German Idealism: FULL LECTURE - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel

[@sikandersalahuddin]

Great lecture, filling all my gapes in understanding German Idealism

[@nickrivera4022]

Pause

[@silverback7348]

Just want to say, you’ve done a great job editing/distilling the subject matter to it’s essence so as to be as easily digestible as possible. A great service to those seeking. Only 12 minutes in, I can “see” that if I pay attention, I’ll get about 12-15 hours of college lectures in 2+ hours. Impressive. Bravo.

[@afreenreads3313]

I am a novice in philosophy. I had to study Hegel for my exams but when I started reading, I could not understand a thing . I realised that I needed to read other philosopher’s works . I had been searching and searching. Thank the heavens , I found your channel . I am beginning to grasp things now. ❤️

[@everythingisshe9901]

This lectures is the best breakdown of idealism that I have heard of. I always think I will never understand German idealism. Thank you so much

[@Redwhitewings]

It's misleading....kant is not based on de carte , Kant is almost entirely based on Hume, especially on failure of reasonings of Hume...

[@sikandersalahuddin]

You need to listen again and again to understand philosophical concepts, neither of my friends could understand Martin Heidegger, I did because I persisted

[@mih9356]

​@@sikandersalahuddin Talking about your understanding of Heidegger, what is your thought about his cooperation with Nazi party? Was it just opportunism and flawed personality or was it based on his flawed school of thought and philosophy. That was always very strange to me. But, same was with Heisenberg who worked with Nazi party and well and artistically shown in the movie called Copenhagen. What are your thoughts about Heidegger?

[@sikandersalahuddin]

@@mih9356 Edmund Husserl was Martin heidegger teacher , Heidegger betrayed him too.

[@sikandersalahuddin]

There are no perfect angelic figures, we are human, all too human. Forget Heidegger's connections with Nazis. Enjoy his philosophy

[@nkanyezitshabalala5256]

This is a great lecture. I like how the motive for Kant's project are presented especially here 11:58

[@blackm004]

Just found your channel and looking at the videos you have up im really excited to get started. Only recently started reading philosophy and thinkers (as my 'bookish' side had been disparaged out of existence). Its joy to me, like coming home, hearing about other thinkers for whom ideas matter. Reading and listening to lectures feels like getting my self back. So i so appreciate you and other creators for making this standard of material for people. Thanks

[@clumsydad7158]

I love the emphasis and conceptual drive thru a universal pluralism via Fichte, and the emphasis on being incomplete as a human without reaching out to our extended circle of relations, as far as one may desire to stretch it, and only in that way we are human, and know ourselves truly enveloped as part of that whole.

[@6Sparx9]

Very mystical, very romantic.

[@tts626]

This was excellent! Given the ground covered, very concise, informative, and approachable, especially Hegel. Some seem to really go out of the way to bash Hegel. Easier to shake a fist than read a book I suppose.

[@clumsydad7158]

"the self is what we do, selfhood is the activity of consciousness, action and engagement with the phenomenal world of space and time ... the notion of being as action ... in the process of doing and becoming ... and something that isn't fixed" (paraphrase of Kantian thought) ... and this leads eventually over 100 years to Heidegger, and the ontological mystery of being is something that we've only just begun to really take seriously... that we have yet not translated our existential reality into a new way to live, have not taken the transcendental proposition and transformed societal systems to be embracing of realizing collective and individual being for fulfillment, for growth, and to deeper penetrate the mystery and gift of our being in and of the world.

[@dolltall]

Thank You for making this all so much easier to understand. Thank You for your sincere work and understanding

[@JBuckk]

Thank you for uploading again Mr. Kause. I study Philosophhy since 6 Years and i really like how you always try to paint a exhaustive picture and not only keep the attention to one standpoint. love it, keep going!

[@clumsydad7158]

Mr. Krause is bringing German Idealism to the masses, to bring spirituality back to the world ... or as I say, choose any spirituality of your choice, but choose something, damnit ! !

[@JBuckk]

@@clumsydad7158 isn't choosing any special spirituality a spirituality in itself? :^)

[@ezravanessen7288]

Thank you for your clear explanation! I always had problems understanding Fichte, but now it is all much clearer to me thanks to you. I think Idealism has become very relevant again nowadays, especially with the Analytic Idealism of Bernardo Kastrup. Thanks!

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Happy to know you found this helpful, after all, all my content is meant for the public!

