Immanuel Kant and the Rise of Postmodern Thought

Watch the full video - • Postmodernism: History...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjo...
Website: jordanbpeterso...
Events: jordanbpeterso...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanP...
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jor...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[@johnl5316]

I kan't understand this

[@tylerscott5549]

That's pretty funny 😂

[@seanfeeley8412]

No worries you're just Iman

[@user-lm4tg1vb7t]

You must be British 🤣🤣🤣

[@philosteward]

@@nupraptorthementalist3306where’d you find that. i want the exact same 😭😭

[@hyacinthlynch843]

It's not important.

[@martinmuller3244]

Maybe I'm missing something. Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" does exactly what the title purports, and criticises the Platonic approach, as used by the likes of Descates. He points out that there are concepts that are purely logical (numbers, addition multiplication etc) analytic concepts, but there are also concepts that have physical characteristics, such as space and time, which point potentially to the structure of the mind (viz synthetic). He uses an approach that is mostly analogous, to the modern approach. These days one would perhaps divide the world into concepts that are purely logical, and concepts that have at least one physical characteristic, such as room with a volume of 3 m^3. So you cannot have a green number one, but you can have a green room. So the world sepereates into classes of things. The class of things with characteristics are related to each other via logical relationships (laws of physics). The universal of characteristics is existance. Yust because this class of things exists does not mean we can understand it or have a suitable naritive that describes it exhaustively. The class of existing things are the things you can have a particular type of knowledge of, essentially encapsulated in the scientific method. Questions of ontology have mostly become questions epistemology, at least as far as the class of existance is concerned. To me what is so brilliant in his "Metaphysics of Morals" is the centering of morality to the soverign individual. Thus we are fundamentally moral creatures, and he gives a mechanism by which the collective morality can be discerned from the individual. He is fully aware that this work is not complete. In the end this work is the starting point of understanding how we are moral beeings. Hegel makes an Ansatz that morality is centered around the logos. So morality is the public debate around the Truth. That these ideas have a grain of Truth to them is testified by the power of Marxism to captivate the public discourse over all these years. That they so powerfully amplify the destructive emotions a deep mystery The complete story of how morality emerges from the sovereign individual is likely more subtle, and not confined to a single grand narritive, but a set of stories that contain in different domains. It does seem to me peculiar that we seem to do fine in constructing functioning communities of about ten thousand people, but struggle beyond that. So constraining stories of various ilks around the individual scale to a degree, but how we manage the larger entities and their corruption seems bejond us. I would search for them in a set of principles like Kant uses, but it does seem to be out of reach. This is not the same as saying a grand narritive cannot form in this age, or that there is not something real that exists in a constraing set of stories and priciples as in Christianity

[@cabana85]

Thats exactly the kind of gibberish, hiding some bold assumptions among what seems like logic, that in the end says nothing of any value to life, than you for the example.

[@martinmuller3244]

@@cabana85 Ahh, the gibberish that built everything.

[@markhughes7927]

Well said/attempted - good for you…. (Personally see morality as a divine instinct which may be substantiated by the informing spirit of biblical knowledge our barque from Royal Egyptian Splendour to teeming worthy individual lives.)

[@AM_o2000]

@@cabana85 It's not gibberish to those of us who understand it.

[@AM_o2000]

You're in the wrong forum. These are Peterson fans. They need catachrestic buzzwords, not actual philosophy.

[@cyrils.1194]

WHO DID THIS THUMBNAIL!!!? THIS IS NOT KANT BUT FRIEDRICH JACOBI, A PHILOSOPHER SUPER OPPOSED TO KANT! Edit: thanks for changing the thumbnail

[@iyadturkay3180]

If he truly disagreed with Kant why did he go to such great lengths to look like him?

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

Based on his portraits Kant was ugly but Jacobi wasn't bad looking.

[@ramoner.clarke2578]

​@@iyadturkay3180😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@AlexReynard]

Maybe Kant was in the thumbnail originally and Jacobi shoved him out of the way.

[@star_blazer]

Thank you, Cyril, for pointing that out. I didn’t catch that.

[@thanksfernuthin]

I'm sure I watched this video when it first came out 6 years ago. I've learned so much about these philosophies since then from Peterson, Hicks and Lindsey. I bet I'll understand and enjoy it so much more now. I'm off to watch it again!

[@nupraptorthementalist3306]

That's not Kant in the painting, but Jacobi.

[@j.davila4523]

Lol, someone got it wrong

[@RyanGazling]

KANT BROKE MY BRAIN. 🧠

[@Havre_Chithra]

And now you KANT think.

[@RyanGazling]

​@@Havre_Chithra 😂 💯

[@notloki3377]

i've fallen and i kant get up

[@KvaedTV]

Honesty is Objective Truth

[@ejw1234]

Good teachers not telling you how to think, but framing the arguments, steel manning, and leaving it up to the listening audience to have a break through or not.

[@Verbalaesthet]

Kant's Categoric Imparative was just a over-complicatedly phrased varient of the golden rule from the Bible.

[@YSFmemories]

Disagree. It is fundamentally different because it brings morality out of the realm of feelings and into the realm of meaning and purpos3

[@user-nb3mq3cg8k]

So is game theory also a recantation of the golden rule of the bible? Kant's categorical imperative is basically state that rationality rules rather than intuition or emotions or feelings. It has already been formalized by a Game-Theoretical framework called "Kantian Equilibrium" .

[@cabana85]

It brings morality out of the realm of intersubjective Logic (since all ancient cultures have some form of the golden rule) into a rigid German protestant principle-fetishism.

