P.s. Fascism and Islamic Extremism derive from Kant through Marx? What the hell are you on? Even if you could trace some scrap of influence, trying to lay the blame for Islamic Extremism at the feet of Kant (or Marx!) while advocating an incredibly American ethical model is nothing short of hilarious!
In which case I suggest you open your eyes to see the incredible damage that free-market capitalism has wreaked upon the world: not just in the form of the recession, but more in the form of the damage it has done to developing nations abused by superpower corporations whose ethics revolve around personal and utilitarian gain.
You knob.
Sincerely,
Someone who isn't a capitalist, doesn't have too much respect for Kant, and is terrified of what your ethics are doing to the world.
Or maybe you actually think that all of the evils of the twentieth century are Kant's fault and wouldn't have happened if someone of Kant's influence had offered an opposite philosophy at the same point in history instead of him (in which case your pretentious scapegoating suggests you could seriously benefit from reading Girard or even Zizek). And maybe you actually think that the best way to do ethics is by looking for gain (perhaps you're a utilitarian liberal capitalist).
3. You are actually just trying to demonstrate that your discursive setting, in capitalist consumerist individualist America, can fully produce an interpretation through a void of subjectivity.
4. Thus your actual purpose is to argue for Foucauldian historicism.
1. You are actually quite clever, and so you realise the assumptions you are making (primarily, that it is obvious that gain should be relevant to morality).
2. Since you haven't presented any argument for this presupposition, you must be doing something clever and rhetorical in your use of this presupposition.
I'm also not a fan of Kant. I am also, however, not an expert, so remain open to being better educated about Kantiasm.
Keeping that in mind, when you say that (in relation to the Good Will) an act isn't a moral act if you benefit from it... my understanding is that you're wrong on that. It doesn't matter whether or not you benefit from it... the will exceeds all. So it isn't the ethics of self-denial or self-ignorance.
MrCropper, seriously!!!!! how did you link communism, fascism, Islam and Karl Marx to Kant? Is it possible bc you r raised in a society where Marx is profiled as evil, without even being actually exposed to his writings/theories?
As you mentioned, you are not the right person to lecture about these topic.
Sorry to say this, but your ignorance is kind of "dangerous"
@Akatam0t0ma "Isn't Kant's nominal world, as your describe it, akin to Plato's theory of Ideas?"
Yes. It has been said that everyone since Aristotle is either and Aristotelian or a Platonist. If that's true, Kant was a Platonist, and not a very original one at that.
If Kant's nominal world was indeed his own version of the Platonic ideal world, I think you might be overstressing a bit Kant's role in 20th century totalitarianism.
I've recently started reading Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies", and even though I haven't got too far in it yet, I can see that much of the flaws you ascribe to Kant in this video Popper already points out in Plato.
Also, I find your claim of Kant's role in inspiring contemporary Islamic totalitarianism a bit bizarre, since most if not all of the totalitarian aspects in Islam, which can easily be drawn from its very own holy texts, were present many centuries before Kant.
All that being said, I find the idea of a dichotomy between Aristotelians and Platonist's interesting, and I think I will give it a bit more thoughts in the future.
You are right, Kant is totally against the view of total self interest to the point that happiness is only what makes you happy. Kant would feel that pursuing happiness, for ones own self, is immoral. Take a look at Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged were any poor person is looked upon unfavorably because they are thought to be lazy. Kant feels that people should be treated as ends in themselves; mainly with respect.
As an objectivist, what is your view on the poor? are they lazy or just unlucky?
Ill answer in one as an objectivist. Everything has cause and effect. Poor people are that for various reasons and circumstances. Some are of there own cause, some are caused at the expense of a government that doesnt allow economic freedoms. But nothing is determined. Likewise a poor person could very well be lazy and or does not want to further themselves because of improper throught processes and or those with deterministic beleifs. My family has always been poor. I guess i will be to.
If you really want to pursue any negative notions on Kant really look into his philosophy. He claims that he is against dogmatism, yet his philosophy is littered with dogmatic principles. You could describe how Kant essentially took David Hume's arguement and made it his own. However, I do have to say that if you are going to talk about someone you really should quote them.
You are doing the moral act based on the act alone.
You cannot claim that Kant is a destroyer of Western philosophy when he changed how philosophy works. In the beginning of the video you claim that no one listens to other sources discrediting Kant, yet at the end of the video you say that you do not want to hear any Pro-Kant. How is that really showing you are any different from them?
Kant never said we cannot know anything. He said that we cannot know anything outside this world. The only thing we can know are things in space and time which the categories provide us.Thus anything transcendental like God cannot be proven, but could be conceived. Secondly, his morals are on the basis that you do something without a motive behind it. Like you do not give to the poor to expect a certificate from them.
