All you Kant wannabes amuse me: You are completely ignorant of existentialism within objective morality, in which a desirable, attainable state can be achieved through the efforts of the individual. Kierkegaard 2012! Mmmm....Danish!
I'm not a fan of what I've heard of his ethics/aesthetics, but on his metaphysics, he at the very least gets future metaphysics started in the right direction.
Germany injure the human rights.Rich germans fight 18 years with my family.They essay to kill my mother me and my sister.Germans give me 14 years medicals to make me sick.My poor mother cry but germans have no pitty.
Instead they appear to rely (as a matter of authority, not a good basis for a philosopher) on the atrociously written pseudo airport fodder that spilled from the pen of Vain Rant. Anyone who gives an impressionable adolescent one of those turgid bricks deserves a visit from Child Protection Services; and anyone who devoted a significant portion of their teenage years to reading them wasted their most precious and irretrievable years.
I have never read something with subclauses in subclauses and those subclauses in subclauses themselves except for Kants writings, it seems Kant didn’t believe in writing sentences less than a page long. No doubt Kant would be offended by us discussing him on youtube writing less than atleast a book on any minor thing about him. Kants obscurantist style proves his superior intellectual power.
I'm going to break dannidandannikins' heart by saying that I like Kant, and yet - I'm not a Socialist, communist, liberal, environmentalist, or animal "rights" advocate.
the funny thing is Kant was a constitutional republican. so his political views werent vastly different from Rand anyway. But ofcourse she wouldnt have known that because she never read anyone but Aristotle
@SecularNumanist Rand read Nietzsche in college. Objectivists will respond to such claims about his politics by stating that, nevertheless, his metaphysics is collectivist. They don't prove it or even point to any hard evidence, they simply hold up the Critique of Pure Reason as evidence of Kant's collectivism. The Critique "led" to Hegel, which "led" to Marx, which "led" to 20th century dictatorship, even Nazism. The last claim is the reason dannidandannikins likes to cite Peikoff.
@SecularNumanist I like that, because if Kant "led" to Schope, who then "led" to Nietzsche, then Rand's intellectual lineage can be traced back to Kant through those two.
I think this is actually supposed to be funny and not really an attack on Kant or Nietzsche. People who think Kant can be proven wrong on all things are obviously deluded or ignorant.
I absolutely take with a light and find it funny !
I don't understand the anti-Kant sentiment permeating the interwebs. He may have been wrong on morality but he was correct on metaphysics. Also, Nietzsche was an idiot.
This video is an absolute disgrace to one of the greastest philsoophers of all time. Nietzsche, unlike Kant, did not follow any line of logical thinking. You made Kant look trivial. I hope you are happy with yourself.
@daviesman90 You are wrong. Kant is directly responsible for everything wrong in the world today. His anti-reason nonsense was the intellectual root of Nazism and of the socialist academics ruining America. That Nietzsche was also an illogical mystic is beside the point.
"Reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer."
"To make room for faith I have found it necessary to deny reason"
For how that contributed to the intellectual foundations of Auschwitz I refer you to Dr Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels".
Your first quote is taken from his Critique in which he talks about the how reason ALONE cannot lead to knowledge and it must be synthesized with impressions in order for us to make sense of the world around us.
your second quote is taken out of context. Hes defending reason and criticizing dogmatism.
When Kant refers to reason, he is using it in the way rationalists used it.
@SecularNumanist So when Kant said that there is a noumenal world of things as they really are (meaning presumably that the phenomenal world is composed of things as they really aren't) and that some things can be known a priori... that was not rationalism?
You are right that Kant uses the word 'reason' as a rationalists would - he deliberately straw-man's what reason is in order to (in his own words that you declare to be out of context) "make room for faith".
Hes criticizing religion when he says that. Hes pointing out the sacrifice one would have to make in order to maintain faith. He wasnt literally saying that that was what he chose to do.
He may not have been an atheist, but he remained a skeptic and a freethinker.
@SecularNumanist Skeptic of what? If you mean a skeptic regarding the efficacy of reason then yes, he was. If you mean a skeptic about the existence of god, he most certainly was not. As for a 'freethinker' to hear that term used to describe someone who said the essence of morality was self-sacrificial duty, is practically blasphemous (to borrow a term from the religious, with deliberate irony).
He was skeptical of religious dogma, as was Spinoza. sure they werent atheists but they were freethinkers especially for their time.
And again, he was a skeptic regarding the efficacy of "pure" reason. the kind advocated by the rationalists prior to him like Wolf who thought they could obtain truth simply through the use of non contradition or apriori analytic.
@SecularNumanist You're right, and in fact even if Kant was an atheist (which is very possible) he did not dare admit it for fear of being imprisoned. The fact that he wasn't a church-goer, at a time and place when not attending was practically unheard of, is evidence of Kant's atheism. Objectivists such as dannidandannikins do not bother to read the text, they simply quote from one paragraph from the preface of the Critique, a task made easier by the fact that Peikoff found it first.