[@Heroicmultiplicity]

Absolutely wonderful lecture! Thank you

[@szefszefow7562]

idk about dawkins and harris but Dennet was literally one of the greatest philosophers of our time

[@cooperward-rc1sx]

Bro he wrote that the universe created itself ex nihilo

[@szefszefow7562]

@@cooperward-rc1sx so what

[@cooperward-rc1sx]

Well if we think about it for one second it implies the universe would have to exist before it existed. If that's acceptable to you that's fine but in the world of philosophy it's considered an elementary blunder due to implicit contradiction. Science fiction or mysticism might bridge that gap for some but as far as philosophy goes it's a massive metaphysical L

[@szefszefow7562]

@@cooperward-rc1sx lmao ye if we take it literally. But it just means it came to be out of nowhere, saying that it needed to exist to create itself is a problem if we antropomorphize the Universe like people antropomorphize god. This is the problem of creation, and no, its not as obvious as you make it look.

[@cooperward-rc1sx]

"Something came from nothing" is guilty of the same exact charge of contradiction, in fact even more obviously so. I'm not making anything simple, the proposition is what it is.

[@heisvi9317]

Great series of lectures, wish I'd found them sooner

[@northface306]

Great stuff Paul. 👍 keep it up

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Hopefully you found it useful!

[@evanm1992]

Great video 👍👍👍

[@mastersloseymusic3928]

0:00 That's a painting of Jacobi, not Kant

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

The painting you open with is not of Kant.

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

Who is it?

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

​@@DavidKolbSantosh Friedrich Heinrich Jacobs.

[@Tuber-sama]

It's an incredible work you're doing here, sire. I'm glad I've found your channel, greetings from Brazil.

[@PaulJosephKrause]

I'm glad you enjoy the content. After all, not many people have a six year education in philosophy so everything I'm doing on YT is meant for people like you!

[@Tuber-sama]

@@PaulJosephKrause I hope I can express my gratitude teaching everything I know some day, just like you do. Thank you and have a great day.

[@itaspa]

It appears that Hegel presupposes that ‘ dialectical dynamism’ will eventually lead to blossoming of flowers , it could easily also be a pungent bed of weeds. There is little grounding /justification that he provides of his presuppositions but a whole lot of boisterous claims that his understanding captures the teleos of the universe

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Pretty much!

[@wlrlel]

So which presuppitions does the Science of Logic have?

[@cianr365]

​@@wlrleldoubt there will be an answer!

[@wlrlel]

@@cianr365 excatly! There are no presuppitions...I guess the commenter didn't even read the Science of Logic

[@6Sparx9]

​@@wlrlel The presupposition that 'dialectical dynamism' will eventually lead to blossoming of flowers.

[@theonetruetim]

This is the best!

[@plastic2666]

Amazing framing!

[@dwwolf4636]

German and French Idealists....thx alot.

[@LiteratureforLovers]

Listening to it❤️

[@walterbenjamin1386]

But if I am understanding Fichte correctly, the understanding of the non Ich requires some kind of magical or mystical overcoming of the boundaries of self. Has anyone in the history of the world ever been able to achieve this? At least Kant promotes the golden rule, which is doable. Or am I missing something?

[@PaulJosephKrause]

@@walterbenjamin1386 you’re not missing anything. Fichte’s philosophy does have a mystical side to it.

[@walterbenjamin1386]

@@PaulJosephKrause And people must have believed it was possible to overcome the Ich - non-Ich gulf or his ideas never could have become so pervasive. Fichte's thought seems prescriptive, like a technique for overcoming the isolation of the self, in a way that seems somewhat reminiscent of Buddhism. Kant's categorical imperative is ethical but Fichte sounds religious. Your presentations are immensely helpful - so informative and impressively presented. I really appreciate your work and can't believe that instruction of this quality is here on YT.

[@clumsydad7158]

holy sh*t ... now we're back to the good stuff ... 2.5 hours? wow

[@PaulJosephKrause]

We’ll I just decided to synthesize my various shorter lectures into a whole, this way it may provide a fuller portrait in one go rather than finding the individual lectures. I know sometimes this is helpful for students/listeners.

[@littlesometin]

@@PaulJosephKrause Yes, it's much easier to understand philosophers in relation to one another than separate!

[@PaulJosephKrause]

@@littlesometin Well, that's what we get as philosophy students (BA + MA). Sequential development is the most ideal as philosophy has always been in dialogue with itself, building on, or rejecting, what came before it.

[@clumsydad7158]

"rational means you are able to know the good, the true, and the beautiful and live your life by choice of that knowledge", yes, that is the key, and that is what we have lost, as we base our civilization on nothing more than physical capital and the accumulation of such, and orientate our laws in that manner, under a dreadful cynicism as described by machiavelli. when we gut the good, the true, and the beautiful and replace them with the gun, the price, and the conquered, we find ourselves spiraling into the cesspool of techno feudalism as described by varoufakis - Kant

[@shallowwatersoriginal]

Good one thanks

[@effgfvddcxx2162]

Could you make the same kind of video on 19th and 20th century Russian religious philosophers like Berdyaev, Frank, Lossky and Solovyov ?