[@dramsaysteele]

No. The golden rule (in many traditions other than the Bible) is to treat others as you would wish to be treated. Kant's rule is to view other rational creatures as ends, not merely as means to your ends.

[@sugarmiesje]

One word, "gravity". Postmodernists can believe what they want about objective reality. Gravity is real and always does it's thing. It always has as far as humans are concerned. And it's super easy to verify 🤣

[@trambly611]

Post modernists never denied the laws of physics. They never said there aren't objective forces. Just like how Studying a book, objectively there are full stops, commas, connective words. They just don't believe that the relationship between these objective laws have an objective interpretation. A book has full stops and words, but it's interpretation varies.

[@testname5042]

​@@trambly611 - sort of like how, "in my country, stop means go: so I should be absolved from this traffic ticket!" Or, 'a period ( . ) isn't _always_ a full stop when presented at the end of a sentence. Sometimes it means: "do Communism," or else.' It's all about interpretation. That's why Islam is right about women.

[@emersononeill]

YES!

[@sugarmiesje]

@@testname5042 Lol, you're funny.

[@sugarmiesje]

@@trambly611 No objective interpretation? Luckily for frequent flyers, pilots don't hold the same view.

[@Lolux1701]

You better not blame Postmodernism on my boy Kant 😡

[@FlawlessP401]

I wish I could ask Kant a lot of questions I think if he knew what we know about archeology and evolution we know now he'd have to reKant ba dum tiss a lot of his positions

[@alaricgoldkuhl155]

@FlawlessP401 Nice pun! This is one of the reasons I think Kant is overrated. He's guessing at best. His own epistemology is therefore hypocritically suspect. He guessed mostly right, but so what?

[@velvetguitar95]

I thought Kant was a cast-iron classic enlightenment liberal?

[@drachenrecke5090]

​@@velvetguitar95 He is. Regarding not only this video, I think that Jordan Peterson is looking everywhere to find the responsible, the guilty one who caused postmodernism except for where he is most likely to find it: His dearly hold Christianity.

[@Lolux1701]

@@FlawlessP401 I am curious: How does archeology and evolution impact Kants Legacy? I think his natural Teleology is actually surprisingly open to the thought of evolution etc. Or are you thinking about an evolutionary account of the mental faculties Kant deduced?

[@93alvbjo]

I think many blame Kant needlessly and forget that he was followed by a mystical sharlatan, Hegel, who almost completely idealised the realistic parts of Kant, who ofc inspired ”scientific” marxism, which we ofc by history know was anything but scientific…

[@Marzaries]

That was more Engels' fault.

[@CarliMichelle]

Two of my favorite men alive discussing one of my favorite dead men

[@TILDEPSYCHOLOGY]

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant

[@jeffreyscott4997]

Kant is wrong, intuitions without concepts are where all experience begins. Kant confused being such as to be able to have a concept applied, with having a concept applied. Experience may come to uae necessarily specially and temporally, but this says nothing about the necessity if possession of a concept "space" or "rime". By placing all structuredness (form) in only the awareness of things, but not in things (by redefining the objects of our awareness as the products of our awareness), he, despite his protestations otherwise, he divorced identity from being. "Intuitions without concepts are blind." Is exactly what lead directly to postmodernism - it ensures that only the internal can be seen.

[@OmarZein-yb5cm]

What a conversation man 🎉

[@hertzeauxduclaire7689]

This was quite enjoyable, thank you. "Reason above all" - Kant "The only thing that astounds me more than the stars above me is the moral law within me." - Kant "In the beginning, there was nothing." - Genesis "Praise Sithis." - Some drunk and almost naked Argonian

[@luciadegroseille-noire8073]

try and put your hand on something in your house: If it is not screwed down you are going to have to look for it as your mind will skim over it unless you visualise it first. Once you have created this thought it presents itself as a proposition superior to the background. The matter under discussion is what about the rest of creation while you are looking for your copy of Maps of Meaning?

[@AM_o2000]

"What do you mean by what? What do you mean by do? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by mean?" Peterson the postmodernist.

[@a.cameron207]

I read a bit into the basics and construction of critical theory, since it seems to be turning up everywhere these days, and came away with the notion that they somewhat dialed Kant's critique of objectivism up to 11. Critical theory started with the notion that since everything you observe is filtered through your perceptions, no created work of humanity ("the text") can be considered as having an absolute claim to the truth, but somewhere along the way critical theory seems to start treating the things it is deconstructing as having no claim to the truth at all. There is a world of difference between these two positions, and I could not see where (if at all) this was acknowledged.

[@hershchat]

Maybe they’re using truth in a technical sense and you in a pragmatic sense. That which actually exists, vs. our useable model of it. An example is that there are no “solids” in the world. In the common way of understanding it, to be solid is to be full of mass. In real objects, the mass is only 0.001% of the spatial Efren of objects. There is solidity- our perception that something is solid. There isn’t a solid. Pragmatically, our claim that, “this table is solid” works. It can be an empirical verity if we are testing at the gross level. And yet, the “truth” is different.

[@mrridikilis]

I'd agree. Postmodern and Critical theorists seem to have put their finger on something true: that language is insufficient to absolutely describe the reality of something OR to absolutely communicate something. That is, language is imperfect and there is a lot of room for pitfalls. HOWEVER, just because language has limits, is imperfect, and can be misinterpreted doesn't mean it doesn't convey meaning at all. Simple example: I'm on my way to work. I think I left the stove on. I send a text message to someone at home and write: "I think I left the stove on. Could you make sure it's off? It could be dangerous." As 'imperfect' as this text might be, 99.9% of people who have even a BASIC understanding of English will CORRECTLY interpret the original meaning. The Postmodernists definitely turned this up to 11.

