Not possible ....pure mathematics only in spacetime... or as an antithesis to applied mathematics.... that's his trancdental idealism.. pure mathematics only... you are so brilliant they are called the ready-at-hand in heidegger ontological deconstruction of dasein.
I am no longer in school, and am not planning to go back, as I work in a trade. But I wanted to read Georg F. Hegel; this is how I've ended up here. My background is so different from that of everyone else commenting here, probably from that of anyone else interested in this video, it's not even funny 😅
Adam, amazing lectures. The way you deliver really engages people. Please continue with your style and do not change it. Lovely lectures. I listen to them while I drive to work and back home. Instead of some nonsense pop music played on the radio, I prefer to nurture my mind with these lectures. Also, I love the part where you say that Philosophy it is not knowing who said what, but how they said it and why (more or less is what you mention at the beginning of the lecture).
her puritanical viewpoint in that day of age isn't that remarkable to keep repeating. She is a woman after all, she knows how dangerous it can be to get pregnant. In that time. Socially but also a matter of life and death. She herself is an example of how dangerous it can be. Not having the right environment, giving birth in stressful situations only makes it more dangerous. It's not that weird for women to be more puritanical in that sense and more easily condemn having to much focus on bodily pleasures. As for them it can turn out very sour fast, while for men it's not equally as dangerous.
We can conceive of what is not in a logical sense. It's the denial of the existence of what is. Similarly we can conceive of Nothing in a logical sense. It's the absolute negation of any existence. But when we look at the world of being, all of this stops making sense, because it does not contain Nothing. But the world of being doesn't exhaust the world as such, which does include the world of non-being. Parmenides can claim there's no difference as such or there's no change at all because he discards the critical element of becoming in the first move in his argument. It's like trying to cognise a coin by looking at the tail only, totally ignoring the fact that the head always comes with the tail, making the whole together (assuming the strict monist interpretation).
fantastic series, watched it the whole way through after stumbling across your channel studying Plato and getting into your ancient philosophy course. Would love to see that course you mentioned on existentialism if you ever recorded it. Thanks!
this has to be one of the most helpful videos i found on this. this led me down the rabbit hole with the poem and i found this video i thought i'd leave in case anyone liked that method but needs further explanation. this is really going to help me on my final. this is AMAZING! i'm a classicist so, old stuff like the latin mnemonic poem is so neat to me! <3 thank you so much man, just saved me! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1tm5duO9I7Y.htmlsi=rT1kzPmNIS7tPgyP
I haven't visited for awhile - just want to say: Thank you so much for making your courses available. Top notch instruction! If i were attending the university where you taught, I would have signed up for every course.
I’m 50 and taking A level philosophy. This was most excellent 🙌🏼 Edit Oh I just read this is degree level, might be out of my depth a bit! Looking forward to part 2 and off to read the dialogue again☺️
Thank you for taking the action to make this world a better place. I wonder how this (Western) thinking squares away (if at all) with the Eastern school of thought. In Buddhism, nirvana is achieved through the transcendence of desire, which is the root of suffering. Clearly, there is at least some overlap and it makes me wonder if desire can be eliminated or reduced to an almost irreducible minimum, and if so, if that would be a good thing. Kudos on your lecture, this is the first of many I watch from you.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
No matter what degree I'm in the middle of working toward achieving. I "always" find myself referring back to one of your philosophy videos & quoting your interpretation of understanding from a particular context. I've never excelled in philosophy; my majors are the opposite of that field. However, you are the only person I've ever listened to for hours on end of lectures, and I did so in my own time because of the format of how you taught. Your enthusiastic, ostentatious way of teaching allows your listeners never to forget and become captivated by the works. The brilliant artists, ancient philosophers & theologies you teach about are done so in a way that "everyone" can comprehend and become enlightened. No one on any platform can explain the most complex philosophical discussions the way you do. You teach courses that most students have to take & usually fall asleep to, but within minutes, captivate the entire class with intrigue. I've had to re-watch several of your videos because I always remember certain things you say in some, and I use them in all the sciences, law school,& different psychological studies. None of these are philosophy, but because of you, all of them can be used to reference philosophy and historical data with human comprehension of fundamental understanding.