@SecularNumanist I know it's from the introduction... that's the point. He is openly declaring at the start of his critique that his intent is to undermine reason in favor of faith and the whole of his work is consistent with that.
This cheered me up. I thought that once I'd finish undergrad I'd never have to study Kant again, yet I just had to write a paper on his ethics. This makes it all better :)
@ADINSX3- - - Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.....Heidegger,Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel...and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing NIETZSCHE couldn't teach ya bout the raising of the wrist...
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.............................- - - - -
@ADINSX3 .......- - - John Stewart Mill of his own free will,on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato they say,could stick it away...half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle,Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart-
"I drink, therefore I am."
Socrates himself is particularly missed- - -
- - a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
@coolasacoldsummer Greed is a human sin... and indulging in material things isn't necessarily greed. Do you live in a thatched hut, and live on rice and beans? Do you have one shirt and one pair of pants that you rotate daily? Do you use shade as air conditioning, or central air or a fan? Answer me this, do you own a computer? Man if you do, that was a material indulgence... that is really gross :) Do you punish yourself for that indulgence, or do you just take no pleasure in having a computer?
@coolasacoldsummer Material indulgences are not immoral. I think I know what you are saying, but it sounds like this conversation could turn into a religious one, and those usually have no winner or loser and are pointless :)
It's funny that he says we can't know anything for sure, and in saying so he is saying he knows something for sure. He contradicts himself with his own logic, and people still listen to him. Idiots.
@zxcv73 well, Kant wasn't the first one to say we know nothing, it was Socrates who said that the only thing we know is we know nothing. And yes, it is contradictory, it is a paradox.
@zxcv73 if the 'he' is Kant, you couldn't be more wrong. The first critique is an attempt to prove that we do have objectively valid knowledge whilst urging against speculative metaphysics. Before you call people idiots I suggest you consider the accuracy and sense of what you are saying.
@zxcv73 Well, that's a bit of a non-sequitur as Kant deals with moral knowledge in the second critique not the conditions of 'empirical' knowledge. But the second critique is concerned with the relationship of the moral law of reason to practical action - or action in the finite world. To my knowledge, nowhere does he make the egregious error you accuse him of in the second critique - or in the first for that matter.
Kant is the biggest ass-kissing, butt-sucking bastard in this business, but also in LIFE, hes the biggest ass-kissing fudgepacking butt-sucking bastard!!! And he deserves to attract religious wanna-be philosophers like himself because they suck, and so does he. ME? Imma stay right here, Friedrich Nietzsche 4 LIFE!!!!
I hope all the comments on Kant here are facetious. I mean, Kant laid much of the foundation for modern aesthetics, as well as his importance in his work and critiques of then prominent metaphysical and epistemological arguments. Kantian understanding, for the win. In addition, Nietzsche was not evil. Everyone who took his work, manipulated it, misinterpreted it, and used it for genocidal purposes...they were evil. Anyone threatened by classical philology or otherwise needs to get a life.
@addyr100 Oh yeah, forget about Mao Zedong, the guy who killed over 20 milliion people, or Stalin, or Hitler. Kant wrote a few books, and that makes him evil?
This "ad" picks on short (vertically challenged) people since the Sage of Konigsberg wasn't even five feet tall. If he were alive, he would arise to his full stature (however meager that might be) and challenge this piece. Nietzsche (Herr UberMensch) would cower in a corner.
uh you can make money with certain types of engineering straight out of undergrad... unless you do something worthless like civil engineering then you may need a phd to get money
@dhx84 Money makes the world go round!!! but basic sciences brings us TV!!! its a hard choice :) I'm a biological scientist and all that gives us is arguments with religious people :)
Bullshit. That's like saying that because pro athletes in the major leagues make lots of money, that the most intelligent course to take in life is to train for professional sports. While I often take issue with DoL statistics, they're sure as hell a better measure of reality than cherry-picked anecdotes.
PhD's in general really aren't that valuable in terms of making one more money, relative to the cost of obtaining one. But a bachelor's or master's degree in electrical or even mechanical engineering is quite a bit more valuable than a degree in economics.
I am not arguing that engineering is more productive than economics. However, economics majors have far more vertical movability in terms of salary than engineers. And electrical engineers really dont make that much money. Check your beloved labor statistics and you will see that a huge influx of people from india and china have kept the salaries for numerous engineering professions far below those primarily practiced by americans, such as petroleum engineering.
"An econ phd is worth far more than all science phds combined." Uh, no it's not. Just check the the Department of Labor's statistics.
"Warren Buffett only got a masters in econ and he's the richest man on the planet."
Do I have to explain why arguments by anecdote are flawed? Bill Gates dropped out of college, therefore we should all avoid college, using the same line of bullshit logic. One can come up with an anecdote to support any ridiculous argument.
lol noob just look at the people running finance and business. They have econ phds if any phd at all. They definitely do not have chemistry and biology phds. And what kind of moron uses DoL statistics besides Krugman
@OntologicalQuandary That is true... but most of the people running finance and business have money in the family. For the average Joe a science degree will get you more money than manager at JCPenny's.