Marx was, at an early age, heavily influenced by Hegel (not Kant), but Marx would eventually break from Hegel and form his own philosophy predicated on the MATERIAL World, not on any arbitrary conceptions. Even if he was incorrect in his assertions, Marx was attempting to use the material world as the basis of his ideology. There are, when you look for them, actually several similarities between Marx and Rand.
You may be correct; I freely admit that I know very little about Kant. However, being a former Marxist, I know that Marx believed in an objective world that was indepenedent of man's mind, that is why I made my previous comment.
Your videos have prompted me to read Rand; I bought Atlas Shrugged yesterday and began reading it today (great book). Objectivism makes a lot of sense to me: it is so unlike all of these other phiosophies I have been exposed to, with their almost mystical qualities.
The idea that Marxism is in any way subjectist is ridiculous. Read the essay "does objective truth exist?" by Vladimir Lenin, it could have been written by Rand herself.
Rand grew up and was educated in the Soviet Union, I wouldn't be surprized at all if her metaphysics were plagerized directly from Vladimir Lenin.
Very good stuff but I have to admit; the fact that you are reading out of a book that holds the oposite opinion of Kant´s views may not do Kant justice. And hence; I find it improbable that I can belive everything you´re reading from there.
Even though it´s an objectivist book, I´m just saying...
we dont have to have a conversation, id just like to hear exactly what you have read by immanuel kant. because i suspect, like most objectivists, it is absolutely nothing.
4:12 - 4:21 is not an accurate portrayal of kant at all. have you even read any kant whatsoever? i get the feeling im talking to a fucking retard so maybe i just shouldnt bother.
reeeeeeeeeally? plz inform me which points you thought were so accurately portrayed. and exaclty which partsof 'ants work' have you read prof homofaggitbitch?
honestly, you dont understand what youre criticzing. dont even bother reading kant because i know you could never read it with an open mind. you already have the answers you want and nothings gonna change that.
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.
what I did'nt like was mentioning islam in the same flow with kant..
kant and islam are very different and u cannot put them in the same category
may b u didnt mean that still one should not touch a huge topic in such a way that it makes another impression
I am not saying that because I am a muslim but only because I am a student of philosophy and I believe that a a philsopher should try not to create confusion nd shud say only that for which s/he has grounds
@MrCropper So the man who attempted to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism is the same person who closed the door to both? lol It's funny how you randroids like to bash someone neither you nor your goddess know anything about.
I liked your video ..hve read some of kant's work and its really interesting to see him from the eye of an objectivist and as the greatest damages done by philosophy to this world
The fact that objectivists refuse to listen/accept different viewpoints and values would, according to the greek understanding of reason as communication, confirm that objectivists are themselves unreasonable.
P.S. Kant just seems ridiculous because hes refuting two other ridiculous philosophers. Hume, who denied science, and liebniz who had to have been on acid when he wrote his thoughts down. Get over it.
Fundementalists (Islamic, fascist, communist, etc) all believe[d] they have objective reason figured out and try and force that on the world. Objectivists never take the time to hear what other people think things mean. They inforce their own understandings because they believe them to be "objective". This leads to violence as opposed to communication. I lay the blame of 20th/21st century bloodshed on objectivist thinking as opposed to anything Kant ever said.
With this in mind you make my point when you claim "kant wasnt actually talking about reason". He was talking about what reason meant then. Not what reason means now. Reason itself has a shifting meaning. The greeks though it just meant the ability to communicate
I agree on one level what you say about Kant. Hes convuluted (i dont blame you for not actually reading him), hes wrong, his ethics are flawed, etc. What i want to draw attention to is the objectivist thinkers you cite. Rand got her critique of Kant from Nietzche. She really got into Nietzche until she finally figured out he was talking about the shifting meanings of things. So in the case of Kant, christian morality of self-sacrifice shifted from church to philosophy
I never heard in life such a misconception of Kant's concept of the "Ding ansich" or of the categorical imperative.
Also Marx was not so much influenced by Kant, by Hegel and Feuerbach. Narx' materialistic philosophy was exactly the opposite of Kant's Idealism. Marx relied on a material and real world as the ultimate reality. For Kant only our conception of this world exist and we never could gap the "Ding ansich" on itself.
Many respected philosophers do not like Kant and, in fact, disagree with him in most points.
It is interesting to note that in all my readings of philosophy that argue against Kant, I've never seen anyone reference an objectivist.
This COULD be a huge conspiracy to keep objectivism out of philosophy or it could be a recognition among those of education that objectivism knocks down mere straw men.