Close on “intuition”, but I think it’s a little more nuanced than Hume’s “impressions”. Hume doesn’t really use the term “impressions” consistently. A lot of times he refers to “sensations” and occasionally “perceptions”. From my reading of Kant I would say something like this: Kant thinks we get empirical information about reality from our senses (sensibility), but properly speaking that is a physical interaction. “Intuitions” are the internal, subjective, correlate to that. Broadly I think it’s a similar concept to the idea of qualia, but more specific to the experience of a thing rather than the experience of being such and such a thing. Sensibility is my ability to taste a sip of wine at all, while intuition is what that wine tastes like to me without any particular judgment on my part (like whether I like it or not).
Maybe more specifically, sensibility is whether I can taste the wine or not physically. “Intuition” is when I get an immediate impression of having tasted something, maybe even as specific as “the taste of wine”, maybe even as specific as some of the tasting notes of that wine (melon, stone fruits, tannins, or whatever). As long as the impression is immediate. Where things get complicated (maybe just to my mind) is the point where “judgement” and “the understanding” come in to it. Judgement, by his account is certainly involved in enjoying the wine or not. Judgements based on intuition and the understanding might be involved in discerning notes in the wine. . .but yeah I think should stop there. Sorry I am new to Kant but he is fresh in my mind, so I thought I’d throw in my two cents. Hope that helped and wasn’t just confusing. . . 😂
I just read Critique of Pure Reason via audiobook (I’m unsure which edition/version). If I remember right Kant wrote off the “analytic a posteriori” as self-contradictory. He uses the combinatorics of analytic/synthetic/a priori/a posteriori to generate these four terms, eliminates analytic a posteriori, and then asks if synthetic a priori is possible, because if it is, then metaphysics is possible. He argues that the former is possible and then tries to deduce a sketch of the latter. . .sort of an outline for future metaphysics that develops into its own metaphysical system.
I’m having a tough time trying to personify ecosystems enough to see their actions as goal oriented. Their economy is driven by necessity and evolution. Even the most environmentally friendly organisms in a biological community (like beavers, let’s say) act in their own self interest. Humans are unique to the biological community in that our interests can no longer be aligned entirely with our survival impulses. Other very intelligent and sophisticated species learn to organize, categorize, memorize, and even improve their surroundings, but very few do so with a complete understanding of service to the ecosystem (the human environmentalist exception you mentioned being one such). Rather, animals contribute by the patterns of benefit which ecosystems have naturally created for themselves by means of life over time. So, the human role in this community is unique in that we must decide what is actually in our interest, that is to say, what we ought to do. As you say in this series, ethics can be said to be, at least so far, anthropogenic. If it was pantera-genic, the endless hunt for prey and sunny spots to lay in would be our unquestionable moral directives. As always, for humans, the path is unclear, and we must rationalize, justify, and modify our contributions based on our ever-evolving sophistication, bearing our goals in mind with every action we take in their service. All that said, this post is less comment than question: what does the other side of this conversation look like? If a tree supports other life around it, is that not its expression of some pro-biological ethical model? It certainly can’t write treatises to get its beliefs taken seriously. As with all such discussions, are we arrogant to discount good actions simply because they don’t fit my enlightenment-era impulse to see one understand and perhaps have to make sacrifice to their own interest for their action to be considered ethical? Would one argue that support of life is an obvious moral imperative, and then that ecosystems become the paragon of that value? Or perhaps that nature’s expression of its goals is merely written in a foreign language? Someone with a greater, as Dr. Rosenfeld says, ethical imagination, let me know what you think.
If I hear the word "like", ONE MORE TIME. On a separate note, I liked the explanation, "Others are an object of your experience, but you are not an object of your own experience. You are a limit concept that reason works with". Solid gold.
I can’t believe these positive reviews. He is enthusiastic and knowledgeable but scattered and unfocused, as he jumped from topic to topic without clarifying. Free association is not the same as teaching. I think you drank too much coffee. If you want to learn Plotinus, check out Pierre Grimes.