I understand that this is a joke, however, "wrong" is a stupid word to use, since it would literally be impossible to prove him "wrong." I however think he was 100% right on ethics.
The biggest problem with Kant's ethical philosophy is that he assumes that each organ of the body is perfectly adapted for life, and that human instincts are enough for survival. He also claims that reason is there to perfect this so-called "good will". This is completely false! It is impossible for an organism to be perfectly adapted to anything because environments change. And if we didn't really need reason just to survive, evolution would have gotten rid of it!
Rand was a doody head and Neitche was a know-it-all. I personally rely on the words and wisdom of Plutarch who knew a thing or two about a thing or two.
@JamesRoss117 - would give you a detailed critique of Rand but there's just not enough room in this comment box. But there is room for "doody head"!!!
Because Rand's philosophy is unworkable. She wants humans to be completely autonomous in a Capitalistic society. This is impossible. If one wanted to be completely autonomous, they would live in the woods and be a survivalist. Almost every ethicist eschews ethical egoism, including John Stuart Mill and David Hume.
@KommisarKowl By autonomous she means living by your own mind and labor and not taking the products of others by force. There is no contradiction. Also, the unpopularity of ethical egoism is no argument against it.
Which is still almost impossible. You have to agree with others and work with them. In the most famous example of Rand's philosophy, Howard Roark destroys his building because others derive value from it. This makes no sense because in reality Howard Roark would be imprisoned for destroying public property. Rand also holds to the ubermensch theory, which was debunked by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Also, Rand argues for a society of rational people who work through consent. A society like this would never choose Capitalism as it is a drastically uneven system of property distribution based on force.
Ayn Rand takes apart and destroys Kant. Take a look at her explanation of the "stolen concept" fallacy. Love live reason. If you want to go back even further, Aristotle is also a good antidote to Kant.
lies, rand is a failure. For starters, she assumes life is the ultimate value, which it isn't. Once this premise is lost her philosophy is bunk. Another thing, Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy, and is concerned with the material nature of things, so, under this material nature lies determinism and indeterminism, both of which make free will nonexistant. And I believe it was in Galts speech that she stated that that which lies outside free will lies outside morality.
It's all about the grey area of life some see more than others but we need a - to make a + so we have dark and light but it's the grey area of life which is the key to being happy it's hard but we have to try.
If, however, you mean that like Soulja Boy Nietzsche was an overcompensating, bling-wearing, shallow, hip-hop gangsta then I'm afraid I must protest the claim.
i have to agree. there are big extreme misconceptions of immanuel kant. most people misplace his views with those of hume. althought he was influenced by hume. he constantly calls him out "Groundworks...". here as well is where not only does he recognize where he contradicts himself but replies to those contradictions to clarify y. unfortunately alot of people over look it and leave w a completely misconstrued point of view on Kant
what are DoL statistics except a large collection of cherry picked anecdotes?
Hell, I haven't even heard of a single mega-rich bio, chem or geology phd. I know a lot of very successful physicists, but dont know anything about their salaries. Then again, the ones who make it big write bullshit fabrications about "string theory". There are tons of mega-rich econ phds and masters, why are you doubting this?
All you Kant wannabes amuse me: You are completely ignorant of existentialism within objective morality, in which a desirable, attainable state can be achieved through the efforts of the individual. Kierkegaard 2012! Mmmm....Danish!
ErichWr 1 month ago
nice job guys
jpenr 1 month ago
also, Chuck Norris for Repulican President 2012
7kyro 2 months ago
Nietzsche was influenced by Kant, this video makes little sense.
...you know who else was influenced by Kant, btw?
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” - Albert Einstein
7kyro 2 months ago
@7kyro It's a joke, lighten up Kant(ian)
zodiacchiller 1 day ago
I prefer Kant, but both of 'em kick ass. If the elections like this, we might actually get a voter turnout in this country. ;)
houseofcantor 2 months ago
inheritable unknowable
domingoflores 2 months ago
Yes, cda 1117 I hardily agree!!
DrWhy99 2 months ago
I'm not a fan of what I've heard of his ethics/aesthetics, but on his metaphysics, he at the very least gets future metaphysics started in the right direction.
cda1117 3 months ago
Germany injure the human rights.Rich germans fight 18 years with my family.They essay to kill my mother me and my sister.Germans give me 14 years medicals to make me sick.My poor mother cry but germans have no pitty.
Devranderya 4 months ago
Vote Nietzsche 2012!
VioletDreamMusic 4 months ago
i like both
sniperquasi 4 months ago
What a Kant...
TiagoTiagoT 4 months ago
Instead they appear to rely (as a matter of authority, not a good basis for a philosopher) on the atrociously written pseudo airport fodder that spilled from the pen of Vain Rant. Anyone who gives an impressionable adolescent one of those turgid bricks deserves a visit from Child Protection Services; and anyone who devoted a significant portion of their teenage years to reading them wasted their most precious and irretrievable years.
shutoman7 4 months ago
On this thread, as a generalism, Kant's supporters appear to have read his works in detail whereas Kant's detractors have not.
shutoman7 4 months ago
LOL, I really can't ignore how you guys pronounce "Kant" over there, lol.
