The first lecture in a series on German Philosophers features Immanuel Kant and his influence on the history of philosophy. Presented by Wesley Cecil PhD. at Peninsula College. Handout and other lectures available at www.wescecil.com
"I almost started the lecture series with Kant, but if anybody ever read any Kant will know why I didn’t." He's finally done it. Only took Wes 7 years to get to Kant.
You guys know how much freaking stuff you got to read to be able to understand Kants reference- reference- reference- style of writing? It's ridiculous. Wes is a madman indeed! Lol. No way in hell I'd have the determination to do that. You can always tell when someone has the flow because they utilize their many abilities with ease.
Hey, Wes, I hope you see this- I've listened to your lectures for years, since before the Forgotten Thinkers series. You've inspired me to go back to college and become a philosophy and literature professor. You're an intellectual hero of mine, and I wanted to say thanks for doing what you do. I hope to attend many of your talks in the near future.
we must recognize within ourselves the tendency to view things with a prejudiced eye and know they are idiosyncrasies. moulds of past thinking are hard to break because they make the barrier of your mind preventing the free expansion of life within. limitations of the mind save you from madness until your mind "hatches"
In the John Locke lecture Wes stated that Lock gave a token and specious argument that God must exist. Is Kant's argument of "You can't reason your way to God, but you can't reason your way out of God either" basically the same thing?
So in a field of small losses any wins (of 2x or greater?) and large losses are the most memorable, and this could be from hunter gather times rather than because they are unusual outliers. All this may all explain why a 50% chance of winning back twice your stake is (probably) more interesting in a game than a 75% chance of winning 4/3rds of it.
Since you have a lecture on Schopenhauer: At 39:19 min you point out, that "if you're a king, this is not a good idea". Schopenhauer pointed out, that Kant could only do his thinking and writing under the Philosophy King Friedrich II. Under any other monarch he wouldn't have had the freedom to spread these kind of thoughts.
@@apricus3155 That he was. For example Voltaire lived for several years with Friedrich II. in his castle Sanssouci. Friedrich II. also spoke french in his castle.
it's not that difficult if you put effort, you gotta know what he means with every word, then it gets easier cause he doesn't add too many weird concepts
Is that even possible?? Of course it isn't. Be atheistic if you want, but find out everything because you've got the best approximation for an Oracle right there :) So suppose you're atheistic, you'll say these people are in fact crazy. I'll say their reasoning has been affected, sort of like a person that is unable to see with one of their eyes. And I'm not referring to Slick Rick, because that guy is a genius :) The book of Job is very much like this type of "trials." I do attribute that book to the foundation of the entire Existentialist School. I found out about the structure of the Earth when I was studying in Tamaki, Auckland, taking a course on Karnaugh Maps, and having a coffee with an awesome lady that told me about MC Escher's Ants painting :)
When you said that he abused grammar.. could it be that a language was not up to his thought processes... language has been evolving and ideas can be way ahead of grammar and languages. I believe it's very difficult for a philosopher to put an idea in words because one has to even think beyond it. if I have to say nobody would understand a real philosopher.
Maybe Kant feared that without religion humanity would fail? He knew what was coming with existentialism, scientistism, and post modernism and nihilism. So I ask everyone do humans NEED to believe in something that is intangible or simply constructed? Maybe?
Interesting, not so into this ones ideas though. Kant - "You are (free to want to)/(free if you want to) do as we (king, god, establishment, etc…) tell you. If you have no agency, then you have complete freedom. Why not give the endless (indescribable yet I'm describing it) everything a nice neutral name, how about 'god'." Apart from anything else, part of that is literally vacuous. If your set is empty then as well as having all of it's members, you also equally have none of it's members (no freedom).
Hey Wes I hope you see this- I did some fact checking and no king of Prussia ever responded to Kant in the way you said, or said the things about Kant you attributed to them. Listening to your "lecture" I am not surprised that you stretch the truth 'cause it just seems like a stream of consciousness rant that acknowledges Kant chiefly through weak attempts at denigration (its amusing that YOU would comment on "academic standards" as you do in your fantasy about how the world responded to Kant). I'd suggest you listen to this lecture yourself and you would probably retire in shame unless you are in it just for the money and ego stroking.
It was technically a minister of the king named Wollner who sent him a letter telling him to stop. I got this information in 30 seconds of googling. So maybe don’t be an ass and get so stuck up on Wes’s wording. Maybe the king didn’t personally tell him to stop, but either the king or someone close to him didn’t like it. Either way you’re factually wrong
Kant is correct that our minds do have built in faculties. Take this for instance, how do we know and experience music? Do dogs know and experience music like we do? Can someone answer me?
Kant was mostly interested in epistemology (creating a foundation of what we can and cannot know) that is why he wanted to be rigorous. Not sure though if we have limits to what we can and cannot know. That is an odd way of thinking.
@@lukedavis6711 False equivelancy as Kant wrote an entire goddamn treatise on his views about other races, i.e. Kant's racism is a part of his major corpus. Plato to my knowledge didn't write a hundred parchments on soft white rind. You cannot cherry pick ideas when you're discussing the writings of philosopher x.
Well Wes in the end either we are FREE or we are NOT...right? How can we NOT know if we are FREE? The answer is so simple...IF YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION THEN YOU ARE.
George Tufeanu well said. I like Wes He is entertaining and that’s fine. Philosophy is about life our existence so it’s very important. Wes is possibly a post modernist. So that would explain his negativity to modernist philosophy. Hegel may be right that every idea has its opposite. Post modernism is sort of an opposite of modernism. It’s true that Kant is nearly impossible to read and understand for the average person so I’m more than willing to listen to other people’s interpretations of him. It’s important to understand that not everything is True and not everything is subjective and relative.
Kant admitted that he wanted to save the church so he is basically doing what the church itself does..namely... you simply CAN'T know Truth. And this is a BIG mistake!