[@jeffreyscott4997]

​@@hershchatThis claim about solidity has always puzzled me. From where is this notion of "solidity" coming from? Plato's world of forms? Why think that those who learn physics think they learn that "nothing is really solid" and not "solidity turns out not to be what I thought it was". It seems very much like a Platonic Realist who has discovered the Realm of Forms is empty, or at least not fixed. But why be a disappointed Platonist, instead of abandoning your Platonic presuppositions?

[@garebear77]

maybe attempting to summarize wittgenstein, foucault, derrida, and baudrillard in a paragraph based on a wiki-entry is not the type of research we need for further discussion.

[@ejw1234]

@@garebear77 Wittgenstein looked like a Beatnik. You know it. I know it.

[@chrislusk3497]

John Ralston Saul described Kant as "A swamp that has seeped into our minds, and separated the intellect from reality". Evolutionary theory suggests that our minds had better represent reality accurately if we want to survive for long.

[@villevanttinen908]

Nietzsches one of the main targets was Kant (categorical imperative mostly), so you can" t in the same sentence praise them both, and Nietzsche is the grandfather of postmodern.Nietzsche questioned all knowing via synthetic apriori "stucture", for postmidernist knowing is difference, that needs history, which was deeply underestimated in philosophy before Nietzche.

[@ArgentVive]

"The apparent world is the only one: the 'real' world has been only lyingly added." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols The question of a priori cognitive structures seems to me to be entirely irrelevant. The only relevant questions that I can imagine are those which pertain to this so-called "apparent" reality. I am reminded of Peterson's interview with Donald Hoffman in which the argument was made that sensory systems evolve functionally and that the models of reality created by these systems DO NOT necessarily have any sort of 1:1 correspondence with some external reality.

[@clairee4939]

As my sister said riffing on a philosophical pun I once made - don’t be such a Kant! 😂

[@AdrianHackman]

I am looking at Stephen Hicks book now and I Kant see a chapter about Descartes "I think therefor I am" that seems to be the father of post-modernism. Why blame Kant?

[@ejw1234]

DIdn't Descartes believe in epistemology, first principles.. She started from scratch so he could build up truths based in reality. I think Kant would say that's impossible, and the modern CT would say it's not only impossible, it's complicated by social construction of reality. To them, that's their thing. They love this part of the dialogue. They get gleeful. They get to finally shove it to their normie parents.

[@rogermenendez4052]

Kant created the roadmap for the postmodernist subjectivism.

[@dramsaysteele]

Utterly wrong and abysmally ignorant, like Hicks.

[@manuelmatos4669]

Please read the Karl Popper book "all life is problem solving". He explains Kant and criticises subjective truth

[@timothywise9731]

You cannot have a priori structures since the analytical structures are created before empirical data is collected. This is why the concept of a priori knowledge is not possible and why objective truth is not attainable, until the end of time!

[@Michael-id3rl]

Sinners Is A Word Governments Doesnt Like. So Simple..😂❤ Complicated People Doesnt Understand Simple..😂❤ A Childs Mirror 😂❤ You All Just Arrived As A Little King Or Queen.. Mom & Dad.. Not Weakness.. Love You All. Excellent Performance Lionhearts.. Amen

[@jeffdege4786]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

[@roberthoffhines5419]

"I drink therefore I am..." about all I know about him actually!

[@user-dg6rv2tj6d]

Noooooooo.That was Reme Descartes who was a drunken fart

[@psyenergy1935]

Immanuel Kant lived a pure and noble life. Ridiculous song but ig funny or whatever

[@user-dg6rv2tj6d]

@@psyenergy1935 well I Kant understand why you are so offended.

[@roberthoffhines5419]

@@user-dg6rv2tj6d RIGHT!! it's been too long. Gotta clean up my act on YT!

[@notloki3377]

my favorite post modernist was edward bernays.

[@DeadEndFrog]

They should talk about ideas, rather then attempt to "understand" kant, when they clearly kant

[@markhughes7927]

….thing I noticed on a single reading of the pre-category section of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was the deadening effect of his manifold iterations of the phrase/signal ‘a priori’. It appears to refer to an informing transcendental and complete cosmos permitting the exercise of making understanding towards it on numerous bases and in several modes. I suspect by the continual iteration Kant was arguing inwards of it and leaving consideration of the ‘wrapped wonder’ behind. I thought how different from Plato who in place of ‘a priori’ makes fables for elucidating relations between the cage of reason and the spirit of transcendence…a la Beethoven Op. 111 (Dialectic and Transcendance); Dionysus the Areopagite; - I’ve forgotten the other one who just came to mind…! Is it accurate to say that the effect of Kant’s track is to replace Reason’s outward connection with rarifying Physis and inwardly arriving Spirit by unfounded Notion? < Derrida?

[@newparadigmfish]

That’s exactly what Kant was saying. I am what I am now in large part because of Kant but more refined I believe in my thinking. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more…

[@dieterkief8846]

Immanuel Kant is your classical modernist - - - not your post-modernist. He is about limitations of our knowledge, not against objectivity .a.t. .a.l.l. - this is a grotesque misreading of Kant.

[@mark4asp]

If you think no one understands Kant why don't you explain his ideas? - but with simple words - which don't disallow you piling oblique abstraction on abstraction. If only Kantians had the patience to actually explain him.

