The Object of Philosophy (response to MrCropper)

[BCzepa]

Very informative. Thankyou.

ALL is within THE ALL -yet- THE ALL is in ALL

[read1communications]

Excellent discourse in illustrating the limitation of Objectivist philosophy ---well done.

You have successfully extended the arguement. There are no edges to space and time. So material objectiveism has limites. Agreed.

[chris3443]

In making this video, were you asserting that your view is correct? If so, what basis do you have to say you are correct? I

[merchant500]

Another Owen Barfieldite, and a prolific one at that! Greetings!

[lilflicka95]

your hot ;)

[nikkidikki1]

nothing that is worth knowing can be taught~

[phcou]

Thus to answer the socratic question on whether it is just to give a man the axe that belongs to him, despite his being in a fit of rage..matt says YES.

[phcou]

as a historicist, matt sees the problem of philosophy as a problem of capitalism. THe critique of speculative philosophy, theory, or its being ' inpractical' in general is supposed to be unique to capitalism. i.e the problem is historical. Secondly, by reiterating the kantian promulgation that there is "no sin but only ignorance", Matt obliterates the classical/ancient distinction between the philosopher and non philosopher, making it available for all, regardless of character.

[0ThouArtThat0]

the Mysteries can no longer be the secret of an elect few. our time calls for their revelation to all, even if few have eyes to see.

[phcou]

Our time calls for their revelation to all? What are you basing this on Matt? some intuition that things are going to "change". This can be said to be innate Matt i.e , everyone has the capacity to 'wonder' in the philosophical sense. Even Aristotle believes this. But numbers are no criterion for the objective truth of such a 'happening'

[phcou]

Wouldnt be seeing the ancients through modern eyes, would you? They were esoteric for noble reasons, not for the reasons we moderns like to attribute to them in our various critical theories

[phcou]

Dante also kept alive this natural distinction between the philosophers/non-philosophers. By quoting him on your channel, i assume you agree with him and thus can be said to enforce this distinction rather than obliterating it?

[phcou]

P.S What have you read of Henri Bergson? I think we can legitmize the

"inner greatness of national socialism" (ala heidegger ) by referring to his work on morals.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

To say that an Objectivist government would be somehow barbarously dogmatic, is plain wrong. Rand her-self never wearied in reiterating that the initiation of force is the ultimate act of evil.

Have you ever studied Objectivism? Specifically, have you studied Objectivist epistemology?

[Buescher18]

thouartthat: Kant's point was not exactly to critique concepts (otherwise the transcendental deduction of the categories would make no sense). Poststructuralism, which seems to be somewhat in the direction that you lean, is essentially Kant without the a priori necessity of the particular categories (I think Riceour described earlier structuralism as "Kant without the transcendental ego").

I've enjoyed your videos and was glad to meet you when I ran into you and Phil when you were at Stanford.

[Buescher18]

Objectivists show how ignorant they are of what Kant was trying to prove. He was an empirical realist and did not question the reality of a world outside of our experience. His point was that there are conditions for the possibility of experience, not that there is nothing outside of it, as is obvious by his lifelong insistence that he was not an idealist in the way that Berkeley was.

[hyperseauton]

ownage...in a innocent kind of way.

[Riffnspliff]

Very true about knowledge...I like to think of our knowledge, as an ever growing tree, growing new branches all the time. Everything has it's place on the tree, you can't accept some things and reject others, because it's all related, all part of the same thing, our universe...

[boneyard1125]

boneyard 1125

I don't want to defend Cropper. I think he offered a lousy response. But I think there is another side to your claim that private property is an impediment to friendship.

Specifically, how can I share what I do not own? Is friendship not a matter of giving from what is mine for the benefit of another? Whether I give my time, my energy, or my property, must I not possess before I can give?

[loneskeptic]

best. thouartthat. video. ever.

it's like an anthology of the coming to be of the process ontology that is so intuitive, yet so counter-intuitive to contemporary philosophical schools of thought. my university is completely analytical, so everywhere i go (with my reason) i am attacked with the law of contradiction...either/or...wh­ich (if accepted as true) invalidates all of philosophy as not yet true. wtf.

i really enjoyed this, matt.

[TWITfromURANUS]

I write some serious bollocks

[handianus]

In practical application of objectivism, in politics/government, objectivism is just laissez faire. How do you then suppose murdering people who disagrees comes into play?

There's a huge difference between how a marxist government is supposed to work and a laissez faire one... Maybe that's the reason why the soviet murdered so many and the early US didn't? Etc.

[handianus]

...And not because objectivists are so self-righteous. They are perhaps, but they are just as poor at commiting atrocities as my ''relativistic amoral view'' (like they might call it). because in that area, politics, it's pretty damn identical.