Help yourself to a philosophy course before you make such far reaching claims about Kant.
"Many respected philosophers do not like Kant and, in fact, disagree with him in most points"
Dude, calm down and try to realize how wrong that is. There are less than three philosophers in the last three centuries who were not in love with Kant's epistemics.
Uh. I'm a philosophy major. Perhaps you could list these one or two philosophers who disagreed with Kant. I can think of handfuls off the top of my head.
I'm not sure I know what 'an epistemic' is. Perhaps you mean an epistemology?... Epistemics is the scientific study of knowledge (i.e. cognitive science, it isn't the type of thing you could own!). You're so full of nonsense.
Anyway, I can give you a few right now:
Bertrand Russell, Nelson Goodman, John Perry, Jerry Fodor, Ayer (and for that matter all of the true positivists), David Lewis, Steven Rose, and probably John Haugeland. There are more...
When did Kant say we should sacrifice ourselves to the noumenal world? He just said that we should treat people as free agents because they are free agents... Treating X as X seems like a fairly reasonable way of dealing with things.
You never read any Kant, clearly. And you don't understand what he said.
You're setting up a huge strawman. Have you actually read Kant? Do you really understand him? Or do you get all your information about him filtered through some kind of twisted Objectivist framework, and then parrot that information in YouTube videos without applying the slightest bit of critical thought?
Oh right, you're the guy who has no problem criticizing almost the entire physics community of scientists simply because you listened to some batshit lecture from the Rand institute.
That's not the worst of it. One time I called him, pretending to be a father interested in his 'school'.
Anyway, even worse than having some doubts about quantum mechanics, he 'disagrees' with Godel's incompleteness theorem. He seems to think that the incompleteness theorem was just a matter of Godel giving up.
WRONG. It sure as hell made people give up on Hilbert's program, but it was a PROOF of incompleteness or contradiction.
HAHAHA. He disagrees with Godel? On what grounds? Where's his mathematical challenge to Godel? Did someone from the Rand Institute make one? I'm picturing MrCropper desperately reading through the Principia Mathematica at night, tears streaming out of his eyes, looking for the axiomatic logical foundations of mathematics that are true and can be proved, in a desperate attempt to confirm his own idiotic bias.
Meanwhile Godel laughs at him from beyond the grave.
As I recall, the line of thought is entirely analogous to the line of thought they use in physics. Basically, Mr. Cropper just thinks that Godel gave up too soon--that is, he thinks that the incompleteness theorem is a probabilistic claim rather than a certainty.
It's startling to me that "Objectivists" can't see how dogmatic they're being. It's quite ironic, the level of religious zeal on display when they casually dismiss entire fields of science, proven theories, important thinkers, without the slightest bit of justification or academic rigour to back them up.
Yea, objectivists can be pretty annoying but my biggest concern is the growth of anti-intellectualism in the general populace. It's always been there, I suppose, but it seems to be growing on the tidal wave of Rupert Murdoch's influence.
So, you said you study philosophy? Where at? I'm at the University of Pittsburgh. Have you attended any conferences as of recent?
In a certain sense anti-intellectualism is a good thing. After all, there are a lot of academics who demand undue authority simply because they're academics. They expect people to defer to them, and the overall effect is to encourage people not to think about things for themselves. To me, intellectuals are simply people who have more training and privilege than others. On the other hand, the glorification of ignorance and aversion to knowledge IS disturbing, and profoundly anti-human.
Nice one. Is this what 'objectivists' (whatever the hell that name is supposed to mean) take for rationality?
If I say that you should treat dogs like dogs, am I saying that you should sacrifice yourself to the nature of reality? No. That's the push of Kant's argument--IF you posit freedom of the will, it follows that you must (as a principle of rationality) treat other humans as free beings.
The real question is why we shouldn't be able to own slaves under Rand's system. It all seems ad hoc.
Why did our parents start this war? What the fuck are we fighting for?
Why so hung up on the ethics and morality of Kants philosophy and not his epistemology? I'm disappointed that I share a phenomenal world with you and this is coming from a nihilist.
im new to kants philosophy. but as i was listening, a Hitlerian shadow formed, and i began to see what you mean. at least i think i do. the words Duty and Sacrifice triggered visions of the Hitler Jugend!!
Kant is saying we can't know, grasp, get ahold of the noumenal world through pure reason, but he is not saying that it cannot be known through dogmatism.
By inference, it makes clear that Kant is not only the source of Bush's "Orgy of Sacrifice" as a moral good, but that his popular opponents like Kantians oppose Bush's sacrifices in favor of other valueless sacrifices (ex. mandatory service, Darfur).