[@michaelreid5615]

Never called him a post-modernist. If you don’t see his direct influence on the development of post modernism/moral relativism - you are just wasting your time here, and need to read more or more deeply.

[@dramsaysteele]

Absolutely right. Hicks grievously distorts and misrepresents Kant. He does this because he is a born-again disciple of Ayn Rand.

[@cabana85]

Your statement is a contradiction in itself. If our knowledge of the world is in any way limited (by our point of view), it can't be objective. We can only strive for intersubjectivity. And any discussion about "reality" ist stupid. Pragmatism, as it is said, is the only way.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@cabana85 Until recently, no one had ever seen the other side of the Moon. But statements about the side of the Moon we did see could be perfectly objective.

[@diogenesagogo]

Post modernism is essentially solipsistic, to which there is no absolute reply. However it can be quite easily be shown to be redundant. All we 'know' is that events are occurring (try denying it). Kant was right about 'things in themselves', but that doesn't affect the validity of the existence of external reality, & that the events we experience (given there is a 'you' as well as 'I'). And from that flows scientific method, & therefore all of science.

[@ejw1234]

and science predicts, reproduces, and creates useful things that achieve results and outcomes. The pragmatism is the only way out, unless your civilization and mentation will be stuck in neutral forever. When you move, either internally or externally, you have become a pragmatist because walking, thinking, feeling, speaking, and behaving require it.

[@DanMcTague]

The whole conversation is missing the deeper considerations beyond the material limitations that exclude consciousness of love which the higher evolutions enjoy and we are just discovering

[@ieronim272]

none of these 2 has read Kant

[@dramsaysteele]

Exactly! Hicks thinks he has read Kant, but he began by believing what the ignoramus Rand told him about Kant, and then twisted Kant to fit that inaccurate picture of Kant.

[@ejw1234]

Hicks has read Kant through and through, many times over.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@ejw1234 He has gone through the motions of reading, but without paying attention. Thus, he seriously misrepresents Kant, as I document in detail in the final chapter of The Conquistador with His Pants Down.

[@petervandenengel1208]

7:30 Yes. That is, while knowing they were wrong. But never admitting it. It still keeps them from making the same mistake, or claiming the same statement as true again. They would keep their mouth shut. And pretend to still be right. Or by slightly bending the statement. The weak force always prevails. The lamb in Christian religion. .

[@786baqi]

Philosophy doesn’t matter if you’re silent on the suffering of innocents today. Just be as conscious as the ICC. Or should we eliminate everything that goes against modern gcide? Let’s ask what gcide is? Why don’t we speak to Martin Shaw, author of ‘What Is Gcide’?

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

I thought i could work something out and improvise empirical reality

[@bettyhaines2570]

Thank you 😊❤🙏💝 w love 💝

[@kilianklaiber6367]

Kant was not arguing against empricism. I think this quote explains his position most precisely. Read it slowly two or three times. If you don't understand German use google translate: "Daß alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anfange, daran ist gar kein Zweifel; denn wodurch sollte das Erkenntnisvermögen sonst zur Ausübung erweckt werden, geschähe es nicht durch Gegenstände, die unsere Sinne rühren und teils von selbst Vorstellungen bewirken, teils unsere Verstandestätigkeit in Bewegung bringen, diese zu vergleichen, sie zu verknüpfen oder zu trennen, und so den rohen Stoff sinnlicher Eindrücke zu einer Erkenntnis der Gegenstände zu verarbeiten, die Erfahrung heißt? Der Zeit nach geht also keine Erkenntnis in uns vor der Erfahrung vorher, und mit dieser fängt alle an. Wenn aber gleich alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt, so entspringt sie darum doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung. Denn es könnte wohl sein, daß selbst unsere Erfahrungserkenntnis ein Zusammengesetztes aus dem sei, was wir durch Eindrücke empfangen, und dem, was unser eigenes Erkenntnisvermögen (durch sinnliche Eindrücke bloß veranlaßt) aus sich selbst hergibt, welchen Zusatz wir von jenem Grundstoffe nicht eher unterscheiden, als bis lange Übung uns darauf aufmerksam und zur Absonderung desselben geschickt gemacht hat." Critique of pure reason, chapter 1 . About the difference between pure and empirical knowledge. The first sentence: "There is no doubt that all our insights(knowlege) BEGINS with experience...In terms of TIME, therefore, no knowledge in us comes before experience, and with this everything begins...." This is where he agrees with empiricism and rejects rationalism. Second paragraph: "But even though all our knowledge BEGINS with experience, it does not necessarily all ARISE from experience..." So this is where he deviates from the British empricists. Not all our knowledge derives from experience. The human mind is not a blank slate. Fundamental concepts like logic and geometric intuition and time are innate. Nothing can be experienced outside of space and outside of time. Therefore, they are necessary concepts of our human experience. Kant believes that this is true for all human beings, which does not exclude the possibility that some rational entity could have a different kind of experience. Kant apparently believed that we cannot transcend our intuitions of time and space. But, I think Einstein disproved that. Nevertheless, all our theories comprise concepts of space and time and these concepts must be mapped into our little human kartesian intuition of space and time concept in order to describe our experience of the world.

[@kilianklaiber6367]

Therefore, I believe that Kant's conclusions were not all warranted. This is also true for his particular theory of time and causality. He got that wrong. However, Kant's basic idea is true. If we want to make sense of the world, then we have to apply reason to what we experience. Reason and logic are so fundamental that they cannot be tossed away. If you believe that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time, then you must agree with Kant that there is a priori "knowledge". Because this insight does not and cannot arise from experience. No observation could disprove this. Mathematicians would say that it is axiomatic.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@kilianklaiber6367 Everyone agrees that there is a priori knowledge. The traditional, anti-Kantian, and I think correct view is that a priori true statements are those which it would be self-contradictory to deny. Kant maintained that there are also "synthetic a priori" statements, such as every event has a cause. I think there are no such statements.