[@PaulJosephKrause]

I only know Berdyaev somewhat moderately, at Yale for religious studies I concentrated in Bible and patristics (MA) while my extensive background in philosophy (BA and MA) was mostly classics, political philosophy, and German Idealism. Maybe at some point down the future though...

[@6Sparx9]

Damn, so it was Fichte who first actively pushed the idea that *completing* 'x' system of validation would necessitate the emergence of heaven on Earth, which has resulted in so many deaths and much suffering across the 20th century at the hands of dialectical German socialism.😢 And he thought he was doing good for humanity...

[@PaulJosephKrause]

In some sense, yes.

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

It really doesn’t make sense to call absolutely everything “Nothing But” matter in motion according to the laws of nature, but then say “However, there’s a man vs nature dualism.” I have no idea what is even being said (argued) at 23:23. TS Elliot is claiming that Descartes proved that there is thinking, but NOT that we are doing the thinking?? That makes no sense at all, both parts necessarily go together and can’t coherently be separated, it’s one axiomatic point. Taking such a position is to simply announce that you don’t understand the most foundational axiom of coherence. If you don’t accept your own existence then doing philosophy is an irrelevant waste of time, you may as well just claim 100% epistemological nihilism, and then change the subject and go watch football. It’s self defeating to “Use reason to better figure out reality” but to then deny foundational axioms that reasoning lays on top of (like denying the law of non-contradiction, or the fact of our own existence). And how would a simulation even disprove that “I” am the one who is in the simulation?

[@6Sparx9]

Reality is recalcitrant 😂

[@clumsydad7158]

Schelling - nature and the organic does encompass ourselves and our minds, of course. i think german idealism can be rationally argued to anticipate and be one with 20th century atomic principles of particle physics and quantum mechanics, and as you state, 'rhizomatic' in a construction beyond our understanding, but one we are implicitly part of. although it was apropos of being 'will'ful for Fichte to want to close the door on Kantian uncertainty, it was perhaps most wise of Schelling to embrace nature and the fusions within of mystery and impenetrability which humans are still assessing and exploring within.

[@kylerodd2342]

I’m commenting from the 12th minute. I think we can actually say the same about many of the postmodern philosophers. They’re often characterized as being “anti-modern” but I believe they are simply repeating the same pattern. They inherited the traditions of the modern philosophers (as well as the existentialists) and then used those techniques to critique the modern philosophers to give better and fuller foundations. I’m thinking about Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze in particular here. Foucault carries on the tradition of ethics. Derrida carries on the tradition of epistemology. Deleuze carries on the tradition of metaphysics. It’s far more complicated than this simple characterization but I’m interested in exploring the idea more.

[@PaulJosephKrause]

I briefly dealt with some of that, especially with Foucault, when talking about PoMo philosophy here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZuthphqa6ySbas While there are some key, and extensive, divergences it is commonly known to philosophy students and teachers that aspects of modern philosophy are carried over in their new contexts by the "postmoderns."

[@kylerodd2342]

@@PaulJosephKrause nice. I’ll check out that video later. I tend to see the existentialists as a sort of break from the modernist traditions. Not a clean break by any means, as existentialism is an extensive category. And then I see the postmodernists as a sort of reach for the modernists to deal with the problems the existentialists created in epistemology. For the existentialists we end up with significant influence from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger, if you consider him an existentialist. And then from Dostoyevsky and co. of course. And then Satre and Beauvoir just before the postmodernists emerged. There’s definitely a very interesting history to be developed between those elements. I’m looking forward to your video

[@joaquinvidales7061]

I'm such a deep thinker fr 💯

[@LBoomsky]

"so called philosophers" is the sassiest thing i've heard this month

[@clumsydad7158]

"to confirm one's own subjective existence in a world of material objects" - what could speak clearer to the individualistic, consumptive greed that's the cornerstone of the thanatos laced ideology of conquest - Descartes

[@Pharca]

Thats a pic of jacobi not kant hehe

[@Pharca]

Thank you for the content though!!!! This is great and im very greatful

[@PaulJosephKrause]

I'm well aware, LOL. Honest mistake.

[@Ubermensch9240]

No Nietzsche?

[@clumsydad7158]

english philosophical education in the u.s. is decidedly materialistic, handed down from the anglos and supporting their consumptive legal and economic policies. german idealism has been largely ignored in u.s. academia, as it's spiritual, and out of step with the blind imperial project of the u.s. ... and so it goes

[@Redwhitewings]

German spiritual philosophy gave delivery of colony free world...

