Immanuel Kant: The Great Synthesizer

[donshery]

David Hume seems retarded at first, but as you being to understand him his points make sense, when your deep in you realize; what the heck is the talking about? he gotta be crazy! Philosophy is interesting, hard, and confusing - at times. When i started reading Descartes i thought he was crazy. Doubting reality? but then it makes sense, and after a while it doesnt. Its like this all the time, but i am a first year uni student, maybe its just me.

[neonoir77]

I don't agree with his initial assessment of metaphysics.

[neonoir77]

I don't believe in reality. But at the same time I don't believe in solipsism (meaning only OUR mind exists!) either. Kant makes sense.

[DerPoltergeist13]

What documentary is this from? I want to find it and watch the whole thing

[LennyBound]

@DerPoltergeist13 Go to Films (dot) com and search for "Modern Philosophy." I'm pretty sure it's that documentary. However, the price is ridiculously high because they only expect libraries to purchase it. I found a digital copy of the video a long time ago and uploaded this small part. I no longer have the video on my computer, and if its any consolation, I don't remember the rest of it being terribly good. Hope that helps!

[ph0cyl]

would you please share the title of this documentary? ty

[LennyBound]

@ph0cyl Go to Films (dot) com and search for "Modern Philosophy." I'm pretty sure it's that documentary. However, the price is ridiculously high because they only expect libraries to purchase it. I found a digital copy of the video a long time ago and uploaded this small part. I no longer have the video on my computer, and if its any consolation, I don't remember the rest of it being terribly good. Hope that helps!

[ph0cyl]

@LennyBound "DVD (Chaptered) $169.95" Lol.

on a side note, everything about philosophy is terribly good ;)

[SherryVapors]

Thanks very much for this Lenny. This was a very concise exposition of synthetic apriori.  Also, and this is a stretch, it made me recognize a case of Hegelian dialectic in what Kant did with empiricism and rationalism. He was one one sharp dude!

[15CenterMass]

hahaha ... she keeps saying "cont"

i love when chicks talk about their conts :-)

[Jcolinsol]

@15CenterMass

Cunt certainly saw himself as cumming at a pivotal position...

[wanker4761]

@15CenterMass Ho ho, very good. Levity: Best way to respond to a maniac like Kant (cont?) Ho ho again.

[xm377Moyocoyatzin]

I feel like I am back in philosophy class with the same old familiar feeling of "what the fuck are they talking about." Seriously now... why the hell is it so fucking hard to explain philosophy in a comprehensive manner? The way they word everything makes it far more complicated than it actually is, it requires a great deal more effort just deciphering all this techno-babble than it does to comprehend the actual subject matter. Our current language does a piss poor job transporting ideas.

[806brad]

Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher is an interesting work to say the least. He sums up a lot of what Kant is talking about in his Critique, and applies Kant's philosophy to his real life philosophical problems. Some advice: if you are reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and you have no idea what he's talking about, then reading Magee will help. But, never substitute a summary for the original work. Kant's Critique is a must read for those interested in philosphy or even psychology.

[Ocoton]

Kant is German, and it's pronounced exactly the same as cunt. It's not can't.

[Jcolinsol]

@Ocoton

Then you should spell it Kunt, you Teutonic ninnies.

[migfeb69]

thanks lenny is a great document...Saludos from dominican republic...

[Rabbitthat]

Can I just ask a little question about the pronunciation of his name?

In German Kant pronounced like an american "Can't" (as opposed to an English cawnt) isn't it?

It also looks like it would be pronounced that way in English so I assume since people are saying Kawnt the name wasn't German or.. ?

[teuton63]

Das Genie aus Königsberg!

[ygustavo]

genius

[helmuthoorn]

The great slayer of the aristotelian beast.

[ladydiega]

can you give a critic about Kant's synthesis?

[BuBBaGump014]

Kant's theory is far better than any that have come since him, especially the exercises in nihilism and scientism that are now so common. Kant clearly distinguished his empirical realism from the "empirical idealism" of Berkley and Descartes. Knowledge is of objections that are ontologically independent of experience (transcendental) but epistemologically dependent on subjective experience. It's not that we don't (or can't) know the world, we just can't know it without the mind

[TheHomelessCripple]

"an eruption of philosophy" can the word philosophy be used like that?

[takethisusernamebitc]

yup

[TheHomelessCripple]

Holy shit Philosophy just blew my mind

[franklikespolitics]

If you are looking for a good introduction to Philosophy read.Materialism And Emprio-Criticism by VI Lenin. What he said about Kant is this: "The principle feature of Kant's philosophy is the reconciliation of materialism with idealism, a compromise between the two, the combination within one system of heterogeneous and contrary philosophical trends." Note Lenin did not say Kant was full of fecal matter. Though he did say matter was prmary and thought was secondary. I rest my case.