[@Rumi4i]

@@kilianklaiber6367i think he is closer to the truth with his statement that even time and space are not perceived as they really are. I think science will have evidence for this in the future

[@kilianklaiber6367]

@@dramsaysteele What about every event is "perceived" (by humans) in space and time! This is necessarily true for the objects of experience, but it does not relate to the thing in itself. It's synthetic, because experience cannot not teach you what is necessarily true. I think many people mistake this judgement relates to things in themselves.

[@kilianklaiber6367]

@@dramsaysteele What about the theory that the world obeys to the rules of logic? As soon as you apply reason to experience you are making synthetic judgements!

[@longWriter]

And here I'd thought it was Hegel who started going down the subjective path...

[@bulbousblues1]

Kant is responding to Humes skepticism about knowledge of causation. You can't understand Kant without first understanding Hume. Infact most Philosophy is like that its an ongoing conversation.

[@ejw1234]

Yes, they mentioned the Empiricists and Skeptics in this discussion.

[@bulbousblues1]

@@ejw1234 I just find it strange to consider Kant a post modernist. My beef with post modernism is it is truly cynical. I accept we can probably never grasp the truth objectively. Doesn't mean I believe there isn't one and we should give up. We learn much just by trying.

[@psiinc]

💜JP♥️

[@CJFCarlsson]

Kant in his eversearch for a warm earlet.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Having ploughed through the three Kritikcs by Kant i was hoping not to be reminded of them again.

[@samp8949]

Ojbective isn't a word. I've read that putting misspellings in content increases engagement (and it worked for me this time), I i just wish it didn't happen.

[@mastersloseymusic3928]

3 weeks later and they still haven't corrected "OJBECTIVE" in the thumbnail. That's just sloppy!

[@boscoraj6148]

Evolutionary epistemology has correlation with pragmatic theory. If my Principles and guidelines help me and my social group with what I want and what they want then that principle are true. If it works for my social group? Really? Doesn't this kind of gets us directly into postmorden epistemology? So by defending evolutionary pragmatical epistemology 'The "truth" of our beliefs is tied to their utility in helping us and our social group navigate the world successfully, rather than their correspondence to some objective reality.' This pragmatic approach make the possibility for post-modernism. How can then peterson actually seperate his pragmatic epistemology from postmorden epistemology?

[@borealis9842]

Ojbective truth

[@NBl-qw8cg]

Jordan loves piaget, he always gets a shoutout

[@zareenwilhelm5811]

I miss him 😔

[@bayreuth79]

It seems to me that if evolution by natural selection is true then we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, for then the intellect would not be truth-directed but survival-directed. But then I would also have to doubt evolution by natural selection since that is a truth-claim, and not a survival-claim (let's say). It seems to me that the only thing we have direct access to is consciousness; everything else is an inference (at best), even the 'external' world would only be an inference.

[@sebastiaanstok]

Religion is based on believe, believe on what exactly? How do you know you are following the right path, how do you know you understand the scriptures correctly (as they were ment)? It's not like institutions haven't lied about there own motives in the past. Kant believes that in order for a law to be effective and faire it must be universally applicable, which implies an an idea of equal believe for the law/God. Secondly: Kant argued that rational beings can never be treated merely as means to ends; they must always also be treated as ends in themselves, requiring that their own reasoned motives must be equally respected. I believe that if there a universal truth and good you will find it, if you allow yourself to be open enough to it. Corruption in any form happens when there is strive to complete order, wether by church, state, community; as too much chaos is cannot survive but neither can to much order. The ability to question things without limit isn't the problem, but the believe in being right is.

[@petervandenengel1208]

PS. Some questions about biological evolution theory. 1 - Humans are not descendents from apes. But an offspring from an earlier species. Apes also were a different offspring from. Why? Because humans have hands with a thumb. They must have been climbers too. But what the hell happened to their toes? The big toe does not stand out. Since horses reduced their feet to one toe. While one artefact from the 'thumb' still hangs idle from the lower leg. Since humsns do not have that. They never used their lower legs for climbing. That is they hug the trunk with their full legs. As they still do. So. They never descended from apes you see. * Why not older species are found in left bones. Is because when they discovered fire, they always burned the deceased. To prevent pests. They were an early clever species. Since their climbing ability was poor they gave up and needed to look for food elsewhere. Hence they are omnivore. As they still are. So in that sense evolution theory especially the graph showing humans starting on four limbs and then standing up on two legs is completely misleading. Burn that picture. * The empirical evidence their head was about the same as apes. Led to the false theory. Because archaeologists never look at functions. But things they find. Obviously their head is the same. Since they both eat with their hands and not their beak. So. The artefact addapts to the function you see. Not the other way around. Also in theory the head-neck position which needed to be adapted from bend to straight up from ape to homo sapiens has never happened. It is true Neanderthals had a bend neck. So when mating which they did because humans still have some genes from them. It became uncertain. It was an after and not a before position. Why Neanderthals never burned their dead bodies I do not know. Maybe they did because they also discovered fire. Also I do not know if a neanderthal leg shows it was walking upright or not. Since his neck was bend I assume not. Since they must have discovered fire earlier, since humans did not have the hunting tools. They made using fire. Humans did not have. It might be humans only 'discovered' fire after a woodburn had left well smelling meat from animals unable to escape. So he recognized the smell when Neanderthals ate meat they had caught. Without any trace of a woodburn causing it. This made humans curious. Maybe they were used causing a woodfire from two sides in order to catch meat they could eat with their vagitarian teeth. But that was risky as well. That is why they wanted to know how Neanderthals made their hunting tools. In exchange for their blond women. Tit for tat. 2 - When there are defined species. What the hell happened with the in- betweens. There are no fossils from. So, have they existed too shortly to be able to leave any bones. Or did they change while being alive as the same species. In theory no animal would mate with a species it did not recognize as his own. So then only full grown when there was enough of them would mate. That is why the in-between species are missing. Darwin was right a species fit for survival would show in the offspring. But that was circular reasoning: when you find no other reason, that must be the truth. But he missed the most important thing. Explaining for the missing parts (link).