"...before I expliain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy - that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship..." (AynRand:ThePlayboyInterview59AR)
Metaphysics and the impossibility to reach it... so what? Science works, scientific framework to morals can be structured as easily, then we can argue for their validity with something the west often flinch at... I am talking about worthy of being true.
We know some moral values from certain frameworks are wrong from the self refuting content in them. Stealing right? Stealing what then? No one have property if stealing is right. You cannot validate stealing. Rape right? Then being a victim is right. Wanting to do right is to comply with the rapist and then the sexual act is with consent and the rape doesn't take place. By doing right the victim did wrong, self refuting moral framework.
Nothing is wrong with that, unless the motive of the moral framework is that it is sustainable in theory which also immediately discard it as practical as well. If it is just about your preferences that you like raping and stealing, then it is not a framework for moral, but a description of your mindset.
Maybe you should do a video on your own opinion of Kant, that is, if you have read him. You cite many examples of why others dislike Kant, but do not provide your own personal analysis of his work.
Yes, it is like expecting an atheist to read more of the Bible--and that's exactly why Mr. Cropper should read Kant.
Atheists who do a good job of detailing what's wrong with the Bible do read it. They read it in detail, several times over, with commentary, over years of study.
I don't expect Mr. Cropper to so devote himself to this debunking, but a single read would be nice. What he's doing now is running blind and he's completely missed the target.
P.s. Fascism and Islamic Extremism derive from Kant through Marx? What the hell are you on? Even if you could trace some scrap of influence, trying to lay the blame for Islamic Extremism at the feet of Kant (or Marx!) while advocating an incredibly American ethical model is nothing short of hilarious!
TheClambo 9 months ago
In which case I suggest you open your eyes to see the incredible damage that free-market capitalism has wreaked upon the world: not just in the form of the recession, but more in the form of the damage it has done to developing nations abused by superpower corporations whose ethics revolve around personal and utilitarian gain.
You knob.
Sincerely,
Someone who isn't a capitalist, doesn't have too much respect for Kant, and is terrified of what your ethics are doing to the world.
AKA Jordan
TheClambo 9 months ago
Or maybe you actually think that all of the evils of the twentieth century are Kant's fault and wouldn't have happened if someone of Kant's influence had offered an opposite philosophy at the same point in history instead of him (in which case your pretentious scapegoating suggests you could seriously benefit from reading Girard or even Zizek). And maybe you actually think that the best way to do ethics is by looking for gain (perhaps you're a utilitarian liberal capitalist).
TheClambo 9 months ago
3. You are actually just trying to demonstrate that your discursive setting, in capitalist consumerist individualist America, can fully produce an interpretation through a void of subjectivity.
4. Thus your actual purpose is to argue for Foucauldian historicism.
Damn you're clever.
TheClambo 9 months ago
Hmm...
Here is my theory:
1. You are actually quite clever, and so you realise the assumptions you are making (primarily, that it is obvious that gain should be relevant to morality).
2. Since you haven't presented any argument for this presupposition, you must be doing something clever and rhetorical in your use of this presupposition.
TheClambo 9 months ago
I'm also not a fan of Kant. I am also, however, not an expert, so remain open to being better educated about Kantiasm.
Keeping that in mind, when you say that (in relation to the Good Will) an act isn't a moral act if you benefit from it... my understanding is that you're wrong on that. It doesn't matter whether or not you benefit from it... the will exceeds all. So it isn't the ethics of self-denial or self-ignorance.
Or I could be wrong.
RedCelt69 9 months ago
MrCropper, seriously!!!!! how did you link communism, fascism, Islam and Karl Marx to Kant? Is it possible bc you r raised in a society where Marx is profiled as evil, without even being actually exposed to his writings/theories?
As you mentioned, you are not the right person to lecture about these topic.
Sorry to say this, but your ignorance is kind of "dangerous"
BK0073 1 year ago
Isn't Kant's nominal world, as your describe it, akin to Plato's theory of Ideas?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma "Isn't Kant's nominal world, as your describe it, akin to Plato's theory of Ideas?"
Yes. It has been said that everyone since Aristotle is either and Aristotelian or a Platonist. If that's true, Kant was a Platonist, and not a very original one at that.
MrCropper 1 year ago
@MrCropper:
If Kant's nominal world was indeed his own version of the Platonic ideal world, I think you might be overstressing a bit Kant's role in 20th century totalitarianism.
