & are informed about it (unlike someone like Peterson, whose audience consists of a lot of conservatives who like what he did with regards to the trans protection bill that made him famous, which he severely misrepresented, as well as a lot of disaffected, Internet-brained young men who he sells his self-help books to- therefore I would suspect that a large portion of the audience he’s selling his wares to will tend to have less specialized knowledge & will be easier to dupe with a technique like speaking authoritatively even when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Every time Philosophy Tube makes a serious philosophy mistake, that is a pretty big blow to his perceived credibility (just look at how you reacted to this video), & one that people will remind them of for years & years to come. So ultimately I think that, as a consequence of the nature of his brand, Philosophy Tube has a vested interest in showing some amount of intellectual rigor that is absent in some other corners of KZbin. It’s also important to remember that this was a fairly early video, when they were a fairly young person; I think their research has improved greatly as they’ve learned from some of these mistakes- but that’s not to suggest he never makes mistakes anymore. I would just suggest that these mistakes were a good faith result of their rushing a video out, reading insufficiently, whereas I feel that I have good reason to believe (based on numerous instances) that someone like Peterson actually does knowingly deceive their audience to sell an ideology & has shown a consistent track-record of bad faith behavior when it comes to any subject outside of his wheelhouse of Biblical interpretation & Jungian psychology.

[@grayson0916]

Are you trying to tell me that Jordan Peterson is wrong about cultural Marxism subverting societies values?🤭😂

[@chi8514]

its amazing the mind reading and ability to infer the inner workings of others mind youtube commenters have. iam the big brain who know you are justifyING LIES

[@redwardstone3651]

Awesome channel, thanks for being! Anyone constructively criticizing people (and calling Sam Harris wrong) is alright in my book

[@grayson0916]

Wrong is an understatement lmao

[@eugenesis8188]

Something I constantly try to point out to people is how little having a degree means. I was a philosophy major. I did not graduate, but I finished all the relevant credits. As in, I took 10 or so different philosophy classes and passed. Not a whole ton, but more than most. I'll use logic 101 as an example. I believe everybody who showed up every day passed, but I don't know for sure. Very few people in that class had a solid grasp on most fallacies. Even fewer could explain why they are fallacious. The comprehension was extremely low. Just as an example, think of the term "ad hominem." How often do you hear it thrown around in online spaces? Constantly, right? How often is it being used correctly? People think ad hominem means an insult. No, that's wrong. An insult is not an argument in itself. It's only a fallacy if the insult is part of the argument. Here's the insane example that I see all the time. I have literally been told that I'm not qualified to talk about certain things because I don't have a degree. *That* is an ad hominem. They are saying something about me to refute my argument. So I tell them that, and, without fail, they disagree. I was once informed that I need to go back to school to pick up the basics, because me calling that an ad hominem is "a fallacious appeal to authority." Wrong again. I'm not claiming to be an authority, so I'm not appealing to my own authority. I proceeded to explain what an appeal to authority is, and they said that I need to go back to school again, because it's not even a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if they aren't an authority. So I cited Wikipedia. There's literally a sentence in the article on appeal to authority that points out saying somebody is not an authority is an ad hominem. I'm not even joking, they then said that Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy authority on the subject. Bro... just...

[@ecxstasy347]

Is this a copypasta?

[@eugenesis8188]

@@ecxstasy347 God damn, is it that cringe?

[@ecxstasy347]

@@eugenesis8188 No, not at all haha! That ending just seemed very ironic!

[@BarriosGroupie]

I agree. But life is short as it is when determining the competence of a person; so that I'd rather see a doctor over a pain in my stomach rather than seeking help from my next door neighbour who's good at Googling information. Seeking guidance from academically qualified people in the area of expertise one is interested in is generally a good strategy in life.

[@eugenesis8188]

@@BarriosGroupie That's fine. Just don't argue with people about things you don't want to actually learn about. That's generally the best way to go through life, there's just a lot of people who prey on that.

[@simmerway]

The timing of this video is nothing short of iconic

[@simmerway]

@Radical Larry Philosophy Tube came out as trans like 3 hours after this was uploaded

[@negatronnortagen8037]

Abigail came out in the new year...

