Congratulations, I'm not even sure if we are able to use philosophy, nor sience, nor any discipline to actually acces or ultimately know reality; but that is indifferent, your work is extraordinary, fresh and may bring us a step closer to that which reality is, even though it may not strictilly be it. Again, I cannot congratulate you enough. I hope you continue developing your theory and baffling us.
I’ve watched this video several times now. I love your work and by far your most interesting content is when you are responding to thoughtful challenges of your views. I actually wish that the criticisms raised in this video were tougher. In any case, I hope you can continue to produce content based around this kind of thoughtful debate!
For a respected academic institution to even consider an idealism-based thesis seems pretty huge. Another feather in Bernardo's cap. Bravo! Congrats Bernardo!
According to Prof. Marc Slors - who was Dr. Kastrup's supervisor (and also happens to be mine), and can be seen speaking at 1:00:58 onwards in the video above - this is the first time in academic history that a PhD Thesis on metaphysical idealism has been successfully defended. So this is a remarkable - and historic - feat indeed.
Congratulations! The significance of this achievement can not be overstated. The world will be a better place when this becomes the majority position on consciousness. Bernardo, your determination in pursuing a doctorate in philosophy to further this view of consciousness is honorable. You certainly had nothing to prove based on the body of work already published, but you have now paved the way for future scholars to build on this model. Bravo!!
I seriously doubt the world will be much affected by such a position. You give human nature too much credit. What has truly helped the world is technological advancement, not arguments over metaphysical origins. If you argue that Idealism is a more humane view (or in some way a better view than materialism) then I ask you to look at any society with a predominantly non-materialist culture that is demonstrably practically better for its citizens than the Western Materialist nations.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Humans aside according to researchers the bonobo in Africa live apparently very happily and lovingly together ❤. Is practicality the most important thing? If we were existentially honest we would say love was the most important thing. Not practical issues. But to argue against your western superior position I would say the far eastern nations, especially Korea and Japan are currently streaks ahead of the west. I know cause I live here. But for the most part it could be argued they've in many ways lost the sense of the most important things in life. Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world which I think is strong evidence for that. But apart from that Bernardo's work and others similarly positioned are showing the utter insanity of the matter-creates-consciousness assumption of modern (pseudo) science.
Technological advancements hardly helped “the world” but helped make the standard of living for ten or so generations of people overly comfortable. The result is a weak and greedy populace, spiritual sleepwalking and environmental destruction. Enjoy ur medicine while it lasts
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 you have not thought of the implications of such a position on consciousness… it is exactly what humanity needs to create the necessary change in society and in the human psyche.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Bernardo never says that we should throw out science. On the contrary, his position is that we should continue discovering new scientific things that would in the end make our lives better.
Incredible. I read your thesis and watched this video all in one day. My mouth is wide open from amazement. This feat is unprecedented. You have pretty much single-handedly forced society to take idealism seriously again. And to do it in front of people who all seemed to disagree with you, I think this PHD is worth double! 👏 👏
I am defending my PhD thesis at the end of June, 2021 on the veridicality of near-death experiences based on my claim that reality is mental in nature. Watching Bernardo Kastrup's defense was extremely helpful. I now know what to anticipate at my defense. I am also reading his book "Why Materialism is Baloney" to help explain what exactly I mean by philosophical idealism. Thank you Bernardo!
Don't really know why, but when Bernardo got the official decision, I teared up. I only became aware of him in the last few days, but have become quite attached to his project and evidently his person. God bless, Bernardo!
@@thomassimmons1950 You know that thing people, often parents, say: “You have so much potential…” This is like the culmination of people saying a thing like that. Of a person rising up against all odds, and finding their inner strength. I believe that is why it’s so beautiful. I truly wish this for every human being, be it big like this, or small. 🙏🏻
I can't imagine how much guts it takes to go up against a brilliant panel that you know disagrees with you so fundamentally. This was amazing to watch, and I look forward to reading your newest book, which should be arriving shortly via Amazon. Great job!
