Friend, you are right about the McKenna link but are are very wrong about Emmanuel Kant. Kant loved Swedenborg but he realized that we are stuck in the matrix because of the structure of our brain and so he concludes that what Swedenborg is seeing was are phenomena in this world of appearances. The real world is the noumenon which we can never know. We are in Kant's cave, it is the same as Plato's cave. The Matrix movie is closer to Kant's philosophy than Plato's though. Hope this helps.
hey thanks i appreciate that, i did actually just begin Dreams of a Spirit Seer and even in the editors intro it says how much kant really did agree with swedenborg about a second parrallel world not visible to our current sense.....but kant still denies he experienced it! he just agrees that we can't "prove it invalid", which is only the first step towards understanding swedenborgs experiences
Just stumbled into your video, and need to correct your naming Swedenborg as Swedenberg. To my knowledge, he was not Jewish. Also, I think he might be somewhat skeptical of your theological references. It's good thing he's dead.
hehe I also started getting into philosophy in 99 with the Matrix. I am a gemini tiger but I know a bunch of taurus and I think the description you give is pretty accurate.
Kant supported metaphysics he wrote books supporting it, but he had the notion that you had to accept that the human mind has limitations and that there were things the human mind could not contemplate which is technically right, you cant contemplate something without experiencing it first.
he supported metaphyscis, the study of physics that has no relation to reality yes, but not mysticism which is in fact a higher form of reality, though only provable by experience, not textbooks.kants downfall was his lack of actual indepth analysis when it really came down to it.. he believed there are limitations to what we know yes, but why would you have to say it in 3000 pages, not 3 sentences like Nietzsche could..."I say in one sentence what other philosophers try to say in one book"
Cant did make his writtings long and "difficult", possibly on perpose. And he knew this, he even stated it himself I believe. But I think you gotta remember that Kant is really seen as an answer or response to Hume, Descartes, Plato, etc..., atleast from what i've heard. So you must be able to already now about these philosophers before jumping into the CPR.
As for mysticism, I haven't really heard much of Kant on the subject. But he did atleast say people were justified in god
why boast on difficulty as if bragging about your intelligence? true genius WANTS all to learn, and summarization is key to translating your "amazing new truths". but what was his new truth? that the catergorical imperative inclined us to NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND TRUTH? some step in thought..
Again im no expert on Kant, YET. But from what I know, I think he never really meant for his philosophy to be understood to the general public (or atleast he probubly didnt think about it that way). When I said he did it "purposely", I kinda think he probubly thought that only philosophers were gonna read his work.
Kant made the CPR after a decade of looking at the problems and philosophies of Hume and such. However it got few reviews cause of its difficulty.
SO HE DID SUMMARIZE IT. After the slow start of the CPR, Kant made the "Prolegomena" which summarized the CPR's views. After people started understanding Kant's ideas, they loved it.
Huh? The Categorical Imperative is based on his views on morality and ethics, not his metaphysical views. Or did I misunderstand your statement?
So his ultimate downfall was his difficult understanding or the fact that he never touched onto astral projection and stuff?
Either way I dont see how they are "downfalls". Maybe things he just failed to get into in his life, but not downfalls. Sure it would have been awesome if he got more into mysticism, but I dont see why we need to consider his life an ultimate "let down" after how much he achieved.
Oh and I just decided to google on Kant's view on Swedenborg, and what I found is that he didnt actually disagree with him much (atleast from what i've found).
It appears that at first Kant was positive toward Swedenborg. Then he became somewhat opposed to Swedenborg's claims in his book "dreams of a spirit seer". HOWEVER it appears that later Kant once again started to have positive views on Swedenborg.
Very good discourse, you're getting even better at this. But both Swedenborg and Kant had their own great and original, but very different, contributions to make to human knowledge. I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss one because he couldn't appreciate the other. It takes all kinds of philosophers to make a world.
oh i appreciate his stage of philosophy, a very essential one, but i also appreciate reality, which kant had trouble recgnizing due to being an extremely innocent young soul
BUT BUT, Kant was a genius. His philosophical views were meant to be objective and not subjective, right? I still haven't read much of him because it requires a lot of philosophical knowledge to understand his Critique of Pure Reason. But will one day.
@guitaoist Don't you lol to me after bashing Kant. For real, I agree about British philosophers (Nietzsche said the same thing about them), but Kant is NOT like them. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time...
