Immanuel Kant (1 of 3)

RandyHelzerman is the one most in need of this video series, but it will add understanding to anyone who watches. Learn Kant's gimmick.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Mrcropper
• immanuel
• kant
• reason
• virtue
• peikoff
• OPAR
• philosophy
• ethics
• morality
• catagorical

[shiprecords]

You seemed confused about some pretty simple stuff bro.

[MrCropper]

"We all believe it, but there is no way of justifying it. "

To say there is no way of justifying is an inductive statement, so you contradict yourself. Induction is valid, else our words have no meaning.

[InvincibleNumanist]

@MrCropper

"To say there is no way of justifying is an inductive statement"

No it isnt. and the fact that your comment got 5 thumbs up speaks volumes about your audience

[amiaquariusiam]

You are fighting thing's, you know not. What are you trieing to do, make space head's. Maybe we all just came in the big bag. And have know reason. Nothing cannot make nothing. You are in the void, of what it was. Do you think, that there was a greater being, or not? But if you have no heart for God from the begining. For then i understand. For many come's and goes, and never fine it.

[0MINDNTHOUGHT0]

Objectivism is to Philosophy what Religion is to Science. What a pile...

[EdmontonReader1989]

@MacbookProWizard

Well, "functionally retarded" is a little strong, no? Doesn't Mr. Cropper address this by saying that he thinks this line of attack against him is "rabidly skeptical", and that such skeptics are just trying to "put a question in the way" so as to prevent any progress being made? So he has provided /a/ reason (justified or not) /not/ to obey their imperative, right? I think he's being consistent in proceeding to use his Objectivism-driven approach.

[MacbookProWizard]

you complain that people want you to explain in your own words, and go on to not do so? go read atlas shrugged again. you really made a video about kant by reading out of some objectivist encyclopedia? jesus f. christ. are all objectivists actually functionally retarded?

[thequizzingglass]

Who can "know" Kant, in totality? His writing is not him. It is only a moment of reflection. Someone else's thoughts about him, are not him. Nor are the reflections in another's mind-Kant. You can see a thought in writing. But a thought... and thinking, is only one part of a human-being.

We are more than just the sum of our parts. That is all I know.

[ResistTyranny101]

Referring mainly to some comments, I think some people that attack Kant are depicting no more than an attitude, which is fine for fashion, music, etc., but not for philosophy. If his work is unsettling, then belch when no one's around. Indigestion is just that and reveals a lack of understanding. Other than that, I must credit anyone who at least attempts to sort it all out, and so I appreciate this video series, whether or not I agree with it. Kant, Rand, Hume, Plato, et al...all indispensible.

[ResistTyranny101]

If Objectivism's "big beef" with Kant is his "arbitrary" understanding of the thing-in-itself, then let's end the beef now by understanding that Kant's assertion of this noumena comes thru universal access, so to speak. That is, all of us experience this synthetic a priori proposition. He doesn't claim to have any particular access to it. It's a description ultimately of phenomenology. Namely, that there are things that necessarily must be, but can't be experienced. For instance, other worlds.

[belmontartwork]

make your argument please...you can do it:-)

[87tomify]

if absinthe never was invented, philosophy would not exist.