This is a credit to several things, the classical university system in general, the sincerity and transparency of assessment of Raboud University, and the deep insight and analytical ability of the candidate, Dr Bernado Kastrup. More than this, it may well be analogous (to my mind), to the awarding of a PhD to Louie de Broglie, in the Physics of the earlier 20th century. That idea of 'matter waves' was ridiculed until Einstein himself was involved in the Doctoral assessment. A 'ridiculous' idea that spawned quantum mechanics and changed our view of the physical universe forever. In fact given the enormous change Kastrups thesis represents (not to existing physics, but to the very ontological basis of physics and all of science), Dr Kastrup and the essential basis of this thesis may well take a crucially profound place in the history of Philosophy, and Science, and perhaps change the way humankind views their place in existence.
Well done Dr. Kastrup! Distinguished scholars like yourself making the case for idealism in the academy and in the public square is what will secure its rightful and inevitable comeback. We are forced into a consciousness-only ontology like a checkmated king: any alternative threatens the existence, irreducibility, and causal efficacy of consciousness, all of which are indispensable.
Btw, I watched the interview you did with that one guy (Kyle?) and Bernardo. I was wondering if you’d be interested in talking about some questions I had for Bernardo (I’ve watched about a gazillion of his videos; prior to that considered myself one of the most certain materialists there was - though I did see issues; I am a lawyer who graduated from Cornell and Wash U Law, and am VERY analytical in the analytical philosophy sense Bernardo identifies with.) Anyway, if you like my questions, perhaps you’d be interested in doing a follow-up interview with him, where I can ask him my questions and dialogue with him :)
I don’t understand much about the arguments posed or the refutes offered. But, as a theology student aspiring to acquire a PhD, this was a great example of how to defend a position with grace, preparation and confidence. Brilliant presentation!!
my deepest respect for your courage, wisdom and clarity of your argument. As a Zen student, I couldn't be more happy to see all of my deep intuitions about the nature of reality now laid out as a consistent and logical map. Thank you so much for all your work and herzlichen Glückwunsch! 🙏🙏
Congratulations! And thank you for your work. I believe I speak for quite a few people when I say that it your work is a gift. A gift that bolsters our intuitions with proper arguments, philosophical perspective and academic rigor. This PhD is well-deserved. Props also to the Radboud University for supporting this daring perspective. This is a very unique topic with some very unique characteristics. It allows everybody to continously challenge and compare every proposition with their personal experience at any moment and by any method. After all, consciousness can very well be what we all SHARE. Not have. I believe this distinction can be the foundation for some fresh air in the area of ethics too. Looking forward to see more of your work.
Congratulations Bernardo! A fundamental contribution to our understanding of reality, which will open up many new research activities trying to make sense / re-examine our “physical laws” in a mental reality. It’s my hope that this will open a door to overcome human suffering towards well-being for ALL - which is the goal of all human endeavors!
I don't have much respect for the circle of academic philosophers surrounding you or many in the field in general. Their ending remarks on "new age freaks" and "bonkers theories" clearly show anything but the intellectual openness (and indeed security) that these academics seem to hold in such high esteem (or so they say). In the end they even pray, but I wonder whether they even have a logical and coherent understanding of the nature of what God is or is not (and how that fits into their metaphysical world-view), or whether their prayer is merely symbolic. I wonder as well whether they have ever had an experience or insight that could be called "spiritual" in its basic nature. But for you Bernardo, I have the highest respect. You are one of the most intelligent people I have encountered and your books are an amazing deep and well-thought out, rigorous defense of idealism (which in my view and personal experience is the actual nature of reality). Hats off to you for puncturing the modern academic circle of ignorance and close-mindedness and putting some sense into the many times senseless and mad metaphysical interpretations of our reality, represented chiefly by physicalism, that modern academia and science represents.