Yes, yes, I know, I'm immature.
NBM397 5 months ago
Nietzsche 2012!
niriop 5 months ago
I have never read something with subclauses in subclauses and those subclauses in subclauses themselves except for Kants writings, it seems Kant didn’t believe in writing sentences less than a page long. No doubt Kant would be offended by us discussing him on youtube writing less than atleast a book on any minor thing about him. Kants obscurantist style proves his superior intellectual power.
linguafranca123 7 months ago
Where's the anti Nietzsche one?
TheEthanwashere 7 months ago
You're a dumb fucking kant.
pear928 7 months ago
I am Friedrich Nietzsche, and I approve of this moustache.
midnightlynx 7 months ago 9
Yeah this Emmanuel Goldstein......ah...Immanuel Kant is horrible!
Enlightment? Free thinking? Categorical Imperative? NONSENSE!
Let`s hate him!
Koerpermusikk 9 months ago
@Koerpermusikk Hate is a primitive trait of human beings, and it is one of the causes that will make us go the way of the dinosaurs.
FASBLAQUE 7 months ago
@FASBLAQUE Because asteroids are magnetically attracted to hate.
BloodskullMannoroth 5 months ago
@Koerpermusikk You're sick.
FASBLAQUE 7 months ago
FUCKING ASWOME! I LOL'D SOOO HARD
Blomsternisse 9 months ago
Comment removed
kumoja 9 months ago
KingHotPants,
You pronounce Kant like the Brits say "can't" ...it's pronounced like cunt!
kumoja 9 months ago
Kant was a genius. His Critique of Pure Reason is an exceptional work
1987Bateman 9 months ago
lol, you need to make ap kant. noob
tehzoh 10 months ago
He looks like some evil short guy. When you turn around he dances and turns into smoke. I experienced it... It's true!
Shrunkenhead61 10 months ago
@Shrunkenhead61 You're sick!
FASBLAQUE 7 months ago
hehe my teacher sent me this link
ChristinaVero1 11 months ago
I'm going to break dannidandannikins' heart by saying that I like Kant, and yet - I'm not a Socialist, communist, liberal, environmentalist, or animal "rights" advocate.
Mal1234567 11 months ago
@Mal1234567
the funny thing is Kant was a constitutional republican. so his political views werent vastly different from Rand anyway. But ofcourse she wouldnt have known that because she never read anyone but Aristotle
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist Rand read Nietzsche in college. Objectivists will respond to such claims about his politics by stating that, nevertheless, his metaphysics is collectivist. They don't prove it or even point to any hard evidence, they simply hold up the Critique of Pure Reason as evidence of Kant's collectivism. The Critique "led" to Hegel, which "led" to Marx, which "led" to 20th century dictatorship, even Nazism. The last claim is the reason dannidandannikins likes to cite Peikoff.
Mal1234567 11 months ago
@Mal1234567
lol but Kant also "led" Schopenhauer who "led" to Nietzsche so yeah... its bullshit to say so
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist I like that, because if Kant "led" to Schope, who then "led" to Nietzsche, then Rand's intellectual lineage can be traced back to Kant through those two.
Mal1234567 11 months ago
@Mal1234567
SHHHH, if Ran didn't say it then it must be wrong.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
video sucks
eva4732 11 months ago
That is funny.
natedaug1 1 year ago
Ha, ha! God forbid if Nietzsche should stoop so low as to politics. Funny ad, though!
tiakpark 1 year ago
wow ... kant is a real cunt!
KanyeTroll 1 year ago
just lol
Piatasify 1 year ago
Useless !
HegelKarl 1 year ago
Brilliant!
riverlioness 1 year ago
Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
Immanuel Kant
IronicKismet 1 year ago
Ingratitude is the essence of vileness.
Immanuel Kant
IronicKismet 1 year ago
Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.
Immanuel Kant
IronicKismet 1 year ago
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.
Immanuel Kant
IronicKismet 1 year ago
Ugh. What a Kant.
iamestrella 1 year ago
Wow , Reminds me of Smith from the Matrix
jmm1233 1 year ago
Awesome. This shows just how I feel when I read Kant.
samreznek 1 year ago
Sooooo creative! Thanks!
malwambi 1 year ago
I had a Kant attack today. Got to get me some kant.
baalisgod666 1 year ago
this was too funny!
meztica 1 year ago
I think this is actually supposed to be funny and not really an attack on Kant or Nietzsche. People who think Kant can be proven wrong on all things are obviously deluded or ignorant.
I absolutely take with a light and find it funny !
anshuanand 1 year ago
Wasn't there a Nietzsche attack ad? Please re-post it!
BrettLam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wasn't there a Nietzsche attack ad? Please re-post it!
BrettLam 1 year ago
Wasn't there a Nietzsche attack ad? Please post it!
