Immanuel Kant (2 of 3)

[sotoxful]

the thing about the categoric imperative is that it demands you to act by duty. It does not matter if the result benefits you or not. that does not means that you should not act if there is a benefit from you. Results are irrelevant.

[rh001YT]

a large percent, say 70, of the politicians in India are objectivists. A small percent are brought up on corruption charges, and some are convicted. These politicians know they are breaking laws, but they dont think they are doing anything "wrong", as they do deliver on the bribes they take. The corruption is traditionally Indian and has been well documented during the Mughal period. It's a way traditional way of doing business. The masses do suffer, but not (usually)due to direct violence

[godofreudson]

And Rand too has many mistakes, such as her Hobbesian egoism, instead of an Aristotelian one.

So... each philosopher has his/her good things... to simply despise Kant like many Randroids do is just plain ridiculous. Another thing: Analytic philosophers (not logical positivism) such as Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, John McDowell, etc. are urgently needed in objectivist circles. In fact, i think both sides would benefit immensely from each other.

[godofreudson]

Fuck.. I like Rand, but Randroids are such a pain in the ass. I bet these people don't even know about P.F. Strawson's book on Kant, which shows the most important and consistent part of his philosophy makes him a Realist.

He has lots of good things, such as his insistence that we can't make sense of perceptual experience without conceptual content, something that Rand's philosophy should take into account.

[SalvoTheSoul]

Well, we finally have prove: schrödinger's cat is alive!

[999gandalfthekid]

oh no a black cat just crossed my path!

[sybo59]

1) See definition of "ad hominem". I used it literally, and correctly in context.

2) My ad hominem remark, right or wrong (right), had nothing to do with the meat of my comment; this is why it is a peripheral distraction tactic on your part. I accuse you of wasting words off topic, and spend many more to prove me wrong.

3) The last three responses from you have no content related to the subject at hand.

[XcPromise]

He called logical positivism a type of mysticism.... I shouldn't even respond to this. This guy was probably laughed out of every philosophy class he's ever been in to not understand the basics, or Kant, but to blindly quote Rand. If I have time I will make an actual academic response, but maybe it's not even worth the effort.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Isn't logical positivism an absolutist method of evaluation, and no longer taken seriously in the sciences? Taking an absolutist stance in science when new and better evidence is always flooding in can arguably be labeled "mystical", or at least not fully rational. Does logical positivism close the book on subjects once judged? If so, "mysticism" doesn't seem like much of a stretch for this flawed philosophy.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Logical positivism taken in common sense of Ayer and the Vienna circle can, arguably be seen as absolutist. Yes, logical positivism has fallen out of favor with both philosophy and the sciences after the rise of postmodernism.

No, taking an absolutist stance in science is not mysticism in the sense that Ayn Rand was talking about, in which she references Aristotle's sense of the word. I suggest you do some reading first. Read that book he's quoting out of, the Lexicon.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Saying logical positivism is not fully rational means you have no idea what logical positivism is, nor have you read any Ayer, early Wittgenstein, etc, and you are wasting my time. Logical positivism is an entire system built around logic. Now, it would serve you better, if you had an actual understanding of philosophy before you decided to defend Rand. But then again, people who defend Rand are almost never taken seriously.

No, you are wrong. Mysticism is a great stretch.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 I will consider starting a response to this, if you want to hold tight that is fine. I also have a paper published on the issue of Kant vs. Ayn Rand, it's available for sale through the IBO, I can give you some information on it if you are serious about this, but chances are, from what you've said so far, you have no genuine or authentic interest in argument. You had best go back to wikipedia in that case, as opposed to responding.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Oh, and here's an example even you'll understand, with your equivocation of "absolutism" and "mysticism". Here's why you are absolutely wrong, in that no, it is not arguable that any sense of the word absolutism can be used to describe mysticism.

1) Modus Ponnens, if p the q, q therefore p, absolutist, one of the two most common syllogisms, either have it or you don't. This is absolutist.

2) Take my example and use your imagination, show me how absolutist can be in any sense mystical.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Wow, you sure are one astute fellow, but I think you've just demonstrated the fallibility of logical positivism in your lengthy non-response ("I will consider starting..." I take this to mean you haven't yet truly responded). I claimed no expertise on the matter, took no firm stance, and certainly made no defense of Rand, but asked two questions and gave inferences if the answers were "yes".

"Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof" -the Lexicon

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Using this definition, and taking into account the absolutist stance that you've said logical positivism takes on matters, not considering the possibility of better evidence coming to light in the future, no, I don't see "mysticism" as any huge stretch. Can you explain the superiority of this philosophy to todays scientific standards?

