Collection of philosophy videos, both academic & non-academic (analytic philosophy & continental philosophy sometimes as well).
Nothing here is monetized. The channel is wholly non-commercial. Everything here is for the purpose of education and spreading around good philosophy content. If there's any problem, let me know, and I can take it down. I look for thought-provoking lectures and interviews, particularly what is rare and involves famous figures. I sometimes also try my hand at translation as well, especially that of German and French.
Feel free to let me know if there's anything you'd like me to post, including one of your own lectures.
Philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, History of Philosophy, Political Philosophy, History of Ideas, Ontology, Critical Thinking, Moral Philosophy, Logic, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Social Philosophy, Science, Philosophy of Language, Consciousness, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.
I admire Kant's attempt to place our moral faculties into a rational framework. I myself suspect that our moral inclinations do have an autonomous status and aren't tied to rules or consequences. I think that Kant's task was both noble and critical toward developing a perspective on morality that wasn't tied to either legalistic, social, or theological frameworks. I want to study Kant's works more so in order for me to have a clearer understanding of his views on this matter. Cool video.
“…working within an understanding of what they cannot do.” How would such a character view any narration? Certainly as something to undermine, never as something of value. How would such a character write about his/her own intention: write their own narrative? Certainly not with a will to let it be understood by others. Their whole urge is destructive or negative: deconstructive. Literary nihilism. Any book written by such a character is merely a warehouse of deception. They cannot reveal their intentions, not because they do not know it, but because it would undermine their intentions. Their intentions to avoid accountability/responsibility. They are the apostles of the Antichrist whose project is not forgiveness of sins, but absence of sin. They are all atheists. Atheists whose one, fundamental, truth is “this is not God, that is not God”. Therefore there is no God. No creator, no narrator. Only causation, without any first cause or final effect. No morality, no beauty, no truth.
Hume's ideas around causality are total nonsense. Do cars work? Computers? Plows? Can you raise chickens for food? Can you read? Asserting that causes are not real is completely contrary to what is real. Because causes can be interrupted or misunderstood does not negate them. Causes exist, and we use them every day to survive.
What would end all suffering in all of existence for eternity? Would it be good if someone could forever end all suffering for every soul in existence? Does the definition of benevolent intent include the desire to end someone's suffering? Does malevolent intent include the desire to feel satisfaction from causing suffering? How can the definition of intent be linked to the definition of what is good and what is malevolent?
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer because the nature of intention is inherently an ethical movement whether it be benevolent or malevolent. Its moral quality depends on a mixture of cosmological understanding and the presuppositions thereof.
Hopefully you have some street smarts and common sense to know when and when not to. The problem is, in today's times, everyone thinks they're morally superior. And that's a big mistake. If you're under 35 you need to be minding your business more than trying to solve ANY moral problems. So don't worry about what you're asking. Experience will give you those answers.
@@Optim40 The problem is people like you trying to keep people from actually attaining moral superiority, not only for themselves, but also for others. Why would a person need to be 35 to be allowed to think?
Putting consciousness before existence is a big mistake. Leads to bad epistemology, slows technological progress. Not only erroneous, but also bad for me
consciousness underlies existing so no matter what you're kinda doing both. plus, people k*ll themselves very often. In my eyes one is being constructive and the other destructive. Edit: - "constructive" in the sense that one is only deepening the knowledge of themselves, which is good. everything you do expands your consciousness. - I should add that I agree with you about slowing technological progress and the erroneous nature of it all.
@@frnchfryR6 before going to much further, I believe he should have phrased what he meant more accurately. We dont know what he means by “consciousness” or “existence”
Does anyone else listen to these lectures and mourn the loss of philisophical academia? It's like we stopped thinking and now just study. Where are the new brands of philosophy? I don't mean Nick Land or analyzing if AI is going to kill us. Does anyone have suggestions or is philosophy dead?
Are you alluding to a loss of critical thinking across academic disciplines in universities, generally speaking? The best universities still encourage the study of analytic philosophy alongside other academic disciplines to foster critical thinking skills. However, independence and freedom of thought has long been hijacked by the ‘PC’ brigade and other ‘dogmatists’.
I think if one reads journals outside the main publishing contemporary analytic philosophy (e.g. jop, ppr, analysis, mind, etc.) Most of which all seem mostly to publish responses to what are seen now as good analytic responses to some perennial set of problems, and read, say, literature queer theory, rhetoric and the like journals, you will find original thinking, since these do not have as their niche such ‘perennial problems’. Which perennial problem btw was a problem Husserl was concerned with in the problematic ‘crisis of the European sciences’. But also there’s a lot of good thinking of more sidelined analytic philosophy, for instance of group intentionality. Anyway too, the like of Anscombe and Sellars, say, are by no unoriginal thinkers.
I do know what you mean but may I give you an ironic reply? You ask for who is writing 'original' philosophy now. Why? Is it so you can "stop thinking and now just study" it? But on a serious note, there is nothing wrong with studying what great thinkers have already thought if just to know what has been done, before embarking on one's own thinking; it supports one's own thinking. Of course there can be too much study, which can then cripple one's own thinking. I do believe that ultimately, the point of such study is to be able to contribute something original and worthwhile. But it is of course very difficult since human intellectual thought has already lasted millennia and by the greatest minds no less. I struggle with this myself.
What a pity! Sartre was absolutely and pathetically wrong, throughout his writings, postulates and life, about that misnomer called Freedom. Humans have always been 'externalities' in Nature's scheme of things for its selfish single-point secretive agenda of doling out wholesale punishments to humans, flora and fauna mercilessly, just to further Evolution and Inhabitation in an ever-cruel-with-impunity Earth by ALWAYS keeping the irresistible Hormonal Magnetism and the congenitaly ever-throbbing high-octane Lust in close Inflammable Proximity But NEVER allowing both to Consummate Happily, if at all, without Extracting the PRICE of a Deeply Corrosive GUILT, thereby making Existence absolutely arid and Sisiphean, throughout the arduous feckless meaningless Existence ! When humans have been Permanently ENSLAVED by Primordial Fear, Concept of a Rewarding/Punishing God, such Gods-peddling Organized Institutions, such Godly-Agency-craving Human Frailties& Necessities even for the so-called Non-Believers, Rewarding/Punishing Parents-Family-Society- Schools-Establishments-Temporal Powers-Personal Conscience- GamesPlaying Mind & Intelligence & Received/ (mis)Perceived Wisdom...PHEW. .. WHERE OH WHERE... WHEN OH WHEN... was this Non-Entity Phantom called FREEDOM ever existed ????? Just wonder IF it would have been Any Different, had i lived in Planet Jupiter !!! (Copyrighted)
horrifying to hear Foucault speak without making, not any meaningful point, but any point at all, while, in his private life, he was getting buggered by anyone he hoped was infected with a sexually transmitted disease.
45:40 Boden: "Well we have no non-controversial universally accepted account of intentionality..." Searle: "We have no non-controversial account of ANYTHING in this field!" **They both laugh** So true! This debate was fricking amazing 🤣🤣🤣
God is real !!!!! Just as real as Mickey Mouse. This whole discussion is like two little boys arguing which of their favorite super heroes would win in a fictional fight. Or as Carlin put it: "My god has a bigger dick than your god."