Interesting that Swedenborg was the first to write about dream archetypes. It sounds like Swedenborg almost had some sort of psychic dreams or maybe was a mystic or something.
"...sublime, but no further. have now another plain fact. any man of mechanical talents may, from the wirtings of paracelsus or jacob behmen, produce ten thousand volumes of equal value with swedenborg's, & from those of dante or shakespear an infinite number. but when he has done this, let him not say that he knows better than his master, for he only holds a candle in sunshine." -- blake
haha, you mentioned william blake. he actually didn't have too kind an opinion of swedenborg: "now hear a plain fact: swedenborg has not written one new truth. now hear another: he has written all the old falshoods. and now hear the reason. he conversed with Angels who are all religious, & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion, for he was incapable thro' his conceited notions. thus swedenborg's writings are a recapitulation of all superficial opinions, & an analysis of the more...
Friend, you are right about the McKenna link but are are very wrong about Emmanuel Kant. Kant loved Swedenborg but he realized that we are stuck in the matrix because of the structure of our brain and so he concludes that what Swedenborg is seeing was are phenomena in this world of appearances. The real world is the noumenon which we can never know. We are in Kant's cave, it is the same as Plato's cave. The Matrix movie is closer to Kant's philosophy than Plato's though. Hope this helps.
godno1god 5 months ago
hey thanks i appreciate that, i did actually just begin Dreams of a Spirit Seer and even in the editors intro it says how much kant really did agree with swedenborg about a second parrallel world not visible to our current sense.....but kant still denies he experienced it! he just agrees that we can't "prove it invalid", which is only the first step towards understanding swedenborgs experiences
guitaoist 5 months ago
You're a really smart guy :P
Kelidiscope 8 months ago
Just stumbled into your video, and need to correct your naming Swedenborg as Swedenberg. To my knowledge, he was not Jewish. Also, I think he might be somewhat skeptical of your theological references. It's good thing he's dead.
hypehits 11 months ago
Jewish? Obviously not. Theological references? Which one don't yu trust? Good thing he's dead? Yeah great thing....
guitaoist 11 months ago
Taurus? Are we seriously talking about zodiac signs reflecting personality?
CatzDaLegit 1 year ago
life is full of synchronicity
paradoxylclarity 1 year ago
hehe I also started getting into philosophy in 99 with the Matrix. I am a gemini tiger but I know a bunch of taurus and I think the description you give is pretty accurate.
SJamesGray 1 year ago
Yeah Guitaoist, February is going to be a strong resumption of the astrological
blows between planets. But, unlike now we will have no relief from the battering until the problems lie in smoking pieces on the ground.
I haven't had it so easy since 2010 started, so things could worsten for me too.
powergirl901 1 year ago
thx for introducing me to Swedenborg.....sounds like my kinda entity :)
Deedge1111 1 year ago
Kant supported metaphysics he wrote books supporting it, but he had the notion that you had to accept that the human mind has limitations and that there were things the human mind could not contemplate which is technically right, you cant contemplate something without experiencing it first.
January7th1987 1 year ago
he supported metaphyscis, the study of physics that has no relation to reality yes, but not mysticism which is in fact a higher form of reality, though only provable by experience, not textbooks.kants downfall was his lack of actual indepth analysis when it really came down to it.. he believed there are limitations to what we know yes, but why would you have to say it in 3000 pages, not 3 sentences like Nietzsche could..."I say in one sentence what other philosophers try to say in one book"
guitaoist 1 year ago
@guitaoist
Cant did make his writtings long and "difficult", possibly on perpose. And he knew this, he even stated it himself I believe. But I think you gotta remember that Kant is really seen as an answer or response to Hume, Descartes, Plato, etc..., atleast from what i've heard. So you must be able to already now about these philosophers before jumping into the CPR.
As for mysticism, I haven't really heard much of Kant on the subject. But he did atleast say people were justified in god
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
why boast on difficulty as if bragging about your intelligence? true genius WANTS all to learn, and summarization is key to translating your "amazing new truths". but what was his new truth? that the catergorical imperative inclined us to NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND TRUTH? some step in thought..
guitaoist 1 year ago
@guitaoist
Again im no expert on Kant, YET. But from what I know, I think he never really meant for his philosophy to be understood to the general public (or atleast he probubly didnt think about it that way). When I said he did it "purposely", I kinda think he probubly thought that only philosophers were gonna read his work.