[@dramsaysteele]

Yes, but it is allowable to categorize the ancestors of humans as "apes". Nothing wrong with that.

[@petervandenengel1208]

Yes, there is. Because it does not define the species properly. The whole geometric property (time related) is different. So it predicts a different species in its behavior. Since apes could always find food in trees (because they were climbing well) and safety from predators (which have played a huge role in human history, leading it to look for safe places elsewhere: like on an island or in caves), they never evolved further. While humans had to. Because they could not climb well and observed the future differently. Because they remembered a past (of predators eating them) which could be evaded. And so created a future which was different from before. An open ended species. In stead of being closed. That is its origin.

[@moesypittounikos]

Schopenhauer is a good intro to kant

[@Spinoza03]

Before kant, adi Shankara charaya explain in his Advaita philosophy, isn't?

[@mark4asp]

This is getting silly now. There's a host of critics who think Kant's as easy as ABC, but the likes of Hicks and JBP just don't get him. In which case, why are these same critics too lazy & irresponsible to explain Kant to us?

[@dramsaysteele]

I'm happy to explain Kant with great clarity, and I do so in the final chapter of my book, The Conquistador with His Pants Down.

[@ejw1234]

We get Kant treated in the Rand tradition...Served up cold as a dividing line in psycho-spiritual/materialist history...However, I thought they were both pretty fair with Kant's contributions vs. the typically dismissive treatments.

[@chrishicks8347]

Do you want to know who fears peace the most? Government

[@johnnyroycerichardsoniii3273]

So aren’t we running into Plato’s Forms and Aristotles Categories!!!!?

[@Oliver_without_a_twist]

This discussion is completely outdated by state of the art Kant scholarship

[@jeronimoescobar4858]

Is this account official? If it is, then I am disappointed by the picture of Jacobi in the thumbnail.

[@boudivv]

Isn't the base problem finding the right language? Where are we in the evolution of our fundamental knowledge sharing tool? Lots of philosophy, to me, is like an ongoing quest for finding and defining words. Or more precise dealing with an appearandly too primitive tool for sharing knowledge.

[@petervandenengel1208]

That is right. In quantum mechanics you cannot prove whether this or that is true. Because there is no distinction you can derive from it. When I say I cannot tell this. It could mean I do not know. While it could also mean it is too dangerous for you to know what I know. Because you cannot handle it. No body will be able to tell the difference. They could both be true. Hence one who believes the subject does not know much. Because he or she does not have a PhD. Will believe the first explanation. Only one who is humble enough and has the right (female) instinct. Maria will know the truth. So it all depends only on character. The character assigns the truth.

[@dramsaysteele]

Peter confuses truth with being able to find the truth. These are two quite different things.

[@petervandenengel1208]

No. The same sentence in a quantum realm means it could be stating two opposite things at the same time. The particle could be left or right. In that case the probability distribution which one is found to be true, depends on the observer alone so far. The question is are you in a super position, or am I.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@petervandenengel1208 Then the true statement would be: It could be either left or right. It is just not possible to "state two opposite things at the same time" (where opposite means each assertion is the negation of the other). Nothing in physics can ever contradict logic.

[@petervandenengel1208]

A wave function can. Know your physics. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZiXmYdtnqd0rbssi=UBy7U69ljHaEpHks

[@No-One-of-Consequence]

I read Religion Within the LImits of Reason Alone in college and I still keep it on my desk thirty years later. He was kind of a dick. But he was hard to argue with.

[@jaw0449]

I think it goes back to Ockham, tbh

[@williambranch4283]

After 200 more years, the "i priori" has shrunk to zero. Even traditional logic is beaten by Brouwer.

[@arhont2009]

"Ojbective truth"

[@petervandenengel1208]

5:48 Yes. But something can be temporarily true. I love you today, but tomorrow not anymore because of what you said or did. Which is empirically true as well. Behaving like it still is true, is not telling the truth. It is for the sake of the family or the world who wants to believe you are a happy couple. Keeping up appearances. Better said the expectations of others. Lying to yourself. It cannot be falsified. While it is false. That is, it depends on what you love. Your appearances or the truth. Admitting you were wrong is something which is very hard if not impossible for most people to do. Certainly when you have a PhD. Sorry is the most they can do.

[@dramsaysteele]

Yes, but this merely acknowledges the fact that to be strictly unambiguous, and therefore true or false, a statement has to specify a time t.