[@simmerway]

@@negatronnortagen8037 I mean technically she came out ages ago. But publicly she came out in a video that was released very shortly after this one

[@negatronnortagen8037]

You better check again. I saw her coming out video weeks ago

[@negatronnortagen8037]

And I better check again cuz I thought this video was "days" old nvm! Also down with transphobia, btw while I'm here

[@martinbennett2228]

"consciousness by definition" - I do not think we can define consciousness. Nevertheless, I suppose you are right to object that in referring to the mind Kant was not using the term as synonymous with the processes of the brain. "Hard-wired" is clearly a metaphor that is wholly alien to Kant. Obviously, Kant was no neuroscientist, he was more of an idealist, so it is very difficult to make coherent sense of what the mind was for Kant. This is not surprising since today our reference for understanding is generally materialist. I am sure that in teaching philosophy I make similar mistakes about Kant. What the video, you criticise, does is to present a revisionist interpretation of Kant, basically asking how we might make sense of Kant's conclusions from a materialist, neuroscientific perspective. At worst, I am sure you are right that it is fallacious and misleading, though at best it tries to adapt Kant's conclusions to fundamental questions of what terms of reference are already accepted whenever we make (or more strictly report) perceptions amongst which, firstly there is causality, and dependent on this a sense of reference in time and space. Another issue with video clips and teaching philosophy in general is the distinction between teaching philosophy and the history of philosophy. When concentrating on the ideas, mangling the history is common place.

[@stevebourget]

You've missed the point of the video.

[@martinbennett2228]

@@stevebourget Very likely, I think I acknowledged that, however my point is different which is that there is significant divergence between a discussion of the philosophical issues and a discussion about arguments Kant was trying to make. The other controversial issue is about the point to reading poorly expressed, badly written texts in the original. It is unsettling if native speakers prefer to read a version in another language!

[@stevebourget]

@@martinbennett2228 The Philosophy tube video presented itself as an introduction to Kant's epistemology and metaphysics but did not do it correctly. The video does not help anyone understand Kant if the information is wrong. Your argument is problematic, because you asserted that since we adopt a materialist position (neuroscience), we must translate Kant into terms understandable to contemporaries. This argument seems to me to make as much sense as to want to present the moral philosophy of Aristotle or Kant in utilitarian terms, because the majority of the population is utilitartist. If our aim is to present Kant, then it seems to me that it is him that we have to present and not the neuroscience of our time. Otherwise, we have to make a video on neuroscience, it is useless to speak of Kant, if it is to make him the outmoded grandfather of contemporary thought. Perhaps the essential point raised by the professor's video, that of the transcendental as a function of our brain, as Philosophy Tube asserted it, it concealed all the originality of Kant's thought. Introducing Kant's thought could have just happened through 2 positions opposed to Kant: the naturalization of the transcendental (or its total rejection) or it's historicization in poststructuralism (Foucualt). Then show how 2 major currents of contemporary thought are rooted in Kant, but oppose to him. I admit that I don't like the videos from the Philosophy Tube channel (although I am aware of the talent of the people linked to the channel). I don't like this kind of presentation made in a tone of certainty with no remark that would allow the viewer to understand that they are shortcuts and approximation. I apologize for this long and tiresome comment.

[@martinbennett2228]

@@stevebourget Firstly, I have not been particularly aware of Philosophy Tube as a series; I think I have probably looked at one or two, I certainly knew nothing about the trans gender identity and cannot imagine that I have used any of the videos in my lessons (I have found some of the School of Life videos quite useful). On the other hand, I have used the 'hard wired' analogy, though have stressed that Kant cannot have possibly thought this way. This has been in the context of teaching about causation. I certainly do not assert that we must translate Kant into a neuroscience/ neurophilosophy perspective, rather I say that from this perspective we could (or even can) make make sense of or relate to Kant's conclusions. Actually what I do not understand about Kant's response to Hume is that he does not seem to realise that even to discuss the status of causality automatically presupposes causal relationships. Perhaps it is because Kant is an idealist and has a weirdly Cartesian take on causality (inferring an immaterial causality. I do not think a neurophilosophical approach is opposed to Kant, it is just that although Kant makes a point about what he calls noumenon and phenomenon and that the noumenon is beyond our reach, with the phenomenon it seems as though 'magic happens'; there is a lack of distinction between the sensory input and the integration of sensory inputs. this is hardly surprising, such thinking would be as foreign to Kant as non Euclidian geometry or general relativity. Opposed is the wrong term. Although I understand your criticism of the tone of the Philosophy Tube channel, I have similar misgivings about Professor Mueller (which is why I appreciated the comment: "PhilosophyTube's videos give the false impression that philosophy is worth learning. This professor is here to set the record straight"!)