You're comparing nuclear bombs with firecrackers, at best...

But if we leave the murdering people part... I wouldn't argue private property or whatnot isn't ambiguous...but then what?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Free market capitalism is hardly "free" in the true sense of the word. Most of the demand in capitalist economies is produced via advertising, where individuals are psychologically manipulated to desire what they don't need.

I think it was unfair of me to suggest that objectivism per se would murder people. It just seems that most objectivists are unwilling to enter genuine dialogue with others (b/c they believe they already have the objective truth). w/o the ability to compromise...

[egoistorms]

what compromise do you seek?

[o0JustNobody0o]

@0ThouArtThat0

So what is an objectivist? I've never heard of one of those. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Do you mean a materialist?

[0ThouArtThat0]

See MrCropper's videos for an example. Objectivists are materialists, but not all materialists are objectivists.

[o0JustNobody0o]

@0ThouArtThat0

Any video in particular or am I just to watch them all?

[0ThouArtThat0]

watch?v=33suaBV9IQY

[o0JustNobody0o]

@0ThouArtThat0

So basically Objectivism is Ayn Rand books, because that is all I got after watching 3 videos.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Objectivism is equivalent to what I described as "alpha thinking" at the end of this video. It makes the assumption that reality exists independently of consciousness and can be known objectively through perception by concepts. Cropper hates Kant for good reason, because his critique of our ability to conceptualize made philosophies like Objectivism obsolete.

[UncannyRicardo]

@0ThouArtThat0

Wait idealism is still possible right Matt? Idealism is like the opposite to objectivism.

MrCropper or anyone hasen't refuted idealism right? Cause Its basically irrefutable as far as I know.

[TheWayshowerTube]

@0ThouArtThat0 Objectivism, Realism, Factual Selfpreservatorial minded is an irrational, emotional conceptuality platform of perceiving reality, it´s simplistic, creates reductionistic science the perceiver may have spiritless traits and personality, has no creativity, meaning, puropse, intention, loverelatedmanifestation. Can use motivational externalistic views.

[TheWayshowerTube]

@TheWayshowerTube has no, I meant is relying on.

[handianus]

It is far from impossible to avoid being manipulated by advertising and thus hurt in some way, just like if someone tries to insult you can avoid being hurt.

Those things are harder to draw lines on than say, confiscating someones property, or hindering their freedom of movement or speech.

If you get the ball of voluntary action going it picks up speed rapidly with a bit of work. When it's important/urgent stuff you don't need 100B$ to advertise for it, nor give the task to government.

[handianus]

One big thing I imagine where the 'standard model' of classical liberal law might need modification, or where voluntary action might not suffice....Is perhaps global warming, and to some extent environmental toxins. Very messy to file millions of lawsuits, and most often no1 of those people are doing substantial or direct damage.

[csurrel]

Hey Thou Art That, new viewer here so forgive me if I'm taking this the wrong way.

You're against Capitalists using advertising as a means to sell product?

A Capitalist needs to sell his production to the market efficiently to survive.

No matter what philosophy one holds, productivity is a constant.

At least with free markets the consumer gets to choose what product he's psychologically enticed to consume.

[csurrel]

Is there another option?

I'm new to your channel, but you seem too intelligent to be a proponent of state coercion as a means to persuade consumption of production.

[f417h]

≈Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

ƒriedrich /\/.

[matrixcmitech]

matt, philosophy must partake in the absurd if the philosophy is real... and red wine. yes. and good grass. yes.

if i had a nickname for you matt it might be krishnamurti jr.

live long & prosper.

[TWITfromURANUS]

Nice vidding, Matt.

I suppose I should thank MrCropper...

[phcou]

What a hyporite you are. Your drug addicted friend (mathfails) uses that vulgar system of spiral dynamics to understand reality and everyones position within it,..i guess your shared ideology with the drug addict prevents you from any criticism. I'd defend Cropper over the historicist philosophy of Matt who places the blame on the footstep of late capitalism

[MaBu888]

Have more discernment in differentiating drugs from herbs.

[phcou]

lol, herbs? and what herbs would those be? how do they differ from drugs?

[MaBu888]

Addiction and negative effects aren't guaranteed, though possible, in the case of non-street drugs and herbs. They are ingested for the purpose of integrating the experience. Most recommended is to keep at least one or two days between main ingestions. None of the non-street drugs are shot in with a syringe.