I've recently started reading Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies", and even though I haven't got too far in it yet, I can see that much of the flaws you ascribe to Kant in this video Popper already points out in Plato.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@MrCropper:
Also, I find your claim of Kant's role in inspiring contemporary Islamic totalitarianism a bit bizarre, since most if not all of the totalitarian aspects in Islam, which can easily be drawn from its very own holy texts, were present many centuries before Kant.
All that being said, I find the idea of a dichotomy between Aristotelians and Platonist's interesting, and I think I will give it a bit more thoughts in the future.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we have to go back to Socrates :)
...Kant becames to rigid aparently...and so inevitabily he loses things out of hand:)
aladinclip 1 year ago
we have to go back to Socrates :)
...Kant becames to rigid aparently...and so inevitabily he loses things out of hand:)
aladinclip 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm curious about this. So I'm going to actually read what Kant wrote instead of reading what objectivists wrote about what he wrote.
Rarnabybudge 1 year ago
???wtf? so you take a stance,, tell everyone what you think then tell everyone who dosnt agree w you to go away????
i think your more of an idiot now then i thought you were before
Poisonfrogg 2 years ago
this video smells... of mohagany and many leather bound books. And catpiss haha
DathanMack 2 years ago
You are right, Kant is totally against the view of total self interest to the point that happiness is only what makes you happy. Kant would feel that pursuing happiness, for ones own self, is immoral. Take a look at Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged were any poor person is looked upon unfavorably because they are thought to be lazy. Kant feels that people should be treated as ends in themselves; mainly with respect.
As an objectivist, what is your view on the poor? are they lazy or just unlucky?
SoveriegnLeviathan 2 years ago
Ill answer in one as an objectivist. Everything has cause and effect. Poor people are that for various reasons and circumstances. Some are of there own cause, some are caused at the expense of a government that doesnt allow economic freedoms. But nothing is determined. Likewise a poor person could very well be lazy and or does not want to further themselves because of improper throught processes and or those with deterministic beleifs. My family has always been poor. I guess i will be to.
Bigturns33 2 years ago
@SoveriegnLeviathan Neither. It is simply that the market does not value their product as much as it values a rich man's product.
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
If you really want to pursue any negative notions on Kant really look into his philosophy. He claims that he is against dogmatism, yet his philosophy is littered with dogmatic principles. You could describe how Kant essentially took David Hume's arguement and made it his own. However, I do have to say that if you are going to talk about someone you really should quote them.
SoveriegnLeviathan 2 years ago
You are doing the moral act based on the act alone.
You cannot claim that Kant is a destroyer of Western philosophy when he changed how philosophy works. In the beginning of the video you claim that no one listens to other sources discrediting Kant, yet at the end of the video you say that you do not want to hear any Pro-Kant. How is that really showing you are any different from them?
SoveriegnLeviathan 2 years ago
Kant never said we cannot know anything. He said that we cannot know anything outside this world. The only thing we can know are things in space and time which the categories provide us.Thus anything transcendental like God cannot be proven, but could be conceived. Secondly, his morals are on the basis that you do something without a motive behind it. Like you do not give to the poor to expect a certificate from them.
SoveriegnLeviathan 2 years ago
Right on!!!
Very thorough critique.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
heheh thanx for explaining more to me on it, I think kant was kind of fucked lol
metalmaniacmarkus 2 years ago
Marx was, at an early age, heavily influenced by Hegel (not Kant), but Marx would eventually break from Hegel and form his own philosophy predicated on the MATERIAL World, not on any arbitrary conceptions. Even if he was incorrect in his assertions, Marx was attempting to use the material world as the basis of his ideology. There are, when you look for them, actually several similarities between Marx and Rand.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
"There are, when you look for them, actually several similarities between Marx and Rand."
Only if you've been brainwashed by academia.
Marx was a Kantian regardless of how well you yourself understand the issues.
MrCropper 2 years ago
You may be correct; I freely admit that I know very little about Kant. However, being a former Marxist, I know that Marx believed in an objective world that was indepenedent of man's mind, that is why I made my previous comment.
Your videos have prompted me to read Rand; I bought Atlas Shrugged yesterday and began reading it today (great book). Objectivism makes a lot of sense to me: it is so unlike all of these other phiosophies I have been exposed to, with their almost mystical qualities.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
The idea that Marxism is in any way subjectist is ridiculous. Read the essay "does objective truth exist?" by Vladimir Lenin, it could have been written by Rand herself.
Rand grew up and was educated in the Soviet Union, I wouldn't be surprized at all if her metaphysics were plagerized directly from Vladimir Lenin.
jacobins3000 2 years ago
@MrCropper Good argument. Really clarifies that issue of Kant->Marx.
lacansfoolosopher 1 year ago
Very good stuff but I have to admit; the fact that you are reading out of a book that holds the oposite opinion of Kant´s views may not do Kant justice. And hence; I find it improbable that I can belive everything you´re reading from there.