Congratulations Bernardo!, your impact on the understanding of reality will be remembered for ages I’m sure, what a great mind, thank you so much for your work. Cheers from Mexico
Double congratulations Bernardo! First for your work and it's quality. From how I perceive it, it has required the inquisitive reflection coupled with the scientific approach required to present and defend your work (not only your thesis) at this PhD level, and it required some 'out of mind' reflection that Einstein referred to in order to solve some problems. Second congratulations for having the guts, from your background as PhD in computer science, to take the risks to be honed at by the computer scientists, for switching over to the philosophers, and even more, to the so called new age idealist branch. Much respect for taking on both challenges! 👍 👌 👏
Congratulations Dr Kastrup. In honouring you, Radbound University has recognised that a rigorously argued turning point in the understanding of the nature of consciousness, has manifested through you. Manifested in a manner which must be taken seriously within academia and in particular, the scientific community. Like many, I have been struggling to formulate a clear understanding of the nature of consciousness, in the context of the pervasive scientific materialism in society and in particular, the so called hard sciences. Some in that community posit that consciousness is an illusion. (Dan Dennett) You have provided the explanatory bridges which I and many have been struggling to build, which can provide a basis to challenge, militant materialism or scientism. Without “academically” conditioned shame, I can state that it seems a MEANINGFUL COINCIDENCE (Synchronicity) that you have presented your thesis at this dangerous tipping point. Only in the past month, many in society have woken up to the fact that rampant scientific materialism, has brought us to the brink of environmental catastrophe. So pleased that you have been recognised, through this doctorate, for the work you have already done, through the clarity of your books, papers and online discussions. Respect ✊🏼 and thanks. The Buddhist saying .... “ The Earth bears witness”, comes to mind too. 🌍
Congratulations, Doctor not-a-new-age-freak. :) Well done! "The evolutionary argument" would be from Donald Hoffman, wouldn't it? I'm grateful to share my time here with both of you. Thank you, and carry on.
Congratulations Bernardo:)) it feels so satisfying to hear your thesis being viewed and pondered over by that pannel of schoolars. I can understand what it takes to hear that thesis, tune into it, what it takes to accept it and finally agree with it... a huge radical shift in perspective. My two cents is - it's common sense guys... Thanks so much for sharing this experience with us :) i enjoyed it
The opportunity in one’s life to hear a maestro, of the most unassuming nature speak, is a gift. Bravo “Sir” Bernardo. May you, your girlfriend and your cat live out your lives in nothing less than contentedness.
Absolutely amazing. I've been chasing Bernardo's work for a while and this video has been the best representation of his philosophy. The experts target the weakest points of his arguments with such mastery that helped me fill many gaps in my head around Bernardo's very compelling version of idealism. This video made me so envious and I hope some day I can pursue philosophy they way I've always wanted to.
Incredible to hear that one man insist that idealism does not "solve" the Hard Problem. He either does not understand the Hard Problem or does not understand idealism.
Dissociated alters of the one ontological primitive, we gathered to honour a giant of our kind. A true Doctor of Philosophy Across our dissociated boundaries absolved of the hard problem, green was the April grass, mellifluous his fluent speech, warm was our love; we left nor bitter nor disappointed.
i got chills watching you in defense of your thesis. wonderful to watch , your family must have been tremendously proud . have your thoughts changed. btw i watched sebine and super symmetry, wonderful challenge i became a convert
Congratulations! I was pretty certain that institutional philosophy, in all of its implacability, could afford you no room... It is a great joy and an historical milestone to see you overcome those limitations inherent to the status quo! Much Love Dude!
You re-inspire me in the capacities of mind and action. Thank you very much and congratulations on a truly awesome individual achievement. I think your ontology is rock-solid if you accept that the parsimony principle should be the ultimate principle. I once did but now I am not so sure why it is given such a high status. It is after-all just an assertion of truth value. I am now more impressed by Process Philosophy and Theology which do away with the parsimony principle. They ultimately render more areas of my actual experience more coherently to me (Eg. my non-dual mental-states, meaningful synchronicities, abiding ethics existing in the world over time etc) . I would be interested on your thoughts on the compatibility, or not, between the Kastrup idealist position and Process Philosophy and Theologies.