[@reid.7680]

I think this critique does well in philosopher's circles but to a general KZbin audience this video remains opaque about Kant without more detailed explanations with supplementary examples, which is the reason why PhilosophyTube is so successful.

[@TK-uk9en]

Successful at misinforming and further confusing audiences, yes.

[@0fof0fo]

@@TK-uk9en Yes, making the opaque clear always misrepresents it because the opaque is by definition opaque and cannot be made clear. Therefore, in my opinion, misrepresent away!

[@zeshawnali5676]

@@0fof0fo you can't stagnate because there will always be unknowns, this will always be the case (as I'm sure you know), though you can gloat if you like. What really matters is the attitude with which you approach information. I can give you an example of say an instructional video on how to throw a kick. You can say that a shitty video on it could lead to someone getting hurt; if its entertaining it might lead a certain few to go on and look further into it, perhaps take a up a discipline and learn proper mechanics. However when it comes to videos like these the benefit vs risk ratio is not the same at all and generally promote open mindedness, not overconfidence and snobbery. Even if someone were to discuss Kant with knowledge just obtained from philosophy tube with someone who did not know much about Kant at all, and even further distorted it, there would not be too much lost in any paradigm of thinking about risk, likely there would still be gain as there will likely be at least some discussion that would be distinct from the usual way of thinking about things

[@johnnysphere3510]

People in the comments, especially if you are all studying philosophy, need to be more...Amoral, Neutral and Objective? Mix Psychology + Philosophy + Sociology + Politics + Religion + Mythology and start viewing life as a game and culture as a giant LARP art project...this is how Faeries and Demons view things and where ideas of Contracts, Dharma and Karma come from. Your current incarnation is a character your spirit is playing. Bad karma, depression and suffering is result of people acting out of character. Freedom is in realizing that you aren't your emotions, opinions, likes, dislikes, or culture and that you can always make your own....life is a game and we are all method actors

[@unclebilly3501]

Awesome stuff. Ironic that Sam Harris is talking about the marriage of ignorance and confidence though…

[@Julia_and_the_City]

Abigail Thorn: you just got Drivellated. Please respond.

[@squid9882]

I enjoy philosophy tubes videos, they have given me an interest in philosophy and i want to explore more because of it. I appreciate your counter to the channel, very interesting.

[@lights473]

Philosophy Tube these days is just left-wing trash

[@louisa.520]

be aware of the heavy one sided political bias Philosophiy Tube has

[@juniorqindes8335]

“An interest in philosophy” didn’t watch, huh?

[@marcpadilla1094]

The only thing i know about Kant is his deontology( am i right) our primary value as humans is our sense of duty. Derived from his religious upbringing he incorporated judeo Christian virtues like devotion and work into his philosophy.

[@anlace3447]

Pop philosophy videos on philosophy should be "thrown to the flames"!!!

[@alonzy989]

Interesting gatekeeping there

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@Nick Fanchette Who cares about the minds of the masses

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@Nick Fanchette No I'm deadly serious, meritocracy is greater than egalitarianism. Most people are fundamentally irrational and deeply underread or undereducated, so who cares about their uninformed opinions, especially on science or philosophy of all things. The world needs less opinions and less disinformation, not more

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@Nick Fanchette "You think people living in the Corridor of Shame in the US would CHOOSE to have underfunded schools if the option and information necessary to change that were presented to them?" Cool point, too bad it's completely irrelevant. Never said anything about it being their choice, it obviously isn't. This does nothing to change the fact that their opinions are worth nil. Look up the four great errors by Nietzsche, you committed one of them, guess which one it was. The consolidated elite via scribes and what not is a better thing, not worse. Like Anders said, education should be more strenuous. "Diversity of opinion" is fine in theory but that is not what typically happens, even academics are known to inadvertently commit circle jerks and have problems like the replication crisis. These problems were exacerbated after schools granted more lenient access. Once again, meritocracy > the egalitarian humanitarianism that has poisoned the anglo-saxon world for the past ~250 years post Rousseau and Voltaire.

[@hazardousjazzgasm129]

@Nick Fanchette Navel gazing is precisely what I aim to reduce, don't you see?

