IMMANUEL KANT PART 1 BY CHRISTOPHER INSOLE

[@escensu293]

I love this kind of explaining, I feel like this has a chill coffee vibe, we could have had this conversation over lunch. very easy to understand and remember

[@africanenergyleadershipcen3079]

You Sir, are a magnificent teacher, as a uni lecturer for over 15 years I have not yet heard such succinct and measured delivery combined with insight, thank you and well done.

[@johnageosdaferanosphotogra9577]

The Best Intro to Kant I've ever heard, congratulations to St. John's and to Mr. Insole

[@wodge73]

This is an exquisite overview of Kant, and to my mind, should be compulsory to anyone wanting to read him. Despite having a first in Philosophy, I have always struggled with Kant, and really only came to start understanding his ideas through Schopenhauer. It is so difficult to access Kant from the primary texts. Christopher Insole presents the complexity of Kant's thought with stunning insight, and a staggering ability to translate his thought sympathetically to the viewer, without losing depth

[@johnmott8047]

Hard to imagine greater clarity of presentation.

[@wayneg7812]

God is the question and the answer - Kant was a real thinker.

[@tonywestbrook9876]

Thank you for this presentation and series!

[@jwaddy4204]

Great explanation of transcendental arguments, how we know what we know, are the conditions in the mind to make sense of how we acquire knowledge in epistemological terms to ascertain the possibilities of the functioning of mind.

[@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising]

This is awesome. I can't wait for the complete timeline to be finished!

[@kojifresh]

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you sir, for taking time to make this detailed interview.

[@uncljoedoc]

What I would love to gain from Kant was how did he remain serene when trying to explain something complicated and new. Thanks.

[@DC-zi6se]

Immanuel Kant is the one man from history whom one would love to have alongside when contesting a debate.

[@read1communications]

Well done. You make me want to read more. Thank you.

[@nafeesyoutube9996]

Thank s for your insights

[@jcs200000]

A very clear and informative lecture.

[@dromgarvan]

Very nice , very clear. Many Thanks

[@jeffpicklo525]

Ahhhhh why did the explanation stoppppp , very good stuff

[@CNCTEMATIC]

so do you want money or what?? trying to interpret what you guys want from your website to actually access the "larger project" is harder than understanding Kant. just spell it out for god's sake

[@timquigley986]

these videos are great

[@INVICTUS9100]

Facsinating. Thank you.

[@oliviawong3112]

How can we access the complete video? Do we register somewhere and create an account?

[@joellucyszyn6001]

invaluable, thankyou

[@oliviawong3112]

Where’s the rest of the lecture?

[@PopGoesTheology]

6:50 Baron von Swedenborg (till 1766)

[@zacheray]

Thanks for this, very interesting and thorough

[@ROGERWDARCY]

Do you think that thoughts of Spinoza are open to all all?

[@slmedia4426]

Dear Sir, You are a Mark Antony in Oration 👍👍👍

[@maryf6284]

Content was good but it is abruptly cut off

[@vishmonster]

Oh, this was just a teaser?

[@Albertanator]

Can anyone recommend a book to me about understanding Kant? Something along the lines of Kant for Beginners as I have only lightly ever touched on his teaching? Thanks....

[@ottodachat]

I am reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and it is not as intimidating as I had thought.

[@xxFortunadoxx]

If you're reading the CPR fresh and you don't think it's intimidating, then it's very likely you're not understanding some very basic points in it and assuming things that Kant isn't assuming. What Kant is doing is not really intuitive. Aside from Heidegger or obscurantist philosophy like post-structuralism, Kant is pretty much the hardest to fully grasp. The reason being is because so many new terms are introduced and the modern conception of what an object is that comes from Descartes is abandoned. I would suggest you read the Prolegomenon first, as it is much more accessible. If somehow you are among those gifted to understand Kant easily, the worst that can happen by reading the Prolegomenon first is that you say to yourself "yep, that's the stuff I read in the CPR; and philosophy is a subject which requires repetition.

[@ottodachat]

Dialectical Materialism Thanks for the tip. i'm trying to get some background to Hegel, and thought I'd start with Kant. Philosophy is difficult and I tend to get easily confused. Have you read Adorno's published lecture on Kant? That too helps, but I'll look up the Prolegomenon and see if it makes Kant more accessible.