Congrats, Bernardo, for a valiant defense of your PhD Thesis. (I also happen to be a Graduate student of Philosophy at Radboud, with Marc as my supervisor as well.) I especially love how your theory challenges current academic paradigms, which can be evinced from the way your responses confound the panel. P.S. Looks like the Wikipedia page on Idealism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) needs to be updated, in light of your PhD Thesis on Analytic Idealism. ;-)
I just want to say that I’m about to start my third BK book right after I finish “Modern Man in Search of a Soul” by Carl Jung. Congratulations, Bernardo! Keep making the world a better place!
Brilliant, congratulations! Thank you for shining a new light and helping to lift the veil between consciousness, spirit and material existence. Looking forward to following your work for many years to come.
That “stage play” is the bleeding edge of man’s understanding of reality. This is the biggest thing Bernardo has ever done. Analytical idealism can never be dismissed as an untenable position anymore. And to do it in front of people who pretty much all disagreed with him, I think that PHD is worth double.
@29:30 I wish Bernardo had referenced Braude’s book on DID called “First Person Plural” in which he does argue that there is still a unifying consciousness behind the different alters.
It is interesting how so many disciplines are traversing and starting to validate each other in the pursuit of knowledge. Faculty "walls" are not always helpful here. A very sophisticated and articulate defence rarely seen.
Gefeliciteerd, ik ga de dissertatie lezen. Goede verdediging, mooi om te horen, dat uw bijzondere onderwerp, goed uitgewerkt en gerepresenteerd, op een goede ontvangst kon rekenen. 😀👍
_“What I remember most actually is your response to a really serious point of criticism that I had and probably still have. Instead of becoming defensive, you said something like: ‘OK, you have identified my weak spot. This is something that I’ve been struggling with actually for some time. I don’t think I can solve your problem completely, but even though at some point I should, I do not think that I need to solve the problem now in order to defend what is otherwise a valuable position.’ That was the gist of your answer.”_ What was the point of criticism that is being referred to here?
I think it may be the question of how dissociation can lead to distinct subjects with unique points of view. Kastrup has referenced this as something he doesn’t have an explanation for, although we do know it’s something that can occur.
Congratulations, Bernardo! I love your books and enjoyed watching the defense. I think the work that you were citing (by the folks in California) is Interface Theory of Perception by Prof Donald Hoffman at UC Irvine, I believe.
Dear Bernardo thank you for every original thought you add to the freedom of humanity. You talk a lot about direct experience, i checked all your films titels but you do not have a single video about it. Please can you do us a favour about it?
When I listen to stuff like this, I wonder how much is actually changing my world view. At least, I get to see several intelegent people exchanging ideas and searching for the truth.
@@jemesmemes9026 Yes it has. I have grown my world view and continue to grow as I engage others on subjects related to the culture wars. I credit my travel with a tag along portion of my bike tour with three Dutch young men I spent a week or two traveling in France Germany and Switzerland. They were very knowledgeable about the world and better knew American History and politics than I did. I wish I could reunite with them and thank them.
Congratulations. I have a fun, off beat-question, for Bernardo or anyone else. Can you explain within your (Bernardo's) ontology, why idealism seems so intuitively obvious to some people (alters) but so farfetched to others? I am not saying that a high quality explanation of idealism is intuitively obvious (or is it?), but just that strong, aha feeling that idealism is a far more sound assumption to use as a starting point than is materialism or dualism. I am looking for more than just something like, "our culture has programmed idealism out many (most?) persons (alters)." I am looking for an answer that shows the support of idealistic metaphysics and even better if it would be unsupported by any other metaphysics. Thanks!
