My name is Christopher Satoor & I am a doctoral candidate (ABD) in the Department of Humanities at York University. My research focuses on the German idealist philosophies of Kant, Reinhold, & Fichte, with an extra special concentration on Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. My goal for this channel is to make educational content that is free & accessible for everyone. For the last 6 months I have been devoted to creating a digital archive on Classical German Philosophy & German Idealism. The idea behind this project was to set up discussions with scholars on the life & philosophy behind all the thinkers of this rich era. Not only would I focus on the big names, but I would also focus on the many neglected figures in this fruitful history. This includes, the important, Jewish thinkers of Germany; as well as the ideas of important women who have also impacted the world of ideas; plus, minor figures who are barely studied. This project is meant to end this forgetful trend in academia.
important and often overlooked thinker in the west , mind blowing ... thanks for the fantastic intro and references to other thinkers and ideas/concepts
I met Leibniz when I was a teenager, and still in love with him. I guess Leibniz wold love to know that people still interested in his thoughts after all this centuries. Thank you for this beautiful presentation!
Thank you PI, I am a huge fan of your channel! You are a pioneer in bringing the British and American tradition of idealism to RU-vid and I really appreciate the work that you do; and thank you for your kind words.
Hi Chris ! Schulze Is a name I’ve come across a lot but never got around to looking up, once again you bring us a great video on said subject. I swear I’m learning all the important “ minor “ scholars from your work. This is a great supplement !
16:30 This stood out to me when watching Raul Peck’s “Eliminate All The Brutes”, which chronicles numerous genocides, while the Enlightenment took place in the countries committing these acts against humanity.
Studying the early moderns under Professor Dyck at Western was one of the most rewarding intellectual experiences of my life. Had he never granted me special permission to enroll in his Critique of Pure Reason seminar as an undergraduate, I’d have never read about the Kantian structure of psychoanalysis and probably would have never pursued a career in psychotherapy.
Really rich and concise insight into Adorno. On the messianic, as I am less familiar with Adorno, I wasn't aware that Adorno has it in his thought. The messianic(/pessimism), it seems, is shared by both Heidegger and Adorno although from different directions. As is shared by both a discontent with modernity, again from different orientations. I would have also liked in this talk some (even small) reference to some critique of Adorno, such as by Jürgen Habermas. Only by chance I happened on this channel -- I suppose the algorithm has its upsides, too, apart from making 'types' of us all. There's some great content on your channel, thank you. The Edith Stein video is my next port of call.
Thanks so much for this wonderfully wide-ranging and insightful discussion! You've touched on many important issues in Adorno's thinking, but I wonder if one could foreground his philosophy and criticism of music more emphatically. For it here, it seems to me, that many central themes that you so nicely discussed--capitalist consumer society, commodity fetishism, social alienation, disjointments, the fragmentary, suppressed, and non-identical, etc.---are linked to other themes---the question of the subject/subjectivity, aesthetic autonomy, media technology, affective-bodily experience--that are absolutely central to Adorno. The beauty of his writings on music for me is that here, perhaps more than in some of his other, more well-known texts, the most abstract analytical and even metaphysical issues attain special concreteness and understandability, largely thanks to music's primarily sensuous presence as an art form that speaks to a wide range of diverse audiences--perhaps even in what very controversially has been called a "universal language"!
Excellent convo Chris ! I definitely need to re-read “dialectic of enlightenment” , that new schelling paper dr. Bruff has coming sounds fascinating !!! I can’t wait for it 👍
Kyla is a brilliant scholar, as always I learnt so much listening to her passionately unpack Adorno's life and philosophy. Thanks for the constant support!
1:02 So Donald Trump's views about winners and losers is just the classical antiquity view of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle about the rule of the best, or Thomas Jefferson's views about the aristocracy or practically all the founding fathers? I don't think it's true that Trump only postures as a defender of the privileged elite winners, but also as a defender of all good Americans, especially the poor and decent hardworking people who have been left behind in the rustbelt by elite liberal Democrats. He says these screwed over workers deserve to be winners because they sacrifice for America, and Trump will create jobs that will make them winners once again, and if there are jobs, that means there is American business and industry going on there, so America as a whole wins and it will be made great again. So far, so democratic. And not particularly illiberal. What you say about what Trump thinks of truth and his pragmatic realist view about success - "verbal hyperbole justifies it" -- isn't much different than many liberals who catastrophize that fascism is right around the corner if one doesn't get out there and vote. This isn't based on a deep analysis of fascism, but an emotional appeal to a mythological threat. Then one does a comparison: "Trump is similar to this fascist". But all these fascist affinities also apply to the liberal tradition, yet the liberal tradition remains free of its brown stains. Democrats and liberals are not afraid of evoking all kinds of myths -- like the common good, the nation, etc. "one has to because it's pragmatic and it would be unrealistic and not lead to success if one criticized democracy or capitalism." They often say emotion ought to take precedent over cold rationality because emotion gets the goods. Notice too: the liberal socialists don't make a materialist analysis of this society, of what freedom, equality, and fraternity are in reality. They don't explain wage labor and capital, what it means when the state treats all classes equally in respect to the law, etc. They hold that matter in suspense