BrettLam 1 year ago
I don't understand the anti-Kant sentiment permeating the interwebs. He may have been wrong on morality but he was correct on metaphysics. Also, Nietzsche was an idiot.
RaymondDundas 1 year ago
@RaymondDundas
its easy to make fun of his name thats all
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
This video is an absolute disgrace to one of the greastest philsoophers of all time. Nietzsche, unlike Kant, did not follow any line of logical thinking. You made Kant look trivial. I hope you are happy with yourself.
daviesman90 1 year ago
@daviesman90 You are wrong. Kant is directly responsible for everything wrong in the world today. His anti-reason nonsense was the intellectual root of Nazism and of the socialist academics ruining America. That Nietzsche was also an illogical mystic is beside the point.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins
Anti reason?
Kant was against reason prior to synthesis with experience. How on earth would that have effected the Nazis?
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist
Kant:
"Reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer."
"To make room for faith I have found it necessary to deny reason"
For how that contributed to the intellectual foundations of Auschwitz I refer you to Dr Leonard Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels".
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins
Your first quote is taken from his Critique in which he talks about the how reason ALONE cannot lead to knowledge and it must be synthesized with impressions in order for us to make sense of the world around us.
your second quote is taken out of context. Hes defending reason and criticizing dogmatism.
When Kant refers to reason, he is using it in the way rationalists used it.
So yeah, poor quote mining.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist So when Kant said that there is a noumenal world of things as they really are (meaning presumably that the phenomenal world is composed of things as they really aren't) and that some things can be known a priori... that was not rationalism?
You are right that Kant uses the word 'reason' as a rationalists would - he deliberately straw-man's what reason is in order to (in his own words that you declare to be out of context) "make room for faith".
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins
Hes criticizing religion when he says that. Hes pointing out the sacrifice one would have to make in order to maintain faith. He wasnt literally saying that that was what he chose to do.
He may not have been an atheist, but he remained a skeptic and a freethinker.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist Skeptic of what? If you mean a skeptic regarding the efficacy of reason then yes, he was. If you mean a skeptic about the existence of god, he most certainly was not. As for a 'freethinker' to hear that term used to describe someone who said the essence of morality was self-sacrificial duty, is practically blasphemous (to borrow a term from the religious, with deliberate irony).
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins
He was skeptical of religious dogma, as was Spinoza. sure they werent atheists but they were freethinkers especially for their time.
And again, he was a skeptic regarding the efficacy of "pure" reason. the kind advocated by the rationalists prior to him like Wolf who thought they could obtain truth simply through the use of non contradition or apriori analytic.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist You're right, and in fact even if Kant was an atheist (which is very possible) he did not dare admit it for fear of being imprisoned. The fact that he wasn't a church-goer, at a time and place when not attending was practically unheard of, is evidence of Kant's atheism. Objectivists such as dannidandannikins do not bother to read the text, they simply quote from one paragraph from the preface of the Critique, a task made easier by the fact that Peikoff found it first.
Mal1234567 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins
Wait hang on, theres more.
your first quote is the OPENING SENTENCE to the preface to the first edition.
Thats even more dishonest than when creationists like to quote mine Darwin about the evolution of the eye.
Like its not physically possible to quote mine him anymore.
hahahaha. Try reading something other than Rand
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
@SecularNumanist I know it's from the introduction... that's the point. He is openly declaring at the start of his critique that his intent is to undermine reason in favor of faith and the whole of his work is consistent with that.
dannidandannikins 11 months ago
@dannidandannikins
lol. no he wasnt.... you didnt read the rest of the book did you? like not even the opening 100 pages
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
cont)
and no its not the introduction. Its the preface to the first edition. thats a different part of the book.
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
This cheered me up. I thought that once I'd finish undergrad I'd never have to study Kant again, yet I just had to write a paper on his ethics. This makes it all better :)
BrokenCrimson 1 year ago
71 people spend their time wondering how many angels fit on the head of a needle.
Genious video mate!
GrumpyOldDude90 1 year ago 3
71 people who watched this video are Kantfags! lmao Losers :-)
JVbin 1 year ago
This great... more, more!!!!
maricarmen123 1 year ago
Philosophy students are lovely.
CorvidaeHerald 1 year ago
lol@ 0:26 the vibrating photo and dramatic music
AarontheCurious 1 year ago
I find it interesting that you say "Kant" correctly, but then say "Immanuel" incorrectly. The A sounds the same in both.
modustheoperandi 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer I like Star Trek, I don't get my philosophical ideals from it. haha
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer You are one masochistic son of a bitch!
HamsterFueledRocket 1 year ago
You know what the problem with Kant was?.....He couldn't.
bsartist 1 year ago
made me smile :)
not laugh out loud.... but smile
BeyondOrwell 1 year ago
Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.
tjrxk7 1 year ago
@tjrxk7 Kant not stable? What about Nietzsche?