Even though it´s an objectivist book, I´m just saying...
BeHereNow21 2 years ago
Aright, real good video.
bigbob2242 2 years ago 5
mabye not an idiot, the end of the video was real quality
bigbob2242 2 years ago
this guys an idiot
bigbob2242 2 years ago
we dont have to have a conversation, id just like to hear exactly what you have read by immanuel kant. because i suspect, like most objectivists, it is absolutely nothing.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
4:12 - 4:21 is not an accurate portrayal of kant at all. have you even read any kant whatsoever? i get the feeling im talking to a fucking retard so maybe i just shouldnt bother.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
reeeeeeeeeally? plz inform me which points you thought were so accurately portrayed. and exaclty which partsof 'ants work' have you read prof homofaggitbitch?
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
Wow, the vid feels like a troll. A good troll.
vesslis 3 years ago
see, this is hw i KNOW you havent read kant:
"...where did he get his information?"
hahahaha!
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
honestly, you dont understand what youre criticzing. dont even bother reading kant because i know you could never read it with an open mind. you already have the answers you want and nothings gonna change that.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
libertariananarchist 3 years ago
I cant find this video..can you give me the link please or the exact title of the video
sameemazahra 3 years ago
what I did'nt like was mentioning islam in the same flow with kant..
kant and islam are very different and u cannot put them in the same category
may b u didnt mean that still one should not touch a huge topic in such a way that it makes another impression
I am not saying that because I am a muslim but only because I am a student of philosophy and I believe that a a philsopher should try not to create confusion nd shud say only that for which s/he has grounds
sameemazahra 3 years ago
"kant and islam are very different"
See my video, "German Jihaad"
MrCropper 3 years ago
@MrCropper So the man who attempted to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism is the same person who closed the door to both? lol It's funny how you randroids like to bash someone neither you nor your goddess know anything about.
Septimondo 1 year ago
I liked your video ..hve read some of kant's work and its really interesting to see him from the eye of an objectivist and as the greatest damages done by philosophy to this world
sameemazahra 3 years ago
your cat's cute
okaydonkey 3 years ago
Kant's philosophy seems to be very similar to Carlos Castaneda/Don Juan's TONAL & NAGUAL description of the world.
"These terms denote two parallel worlds that comprise the universe — the world of material objects (tonal) and the non-material world (nagual)."
Heard of this experiment & what our observation does to electrons?
watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
It sounds to me like Kant just might have known what he was talking about.
odetoinsolence 3 years ago
no.. oh noo...
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
The fact that objectivists refuse to listen/accept different viewpoints and values would, according to the greek understanding of reason as communication, confirm that objectivists are themselves unreasonable.
P.S. Kant just seems ridiculous because hes refuting two other ridiculous philosophers. Hume, who denied science, and liebniz who had to have been on acid when he wrote his thoughts down. Get over it.
Johnanonymous87 3 years ago
Fundementalists (Islamic, fascist, communist, etc) all believe[d] they have objective reason figured out and try and force that on the world. Objectivists never take the time to hear what other people think things mean. They inforce their own understandings because they believe them to be "objective". This leads to violence as opposed to communication. I lay the blame of 20th/21st century bloodshed on objectivist thinking as opposed to anything Kant ever said.
Johnanonymous87 3 years ago
With this in mind you make my point when you claim "kant wasnt actually talking about reason". He was talking about what reason meant then. Not what reason means now. Reason itself has a shifting meaning. The greeks though it just meant the ability to communicate
Johnanonymous87 3 years ago
You mislead people sir.
I agree on one level what you say about Kant. Hes convuluted (i dont blame you for not actually reading him), hes wrong, his ethics are flawed, etc. What i want to draw attention to is the objectivist thinkers you cite. Rand got her critique of Kant from Nietzche. She really got into Nietzche until she finally figured out he was talking about the shifting meanings of things. So in the case of Kant, christian morality of self-sacrifice shifted from church to philosophy
Johnanonymous87 3 years ago
I never heard in life such a misconception of Kant's concept of the "Ding ansich" or of the categorical imperative.
Also Marx was not so much influenced by Kant, by Hegel and Feuerbach. Narx' materialistic philosophy was exactly the opposite of Kant's Idealism. Marx relied on a material and real world as the ultimate reality. For Kant only our conception of this world exist and we never could gap the "Ding ansich" on itself.
hartmut1164 3 years ago
There is only One Mind and we are all living in it.
whitenightf3 3 years ago
Many respected philosophers do not like Kant and, in fact, disagree with him in most points.