and stick to their ideal, their good opinions of these values. They argue that these values aren't really realized in this society: "there is wealth inequality" well, maybe this wealth inequality comes about through the free and equal contractual relations between labor and capital. Then instead of looking at the real material relations, the discussion becomes a matter of comparing and contrasting this or that theorist and their ideal of equality or freedom. Then one presents a moral ideal of the state and economy-- "it ought to fit this ideal/moral view we have of equality and the good". This is where the idealism of liberal socialism lies and where it differs from Marx. "What this reveals, on the other side, is the foolishness of those socialists (namely the French, who want to depict socialism as the realization of the ideals of bourgeois society articulated by the French revolution) who demonstrate that exchange and exchange value etc. are originally (in time) or essentially (in their adequate form) a system of universal freedom and equality, but that they have been perverted by money, capital, etc. [23] Or, also, that history has so far failed in every attempt to implement them in their true manner, but that they have now, like Proudhon, discovered e.g. the real Jacob, and intend now to supply the genuine history of these relations in place of the fake. The proper reply to them is: that exchange value or, more precisely, the money system is in fact the system of equality and freedom, and that the disturbances which they encounter in the further development of the system are disturbances inherent in it, are merely the realization of equality and freedom, which prove to be inequality and unfreedom. It is just as pious as it is stupid to wish that exchange value would not develop into capital, nor labour which produces exchange value into wage labour. What divides these gentlemen from the bourgeois apologists is, on one side, their sensitivity to the contradictions included in the system; on the other, the utopian inability to grasp the necessary difference between the real and the ideal form of bourgeois society, which is the cause of their desire to undertake the superfluous business of realizing the ideal expression again, which is in fact only the inverted projection [Lichtbild] of this reality. And now, indeed, in opposition to these socialists there is the stale argumentation of the degenerate economics of most recent times (whose classical representative as regards insipidness, affectation of dialectics, puffy arrogance, effete, complacent platitudinousness and complete inability to grasp historic processes is Frederick Bastiat, because the American, Carey, at least brings out the specific American relations as against the European), which demonstrates that economic relations everywhere express the same simple determinants, and hence that they everywhere express the equality and freedom of the simple exchange of exchange values; this point entirely reduces itself to an infantile abstraction." --Marx, Grundrisse
Very interesting. Thanks for that. I noticed people saying that Spinoza's philosophy has experienced a revival in the last few decades. Is there a particular reason for that?
außergewöhnlich !! Thanks again Dr. Satoor, I must say this is one of the most heavily anticipated videos for me , because I have recently been delving into Ben Norris‘s book “ Schelling and Spinoza: Realism, Idealism, and the Absolute“ 2023 And another really neat one called “ Spinoza in German idealism“ from Eckert Forster so I know this will be a treat , thanks again Chris 🙏👍
Thank you so much for your enduring support! I really appreciate you watching these videos and commenting! Your comments and feedback really help with the support of the channel. Ben's book is immense, and his scholarship is so great! I would love to hear your thoughts on this video.
I much admire your work. I hosted Novalis Online in the 90s and 2000s and had a lot of people who are fascinated by novalis and the idealists. I was petitioning for years for academics to translate his encyclopedia fragments and they finally did. It's amazing at the level of work your channel has that I only dreamed about years ago. My work is a little bit like Novalis -- if you look up RS Pearson. The idea of exhausting the interactions of words coming up with every idea possible is not an idea I got from Novalis but something I found in his writings in one way. I created a software program based on the idea that sold quite a number of copies -- Paramind.
Chris I knew it was only a matter of time before you got around to giving us a video on Hannah, another great from history. Before long your channel will have a complete playlist of every thinker from The Teutonic tradition 😅 seeing as how I am a fan of Audible, your channel is like one long audio book adaptation of those thick Cambridge University press readers with essays submitted by professionals in every field, except now we even get to see the writer! Thanks so much
I think neither my interviewer nor myself expressed any "hatred" for Rilke's early work! Certainly, it contains some beautiful verses, and it is an important step in the poet's development. But what I tried to argue is that compared to his middle and late periods, the early works are often earnest but overly sentimental and full of metaphoric cliches. To his credit, Rilke himself was aware of this; hence his quite radical self-revisions as a poet!
@@RolfGoebel Describing it as "Kitsch" seems to convey low regards thereto; okay, perhaps "hatred" was hyperbolic on my part, granted - but seeing as 'kitsch' derives from the German 'kitschen' meaning: „to sweep up or scrape up mud from the street.", it is obviously derogatory, and you as a German speaker are aware of the etymology. Even the common usage in English is intended to devalue greatly whatever it describes. Calling it "overly sentimental" is fine, and indeed accurate. Kitsch, however, I would disagree with. I do respect your opinion though, and thoroughly enjoyed the lecture, so thank you.
@@TheYoungIdealist Yes! Sean McGrath has a way of phrasing things that really sticks with you (I've been thinking about the whole Schelling is into "Nature Philosophy", not "Philosophy of Nature", and into "Philosophy of Religion", not "Religion Philosophy" thing he said for a while). I just meant that Fisher should debate McGrath on whether Hegel is the mystic and whether a great injustice has been done to Schelling by the Hegelians.. But I love all your videos..so thank you, Chris!