[@saintsword23]

While I'll have to read him personally to confirm this, I suspect Schelling rejects the entire Cartesian project (or doesn't understand it) that kicked all of this off due to his theological commitments, as you can't posit that Kant and Fichte have the wrong starting point if you accept the Cartesian project of starting with something you can be absolutely sure, with 0% chance of wrongness, is the case. I don't see it as at all clear, in any way, that "nature itself" is that starting point, let alone that there's some teleology to it. Such a story just seems like, well, a story, and stories are never true. Same with Hegel. These philosophers just don't seem to get it. They may make reference to Kant and his predecessors, but it's like they don't even answer or consider the very objections and questions Descartes and Kant were wrestling with in the first place. It's like they don't even realize that the very ideas of nature and history are ideas that present themselves to consciousness, and they're not transcendental ideas either. I need to read them fully, but they seem like midwits to me, particularly Hegel when he starts waxing poetic about love and human belonging.

[@clumsydad7158]

history, law & order, verbose style, history as an unfolding - Hegel - purposive activity (similar to the schopenhauer's principle of sufficient reason); results orientated. "the real issue", haha, the meta meta. yes, but when is the close of the unfolding? there is no end (hopefully). obsession with 'total knowledge' is a human problem, addictive personality trait. "embracing the movement of life", that should be the point, that produces knowledge, more aptly stated, an active principle of knowing. there is no "it", there is only "that which is happening" ... to be, heidegger, moving towards 21st century knowledge, which has not yet been stated. "the activity of spirit", yes ... germans are practical idealists...haha, real idealists... or maybe understanding, the way things should be, or in eastern terms, understanding the way ... process of becoming

[@clumsydad7158]

hegel - look at those eyes, something not quite right about those eyes. yeah, i'm thinking that marx's mention of hegel has lifted hegel's prestige. i've had the idea he's overrated. i also don't really draw that much from schopenhauer. i understand his basic cynicism, but going thru his world as will and representation, there are some good idea, but a lot of name dropping and random citations of world philos and history, impressive, but kind of tedious

[@clumsydad7158]

"unleash man's material movement and potential to become the most dominant object in the world" ... preach brother, or to make a terrible pun, it's all about bringing home the Bacon !! ... ufff

[@Scott-et4kd]

Sounds more like a Dallas Theological Seminary sermon than a philosophy lecture, with noble Christians fighting the good fight against Satan's duped minions, who only pretend to be philosophers. Nevertheless, there's some useful tidbits.

[@6Sparx9]

Hegel: ...And they lived happily ever after✨ Marx: All that exists deserves to perish💀

[@Redwhitewings]

Kant is too exciting and philosophy of full hope , but it is not told here........ hume has hopelessness where as kant is so exciting and full of hope...

[@djewelbenz4316]

عرض فلسفي حقيقي ،في غاية الدقة والوضوح والشمول .....يمكنك تحريك حبات السبحة كلها ،واحدة بعد الاخرى ،تحريكها الى الوراء الى غاية افلاطون وتحريكها الى الامام الى غاية صامويل بيكيت ....مستمتعا طول الوقت بالوجد الصوفي المتدفق من كل حبة ....عالم (( المثل )) الافلاطونية ....ال(( انا افكر )) ...الذات المفكرة العاجزة عن اثبات ( ما ليس الذات ....ماليس انا ....الرؤيا السوليبسيزمية ) ....كما الرؤيا الهيبرموضوعية: لافرق بين العقل والكرة المخية ....الافكار والمشاعر والاحاسيس ليست سوى ( طبق المخ المقلي بازيت والثوم والبصل والبقدونس ) ....بون ابيتي ! .....الى ( البيهافيوريزم الامريكية الواطسونية .....والبنية البافلوفية للسلوك البشري ) .....كل شيئ هنا في هذا العرض الدقيق الرشيق الانيق !🎓

[@SoniakaWesley-ve6vi]

I find it difficult to understand nineteenth century philosophy

[@6Sparx9]

Its so interwoven with 1500 and 1600s mysticism, and seems hellbent on replacing prevailing theology, even over putting its own truth claims to the test

[@clumsydad7158]

unfolding of ethical life is history (hegelian); very distinct from the empire's view of history as winners and losers. capitalism contains no morality. law lacks morality as it's based on usurpative property rights, again, winners and losers. one of the best things about german idealism is their positing that 'rationality' has to be based on valuing the human; that there is no utility or efficiency without it being based on human betterment/growth/empowerment/spiritual unfolding. thus under capitalism we are destroying the world, with only a meager opposition of non-sequitur socialism as the literal 'anti-' antidote to it. no, to ironically invoke the dialectic, there is the third way; Idealism. a society based on spiritual and material well-being, in accordance with nature, that being an integration of science and cultural flourishing of spirit and plurality. "connectivity and individuation', the holistic, the continuity, as it always has been

[@vashlash6870]

Dang. German Idealism rules.

[@rappar9673]

Well, Kant is obviously wrong, jumping to assumptions like that, lol.

[@jamestiburon443]

Can you really understand German philosophy without knowing German?

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

Yes, but you do need to proceed with caution.