[phcou]

I am suffering a personal crisis at the moment, I will respond to this comment when it passes :(

[5jeanbittersweet]

This was inspiring and very thoughtful and thoughtprovoking. Great info. on Hegel for me also. When people ask how I can listen to conflicting opinions and philosophies, I can only say..it helps define where I am, it helps me to interpret interpersonal experience and my experience of the world..although that is uniquely personal,,and universal in another way... Thank you for all your bringing

[kakosuranosx]

I think Kant was up to put Reason in a court to judge which kind of knowledge can be well-known for real and which one does not have any sense. He didn't believe in a pure reason or a pure truth. It's like he ask to us:Dude, what the hell is knowledge? Can I fully agree with me? Like this,he suggests an overcoming of the dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism.I think that's what he was up to. :)

[thesmokingfrog]

'das Wahre ist das Wahre' - 'truth is the whole'

Thats something that Hegel got amazingly right,

if objects exists for themselves, that accounts for consciousness (in its deployment) getting stuck in its certainties, negating reflection and the vision of totality.

[benjaminjoshua]

i like this

[cml89]

I can sum it all up for yah!

-I- am the double-negative.

That's the furthest depths there are my friend.

read "all else is bondage" by wei wu wei

The seeker seeks itself.

[LimpLoser]

I like cropper, he helps kids and is a good man.

[notonewhit]

Hegel considered that philosophy and religion shared the same content. He claimed that religion was merely inferior in form.

[notonewhit]

I, too, was surprised that Cropper wasn't much harsher. The title of his vid was the most offensive. The outrage of Iralon and Anton et al, is more a protective show of affection and appreciation for your style/thought. (BTW: thanks for detailed PM, I'll respond soon; although this bit of Hegelianism is quite reconciling)

[ICharmaine]

Nicely done Matt!

Respect gained for your handling of this situation.

[patternsinchaos]

MRC@1:07: "so it's only through perception of reality that ideas can be understood"

But what is perception? What is its exact relationship to the logos? Can this be sorted out rationally without self-reinforcing references in the logos creating delusions of objectivity?

Ergo is:

1. It's real because it's perceived

2. It's perceived because it's real

a mind trap?

By accepting this aren't you at least participating in a version of reality subject to a better understanding of perception?

[patternsinchaos]

God I love you... Didn't get to watch all of this yet, but hope to. I posted the following comment on MC's vid. Do you think it's a coincidence that those who fall for the objective logos trap try to compensate for their inadequacy by labeling and name calling? ;-)

[silversoul7]

Matt, your brilliance and your humility are inspiring. I'm not sure what to think of such a long video response that will surely fall on deaf ears. I don't think I quite got that part about Marxism. Were you identifying yourself as a Marxist, or merely defending Marx as a philosopher?

BTW, happy birthday!

[9macrina9]

I had a client in the homeless shelter that would pass by my office door and grumble in a harsh voice that I was a totally incompetent caseworker and that she was going to file a grievance against me and get me fired! :-).....that was her way of saying she needed to talk with me..... thank you for being able to talk with mr cropper:-)....beautifully, btw

[f417h]

Completely attentive compassion.

I am honored to know both of you. Thank you

≈Angela

[f417h]

(9Macrina9 & 0thouartthou0)

[jogayot]

Hey-ho, hey-ho, to stars we shall go, hey-ho, hey-ho... here is hoping you had fun de-scheming de de-konstructing de croppologie.

[Delocrates]

Objectivists are too narrow-minded and rigid to appreciate Hegel's ideas. There is nothing wrong with objectivity as an empirical method, but a philosophy itself cannot be objective as a whole, and this is because we cannot separate ourselves from our own philosophy, which is inherently personal and subjective in nature. Even the belief that selfishness is a virtue is a subjective belief rather than an objective fact, and this is because not all people consider selfishness to be a virtue.

[Professoranton]

Thoughtful and interesting. Thanks Matt.

[CammieSpectrum]

Can't there be Systematic General Forms and Asystematic Specific Forms??

[jedimasterbooboo]

You're not an idiot and that guy makes me mad. Bah.

[pyrrho314]

link

[0ThouArtThat0]

see description.

[prhughes0]

Wishing to take you seriously, i wish you would routinely add links or video response connections to your response videos so i could see to what (besides to whom) you are actually responding.

[0ThouArtThat0]

see description.

[2bsirius]

Mr. Cropper [and probably most of the rest of us too] should take a deep look at CONFIRMATION BIAS. Most of us [me included] too often find what we were looking for in the first place.

Both you and Professoranton have made amazingly brilliant responses btw!

Humility and curiosity are great things to use in trying to understand the world...

You two have done that.

Thanks for thinking!

[2bsirius]

I'm probably showing my confirmation bias here, but I mystified about why we need to resort to "god talk" as Hegel does in the quote you read.