Good question! It was not at all intuitively obvious to me. I discovered Bernardo's videos by chance (as Men call it) and when I 'got' his thesis, I was deeply shocked. I have a 30-year old degree in Physics. It's unused because I have always been employed as a programmer, but I have tried to at least keep up with the trends, so as I listened to the arguments, a light came on in my head, and I thought "this would certainly explain a lot!". Until maybe five years ago I was a "fundamentalist" physicalist, but as I became aware (as a interested layman) of some of the Big Questions in contemporary physics, I began to "question my faith" :-) I am certainly prepared to tentatively accept Bernardo's thesis, and am grateful that his rationalist and analytical approach was the right one to draw me in. I would like to hear some counterarguments from serious people who take the thesis seriously (not 'drive-by' commentary). I hope others, who do find the thesis to be intuitive obvious, answer your question. I would like to hear their opinions :-)
@@jamieyoung9392Thanks or the reply. I am not as committed to idealism as Bernardo appears to be, however it feels right and his explanation makes way more sense than any physicalist explanation of I've come across so far. In my youngest days, that I can remember, there was a duality that consisted of me and not me. (or I and not). Then following the trend in society, I came to think of consciousness and stuff (matter). In my early twenties I chanced upon the recently published popular account of QM, the TAO of physics. Because, at that time, I held science as solid authority on reality (I no longer do, science is derivative in my opinion), it gave me the backing I needed to accept that my experience was valid. My phenomenal experience is that I know of nothing outside of consciousness. This is the basis for my feeling that idealism is obviously correct, though I accept that it might not be. Sometimes my feelings have later seemed to be pointing in the wrong direction. Now that I've sort of said that society does seem to make people adopt a materialist perspective, I want to say that is not really enough of an explanation. The question remains why do we deny our experience in favor of the opinions of authority figures, Seems to me that they are just as likely to be wrong as we are.
Who would have thought the claim that we are truly conscious, and reality is exactly what it appears to be, would excite such negative passions in people defined by austere disinterest? I think most of the resistance is status anxiety, and a desire for the approval of civilised men. Even the summariser was anxious not allow his submission to Bernardo's relentless logic to be perceived as consent to its inferences.
@@mjcoplon1646 Thank you! I have posed this exact question to Bernardo, and he seems puzzled by it, too. Certain very intelligent people seem almost upset and bothered by Bernardo's theory, while the repeat it back to him in a misunderstood form. What follows is usually a correction by Bernardo, which is clear as day to me, but that the person he's arguing with seems to miss completely. It's as if these otherwise intelligent people have some kind of mental blocking device that keeps them from questioning their ontological foundation. There are two possibilities I can think of. One is that Bernardo's theory requires some "trigger" before it can be accessed subconsciously - some transcendental experience that gives you a glance at the reflection of your mind. The other is that they're truly ideological and uninterested minds, who are too lost in their ego to even entertain the idea that the foundation of their ontology could be wrong.
this is my intuitive response. There are alters within alters. Fractralization. Alters are nested within a variety of dimensions, a variety of planes of existence, a variety of frequencies...as a variety of form and/or non-form. The frequency or each alter of you is being shared back & forth with every other alter of you continually in every moment. Carol Dweck has a book on mindset that seems to fall in line with the experiences of both Tolkien & Jung in their respective Red Books. What the later 2 note is an eye that only face outward, the a lack of self-reflection or inquiry. I don't recall the exact name they give for this, but in Tolkien's case, it was the eye of Sauron. Jung independently drew an almost identical 'eye'. Dwecks book: mindsets can be one of two types: fixed mindsets and growth. People with the fixed mindset believe their personalities, social skills, capabilities, intelligence among other traits are born with them and thus cannot be changed or improved. As a result, they give up quickly in the face of life's difficulties. People with the growth mindset are the opposite. My observations & experiences of this is that fixed mindsets will blame, project, or act out rather than introspect. They perceive the world as threatening. Yet they can also be highly intelligent & persuasive (there seems to be less access to the emotional limbic brain. Thus these people actually end up in world power echelons creating large armies & concerned with the acquisition of external power (which they lack internally).Strange as it may seem, this concept is backed up by Anneka Lewis, who personally experienced the hidden side & psychology of world leaders when she was a child-sex slave in Europe. She noted a sort of 'innocent evil' which means their brains justified their actions, as this 'ring' of abuse served as a means for them to achieve what we experience when we 'grow'. A bit more power, & release of inner turmoil. I'm just pointing to a dynamic where 'non-growth' or non-self-reflection is out-pictured as external power seeking more power, blindly. So this is kind of the 'replication' of what the eye of Sauron represents. In sanskrit it is avidya - lack of fundamental knowledge about reality. Perhaps materialists are like the fixed mindset folk, and the 2 'growth, non-growth' dynamic is part of the vedic 'Leela' - the "play" of consciousness....I'm just wondering to myself out loud
Hello. From your pfp I guess you have a certain political position. Since you also have an interest in idealism.. and me too.. and me also sharing that political view too.. wanna be friends?