[@Beastieboys356]

Hehehe sounds like he’s saying “cunt” when he says “Kant”

[@krisjill5918]

Now now, professor, not all of us English speaking philosophy pros are so ignorant as to conflate the transcendental with transcendence. One merely has to understand the basics of Deleuze's transcendental empiricism to grasp that, i.e. the conditions of experience are in the experience (immanence). Even Husserl's botched attempt at immanence is enough to lay out the distinction. Given Deleuze and Husserl's prominent roles in the Continental tradition, I would infer the presenter attended one of the many universities in the UK that have little regard for Continental philosophy, covering it only insofar as it forms the canon of Western thought more generally. Which is to say, most if not all of the lectures teaching the stuff do not have any real interest or expertise in it. There are exceptions to this, with some universities here making an admirable effort to keep the Continental alive, but for the most part philosophy departments are dominated by the Analytic tradition. The Continental stuff is more popular in the peripheral humanities. Personally, I find the distinction ridiculous and obstructive to genuine philosophic dialogue. As for the old 'hard-wired' metaphor, you're right to say it is a bad metaphor. What's ironic to me is that it is the empiricists who, struggling to account for the synthesis of atomic sense-datum into Gestalten wholes, cite mysterious processes in the brain. Merleau-Ponty takes this as the premise of his critique of empiricism. Empiricism turns to associationism, and when this turns up short, Merleau-Ponty holds, it lapses into a non-empirical idea of a chemical synthesis in brain. This does not settle the issue of synthesis, it merely relegates it to yet another 'thing' (in this case, a material thing) bereft of an immanent account of its supposed synthesising activity. And so begins an infinite regress.

[@felooosailing957]

Great observaron by Merleau Ponty

[@krisjill5918]

@@felooosailing957 Definitely. Quite underrated among the other 20th century French philosophers. He's often overlooked in favour of Sartre, which is a shame. The Visible and the Invisible was years ahead of its time.

[@maximthefox]

You can get a 1st in a philosophy degree by writing good quality essays, you don't need to really understand it. I got a 2:1 and I was truly terrible. I used to think Ollie was a good source of info cos he was a good student, turns out that's faulty reasoning on my part.

[@justinlacek1481]

Maybe in some classes but in the dept I was in, courses on things like Logic, Philosophy of Language or on specific philosophers like Wittgenstein were insanely difficult

[@maximthefox]

@@justinlacek1481 dude I had no fucking clue what I was reading with phenomenology, I barely know how to spell it still... And I got a 1st in both my assignments

[@Achilles94627]

I'm sure you weren't "truly terrible" if you managed to get a 2:1.

[@maximthefox]

@@Achilles94627 they give 2:1s out to students like candy in the UK, look into it, its a genuine problem that cheapening the value of degrees. I attended 20% of my course and missed an exam. I was given a course extension at the end of my degree cos I'd failed to do some of the last assignments in time. I frequently had spelling and grammar mistakes, and my level of research was pitiful. I read about 2% of every book on that course. Trust me, I was truly terrible.

[@Achilles94627]

@@maximthefox Well, I totally agree with you that the value of degrees has been cheapened. Thirty years ago, a 2:1 was considered a very good degree - a First was practically unheard of. Most people would have been happy with a 2:2. Nowadays a 2:2 is considered a "bad" degree and a 2:1 is almost bog standard. I just missed a First with my philosophy degree and I feel like my knowledge compared to some of my fellow students who just scraped a 2:1 is vast. But on our CV's we have the same mark.

[@babydodds2039]

I think Thorn's garbling of space as a concept inherent(?) innate(?) in mankind is a common mistake which is not necessarily deadly to an understanding of Kant but very often is. The problem is if we think of space as a concept that can be improved what can improve it? The common answer would be experience. Which might suggest that experience with the things in themselves can lead to an understanding of things in themselves. And there lies the rub.

[@ЭмилияЗубарева-ю9х]

Does he know russian? :) The books on the shelves behind him are in russian

[@solutionsgroup4614]

Robert paul wolff said that Kant using transcendental and transcendent as you described, but he mentioned also that Kant is using transcendental when he mean transcendent and vise versa, he said that Kant forgot sometimes, But people who are read and study Kant knew what he meant by his use of each of the two words. The problem is that people take the misunderstanding very easy , and in an era of information liquidity, you can't ever correct all these misunderstanding, This is something awful, I am thinking how to this could affect everything, and how to control this . By a global program of corrections of misunderstanding.

