The Ideas of Immanuel Kant (Makers of the Modern World) 

This series is great. Between your series and Vervaeke’s “Awakening from the meaning Crisis” series, I finally feel like im starting to get a general grasp on western philosophy.

I'm more confused than I was before. My biggest takeaway is that it seems to me that no matter what worldview a person holds, he *must* exercise faith to some degree.

RU-vid academia - this is the future ❤

Gotta give you a lot of credit. This is a very concise, consumable lecture on a very challenging topic well done. It’s a shame your video about a social media need has 7x as many views as this

It is interesting that whether its political theory or metaphysics, theology or whatever else, there is a discernable movement in modernity from patterns of "top-down"ness to "bottom-up"; • Emanating essentialism --> emerging nominalism... • Traditional forms of Christian-monarchy --> democratic Egalitarianism... • Inerrant depositist revelation --> higher critical development, etc.

This series is excellent. Just curious Dr. Cooper, have you ever taught/do you teach history of philosophy? If not, you should consider it - your grasp of the Western tradition is amazing.

A take on Hamann and his relationship to Kant and then to Husserlian phenomenology and Lutheran theology would be interesting.

Yes, Descartes ! 🙂

Do you have anything connecting these thoughts to present day issues or worldviews? Thanks

Dr. Cooper, have you encountered the theory that Kant was influenced by Emmanuel Swedenborg? What do you make of it?

On lying: something can be wrong, but you are not responsible for it. An example would be if you are coerced into doing something wrong. It's not that the thing is right, but that you are not responsible for it because you were coerced. This is analogous to the example you gave about lying. The man at your door coerced you into doing something intrinsically wrong (lying) by not giving you any alternative (or, rather, an alternative that required you to do something worse). So you are not responsible for lying, but it is still morally wrong.

Dr. Pastor Cooper.. I would like for you to teach thru Mark..

You're definitely going to have to do a Foucault breakdown.

...still hoping for a video on C.S. Peirce, William James, and American Pragmatism.... 🤞

Will you be discussing Hegel's thought?

Great video. It seems to me that Kant reaches the same place as Bishop Berkeley’s Empiricism with respect to the Subject/Object order. Bishop Berkeley would say that Kant’s order is right, ie the subject comes before the object, but I think he would argue that God, as the Supreme subject, makes the world ultimately objective to us… bringing the emphasis back to revelation. Sure, the world as we know it is filtered through our subjective mind, and this might lead to skepticism, except we have God (the Supreme subject) to reveal to us the way the world is. We cannot know the “ding an sich”, but God does and He can reveal it to us. We depend on that revelation.

Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without conceptions blind

Do you plan to cover liberal theology? An episode on Schleiermacher would be fantastic

11:13

Can you talk about the mainline Churches and Protestant liberalism? Or Neo-Orthodoxy?

Schelling 🗿

I think I’m too stupid for this.

It's always awkward to mention this guy's name correctly when you'rea German living in an English speaking country...cause I refuse to anglicize names and call people and places "Lootha" or "wittnberg"

You seem to misunderstand Kant's ethics. The categorical imperative he talks about is to act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time **will** that it should become a **universal law**. He is not at all saying that you should never lie. In your nazi scenario you can neither universalize nor will to give the jew up to the hunter because that would lead to a contradiction in the world you would create. Remember that universalizing your maxim means that it is now a moral law, and if it were moral to give up the jew hiding in your basement no jews would hide there, and to a greater extent you've violated the concept of trust because you have assumingly assured the jew he could hide there. You can't will that either to be universal because if you were in the jew's position you certainly wouldn't want to be ratted out, and you wouldn't want to live in a world without trust. But if that didn't make sense then just simply look at his second formulation of the categorical imperative, which is treating people as ends in themselves. Giving up the jew violates significantly this sanctity of human life. Kant was smart enough to think through these sorts of things and I'm surprised you would mischaracterize him so. Perhaps you should revisit his Groundwork and then remake this video so you don't confuse anyone.

Lutheran Pietist.