Just want to say, you’ve done a great job editing/distilling the subject matter to it’s essence so as to be as easily digestible as possible. A great service to those seeking. Only 12 minutes in, I can “see” that if I pay attention, I’ll get about 12-15 hours of college lectures in 2+ hours. Impressive. Bravo.
You need to listen again and again to understand philosophical concepts, neither of my friends could understand Martin Heidegger, I did because I persisted
@@sikandersalahuddin Talking about your understanding of Heidegger, what is your thought about his cooperation with Nazi party? Was it just opportunism and flawed personality or was it based on his flawed school of thought and philosophy. That was always very strange to me. But, same was with Heisenberg who worked with Nazi party and well and artistically shown in the movie called Copenhagen. What are your thoughts about Heidegger?
This was excellent! Given the ground covered, very concise, informative, and approachable, especially Hegel. Some seem to really go out of the way to bash Hegel. Easier to shake a fist than read a book I suppose.
I love the emphasis and conceptual drive thru a universal pluralism via Fichte, and the emphasis on being incomplete as a human without reaching out to our extended circle of relations, as far as one may desire to stretch it, and only in that way we are human, and know ourselves truly enveloped as part of that whole.
Well if we think about it for one second it implies the universe would have to exist before it existed. If that's acceptable to you that's fine but in the world of philosophy it's considered an elementary blunder due to implicit contradiction. Science fiction or mysticism might bridge that gap for some but as far as philosophy goes it's a massive metaphysical L
@@cooperward-rc1sx lmao ye if we take it literally. But it just means it came to be out of nowhere, saying that it needed to exist to create itself is a problem if we antropomorphize the Universe like people antropomorphize god. This is the problem of creation, and no, its not as obvious as you make it look.
"Something came from nothing" is guilty of the same exact charge of contradiction, in fact even more obviously so. I'm not making anything simple, the proposition is what it is.
"the self is what we do, selfhood is the activity of consciousness, action and engagement with the phenomenal world of space and time ... the notion of being as action ... in the process of doing and becoming ... and something that isn't fixed" (paraphrase of Kantian thought) ... and this leads eventually over 100 years to Heidegger, and the ontological mystery of being is something that we've only just begun to really take seriously... that we have yet not translated our existential reality into a new way to live, have not taken the transcendental proposition and transformed societal systems to be embracing of realizing collective and individual being for fulfillment, for growth, and to deeper penetrate the mystery and gift of our being in and of the world.
Thank you for uploading again Mr. Kause. I study Philosophhy since 6 Years and i really like how you always try to paint a exhaustive picture and not only keep the attention to one standpoint. love it, keep going!
Mr. Krause is bringing German Idealism to the masses, to bring spirituality back to the world ... or as I say, choose any spirituality of your choice, but choose something, damnit ! !
"rational means you are able to know the good, the true, and the beautiful and live your life by choice of that knowledge", yes, that is the key, and that is what we have lost, as we base our civilization on nothing more than physical capital and the accumulation of such, and orientate our laws in that manner, under a dreadful cynicism as described by machiavelli. when we gut the good, the true, and the beautiful and replace them with the gun, the price, and the conquered, we find ourselves spiraling into the cesspool of techno feudalism as described by varoufakis - Kant
Thank you for your clear explanation! I always had problems understanding Fichte, but now it is all much clearer to me thanks to you. I think Idealism has become very relevant again nowadays, especially with the Analytic Idealism of Bernardo Kastrup. Thanks!
It appears that Hegel presupposes that ‘ dialectical dynamism’ will eventually lead to blossoming of flowers , it could easily also be a pungent bed of weeds. There is little grounding /justification that he provides of his presuppositions but a whole lot of boisterous claims that his understanding captures the teleos of the universe
But if I am understanding Fichte correctly, the understanding of the non Ich requires some kind of magical or mystical overcoming of the boundaries of self. Has anyone in the history of the world ever been able to achieve this? At least Kant promotes the golden rule, which is doable. Or am I missing something?
@@PaulJosephKrause And people must have believed it was possible to overcome the Ich - non-Ich gulf or his ideas never could have become so pervasive. Fichte's thought seems prescriptive, like a technique for overcoming the isolation of the self, in a way that seems somewhat reminiscent of Buddhism. Kant's categorical imperative is ethical but Fichte sounds religious. Your presentations are immensely helpful - so informative and impressively presented. I really appreciate your work and can't believe that instruction of this quality is here on YT.