To me, we need new ideas, not dated and dysfunctional ones. I don't understand why we can't move to something that religion and god talk WERE very important, but that it makes sense now to try to develop a post-god ideation.

What we call god we reify and what we reify we don't usually try to understand & that goes for god 3.0 as much as for Jehovah

[2bsirius]

I tried to stop thinking about this without success.

What I'm saying is that hundreds of years ago, it made sense to define someone as a slave owner, an abolitionist or someone who didn't own slaves, but had no strong views on slavery.

Also some people were cannibals & some did not practice cannibalism.

BUT were you ask to define yourself today, would it make sense to say that you were abolitionist non-cannibals?

Someday the same thing will be true for saying you are a theist/atheist IMO

[0ThouArtThat0]

2b, God is a metaphysical concept that it is difficult to do without. I suppose we could call it "Geist" or "Logos" or "Reason" or "Nous" etc. The name hardly matters. But the concept is indispensable. Of course, the relation between God and humanity has evolved through history, and our concept today must be different from the Medieval and Ancient one. Reification is always a danger, whether we speak of God or Nature. Let's remain vigilant to avoid shallow thinking about either.

[2bsirius]

I disagree. For me the world 'god' is used and abused to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

GOD...

Ask a Muslim, and for him 'god' is something we can't talk about, but we can see HIM and HIS works through the Koran and the thinking of Mohammed.

For a Christian, god is a fatherly figure who gave his only son because human beings are flawed and needed saving.

Etc, etc...

Let's move beyond antiquated concepts if we want to avoid shallow thinking!

[2bsirius]

Btw I'm not saying it's easy or facile to move beyond "god"...I'm saying it's one of the best ways to move beyond tribalism and ethnic and cultural misunderstandings...but it's not the only way, of course.

I'm reading a novel by Rebecca Goldstein, "36 Arguments for the Existence of God." It explores why the idea of god is so seductive.

[phcou]

what is beyond the ethnic and cultural understandings of god?

[Internalexpansion]

@2bsirius

You speak of concepts as if they are stagnant and objective. I can understand your want to move past the word God because of the associated baggage

[Internalexpansion]

However, it seems apparent that Matt is not the one who is carrying this baggage.

[2bsirius]

Could you clarify?

[2bsirius]

It seems impossible to move beyond the "associated baggage" and why bother? Why if something is dynamic should anyone use a antiquated and value laden word for it. I guess you could say, "OK I'm going to talk about God, but of course I don't mean the "extra baggage" Inquisition or Jihad one. No, I mean the NEW IMPROVED no extra baggage one."

That just sounds like a very bad advertising campaign slogan to me.

[2bsirius]

I know, Internaleexpansion, that you probably think I'm being unreasonable and argumentative, but I'm actually just curious and asking for clarity.

[Internalexpansion]

Your frustration is completely understandable. I just meant to say that changing the word is missing the point, and will not change what it is pointing to. The struggle is to align our perspectives so that when I point to this experience I call God; you see what it is I'm pointing to. Do you know those images that when viewed at the proper distance and focus reveal a 3 dimensional pattern that is otherwise hidden?

[Internalexpansion]

For years I couldn't see the 3 dimensional images no matter how detailed of an explanation was offered to me no matter what techniques were given.

One day I looked and there it was, hidden in plain sight all along. I know this might sound like a crock of feces but I thought the same thing about these so called 3-dimensional images before I saw one... I can communicate to you the feeling of riding a bike... but you really just have to ride one.

[Internalexpansion]

How do you ride a bike....? For me, self-inquiry and meditation played an important role in increasing my sensitivity and awareness for lack of a better word. It connected me back to this experience of the world prior to taking it apart. I don't know if this will make any sense to you, but the more I forget myself (what I think I want, the concepts I favour, who I think I am, what I think I should be doing, what I think is fair), the more an unobstructed cultivation of awareness takes place.

[Internalexpansion]

. I see more and more how our ideas of the world shape our experiences, and simultaneously how our experiences shape our ideas. It is an interesting feeling to rid yourself of judgement, opinion, and ideas in general. In my experience, in moments of clarity this world feels divine and alive. I just cant articulate what it is I feel...

[Internalexpansion]

What's funny is, I can see myself reading this a few years ago, and thinking that whoever wrote this is absolutely insane, and probably needs to study some psychology and neurobiology.

Anyways, 2bsirius, I love that you honestly want to understand where we are coming from:) Im sorry for the generally vague and incoherent response. This view is one that is necessarily substantiated through experience. In a sense, you just have to open yourself up.