ADINSX3 1 year ago
@ADINSX3- - - Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.....Heidegger,Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel...and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing NIETZSCHE couldn't teach ya bout the raising of the wrist...
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.............................- - - - -
tjrxk7 1 year ago 4
@ADINSX3 .......- - - John Stewart Mill of his own free will,on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato they say,could stick it away...half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle,Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart-
"I drink, therefore I am."
Socrates himself is particularly missed- - -
- - a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
tjrxk7 1 year ago 2
@ADINSX3 are you really going question a kant attack ad???
voodooy2k 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer Greed is a human sin... and indulging in material things isn't necessarily greed. Do you live in a thatched hut, and live on rice and beans? Do you have one shirt and one pair of pants that you rotate daily? Do you use shade as air conditioning, or central air or a fan? Answer me this, do you own a computer? Man if you do, that was a material indulgence... that is really gross :) Do you punish yourself for that indulgence, or do you just take no pleasure in having a computer?
jjgfun 1 year ago
@coolasacoldsummer Material indulgences are not immoral. I think I know what you are saying, but it sounds like this conversation could turn into a religious one, and those usually have no winner or loser and are pointless :)
jjgfun 1 year ago
It's funny that he says we can't know anything for sure, and in saying so he is saying he knows something for sure. He contradicts himself with his own logic, and people still listen to him. Idiots.
zxcv73 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrDavies90 1 year ago
@zxcv73 well, Kant wasn't the first one to say we know nothing, it was Socrates who said that the only thing we know is we know nothing. And yes, it is contradictory, it is a paradox.
npa992 1 year ago
@zxcv73 if the 'he' is Kant, you couldn't be more wrong. The first critique is an attempt to prove that we do have objectively valid knowledge whilst urging against speculative metaphysics. Before you call people idiots I suggest you consider the accuracy and sense of what you are saying.
zetetic666 11 months ago
@zetetic666
Really? How would you sum up his second critique?
zxcv73 11 months ago
@zxcv73 Well, that's a bit of a non-sequitur as Kant deals with moral knowledge in the second critique not the conditions of 'empirical' knowledge. But the second critique is concerned with the relationship of the moral law of reason to practical action - or action in the finite world. To my knowledge, nowhere does he make the egregious error you accuse him of in the second critique - or in the first for that matter.
zetetic666 11 months ago
Kant and Nietzsche would never win. Kant will bore everyone and Nietzsche will end up getting people not to vote for him.
Best person to run would be J.S Mill.
funny video
MrDavies90 1 year ago
Why did immanuel kant write the second critique?
To finish the sentence he started in the first one.
superstar122251 1 year ago 52
@superstar122251
lololololololololololol
moyga 11 months ago
@superstar122251
LOL xD
ChristinaVero1 11 months ago
Kant is the biggest ass-kissing, butt-sucking bastard in this business, but also in LIFE, hes the biggest ass-kissing fudgepacking butt-sucking bastard!!! And he deserves to attract religious wanna-be philosophers like himself because they suck, and so does he. ME? Imma stay right here, Friedrich Nietzsche 4 LIFE!!!!
youngbuck189 1 year ago
I would take kant to nietzsche any day.
jumboshrimp09 1 year ago
Being & Tim: The story of a boy & his ontological blob.
Give it a google....
I think you'll enjoy it!
JCMcGee 1 year ago
I hope all the comments on Kant here are facetious. I mean, Kant laid much of the foundation for modern aesthetics, as well as his importance in his work and critiques of then prominent metaphysical and epistemological arguments. Kantian understanding, for the win. In addition, Nietzsche was not evil. Everyone who took his work, manipulated it, misinterpreted it, and used it for genocidal purposes...they were evil. Anyone threatened by classical philology or otherwise needs to get a life.
QantasNeverCrashed1 1 year ago
The worst philosophers ever:
Ayn Rand and Immanuel Kant- both deluded. They don't deserve to stand with aristotle and rene!
I hope all of their works get burned.
superstar122251 1 year ago
That's phenominalogical!
cybersaint2k 1 year ago
kant is the most evil man in the world second is nietzshe
addyr100 1 year ago
@addyr100 Oh yeah, forget about Mao Zedong, the guy who killed over 20 milliion people, or Stalin, or Hitler. Kant wrote a few books, and that makes him evil?
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
look up what ayan rand had to say about kant.she said his ideas were rampant in universitys 7 would destroy our country
ninjafretshadow 1 year ago
that was good i was looking for kant bashing what a knob that dude was!
ninjafretshadow 1 year ago
Could someone explain me in what Kant was wrong and in what he was corrected by Nietzche? I can't wait to hear your "reasons"...
tichinisbrini 1 year ago
Hee hee, genius
Rabbitthat 1 year ago
Kant may proved to be correct in future. Nietzsche is wrong forever.
sonny19xx 1 year ago
This is bloody incredible! Fantastic!
beingandtim 1 year ago
'Wrong for america'.. LOL. Like he would care.
vls174 1 year ago
Kant was an idiotic moral fanatic. Nietzsche was superior
enetcracker 1 year ago
Thats why he went crazy, not before he hugged a beaten horse, crying like a "Übermensch". Haha. Arthur took him home there.
trupiil 1 year ago
Awesome. I really don't understand any of this - but I am sure the Kant vs. Nietzsche people would get a kick out of this.