[@petervandenengel1208]

Yes. I realised that myself too. It is an interesting subject. There must have been a break-even point in the middle where one collapsed and the other truth ernerged. So time t and momentum m related. But I presume it has always been embedded in the two characters from the beginning. P for property. In order to be complementary (the marriage) they have had to be opposites. So. P1o/P2o At some point x they both meet their mutual expectation. This is where the function / collapses. Or maybe, depending on the field (when the expectation was the outside world for both), it remains endless. If not, depending on the ambition of one Po it chooses differently and devorces. After x. They sendomly are equal in time t. Because one expectation Po depended on a different time trajectory. Shorter or longer. So the x point for both was different. It could be defined in math. Because the commonalities are simple enough to make it predictable in a hierarchy. The Chinese demographic problem was predictable.

[@burnhamsghost8044]

Problem is, people don’t actually act like empirical evidence isn’t real. Line 1000 people up along a train track as the train is rolling by and see how many refuse to believe their senses when deciding when to cross the tracks.

[@ejw1234]

Everyone is an empiricist when it comes to their rent or mortgage payment. It's situational in these topical matters. We're talking about ground level truth. If the human mind can ever truly know anything, and know they know it with 100% certitude. The answer is no because we exist in space/time. We're dashing through space at thousands of miles per hour into the abyss, and eventually, we'll retract. We can acknowledge that reality operates on many levels, but mastering certain principles can enable us to think, feel, do, and create things that accomplish something (or not) that can cause something to happen repeatedly. Being is a trap on its own (navel-gazing), but it will and should accompany the doing.

[@dramsaysteele]

Who has ever claimed that "empirical evidence isn't real"?

[@burnhamsghost8044]

@@dramsaysteele post-modernists.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@burnhamsghost8044 I haven't come across it. It's very hard to imagine Foucault saying anything like that. I haven't read all of Foucault but I've read a fair bit, and this seems completely contrary to Foucault's arguments. After all, his "archeological", i.e. historical, approach is dependent on continuously marshaling empirical evidence.

[@aboveman5321]

Kant’s Compromise: I understand Kant as holding a One-World-Two-Aspect view of reality. We do have valid access to reality, but we do not have valid access to all of reality. Your valid access to reality is limited precisely because the framework that provides valid access is limited. If your mind did not possess the tools which limit your access to reality you couldn’t access reality at all. Which means, to suppose objects can be there for scientific investigation beyond those limitations is absurd, which in turn means that, ultimately, science and its pretensions to knowledge is itself constrained by those limitations which make the empirical analysis of the object possible. Later thinkers like Hegel will modify this insight a bit and say that those conditions which limit and make available reality evolve, and essentially co-evolve with the object in a dialectical manner. The early Heidegger would also go on and suggest that this limiting structure isn’t epistemological at all but rather an historically conditioned pre-conceptual understanding of being, and thus any science is at the behest of those transcendental structures which make objects possible. It is a catastrophic misunderstanding of postmodernism that it claims truth is subjective. Rather, it says that there is objective truth, but that the possibility of objective truth lies within an historical context which frames how sensory data is interpreted. Thus narratives, by structuring our experience by providing us an understanding of how to interpret empirical data, can exclude by its very nature an understanding of the world that is not included in its narrative. Consequently, another awful misunderstanding of post-modernism originates from the realist assumption that when I say something “exists” I mean independently of those conditions which make access to objectivity possible rather than simply in reality. Following Kant, the post-modern tradition (especially those who were inspired by Heidegger, a la Fouclault and Derrida) say nothing exists for us without history and context, not that nothing that exists is a part of reality! What exists for us IS in reality, but what exists depends on how we structure reality a la Kant.

[@ejw1234]

Post-modernism has a real PR problem, then.

[@dramsaysteele]

What you say about Kant in your first paragraph is correct. The "one object, two aspects" view is now more widely accepted, partly because of the book by Gerold Prauss, Kant und das Prolbem der Ding an Sich. Prauss shows that Kant used phrases like Thing in Itself or Object in Itself as a short way of saying "Thing/Object considered as it is in itself" (Ding an Sich selbst betrachtet).

[@aboveman5321]

@@ejw1234 Agreed!

[@SunilKakka]

❤

[@nistornicolaevici2965]

Hey, why limit ursrlf in tracing postmodernism to Kant? Why not to the sophists of ancient Greece? Voila, extreme relativism: Man is the measure of all things, cf. Protagoras (and yes, this has to be read in an epistemological, not humanist key).

[@ThepurposeofTime]

When I saw 'OJBECTIVE' I had to discover what this meant

[@luciadegroseille-noire8073]

The argument seems to be an abuse of the idea of Truth. We are invited to conceive an ability to assess all phenomena as data and this is an historical activity, whereas the living are involved with the present, which they perceive partially and evaluate partially (Here are three men - data - but are they wise men?) and produce a work in progress which validates itself or not by its correspondence with the advancing present.

[@brendangolledge8312]

You have to take the validity of your senses and innate reason on faith (as well as some minimum necessary moral suppositions). However, I don't think you then just throw up your hands and say, "We can't know anything!" If there is inconsistency with what you see, then there is reason to think that your view of the world is wrong. For instance, when physicists failed to ever measure the speed of light from space changing despite being on a planet that was moving, that pointed heavily in favor of Einstein's relativity. However, to give a contrary example, there has never been any evidence in the history of the world (so far as I know) that the color of the sky is not blue. Modern science even explains why; the atmosphere preferentially scatters higher frequencies of light. If the sensory observation of every person in the history of the world, and all your most sophisticated intellectual investigations all point toward the sky being blue, there is no reason to doubt that that at least is true information.