Ídolo!!!!!! CErtamente uma inspiração para qualquer Alter brasileiro!!!!! Parabéns. Incrivel. Obrigado por me tirar das trevas. Maior filósofo brasileiro atual.
Yup. Dont know his name, but the bald man had no clue what Bermardo's Analytical Idealism is all about. As if he didn't read the disertation or his books or read it but had no clue what it was all about. Bit shameful.
30:02 Coleman falsely assumes that dream characters aren't actually conscious. Researchers gave them tests and found they have unique cognitive abilities, then concluded: "Nothing contradicts the assumption that dream characters have consciousness in a specific sense. ...and in lucid dream therapy communication with dream characters should be handled as if they were rational beings" Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2717365
@@LonewolfeSlayer I don't, but if you use this website you can get you behind the paywall with no charge for many academic papers including the one I cited: sci-hub.tw
@@josephgoebbels9027 That's a distinct possibility, but that implies they're innocent. If their mind is identical to yours, or is a piece of yours, they may not be so innocent considering that playlist you have of little girls...
At the core of dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) is not a "dissociation of consciousness", but rather a dissociation of the self or splitting of identity into distinct personality states. Dissociation of the self can result in altered states of consciousness, but that is a separate phenomenon.
A sua coragem e rigor em provocar o espaço para a permissão intelectual necessária em pessoas, como eu, aprisionadas na cultura e metafísica materialista está provocando transformações que eu nem consigo descrever. Muito obrigado pelo seu serviço. Você merece todo o reconhecimento que tem recebido.
I’m not sure if he didn’t understand that one question or not. But I think that one examiner was asking if we have a direct access to objects, why not think they’re mind-independent? Bernardo is definitely replying to a Lockean kind of representationalism, where a “screen” exists, and in that sense his system is a proper response. But I’m not sure if it can not accept a kind of representationalism with respect to perception. I think the difficulty is made larger considering that Berkeley and Schopenhauer were definitely representationalists. I don’t think this is insurmountable though. You just need to make a good case on why direct realism is untenable. And I mean, the dream argument and the existence of psychadelics already do a lot of heavy lifting on that. Another thing: I don’t think Bernardo gave a very good reply to Humean/Buddhist rejections of selfhood (the “experience implies an experiencer” argument). As far as I know, Hume’s argument is simply that he can’t point to anything that’s not an experiential state, hence the “bundle of perceptions” “subject.” So I think this is one thing Bernardo should try to argue against harder. Even if most people may not be anti-self nowadays. All that aside, I congratulate him. This is a pretty important step for Idealism.
During the only mystical experience I ever had, 14 years ago, during the peak of it, I could not understand the meaning of words like “you,” “I,” “mine,” and “yours.” I had to ask my fiancée to speak using “we” and “ours” so that I could understand her.
After watching this I think I finally get your "disassociative boundary analogy" thanks to your colleague's insistence on the hard problem of consciousness. Like watching the matrix screen essentially. The world is encoded through your senses and by studying the mind we are looking at the experience of that feed .. as it processes it's own experience of consciousness (I'm probably way off)
E pluribus unum; ex uno, multi. The comma makes the difference. Wish I could get over there for my perfunctory PhD. There are many dissertations turned down for "lack of significant original contribution" with due respect for the sincerity of the work. Still: good show.
I havent read Schopenhauer, but from what I understand the absolute fundament of reality is a pure will, an "insatiable" will. I read that Schopenhauer is an atheist, but his idea of the insatiable will, to me, seems very similar to Thomas Aquinas's idea of God as _actus purus_ or "pure act." The will is the faculty through which something _acts_ afterall.
could you be more specific when you say 39:47 depending on how you are positioning yourself i thought there was empirical evidence for reading people's thoughts im just trying to find out what you are