HVACSoldier 1 year ago
This "ad" picks on short (vertically challenged) people since the Sage of Konigsberg wasn't even five feet tall. If he were alive, he would arise to his full stature (however meager that might be) and challenge this piece. Nietzsche (Herr UberMensch) would cower in a corner.
AKhomiakov 1 year ago
LOL this is hilarious
bobsanders222 1 year ago
And even more importantly, Kant had no facial hair. Never trust a smooth-faced philosopher.
itssolastcentury 1 year ago 68
@itssolastcentury
hahahahaha xD
SseBb 1 year ago
@itssolastcentury
haha lol XD
superstar122251 1 year ago
@itssolastcentury Ha, ha, ha. You sound like Julian the Apostate.
BlackLaval 1 year ago
@BlackLaval Why thank you for that insight - I've passed it on to my good friend @AcademicBeards
itssolastcentury 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how did this metaphysics crap get on my screen..........................
and no, youre not special if you have advanced knowledge of metaphysics of morals and ethics. this just isnt funny.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
lol
jtbovis 2 years ago
@hbk621 you're naive, or sarcastic. which is it?
sensi1985 2 years ago
@hbk621
lol idiot you know economics is in liberal arts category right? An econ phd is worth far more than all science phds combined.
Warren buffet only got a masters in econ and hes the richest man on the planet.
You just sound like some nerd trying to justify your BS in compsci
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
@OntologicalQuandary
Yeah, there's only like . . . five schools of economics who disagree on each other about everything.
Economics isn't exactly a pure science.
If you want to make money out of school with a PhD, you're better off getting it in engineering
dhx84 1 year ago
@dhx84
uh you can make money with certain types of engineering straight out of undergrad... unless you do something worthless like civil engineering then you may need a phd to get money
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago
@OntologicalQuandary
I'm just saying, as long as we're talking strictly about PhD's and money.
Frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for economics compared to the basic sciences.
dhx84 1 year ago
@dhx84 Money makes the world go round!!! but basic sciences brings us TV!!! its a hard choice :) I'm a biological scientist and all that gives us is arguments with religious people :)
jjgfun 1 year ago
Bullshit. That's like saying that because pro athletes in the major leagues make lots of money, that the most intelligent course to take in life is to train for professional sports. While I often take issue with DoL statistics, they're sure as hell a better measure of reality than cherry-picked anecdotes.
nonantianarchist 1 year ago
PhD's in general really aren't that valuable in terms of making one more money, relative to the cost of obtaining one. But a bachelor's or master's degree in electrical or even mechanical engineering is quite a bit more valuable than a degree in economics.
nonantianarchist 1 year ago
@nonantianarchist
I am not arguing that engineering is more productive than economics. However, economics majors have far more vertical movability in terms of salary than engineers. And electrical engineers really dont make that much money. Check your beloved labor statistics and you will see that a huge influx of people from india and china have kept the salaries for numerous engineering professions far below those primarily practiced by americans, such as petroleum engineering.
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago
"An econ phd is worth far more than all science phds combined." Uh, no it's not. Just check the the Department of Labor's statistics.
"Warren Buffett only got a masters in econ and he's the richest man on the planet."
Do I have to explain why arguments by anecdote are flawed? Bill Gates dropped out of college, therefore we should all avoid college, using the same line of bullshit logic. One can come up with an anecdote to support any ridiculous argument.
nonantianarchist 1 year ago
@nonantianarchist
lol noob just look at the people running finance and business. They have econ phds if any phd at all. They definitely do not have chemistry and biology phds. And what kind of moron uses DoL statistics besides Krugman
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago
@OntologicalQuandary That is true... but most of the people running finance and business have money in the family. For the average Joe a science degree will get you more money than manager at JCPenny's.
jjgfun 1 year ago
Dude, this video is awesome. Every few months or so I watch it and laugh my ass off.
hollowheresy 2 years ago 22
WILL TO POWER!
makethemyth 2 years ago 2
I understand that this is a joke, however, "wrong" is a stupid word to use, since it would literally be impossible to prove him "wrong." I however think he was 100% right on ethics.
hollywillsay 2 years ago
And I think you are 100% retarded.
againstme2 2 years ago
@hollywillsay
Of course it is possible and even needed to say it crearly - objective reality is TRUE and knowledable.
metal87power 2 years ago
Yeah! Fuck Kant
Go Nietzsche!
FreeAgentXIII 2 years ago
The biggest problem with Kant's ethical philosophy is that he assumes that each organ of the body is perfectly adapted for life, and that human instincts are enough for survival. He also claims that reason is there to perfect this so-called "good will". This is completely false! It is impossible for an organism to be perfectly adapted to anything because environments change. And if we didn't really need reason just to survive, evolution would have gotten rid of it!