[@dramsaysteele]

You see, this is the kind of quagmire that people who listen to Stephen Hicks get sucked into. Who says "We can't know anything"? Certainly not Kant. Certainly not Hegel. Certainly not Derrida. Certainly not Foucault. Hicks reduces philosophy to a childish cartoon.

[@villevanttinen908]

Yes, categorical imperative smells blood - Nietzsche

[@Pharca]

Thats jacobi not kant

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

This is why Dr. Peterson isn't able to actually believe in God's existence, he shares the subjectivist and relativistic philosophy of post-modernists. I hope someday a good philosopher will dismantle this false belief he has because none, religious or not, ever dared to do that.

[@L.I.T.H.I.U.M]

The man in the sky god theory is IQ 70 theory of god. It's simple and that's why people like it. Real god is defined in a sophisticated way in the bible, which Peterson is always talking about. However, the man in the sky theory is a proxy for that and serves the function somewhat of the biblical god. No wonder muslims are so good at delaying instant gratification and hedonism so much.

[@TopsideCrisis346]

If life is one big experiment, heaven help you if your hypothesis is proven wrong.

[@ura9390]

Sounds like Kamala Harris and her word salads 🥗 I bailed on 1 minute

[@Kiohm]

Nothing like her at all, what he’s saying has actual substance and is based in reality. You’re just clearly not bright enough to even try to understand and have the attention span of a squirrel. Just like so many others today. But keep being willfully ignorant. ❤

[@theodorearaujo971]

These "dead ends" at the time Kant was writing is a reflection of the fact that all of the people's that had lived until that time weere ignorant of reality. Philosophy cannot answer any questions. There is no 'God", so give that basis up. You will find objective reality in physics, chemistry and biology, which perception and language do not change. Truth and facts, which are things that exist regardless of belief are not changed by language or faith. Questioning or denying reality does not change reality.

[@NineInchTyrone]

Kantian cant

[@mlineberry25]

Bloody Kant.

[@princeedmunddukeofedinburg]

The Sun is currently about 4.6 billion years old and is roughly halfway through its life cycle. It is expected to last for another 5 billion years before it exhausts its nuclear fuel and undergoes the final stages of its life. let that sink in for a sec...

[@dramsaysteele]

But in three and a half billion years it will have expanded to burn the Earth to a crisp.

[@user-qd8yg1fp7i]

bit of a kant, wasn't he...?

[@Ja99prod]

honestly i stopped watching jp years ago, this deep Kant discussions are just hard for me. i love Q A and his public talks however, maybe should find something new from 2023-24

[@habeshalad1728]

I kant

[@artifactis]

Kant hegel with this heidegger. Objective dialectic, it's too absurd for the cynic too superficial for the mystic.

[@Real-Name..Maqavoy]

*Free Will?* No.

[@keithjohnsonYT]

“You want it darker” - Leonard Cohen (I fear if we lose Santa, we’ll go back to killing the kids…and, if we all believe as children, we’ll only be raising the dead.) “Don’t curse the darkness..light a candle.” - 🕯 (“The girl is mine” - Michael, Paul, etc…) For his song and dance, I believe Jordan can be forgiven…but, he could be the devil.🤔 😂

[@karlbolt7159]

The circular reasoning dilemma spurred by evolutionary epistemology…..Ha! I, no, I don’t have anything; I’m going back to reading Dungeons & Dragons books.

[@GamesAccount-gg9ik]

In 300 years nobody its going to remember Kant only Jordan Peterson KZbin

[@Aussie0912]

This must be a joke. 😂

[@mavrosyvannah]

OJbective???

[@nkoppa5332]

No one here seems to accurately understand Kant.

[@scepticalchymist]

Well Kant could have made an effort to express himself more clearly.

[@nkoppa5332]

@@scepticalchymist he was rather clear in his response to Hume; it is a rather strange analysis to jump onto Kant in order to tie him to post modernism.

[@dramsaysteele]

@@scepticalchymist I think Kant made an effort to be clear, but some of the points he was making are subtle. Reads of Kant should make an effort to understand him, instead of, like Hicks, making absolutely no effort.

[@davidwatson9495]

He knows jack shit about the history of philosophy. Anyone who has actually done the reading knows JP hasn't.

[@artplore]

ojbective

[@mastersloseymusic3928]

"OJBECTIVE"??

[@AnnaAnnieAnneofGreenGables]

Walking in some else's shoes?

[@Bruce-ph9nq]

Kant’s philosophy amounts to man being blind because he has eyes and deaf because he has ears. If the reality man perceives is unreal then none of his concepts can be validated so on that base why should he object to a totalitarian dictatorship. Kant divorced fact from value by placing rationality within the material world and bequeathing faith to the spiritual realm. Matter is a tool for human values but Kant separated reason from the choice of the goals for which material achievements are used and made faith the determining factor of human choices. A personal desire to perform a moral action nullifies moral credit. To be moral, according to Kant, an action has to be performed out of disinterest or duty. This leads to self-sacrifice and self-denial. Once this became the ethos of German culture Hitler became possible.

[@dramsaysteele]

For those who don't notice it, Bruce is asserting the Ayn Rand ignorance and imbecility.

[@Bruce-ph9nq]

@@dramsaysteele Care to engage with the content or just level abusive ad-hominem?

[@dramsaysteele]

@@Bruce-ph9nq I am a frequent debater, both on KZbin and in writing articles and books. One of my KZbin presentations is "Good and Bad in Ayn Rand." Another is "Good and Bad in Jordan Peterson." I have written several articles on Rand, and see the last chapter of my book, The Conquistador with His Pants Down, for my recent take on Rand-Hicks-Peterson.