[jeanpaulfelix]

That's the single greatest book on philosophy that anyone could read...

Lenin was a genius unmatched....

[wanker4761]

Kant wrecked physics. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohr came to the conclusion that light was a particle when observed and a wave when not observed (or was it the other way around and it doesn't matter). Mind caused physics. See the connection?

[mrfatd]

@wanker4761 kant did not wreck physics, far from that u stupid! im a physics major and i think kant's views on psysics are very true, he simply gave physics a solid foundation, which physisists themselves dont care about that much. einstein was very influenced by kant and i think einstein's total rejection of free-will is also due to his influence of kant

[mellowtribe]

Oh please ,everyone who reads Kant walks away not knowing what he read they just pretend they understand him. The guy just rambled senseless drivel.

[mrfatd]

ur a schizophrenic. i read and understand kamt although its hard. dont talk non-sense about this great great man if ur too lazy/stupid to understand him

[mellowtribe]

No you do not.

[mrfatd]

im sure ur mom doesnt

[JM121090]

The reason you say that is because you don't fully comprehend Kant's philosophy. A real philosopher doesn't insult ideas, they pull themselves back if they can't understand the ideas that are placed before them. Quite clearly, as you posted in your comment, you're not a critical thinker. You have a weak sense on critical thinking, for you haven't even begun to fully study the material.

[mrfatd]

@JM121090 lolll

many 'real' philosophers have insulted ideas. i.e schopenhauer ridiculed hegel, nietzsche riduculed socrates.

[xTjPx]

Kant is another spiritual fool.

and is/was responsible for clouding the distinction between reality and religion.

[mrfatd]

@xTjPx fool, u havent read a page of kant. he MADE a huge distinction between the two, religion deals with the thing-in-itself and reality i the mere appearance of things, read some kant then post, punk ass bitch

[PatrickLars]

And what do you call yourself then?

[xTjPx]

I'm an Objectivist.

[mellowtribe]

Oh no not another Ayn Rand drone.

[Mal1234567]

7:11 I wouldn't say that the response to Kant began with Hegel, but with Fichte.

[mrfatd]

@Mal1234567 and schelling in between

[Mal1234567]

7:02 I don't see Kant declaring metaphysics as impossible, as the video states. There is after all the metaphysics of morals. Kant only reduced pure metaphysics to mere speculation, and then adopted its three main topics - God, freedom, and immortality - as heuristic principles to guide his reasoning in other disciplines of thought.

[mrfatd]

@Mal1234567 well put!

[Louhila]

KANT! Ahahahaa... I love it. I truly, love it.

[mrfatd]

kant was a genius, truly profound philosopher. however; if he saw what philosophy has become today he'd be terrified, we got incomprehensible sophistries about spirit, being of being for which that being is an issue in its being, postmodernist stupidity, all this mad deconstruction sophistry. after kant philosophy became a bunch of transcendental obscure nonsense that has nothing to do with the real world, proves nothing and states nothing

[Mal1234567]

@mrfatd I don't see Kant as rejecting other philosophies so much as discovering their sources. Postmodernism, for ex., has its roots in Kant's critique of the sublime.

[mrfatd]

@Mal1234567 postmodernism has its roots in his critique of the sublime?? most scholars agree that roots of postmodernism are in nietzsche, marx and kierkegaard''s critiques of hegel, stop making up stupid non-sense

[Mal1234567]

I'm not drawing a causal connection there. I am just saying that postmodernism tries to create the kind of tension described in the critique of the sublime, a tension between free imagination and tradition-bound reason.

[strictlykingdom]

mrfatd, why are you so angry, your ego is eating you like a cancer

[justablueeyedguy102]

I can't seem to comprehend how a man who claims to understand philosophy even cares about the opinion of someone who does not , a person who understands philosophy also should not be concerned with his own mental superiority over others , and should certainly keep his calm and at least carry a civilized debate instead of insulting people . (sorry for bad english)

[jeanpaulfelix]

good points but i would put MARX instead of Kant amongst all these categories.

[msole06]

metaphysics is bullshit...

[TheRustaman]

Only 'cos you're to ignorant and dumb to understand it.

[msole06]

got any evidence to back metaphysics??/? didn't think so. like kant said, it's impossible, and nothing but speculation. maybe you are ignorant.. i do not doubt you are dumb.... go hug a bible

[TheRustaman]

It may be hard to believe, but i'm an agnostic atheist. That doesn't mean i can prove or disprove god though. I cannot say God doesn't exist, but i believe him not to exist.