[@TeaParty1776]

transcendental-God told me to hate life transcendent -I feel like hating life

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

That chuckle at 12:00 was priceless

[@arthurhiroa4238]

I love PhilosophyTube, but this was a very necessary and informative video!

[@Cantbuyathrill]

The only thing hardwired into humans is stupidity. That's where philosophy comes in, to do away, if only in part, with such shortcoming of ours.

[@ammettheyellingfrog1]

This was a very interesting video. I think something that should be noted though is this professor seems to be German (although if he’s not then ignore me) so has been able to read Kant’s works in German whereas the Presenter of PhilosophyTube hasn’t. I’m a native English speaker and I speak some German and even from what little I know I can see that English translations of German tend not to grasp the nuances of the language. Especially subtle things like transcendent and transcendental; it’s possible PhilosophyTube read translations that conflated the two words

[@marketajakesova8769]

I do most of my philosophy in English and while I do not specialize in Kant at all and you could say that I am overall very confused when it comes to Kant, I haven't even read him properly except for The Third Critique ... the fact that "transcendental" and "transcendent" are not the same thing is almost common knowledge. I would even say that they are rather the opposites than synonyms.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

I find it interesting that he refers to the idea of consciousness as an emergent property of the brain as an English or American idea. It's also interesting that his complaints on the video under review are that it uses modern concepts to describe and judge an 18th century philosopher. I wonder if that's considered an American idea. I hope not.

[@namenloss730]

With PT's videos you don't necessarily need much philosophy knowledge to know a lot of the content is BS. a few years ago a series of videos blamed everything and anything from stubbing your toe on the coffee table to witch trials on capitalism. When a speaker blames something that happens in the 1300s on capitalism you quickly realize that facts and reality don't matter as much as narrative. But we are talking about a millionaire socialist who went on a "rent strike" against their landlady who is poorer than them...

[@legrandliseurtri7495]

Saying that he blamed the witch trials on capitalism is misrepresenting his video.

[@弘睿甫]

We should do a series of these, or just one extended video: Freedom in thoughts Academy of ideas Weitgeist The Living Philosophy Essentialsalt Wisecrack Eternalized

[@JakeFace0]

PhilosophyTube's videos give the false impression that philosophy is worth learning. This professor is here to set the record straight.

[@marchdarkenotp3346]

I know from experience for this to be absolutely true.

[@RAHULRAJ-nd6vc]

lol

[@AColonDashSix]

Philosophy tube's problem was majoring in Philosophy Now he's made it our problem 😒

[@Achilles94627]

It's a shame, because a lot of philosophy IS actually practically relevant and worth learning, e.g. ethics and political philosophy, but all too often it gets a bad rep as being a useless subject.

[@vladimirsolovyov666]

It's not philosophy unless it disappoints/disillusions you.

[@phillydterminaldisease6578]

I kant even 😂😂 😂😂 i have crippling depression

[@Taporeee]

Bill Baileys song is good though on Kants categorical imperative

[@cucu4844]

i get the criticism, but it seems mainly based on the terminology he uses not adequately reflecting Kant, the main ideas she's getting across are not wrong i got thought in my introduction to philosophy class the same 'hardwired into our brains' notion because as a 21st century human its easy to understand. If we're talking about a classic philosopher it's kind of a given that brain will be a synonym for mind or consciousness and not about the molecular biology of it. I get its important to get these terminologies right if you're an academic philosopher, but to get a general idea of kant and what he's saying in layman's term i think this video does a good job (and thats its main task as a selfmade introduction). Once you've got the general idea of what Kant's saying you can go in and read up more, but its very hard to understand notions like consciousness and reason without any prior philosophy knowledge and it could do more harm than good to a budding interest. I think the critique on her character is definitely way too far... She never claimed to be an academic philosopher, she's laying out these things in layman's term for non-philosophers. It's like you're calling an elementary school teacher out for explaining atoms with a cutting cheese analogy, sure it isn't correct but it's getting the idea across to people who are coming into contact with these philosophies for the first time.

[@edgyintellect177]

I don't think it's good to condition laypeople into believing that "brain" is synonymous with "mind". The mind-brain-identity theory is itself a highly questionable philosophical position but it's disguised as hard science. Knowing that shouldn't be restricted to philosophically educated academics.

[@izzyr9590]

17:10 dunning-kruger effect

[@Kaspar502]

I started this video expecting to be blown away by very specific hidden Kant-knowledge but was positively surprised by how much stuff I already knew. Cool video keep it up.