[@xxFortunadoxx]

***** Knowing Kant wouldn't be an absolute requirement to understanding Hegel, but it would definitely help. A lot of secondary readership on Hegel would give a basic introduction on the points in Kant that Hegel disagrees with. Yeah, I love Adorno's conclusion in it to. He basically says, "yeah. Kant was right and scientism is wrong." To which all other academics, particularly other Neo-Kantians said "yeah, right. we're going to keep demanding that Kant be understood without a ding an sich because it sounds too mystical." I particularly adore his work with Horkheimer on the culture industry. It really provides a large basis for modern Marxist theory like Marcuse and such. The Prolegomenon is Kant's way of summing up the main arguments and conclusions of the CPR. The reviews of the first CPR weren't particularly good, and a lot of people misunderstood what Kant was trying to deduce, particularly in the Transcendental Deduction. If you read the B deduction, he flips the argument and argues backward from the categories to experience.

[@ottodachat]

I've always been a big fan of Adorno and really like how he critiques pop music especially jazz. However, I've always avoided reading the 19th century philosophers (except Nietszche) and would like to read Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind -- first in English and then once more slowly in German. Have you read any Lacan?

[@xxFortunadoxx]

***** Lacan is obscurantist, but still not as obscurantist as post-structuralists like Derrida and Lyotard. It's strange, but I actually enjoy reading Lacan once you understand all of the terms he introduces, or the definitions of Freud's terms that he re-appropriates for his own project. I can't even remember the title of the paper from his Ecrits that I remember reading last because the title was hilariously obscurantist. It was something like "The Mirror Stage as a formative function of the I" or something like that. Considering that I was studying M&E, this paper seemed like it made the most sense to read. I've read others, but that one hit me as the most philosophic, whereas the others just struck me as critical theory in general.

[@nafeesyoutube9996]

Could you plz suggest some reading too

[@FightXScience-wh6kx]

Epistemology: Critique of Pure Reason Morals: Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals Politics & History: Perpetual Peace, What is Enlightenment, The End of History Religion: Religion with the Boundaries of Mere Reason

[@nafeesyoutube9996]

❤

[@RequiemEterna]

Brilliant

[@scottjad83]

What a shame this excellent 24 minute interview is only a demo of a 28 minute interview. Does anyone know where Kant himself responds to the criticism mentioned at the end of this interview?

[@lewisalmeida3495]

Kant believed that we can will ourselves to live from reason and reject emotions. However, Spinoza understood that freewill is an illusion and freedom comes about when we understand the laws that influence human nature. The law of necessity, the law of self-preservation, the law of cause and effect and the law of inertia. There is a way, WayofSpinoza.com

[@dirtbrainrecordings]

I want to see the rest, and I'm happy to pay to see the rest, but the link doesn't work.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Every event has a cause

[@FightXScience-wh6kx]

On Kant's terms, that cannot be subsstantiated. We know not what things are in themselves. We are confined to the form of our experience.

[@kentrob99]

I was pretty much following this! Very interesting and then it stopped :(

[@anthonymartin419]

"The thicket of views." - Gotoma

[@jonathanewen7585]

19:19

[@k0be55]

great vid

[@HeggemusNL]

its very simple, and logical if you are taught well! The only problem is its not to say in half an hour interview.

[@RunningCordoroy]

check out the readings on librivox

[@scottjad83]

Your website appears to be wrong then. stjt dot org dot uk slash modern dot html says that it's 28 minutes long.

[@mindsprawl]

How do we know that time is true?

[@pop9095]

The same way we know anything about the physical world, through our senses. We sense time in a similar way to the way we experience sound or space.

[@wastedstupid4686]

The same way we know that we were made to look like our parents...which universally is true

[@arzukhan3284]

One human who is aware about the knowledge is limited and faces it when it comes to him or her as a free thinking human individual ,then it is a good question we all think over it .At the time of experience we all do face it about the world in itself from our individual perspective.Thus,Kant may not be imposing but talking that there is this possibility.If I want to think about the masons and their establishment of utopies as what a priori is there for them and how they achieved in the phase of experience all the assimilations through although none was either a native of one country nor could have achieved what they achieved to rule the world.Kant has lived in one place but with huger vision of logic than utopians and this gets objectivists to madness...Ayn rand is one I dislike among them.