Schelling - nature and the organic does encompass ourselves and our minds, of course. i think german idealism can be rationally argued to anticipate and be one with 20th century atomic principles of particle physics and quantum mechanics, and as you state, 'rhizomatic' in a construction beyond our understanding, but one we are implicitly part of. although it was apropos of being 'will'ful for Fichte to want to close the door on Kantian uncertainty, it was perhaps most wise of Schelling to embrace nature and the fusions within of mystery and impenetrability which humans are still assessing and exploring within.
Damn, so it was Fichte who first actively pushed the idea that *completing* 'x' system of validation would necessitate the emergence of heaven on Earth, which has resulted in so many deaths and much suffering across the 20th century at the hands of dialectical German socialism.😢 And he thought he was doing good for humanity...
I'm glad you enjoy the content. After all, not many people have a six year education in philosophy so everything I'm doing on YT is meant for people like you!
I’m commenting from the 12th minute. I think we can actually say the same about many of the postmodern philosophers. They’re often characterized as being “anti-modern” but I believe they are simply repeating the same pattern. They inherited the traditions of the modern philosophers (as well as the existentialists) and then used those techniques to critique the modern philosophers to give better and fuller foundations. I’m thinking about Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze in particular here. Foucault carries on the tradition of ethics. Derrida carries on the tradition of epistemology. Deleuze carries on the tradition of metaphysics. It’s far more complicated than this simple characterization but I’m interested in exploring the idea more.
I briefly dealt with some of that, especially with Foucault, when talking about PoMo philosophy here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KjJUe46G_7I.html While there are some key, and extensive, divergences it is commonly known to philosophy students and teachers that aspects of modern philosophy are carried over in their new contexts by the "postmoderns."
@@PaulJosephKrause nice. I’ll check out that video later. I tend to see the existentialists as a sort of break from the modernist traditions. Not a clean break by any means, as existentialism is an extensive category. And then I see the postmodernists as a sort of reach for the modernists to deal with the problems the existentialists created in epistemology. For the existentialists we end up with significant influence from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger, if you consider him an existentialist. And then from Dostoyevsky and co. of course. And then Satre and Beauvoir just before the postmodernists emerged. There’s definitely a very interesting history to be developed between those elements. I’m looking forward to your video
"to confirm one's own subjective existence in a world of material objects" - what could speak clearer to the individualistic, consumptive greed that's the cornerstone of the thanatos laced ideology of conquest - Descartes
We’ll I just decided to synthesize my various shorter lectures into a whole, this way it may provide a fuller portrait in one go rather than finding the individual lectures. I know sometimes this is helpful for students/listeners.
@@littlesometin Well, that's what we get as philosophy students (BA + MA). Sequential development is the most ideal as philosophy has always been in dialogue with itself, building on, or rejecting, what came before it.
I only know Berdyaev somewhat moderately, at Yale for religious studies I concentrated in Bible and patristics (MA) while my extensive background in philosophy (BA and MA) was mostly classics, political philosophy, and German Idealism. Maybe at some point down the future though...
It really doesn’t make sense to call absolutely everything “Nothing But” matter in motion according to the laws of nature, but then say “However, there’s a man vs nature dualism.” I have no idea what is even being said (argued) at 23:23. TS Elliot is claiming that Descartes proved that there is thinking, but NOT that we are doing the thinking?? That makes no sense at all, both parts necessarily go together and can’t coherently be separated, it’s one axiomatic point. Taking such a position is to simply announce that you don’t understand the most foundational axiom of coherence. If you don’t accept your own existence then doing philosophy is an irrelevant waste of time, you may as well just claim 100% epistemological nihilism, and then change the subject and go watch football. It’s self defeating to “Use reason to better figure out reality” but to then deny foundational axioms that reasoning lays on top of (like denying the law of non-contradiction, or the fact of our own existence). And how would a simulation even disprove that “I” am the one who is in the simulation?