Kant made the CPR after a decade of looking at the problems and philosophies of Hume and such. However it got few reviews cause of its difficulty.
cont...
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@guitaoist
SO HE DID SUMMARIZE IT. After the slow start of the CPR, Kant made the "Prolegomena" which summarized the CPR's views. After people started understanding Kant's ideas, they loved it.
Huh? The Categorical Imperative is based on his views on morality and ethics, not his metaphysical views. Or did I misunderstand your statement?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
nice catch, my bad, categorical is involving ethics, touche.
but the second part i still believe is his ultimate fault.
guitaoist 1 year ago
@guitaoist
So his ultimate downfall was his difficult understanding or the fact that he never touched onto astral projection and stuff?
Either way I dont see how they are "downfalls". Maybe things he just failed to get into in his life, but not downfalls. Sure it would have been awesome if he got more into mysticism, but I dont see why we need to consider his life an ultimate "let down" after how much he achieved.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@guitaoist
Oh and I just decided to google on Kant's view on Swedenborg, and what I found is that he didnt actually disagree with him much (atleast from what i've found).
It appears that at first Kant was positive toward Swedenborg. Then he became somewhat opposed to Swedenborg's claims in his book "dreams of a spirit seer". HOWEVER it appears that later Kant once again started to have positive views on Swedenborg.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
interesting info, thanks for posting!
elpanameno872 1 year ago
Very good discourse, you're getting even better at this. But both Swedenborg and Kant had their own great and original, but very different, contributions to make to human knowledge. I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss one because he couldn't appreciate the other. It takes all kinds of philosophers to make a world.
crabbster21 1 year ago
@crabbster21 Exactly.
CroTuschek 1 year ago
oh i appreciate his stage of philosophy, a very essential one, but i also appreciate reality, which kant had trouble recgnizing due to being an extremely innocent young soul
guitaoist 1 year ago
Damn u look so good! And all that sexy smart talk is attracting me sexually. uummhh
Akrabadakra 1 year ago
It is impossible not to believe what you see, but it is equally impossible to see what you do not believe. ACIM
TimothyTew 1 year ago
yes, and kant wasnt able to see what the real reality was so theres no way for him TO beleive it yet.
guitaoist 1 year ago
@guitaoist
BUT BUT, Kant was a genius. His philosophical views were meant to be objective and not subjective, right? I still haven't read much of him because it requires a lot of philosophical knowledge to understand his Critique of Pure Reason. But will one day.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
Dude, Don't bash my Kant!
CroTuschek 1 year ago
lol
guitaoist 1 year ago
@guitaoist Don't you lol to me after bashing Kant. For real, I agree about British philosophers (Nietzsche said the same thing about them), but Kant is NOT like them. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time...
CroTuschek 1 year ago
nice
Xelmo187X 1 year ago
Dude very good vid!!! You're the shit and the piss...stay in touch man...big things coming
achozenshaman 1 year ago
neat calendar graph.
Interesting that Swedenborg was the first to write about dream archetypes. It sounds like Swedenborg almost had some sort of psychic dreams or maybe was a mystic or something.
HaleyMary 1 year ago
your hot!
begily 1 year ago
"...sublime, but no further. have now another plain fact. any man of mechanical talents may, from the wirtings of paracelsus or jacob behmen, produce ten thousand volumes of equal value with swedenborg's, & from those of dante or shakespear an infinite number. but when he has done this, let him not say that he knows better than his master, for he only holds a candle in sunshine." -- blake
JackHighlander 1 year ago
haha, you mentioned william blake. he actually didn't have too kind an opinion of swedenborg: "now hear a plain fact: swedenborg has not written one new truth. now hear another: he has written all the old falshoods. and now hear the reason. he conversed with Angels who are all religious, & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion, for he was incapable thro' his conceited notions. thus swedenborg's writings are a recapitulation of all superficial opinions, & an analysis of the more...
JackHighlander 1 year ago
Keep up the good work!
magicalmystery77 1 year ago
im a taurus...swedenborgs' work is definately worth reading.... and the johnny appleseed festival is gonna be in my home town this weekend lol
dmacamill99 1 year ago
nice calander graph
OGdank13 1 year ago
where do u get your info on astrological signs? im a scorpio but dont know to much about it.
billforill 1 year ago
my hands are huge lol.
billforill 1 year ago
i think blake also hardly ever traveled outside his town yet he was something of a crazy visionary mystic
withoutleaders 1 year ago