[0ThouArtThat0]

2b, I do not share the positivist assumption (Comte) that society will, can, or should eventually come to exist without religion. Perhaps we are progressing toward a more reasonable world, slowly but surely. But Reason, for the philosopher, cannot be grasped as possible unless, in some way, the universe participates in divinity.

[2bsirius]

"The universe participates in divinity???? " What does it mean for the universe to participate in divinity? If I think that the universe is participating in divinity by killing everybody who doesn't agree with my definition of what it means for the "university to participate in it," is that OK? Religion has been used as an excuse for a lot worse...

WHY do you have to be a positivist if you don't like undefined thinking?

[2bsirius]

Btw, sorry I can see that this is going nowhere. I'm just opened mouthed. But I'll stop now.

[0ThouArtThat0]

It's not going nowhere. This is an important discussion. I think it is possible to arrive at truth regarding the issue, but only if we are both able to understand one another. I don't think I can fully agree with myself on any of this until I am able to communicate it successfully to another person. Truth is never the possession of a one individual alone.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Everything and everyone is a moment in the movement of the divine toward greater realization of itself.

The sort of violence you speak of results from what are indeed antiquated, or at least not yet philosophically reflective conceptions of God.

[2bsirius]

The 'divine' is almost always shorthand for " I'm privy to something you don't know because you're not as able to tune in to the 'greater realization' that I have because I've been favoured by 'God'"...If you're truly "philosophically reflective" what is the necessity of god? What does HE add?

[0ThouArtThat0]

God is less a he or she than an "I." God's secret name is "I am," secret because it can not be pointed to anywhere in the outer world. God is in you (ie, within or behind the ego or empirical self), or IS your most inward of selves, deeper than the ego. God doesn't add anything; rather, God, as your deepest self (and mine: we all share in this universal Mind), is what makes experience of the world possible to begin with. God is the infinite dwelling within your heart.

[almafarag]

Matt, by divine, do you mean immanent intelligence? more and more finely articulated?

[0ThouArtThat0]

It is both immanent and transcendent.

[almafarag]

@0ThouArtThat0

is 'it' the Idea(s) you talk about? that feed into awareness?

(sorry if this is dumb, I am trying to understand)

[TWITfromURANUS]

"the world 'god' is used and abused to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean."

Perfectly true. But it's not the word that's the problem; it's some of the related concepts that help bring about undesired behaviours. Don't you think that people who have inhuman tendencies will always make sure they find some word/symbol to signify the concepts they desire/need? People can kill in the name of love, progress... Where do you stop with the sterilisation of language once you start?

[2bsirius]

I don't understand WHY we always think we need the words 'god' or 'divine.' The desire to move beyond them is not about the "sterilisation of language."

I think it's a pointless game to use 'god' & the 'divine' to replace curiosity. The cosmos is a mystery, & we, as a curious & inventive species, will spend our energies to try to understand it.

God and the divine lead to tribalism: "Madness is something rare in individuals -- but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule" ~Nietzsche

[TWITfromURANUS]

@2bsirius

I don't have time to fully address you right now; I've just crawled out of my pit & I've got to get a shower & dash out to get a train, so I'll get to this laters (& I dont have a portable computer) ...Cheers

For now I'll just say that, personally, I don't really use 'divine' myself (but I have no issue with people doing so) ... But for me, 'God' has absolutely nothing to do with 'replacing curiosity' ... you're pitting religion against science & that need not be the case.

[TWITfromURANUS]

& Nietzsche was as fucked-up as he was brilliant.

[TWITfromURANUS]

Yes, the point about tribalism is something we should all be concerned about, but that goes deeper/further-back than whether someone has a 'god concept' or not ...

I'm interested in the idea that, instead of telling people that god & religion are outdated notions, we could broaden our ideas about what these things can mean, & through that, perhaps have a better chance of connecting with other people ...

[TWITfromURANUS]

... because then, we're not in direct conflict with them, as we are when we march around wagging our scientistic fingers in their faces & telling them how silly their belief systems are..

"The cosmos is a mystery, & we, as a curious & inventive species, will spend our energies to try to understand it."

[TWITfromURANUS]

--I see what you're saying there, but that's really only part of what we do in this life. We also have to come to terms with what we are, & we naturally desire language that helps us do that.

If we can make 'God' an all-encompassing concept, it will cease to be the cause of tribalistic problems.

That said, if I sincerely believed that by stopping using the word, the world would become a better place, I would do it ... because what it signifies would still remain for me.

[TWITfromURANUS]

I could go on & on & on about all this, but ... I actually really like your essential attitude.

"I think tribalism is responsible, not religion in itself..." ~Thee

watch?v=ZXwetwXjLI0