history, law & order, verbose style, history as an unfolding - Hegel - purposive activity (similar to the schopenhauer's principle of sufficient reason); results orientated. "the real issue", haha, the meta meta. yes, but when is the close of the unfolding? there is no end (hopefully). obsession with 'total knowledge' is a human problem, addictive personality trait. "embracing the movement of life", that should be the point, that produces knowledge, more aptly stated, an active principle of knowing. there is no "it", there is only "that which is happening" ... to be, heidegger, moving towards 21st century knowledge, which has not yet been stated. "the activity of spirit", yes ... germans are practical idealists...haha, real idealists... or maybe understanding, the way things should be, or in eastern terms, understanding the way ... process of becoming
While I'll have to read him personally to confirm this, I suspect Schelling rejects the entire Cartesian project (or doesn't understand it) that kicked all of this off due to his theological commitments, as you can't posit that Kant and Fichte have the wrong starting point if you accept the Cartesian project of starting with something you can be absolutely sure, with 0% chance of wrongness, is the case. I don't see it as at all clear, in any way, that "nature itself" is that starting point, let alone that there's some teleology to it. Such a story just seems like, well, a story, and stories are never true. Same with Hegel. These philosophers just don't seem to get it. They may make reference to Kant and his predecessors, but it's like they don't even answer or consider the very objections and questions Descartes and Kant were wrestling with in the first place. It's like they don't even realize that the very ideas of nature and history are ideas that present themselves to consciousness, and they're not transcendental ideas either. I need to read them fully, but they seem like midwits to me, particularly Hegel when he starts waxing poetic about love and human belonging.
Sounds more like a Dallas Theological Seminary sermon than a philosophy lecture, with noble Christians fighting the good fight against Satan's duped minions, who only pretend to be philosophers. Nevertheless, there's some useful tidbits.
english philosophical education in the u.s. is decidedly materialistic, handed down from the anglos and supporting their consumptive legal and economic policies. german idealism has been largely ignored in u.s. academia, as it's spiritual, and out of step with the blind imperial project of the u.s. ... and so it goes
"unleash man's material movement and potential to become the most dominant object in the world" ... preach brother, or to make a terrible pun, it's all about bringing home the Bacon !! ... ufff
hegel - look at those eyes, something not quite right about those eyes. yeah, i'm thinking that marx's mention of hegel has lifted hegel's prestige. i've had the idea he's overrated. i also don't really draw that much from schopenhauer. i understand his basic cynicism, but going thru his world as will and representation, there are some good idea, but a lot of name dropping and random citations of world philos and history, impressive, but kind of tedious
Kant is too exciting and philosophy of full hope , but it is not told here........ hume has hopelessness where as kant is so exciting and full of hope...
Its so interwoven with 1500 and 1600s mysticism, and seems hellbent on replacing prevailing theology, even over putting its own truth claims to the test
عرض فلسفي حقيقي ،في غاية الدقة والوضوح والشمول .....يمكنك تحريك حبات السبحة كلها ،واحدة بعد الاخرى ،تحريكها الى الوراء الى غاية افلاطون وتحريكها الى الامام الى غاية صامويل بيكيت ....مستمتعا طول الوقت بالوجد الصوفي المتدفق من كل حبة ....عالم (( المثل )) الافلاطونية ....ال(( انا افكر )) ...الذات المفكرة العاجزة عن اثبات ( ما ليس الذات ....ماليس انا ....الرؤيا السوليبسيزمية ) ....كما الرؤيا الهيبرموضوعية: لافرق بين العقل والكرة المخية ....الافكار والمشاعر والاحاسيس ليست سوى ( طبق المخ المقلي بازيت والثوم والبصل والبقدونس ) ....بون ابيتي ! .....الى ( البيهافيوريزم الامريكية الواطسونية .....والبنية البافلوفية للسلوك البشري ) .....كل شيئ هنا في هذا العرض الدقيق الرشيق الانيق !🎓
unfolding of ethical life is history (hegelian); very distinct from the empire's view of history as winners and losers. capitalism contains no morality. law lacks morality as it's based on usurpative property rights, again, winners and losers. one of the best things about german idealism is their positing that 'rationality' has to be based on valuing the human; that there is no utility or efficiency without it being based on human betterment/growth/empowerment/spiritual unfolding. thus under capitalism we are destroying the world, with only a meager opposition of non-sequitur socialism as the literal 'anti-' antidote to it. no, to ironically invoke the dialectic, there is the third way; Idealism. a society based on spiritual and material well-being, in accordance with nature, that being an integration of science and cultural flourishing of spirit and plurality. "connectivity and individuation', the holistic, the continuity, as it always has been