[@houdanaitelbarj8068]

Aahhh... Science is destroying Kant's philosophy ... Everyday, we get to access more and more the "noumenes" which he thought were out of reach for us humans. However, I deeply believe that the problems lies not it discovering the noumene but rather in understanding the relation between phenomenons and noumenes

[@Moribus_Artibus]

Not really, Kant's theory on the noumenal/phenomenal world states that as soon as we experience something it becomes part of the phenomenal world. That everything (Including space and time) are all a priori concepts There is no way to get access to noumenes because we are humans, and us humans can only perceive through the phenomenal world. As far as us having empirical evidence about all these new discoveries solves nothing. We can be totally wrong about everything, just because we have all these cool new telescopes doesn't mean we debunked Kant, don't overestimate our scientific discoveries, we are just human, all too human

[@houdanaitelbarj8068]

Yes, but had you read more carefully you would have known that in " La critique de la raison pure" Kant explicitly states that Men will never reach and understand the noumenal world. Yet, with scientific and technical progress we're slowly getting to fathom the noumenal world !

[@aaronmrl]

Immanuel Kant impresses me as somewhat of a great Mystic. His notion about "[humans] never reach[ing] and understand[ing] the noumenal world" is a highly mystical concept, not new to Western or Eastern religious traditions. As these religious traditions are constructed to provide the necessary conditions for the human being to experience a noumenal experience, inwardly. But, the human body cannot transcend into the realm of noumenal experience because the experience(s) are Inside and occurring in Consciousness. The consequences of this noumenal experience producing phenomenal experiences in Matter, externally, physically, materially afterwards. Noumenal is of the Mind. Phenomenal is of the Body and Brain. Constructive thoughts? Feelings? Insights?

[@sambanks760]

AARON VAN DOORN That makes complete sense, and is a really impressive insight. Although, it just sounds strange to hear Kant called a mystic - lol. My only gripe would be that while Kant seems content to stop his inquiry after discovery of the existence of mystical (or noemenal?) knowledge, which is opposed to other mystics (especially Eastern) who might teach methods of discovering mystical knowledge.

[@houdanaitelbarj8068]

***** Take this example : Phenomenon ( from ancient greek : what you see ) Noumena ( from greek, the substance, the essence, the thing in itself) Phenomenon : light, as we see it Noumena : definite wavelength composed of photons which are invisible, and untouchable that is just one example of course we have way much more

[@BrainiacFingers]

This would have been enjoyable had he addressed the correct camera. Why spend 25 minutes talking to the wrong camera when it would be much more engaging for the viewers if he talked directly to them. I've noticed this irritating "technique" seems to be very popular these days. Probably because someone somewhere at the TV networks decided that the public don't like to be lectured to directly because it intimidates them , leading to their switching channels.

[@SuperScoobydoob]

Reason and logic

[@geeezer9]

cruel cruel cruel. at the best bit too

[@moesypittounikos]

A great introduction but, alas, Swedenborg is pronounced as it is spelt.

[@Emily-rb4px]

Just as it gets fucking interesting

[@zakirullahkhan1188]

why do you use the word "fucking,"? Do you mean it somewhere?

[@matheusiglessiasmazzochi4204]

You can't interrupt someone explaining Kant like that...

[@TOR1Hershman]

Yeah, I bet his mum knew ALL about saddles!!! Oh yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[@ROGERWDARCY]

I mean Socarties

[@llewellynhamiltoniiim.d.1057]

Casual determinism..Where? Freedom and Nature...French philosophers were awry..too much wine,,,Every cardiac event has a cause! SCD ACS?

[@poehamilton8731]

I think its safe to say Immanuel Kant for me, has awoken me from "a dogmatic slumber." His theory's and ideas are milestones in the field of human thought(metaphysics) and human behavior (deontology), to the fact that we are unknowingly teaching them now to the majority of people in this world. He should be at the top of human greatness. With respects to newton, Einstein, tesla, Edison, found fathers of America, and of course god. lol just kidding. what am I, unreasonable? (Kant joke)

[@jarrodyuki7081]

i hate deontologists more than nazis hate jews.

[@binzsta86]

I don't understand his philosophy

[@ripvanwinkle1819]

In sum, he is the representative of the rule based literally bloody disaster of the modern world. He destroyed all virtues into a rational pile of horse shyte that naturally follow virtue ethics. In other words, an overthinking dumba**.

[@martinijazz9]

Oh that was cruel

[@PascaldeAguiar]

19 people are Kanye West fans

[@jochemmeijnen7080]

Candace Owens

[@andreasnilsson7738]

I think that Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar. Who could think you under the table

[@axiomaddict]

Buzzkill!

[@meh4770]

Stop talking boringly

[@UnslavedPodcast]

a piss poor introduction to Kant

[@プレイフルクラウド]

A piss poor channel you got there too bud

[@FightXScience-wh6kx]

....says the crackpot conspiracist.