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Your "q" and "p" example seems oversimplified.Sure, you could use this to infer absolutely AND logically that if 2+2=4, then 2+2=4, but science includes many, many more variables than that.To use a method so narrow (if it is), and to believe it is best would be a form of mysticism, though when it originated, it was the most rational thing going. In other words, if to follow it now requires ignoring evidence, you have to be a mystic to follow it. You can't drop the context here.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise *I meant to say "...then 4-2=2".

By no means feel obligated to waste your scholarly scholarship on me, sir; but if you do continue, perhaps your response could be shortened by dropping the unnecessary ad hominem bullshit.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Oh you know what ad hominem is. You and every other fallacy chaser it seems. You're pretty smart and up to date for someone stuck in the 70's. Wait a minute, haven't you consistently been using modern research as a criteria for defense on any stretch of an argument? Then how come you haven't read Hamblin and aren't aware of the fact that ad hominem isn't any longer a strictly accepted fallacy when it comes to informal logic? Johnson and Blair, Hamblin, Perelman? Haven't read any of them?

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Then again if you really understood ad hominem you would realize I need to use a personal attack as a criterion of proof in order to commit the fallacy. Not attack your lack of philosophical "as if anyone gives a shit about my two cents" attitude, and then attack your position fairly. To illustrate,"Fuck your mother," is not ad hominem, that is an insult. "You are wrong because, fuck your mother," is ad hominem. No you are right, I should not be wasting my time with the likes of you.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Ad hominem: To the man. Saying "here's an example even you'll understand" addresses the man, not the argument. Again, context, context, context. The context in which I cited ad hominem was in reference you your poor economy of words. Thanks for the meaningless diatribe on a peripheral issue though.

[XcPromise]

@sybo59 Yeah, and how was that 1) used to prove a point, which would make it ad hominem, and not me belittling your fucking intelligence, and 2) how is the fact that an ad hominem is not an accepted fallacy anymore a peripheral point when we are talking about ad hominem? How stupid are you exactly? Poor economy of words? You've resorted to talking like a pseudo-intellectual dumb ass in order to assume an air of intelligence have you? You don't understand anything I've said. Stop wasting time.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise 4) My point was clear, but let me make it crystal: "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof".The mysticism isn't in the failed philosophy which tried to be rational, but in continued belief in a system once it's proven inferior.The accepted allegation "without evidence or proof" would be belief in logical positivism itself. You were thinking "it's not mystical, because it tries to be rational!", failed to see the correct context, and can't admit a mistake.

[sybo59]

@XcPromise Using the system as an approach to science wouldn't be mysticism, because it is founded (somewhat poorly it seems) on rationality and objectivity. Believing in it's superiority knowing that it is largely rejected in favor of more efficient methods IS mysticism.

Now I'll go off topic for a minute: Are you so emotionally invested in such a trivial point because you feel, somehow, all of your parents money for college will have been in vain if you "lose"?

[pvtmartijn]

I couldn't help myself laughing so hard at the cat @ 4:32

=) Fantastic video once again by the way!

[pikiwiki]

diatribes aside, i believe i understand kant a little better after this video. which ain't bad. plus, if the man cohabits with a cat- well, a proof of character is a proof of character

[Thusyanthan]

Yaaaaawn when will ppl stop posting videos where they try to sound intellectual wearing glasses and a suit, with a book shelf right behind them. Dont try to be someone you are not. Also, have you even read Kant before? You sound like a retard, and its not what Kant says at all. Must be your own faggy book.

[bohemenmann]

Hello Mr.Cropper!

This is a fresh breath of air. I study philosophy and we study Kant's Grundlegung this year. After reading it, I was struck by the lack of any reason. It's just an absurd book with his feelings and shoulds and duties, like the ramblings of a madman. Our professor is an old christian woman, with NO clue about philosophy or reason, even after over 50 years in a university.

I am amazed at the state of things.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

"with NO clue about philosophy or reason, even after over 50 years in a university"

EVEN?!?!?!  :)

[katester629]

You're cute - You remind me of Ross Geller, haha.

[TheObnubilators]

I think that referring to philosophies like logical positivism and pragmatism as neo-mysticism is a misnomer. I think there are certain similarities most likely, but suggesting that they are associated to such a point to refer to them as neo-mysticism , is reaching.

(I think, I think, I think....)

[captainrynos]

This is the most comical attempt at philosophy ever. You're really a comedian, right? Going for the 'intellectual' market?

[libertariananarchist]

i love immanuel kant. i love him so much that i castrastrated my self to help protect the enviorment. i use to be such a selfish person before i read kant. but i couldnt help my self to stop reasoning so i took an ice pick and gave my self a lobotomy.now the world is a much safer place. i now belong to democratic socialists of america. thank you mr kant. i have sexual fantasies about him daily.

[NathanZimmerman]

'that you cannot prove you exist!'