It is interesting to note that in all my readings of philosophy that argue against Kant, I've never seen anyone reference an objectivist.
This COULD be a huge conspiracy to keep objectivism out of philosophy or it could be a recognition among those of education that objectivism knocks down mere straw men.
Help yourself to a philosophy course before you make such far reaching claims about Kant.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
"Many respected philosophers do not like Kant and, in fact, disagree with him in most points"
Dude, calm down and try to realize how wrong that is. There are less than three philosophers in the last three centuries who were not in love with Kant's epistemics.
Do you know what an 'epistemic' is?
MrCropper 3 years ago
Uh. I'm a philosophy major. Perhaps you could list these one or two philosophers who disagreed with Kant. I can think of handfuls off the top of my head.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
I'm not sure I know what 'an epistemic' is. Perhaps you mean an epistemology?... Epistemics is the scientific study of knowledge (i.e. cognitive science, it isn't the type of thing you could own!). You're so full of nonsense.
Anyway, I can give you a few right now:
Bertrand Russell, Nelson Goodman, John Perry, Jerry Fodor, Ayer (and for that matter all of the true positivists), David Lewis, Steven Rose, and probably John Haugeland. There are more...
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
name 'em!
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
When did Kant say we should sacrifice ourselves to the noumenal world? He just said that we should treat people as free agents because they are free agents... Treating X as X seems like a fairly reasonable way of dealing with things.
You never read any Kant, clearly. And you don't understand what he said.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
"When did Kant say we should sacrifice ourselves to the noumenal world?"
Every time he breathed.
MrCropper 3 years ago
You're setting up a huge strawman. Have you actually read Kant? Do you really understand him? Or do you get all your information about him filtered through some kind of twisted Objectivist framework, and then parrot that information in YouTube videos without applying the slightest bit of critical thought?
Oh right, you're the guy who has no problem criticizing almost the entire physics community of scientists simply because you listened to some batshit lecture from the Rand institute.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
That's not the worst of it. One time I called him, pretending to be a father interested in his 'school'.
Anyway, even worse than having some doubts about quantum mechanics, he 'disagrees' with Godel's incompleteness theorem. He seems to think that the incompleteness theorem was just a matter of Godel giving up.
WRONG. It sure as hell made people give up on Hilbert's program, but it was a PROOF of incompleteness or contradiction.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
HAHAHA. He disagrees with Godel? On what grounds? Where's his mathematical challenge to Godel? Did someone from the Rand Institute make one? I'm picturing MrCropper desperately reading through the Principia Mathematica at night, tears streaming out of his eyes, looking for the axiomatic logical foundations of mathematics that are true and can be proved, in a desperate attempt to confirm his own idiotic bias.
Meanwhile Godel laughs at him from beyond the grave.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
As I recall, the line of thought is entirely analogous to the line of thought they use in physics. Basically, Mr. Cropper just thinks that Godel gave up too soon--that is, he thinks that the incompleteness theorem is a probabilistic claim rather than a certainty.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
It's startling to me that "Objectivists" can't see how dogmatic they're being. It's quite ironic, the level of religious zeal on display when they casually dismiss entire fields of science, proven theories, important thinkers, without the slightest bit of justification or academic rigour to back them up.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
Yea, objectivists can be pretty annoying but my biggest concern is the growth of anti-intellectualism in the general populace. It's always been there, I suppose, but it seems to be growing on the tidal wave of Rupert Murdoch's influence.
So, you said you study philosophy? Where at? I'm at the University of Pittsburgh. Have you attended any conferences as of recent?
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
In a certain sense anti-intellectualism is a good thing. After all, there are a lot of academics who demand undue authority simply because they're academics. They expect people to defer to them, and the overall effect is to encourage people not to think about things for themselves. To me, intellectuals are simply people who have more training and privilege than others. On the other hand, the glorification of ignorance and aversion to knowledge IS disturbing, and profoundly anti-human.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
And I'm at the University of Western Ontario, by the way. Regrettably, no conferences this year as of yet.
I have a friend who lives in Pittsburgh, and in fulfilling the proper Canadian stereotype, am a fan of your local hockey team, haha.
TransfiguredNight 3 years ago
Nice one. Is this what 'objectivists' (whatever the hell that name is supposed to mean) take for rationality?
If I say that you should treat dogs like dogs, am I saying that you should sacrifice yourself to the nature of reality? No. That's the push of Kant's argument--IF you posit freedom of the will, it follows that you must (as a principle of rationality) treat other humans as free beings.