If i were to make a statement like yours "God is bullshit", i would expect the exact response that i gave to you.

[msole06]

i suppose... let me change my phrase. the arguments (put forth by religious people) for metaphysics are bullshit... that is what i meant... i was thinking about metaphysics and how some people try to prove it...

[jofman1988]

@msole06 Ha! This is hilarious!

Chisholm's paradox, Forbes argument for individual essences. I don't think you really truly understand that "it" that you're discussing!

[msole06]

no.. jofman1988, i don't think you understand... individual essences!!!! you must be a moron... evidence is the only key to settling the debate.. so where the hell are you going??? in a attempt to be a smart ass, you jumped into this conversation and do not even know what you are talking about buddy....

[jofman1988]

@msole06 Nope. Individual essences is a strand of metaphysics, they were jsut examples that are involved in metaphysics. My point here is that to say that the arguments for metaphysics put forward by religious folk is nonsense, is misguided. There are several arguments that are accepted in a secular community such as those mentioned. Obviously some people have approached metaphysics incorrectly in the past and that was the ambition of Kant, to correct them.

[mellowtribe]

rubbish

[LambChowder1]

Jesus what a reactionary and whiny unknowing post, even for youtube.

[ogirv101]

You can't prove metaphysics, the same way you can't prove the foundations of knowledge and innate and axiomatic propositions. Godel's incompleteness therom states that what you're saying is true, but to consider it false would be going away from the principle of belief conservation, precursive faith, and would be in fact self refuting.

Hug a Bible? Great argument, and I'm guessing you guys are debating God's existance, well, Kant was a Christian, and look up the transcendental argument.

[mellowtribe]

don't waste your time. rubbish

[mellowtribe]

Got any evidence that love exists? Pleasure? fear? confidence? sheesh you are a tool.

[ogirv101]

@msole06:

Do you have any evidence to bakc up epistemology? You're an idiot, you can't, look up Godel's incompleteness theorom, you cannot prove fundamental axioms in philosophy through evidence, because it's impossible to find evidence (mathematical logic proves it). Is Epistemology speculation? Yes it is, we make the assumption that our perception of the Universe is valdi to some degree, which has no evidence, mere speculation. Furthermore, great ad hominem attack at the end.

[deterdetsamma2]

It depends on how speculative you want to be. I admit, we haven't gotten any further than Descartes Cogito, but if we assume that the universe is real, and that we can perceive it somewhat correctly, than we can move from there. But it's all speculation, although it's plausible speculation. I don't get how mathematics proves there can be no evidence? Can you explain to me in a private message?

[ogirv101]

@deterdetsamma2:

Yes, it's alll speculation, and in Science it's more speculative than philosophy because it uses inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning. There is a problem though, socially most of us dearth that intellectual humility, and we don't look beyond our ignorance and realize that all of our knowledge is based on precursive faith. Also, I'd disagree saying that it's "plausible speculation", because all you did as add your bias and opinion, not actual fact, more speculation.

[ogirv101]

@deterdetsamma2:

Mathematics doesn't say there can be no evidence, that is not what Godel's theorm states. Godel's theorom states that there cannot be evidence provided to ceirtain axiomatic truths that evidence neccesitates to become valid. In simpler words, you can't prove that the methods in which you attain evidence for a justification for a belief are valid, but you know them to be true a priori and free from evidentialist scrutiny, this is a reason why evidentialism fails to skepticism.

[bananabread119]

Where's the video after this? Wheres part 2 and 3??

[LennyBound]

This clip is the last few minutes from a documentary about Modern Philosophy. I decided against uploading the full hour long video (and to be honest, the rest wasn't too terribly interesting).

[lamoene]

school test tomorrow thank you

[MartinHaubergLund]

I would also like to state my appreciation of this video. It is good to see so many philosophically interested 'youtubers' out there :)

If you do not yet know about it, you should immediately go check out Bryan McGees philosophy programs from the 70's and 80's also posted here on youtube. He interviews many famous philosophers, but mainly from the 'analytical' tradition.

Greetings from Denmark Xx

[LennyBound]

Thanks for letting me know you enjoyed the video.

And yes, the Bryan Magee interviews are fantastic.

[ilikeyouallot]

can you believe it! i Guess just 4 or 5..... greetings from san francisco california,

[mirabileamavi]

Awesome!

[busheybushdawg]

Thanks Lenny... Good stuff!!

[LennyBound]

Glad to hear you liked it.