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
Screw these guys!
Elect Spinoza!!
pboisei 2 years ago
Funniest youtube video ever!
Nietzsche for president!
danielb31544 2 years ago
Rand was a doody head and Neitche was a know-it-all. I personally rely on the words and wisdom of Plutarch who knew a thing or two about a thing or two.
Chocochoco3838 2 years ago
this is all I see on the internet. people taking shots at Rand without actually refuting any of her points. doody head. unbelievable.
JamesRoss117 2 years ago
@JamesRoss117 - would give you a detailed critique of Rand but there's just not enough room in this comment box. But there is room for "doody head"!!!
Chocochoco3838 2 years ago
@JamesRoss117
It's becuase the conservatives have adopted her.. . lol
pboisei 2 years ago
Because Rand's philosophy is unworkable. She wants humans to be completely autonomous in a Capitalistic society. This is impossible. If one wanted to be completely autonomous, they would live in the woods and be a survivalist. Almost every ethicist eschews ethical egoism, including John Stuart Mill and David Hume.
KommisarKowl 2 years ago
@KommisarKowl By autonomous she means living by your own mind and labor and not taking the products of others by force. There is no contradiction. Also, the unpopularity of ethical egoism is no argument against it.
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
Which is still almost impossible. You have to agree with others and work with them. In the most famous example of Rand's philosophy, Howard Roark destroys his building because others derive value from it. This makes no sense because in reality Howard Roark would be imprisoned for destroying public property. Rand also holds to the ubermensch theory, which was debunked by Fyodor Dostoevsky.
KommisarKowl 2 years ago
Also, Rand argues for a society of rational people who work through consent. A society like this would never choose Capitalism as it is a drastically uneven system of property distribution based on force.
KommisarKowl 2 years ago
@KommisarKowl
Do you really think that even the most superficial purporter of Rand's philosophy couldn't refute that straw man on a dime?
MoonMankkkkkk 2 years ago
Ayn Rand takes apart and destroys Kant. Take a look at her explanation of the "stolen concept" fallacy. Love live reason. If you want to go back even further, Aristotle is also a good antidote to Kant.
adammcg2 2 years ago
@adammcg2
lies, rand is a failure. For starters, she assumes life is the ultimate value, which it isn't. Once this premise is lost her philosophy is bunk. Another thing, Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy, and is concerned with the material nature of things, so, under this material nature lies determinism and indeterminism, both of which make free will nonexistant. And I believe it was in Galts speech that she stated that that which lies outside free will lies outside morality.
FeelingFreshSon 2 years ago
Comment removed
gator153 2 years ago
@FeelingFreshSon Well if life isn't the ultimate value, then what is?
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
@Psychosmurf547 After having studied Nietzsche for 2 years i agree, what else is there but life? that we can know?
redlead2 2 years ago
What's your definition of life? Before I can answer the question I need to know if life and happiness are synonomous.
FeelingFreshSon 2 years ago
Kant wasnt as good as Descartes. But Aristotle must be the best philosopher we've ever seen!
4EVERton 2 years ago
In your opinion. Heidegger is a better thinker than Aristotle. Not that many can understand Heidegger.
gator153 2 years ago
Kant was self-righteous and obsessed himself with his own petty circular logic.
Philosopher FAIL.
YouKnowWhereThisEnds 2 years ago 2
It's all about the grey area of life some see more than others but we need a - to make a + so we have dark and light but it's the grey area of life which is the key to being happy it's hard but we have to try.
With Out Wax H.
Happy xmas and a new year all
UBUBBOO 2 years ago
Oh, and also I hate Nietzsche. He's like the Soulja Boy of the philisophical world.
dasmysteryman12 2 years ago
orly?
you truly are retarded.
AnalniRovokopac 2 years ago
If you mean depressing, then yes.
If, however, you mean that like Soulja Boy Nietzsche was an overcompensating, bling-wearing, shallow, hip-hop gangsta then I'm afraid I must protest the claim.
YouKnowWhereThisEnds 2 years ago
I love Immanuel Kant. I can see that this video is weird. What is this? WWII propoganda for philosophers???
dasmysteryman12 2 years ago
i have to agree. there are big extreme misconceptions of immanuel kant. most people misplace his views with those of hume. althought he was influenced by hume. he constantly calls him out "Groundworks...". here as well is where not only does he recognize where he contradicts himself but replies to those contradictions to clarify y. unfortunately alot of people over look it and leave w a completely misconstrued point of view on Kant
disnareline81 2 years ago
Grow a sense of humor, for crying out loud.
nonantianarchist 1 year ago
@nonantianarchist
looooool
what are DoL statistics except a large collection of cherry picked anecdotes?
Hell, I haven't even heard of a single mega-rich bio, chem or geology phd. I know a lot of very successful physicists, but dont know anything about their salaries. Then again, the ones who make it big write bullshit fabrications about "string theory". There are tons of mega-rich econ phds and masters, why are you doubting this?
OntologicalQuandary 1 year ago