What in the HELL are you talking about?!? WHEN was this a central claim of the positivists OR pragmatists and who are what you call the 'neo-mystics'?

[whitenightf3]

From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is

real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure

yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

Stephen Hawking

[NathanZimmerman]

The positivist philosophical position holds that what is experienced is real and justified to talk about. End of story.

Their views about modeling and logic are only an outgrowth of a general view that experience is made up of atoms (analogous to logical atoms) which can be put together in a variety of ways. In this regard, they find their roots in Locke, Berkeley, and Hume but derive immediate justification from the early Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell's early work in his logic years.

[NathanZimmerman]

Do you have anything other than assertion which proves that you, 'Mr. Cropper' exist in some way beyond the truth values established by experience? Of course not, the very word 'exists' only has sense and establishes truth value because of how it is applied by a linguistic community which establishes conditions for truth (namely, 'such and such' experiences, described 'thus and so')

[runningfrog43]

You are aware of his existence, hence you accept that there is something rather than nothing, and that 'mr. cropper' has identity apart from your own. why argue that he is wrong? why should it suggest that there's a distictintion? and the truth value my friend, is that you're alive, and your life depends on acknowledging the identity of what exists.

[NathanZimmerman]

Ayn Rand did not understand that the existence of objects qua the objects that they are was Kant's problem-NOT the existence of objects simpliciter. There are TWO notions of 'exist' at work. Kant was concerned with the fact that the concepts that constitute our world are dependent upon a conceptualizing mind.

Kant was not concerned with the existence of objects but with the existence of concepts which break the world up in various ways. Cropper's argument depends on this idiotic interpretation.

[KafkaCrow]

Immanuel Kant - top fella. His epistemology was far superior (and reasonable) than Rand's. His moral theories were pretty good, too.

Stop parroting. Please.

[eventide925]

So, Why didn't the bastard do us all a favor and quietly commit sepuku?

Now THAT would have been virtuous of him...

[halfmoon1981]

Thanks for this... but I can sum it up in 4 words that are true, but you aren't allowed to say: KANT IS A TOOL

[Blahsmack]

the cat crawling across the book shelf was a glitch in the matrix they changed something

[mishulici]

pour moi Kant c'est une catastrophe philsophique!!!je suis d'acord avec Ayn Rand

[fc007]

I don't speak French but I totally understand what you said. You're right on

[PatrickLars]

You will soon come to accept or realize that the answer to your questions are unaswerable(literally and spirituality). Everything has it's own limitation through phenomenal world.

Logic as we often use it doesn't have the answer either and dogmas on the other hand, suffers the same question. Since philosophy does not imply on a daily basis of reason(some).

[PortWestStudios]

I always thought that Kant's morality was based on intention, not reprocussion. In other words, you said that Kant believes if a person benefits from their actions, they are being immoral, but I always though it was rather that you may or may not benefit, the morality lies in the intent. I may benefit from doing something, but my intention is to do it out of duty.

[acerb45666555]

5*****!

[vegbeauti]

Again, noting that I do not like Kant, in his defense, we can say that we have a better more "objective" view of reason and that he is ergo not writing of reason, but we can nonetheless play with his "subjective" notion of it.

[stephendedlus]

what does the black cat mean?

[Victoly]

Regarding "no desire to be evil", etc.

Your argument here is logically fallacious. Good and evil are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To "not want to be evil" does not mean that one has a desire to be good, it *only* means that one lacks a desire to be evil.

[AWA821]

So you say that because my parents told me to do my doodie, I can't figure out when to doodie myself?

[adamfeldmeth]

While the issues that randy, zorio, etc. have brought to you pursue the problematic they notice in use/abuse of kant my largest problem is the form you take in expression--with the repeats, flux of intonation, and declarative sentiments you present yourself as a sort of evangelical/gospel preacher

[randyhelzerman]

Yes Adam, I too felt like I was listening to a sermon.

[jwoodswce]

A,

You seem to object because MrC is being pedagogical, when you favor a sharing of subjective feelings.

It is like you are an advert for the need of sending children to a place like the Lyceum.

[adamfeldmeth]

Your use of pedagogy here brings to mind the lineage of the pedagogue to the church, as pedagogy of the Middle Ages took place within the monastery and has not fully broken with this model in the case of lecture/sermon. I tend to observe that Logic is passionate. My objection is based in Mr.C's inbetween stance in seeming rehearsed while forgetting perhaps some of his lines

[jwoodswce]

A,

I certainly distain the corrupting influence religion has had on language.

However, the word comes from the Greek, which in context of the Lyceum would be the proper point of reference.

In fact, what you appear to object to is MrC's certainty which in your mind you associate only with religion and not as a consequence of Reason.