The real question is why we shouldn't be able to own slaves under Rand's system. It all seems ad hoc.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
I meant that I wished that Kant would have commited suicide, Not you Mr. Cropper. Pray, Carry on...
eventide925 3 years ago
Why did our parents start this war? What the fuck are we fighting for?
Why so hung up on the ethics and morality of Kants philosophy and not his epistemology? I'm disappointed that I share a phenomenal world with you and this is coming from a nihilist.
fatheadblack 3 years ago
this was great
i think i dig kant more now than before
iiirhd 3 years ago
Oh come on. He caused all the blood in the 20th century, is the prophet of a new dark age and fellated satan to the sound of Bach!
What here can I have hoped to have gained? I already well hate Germans.
A sincere objectivist.
sicknessuntodeath 3 years ago
im new to kants philosophy. but as i was listening, a Hitlerian shadow formed, and i began to see what you mean. at least i think i do. the words Duty and Sacrifice triggered visions of the Hitler Jugend!!
acerb45666555 4 years ago
most interesting.
acerb45666555 4 years ago
Kant is saying we can't know, grasp, get ahold of the noumenal world through pure reason, but he is not saying that it cannot be known through dogmatism.
vegbeauti 4 years ago
MrC, Thanks for this series.
By inference, it makes clear that Kant is not only the source of Bush's "Orgy of Sacrifice" as a moral good, but that his popular opponents like Kantians oppose Bush's sacrifices in favor of other valueless sacrifices (ex. mandatory service, Darfur).
jwoodswce 4 years ago
Dont be stupid, islamic fundimentalism was created by capitalism.
American right wing elites gave massive amounts of capital to the Taliban during the soviet invasion of afganistan to counter the soviets.
And then they realised they didnt like the Taliban so they gave capital to the Northern Alliance to eliminate the Taliban.
Therefore the Taliban (Al-Qeuda) are hostile to America because American elites switched sides after the soviet collapse.
Mike1977a1 4 years ago
"...before I expliain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy - that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship..." (AynRand:ThePlayboyInterview59AR)
AynRandOeuvre 4 years ago 2
"capitalism," whatever that's supposed to mean, didn't create islamic fundamentalism, it just used it as a pawn in the cold war.
boynamedblue 4 years ago 2
Since KANT is engraved on the university library building and knowning that his philsophy is totally evil gives students an unfair advantage.
Signofthedollar 4 years ago
Metaphysics and the impossibility to reach it... so what? Science works, scientific framework to morals can be structured as easily, then we can argue for their validity with something the west often flinch at... I am talking about worthy of being true.
Censeo 4 years ago
We know some moral values from certain frameworks are wrong from the self refuting content in them. Stealing right? Stealing what then? No one have property if stealing is right. You cannot validate stealing. Rape right? Then being a victim is right. Wanting to do right is to comply with the rapist and then the sexual act is with consent and the rape doesn't take place. By doing right the victim did wrong, self refuting moral framework.
Censeo 4 years ago
"By doing right the victim did wrong, self refuting moral framework."
What is wrong with self-refuting beliefs?...
MrCropper 4 years ago
Nothing is wrong with that, unless the motive of the moral framework is that it is sustainable in theory which also immediately discard it as practical as well. If it is just about your preferences that you like raping and stealing, then it is not a framework for moral, but a description of your mindset.
Censeo 4 years ago
discarded as practical if not sustainable in theory I meant...
Censeo 4 years ago
Maybe you should do a video on your own opinion of Kant, that is, if you have read him. You cite many examples of why others dislike Kant, but do not provide your own personal analysis of his work.
nicktronic 4 years ago
Why would we want to read more Kunt when his philosophy is detrimental? That's like asking an atheist to read more of the Bible.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
Yes, it is like expecting an atheist to read more of the Bible--and that's exactly why Mr. Cropper should read Kant.
Atheists who do a good job of detailing what's wrong with the Bible do read it. They read it in detail, several times over, with commentary, over years of study.
I don't expect Mr. Cropper to so devote himself to this debunking, but a single read would be nice. What he's doing now is running blind and he's completely missed the target.
AtSwimTwoBricks 4 years ago 5
Stop being a stupid Kant.
sadmonkeypaw 4 years ago 2
I disagree - so I guess you aren't interested in hearing from me.
bubonicnate 4 years ago
Right. I have better things to do than argue with irrational people.
MrCropper 4 years ago
Apparently you don't!
zorio 4 years ago
Def: Irrational; ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: \i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, ˌi(r)-\
Function: adjective
"A thing, property, person found to be contradicting or disagreeing with Mr. Cropper in any substantive matter."
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago