Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, sec. 2-3 - Introduction to Philosophy

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, Kant is very tricky, mainly because he is assuming a whole set of philosophical distinctions which we don't necessarily share with him, and he uses very technical language. Glad it makes more sense to you now

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're quite welcome. Yes, it would take a lot of ground-covering to get the average undergrad to see why Kant's work is so important.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks very much! Tough material for first semester students to assimilate -- but so worthwhile for them to study!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, at times

[@GregoryBSadler]

I come pretty close to that

[@alhassanalrafaie3978]

really helpful series of lectures.... exactly what I am looking for thanks a lot

[@GregoryBSadler]

+ALHASSAN ALRAFAIE You're welcome!

[@GregoryBSadler]

+ALHASSAN ALRAFAIE Glad it was useful for you

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm glad to read about

[@askaidda4118]

I play video games! I am doing one while listening to this and letting it sink in.

[@TheSteinmetzen]

...Some of the most clear and helpful lectures on Kant's ethics. Thank you very much.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+C. Nathan Chavez You're very welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

Excellent!

[@Revel1011]

Your lectures are great, I don't understand this stuff at all from my professor, but I'm starting to understand it now. Thanks!

[@leahmarie6671]

Your lectures are a life saver, thanks for posting!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad they're helpful for you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Leah Phillips You're welcome

[@SilenziEmpire]

Great lesson and simplification of the text!

[@marquezedmon]

Thank you. I'm actually doing Kantian Ethics and today is my midterm exam!

[@SherryVapors]

I think one reason that the freshmen are are exposed to Kant's moral philosophy is due to the fact the Critique of Pure Reason could "seem" complicated to a freshman and even not relevant. I cringe when I say that because I don't know of anything more relevant in the sense of investigating how we know and what CAN we know. I agree with you on Kant's use of words, but at least he was consistent. Unlike that crazy man Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit. Thanks again and All the best

[@xoBrittany15xo]

Love your videos, great review before my final :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Not in real Zen. Americanized Zen, sure

If I know nothing about Zen doesn't that make me a Zen Master?

[@GameplaysClassicos]

Well, this is not the best video to post this question because you didn't treat it directly. But i will ask it anyway :) . The categorical imperative is a sinthetical proposition, which means a will from a rational being imposing into a will in general, because the second one isn't totally inside the will of rational being (it has some sort of inclinations too). By that, we can say that there is, objectively, a law a priori based in pure reason and, subjectively, contingential representations. But, my question is: what makes the law a priori from a intelligible world have an objective statement? My answer would be just because it can be applied, or in order words, make by rational beings to theirselves, which is, the autonomie principle. Is it right? Can you tell something more about that? Thank you, and sorry for my english because i read this book in portuguese and i'm, actually, still learning english.

[@GregoryBSadler]

GameplaysClassicos I'm not really sure what you're asking by "what makes the law a priori from a intelligible world have an objective statement?"

[@im4614]

i don't understand how the Categorical Imperative is not actually a Hypothetical Imperative because the C.I. seems to be conditional to the principle, "Act only on that maxim which I can at the same time will as a universal law." From the little i know about this stuff, The C.I. should be unconditional. I'm sorry in advance. i might be mixed up and getting this all wrong. i read and study philosophy for fun and don't really know who to ask this to. Hopefully i don't sound too ignorant. Thank you for the video's i've really enjoyed them. :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, first off, "act only on that maxim. . . " is not something the Categorical Imperative would be "conditional" upon. That's actually the first (of several) formulations of the categorical imperative. And, it's not conditional or hypothetical, precisely because as Kant notes, hypothetical imperatives have some type of "IF this is your end, THEN. . . do X" structure. Saying "Do X" - there's no If there, right?

I eat everything, Buddha

[@MyinTerwebs]

this doesn't help me with the onto-theological understanding of being.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's a joke, right? This is an Intro class video

[@MyinTerwebs]

Yes. It was a joke. :)