Відео

Do you have any good book recommendations for refuting idealism/vindicating scholastic realism

Do you have a discord server?

Hey! I'm beginning to study some of Dufrenne's works and i would like to congratulate you on the amazing content!

This was a wonderful video. Thanks

This is a great channel

The table must exist (and in particular its appearance must correspond to the object itself) because I touched it QED

Both! The terms are somewhat ambiguous... Cosmic "idealism", with relative "realism", along the lines of (Aristotelian) Neoplatonism...

Beautiful insights. Please keep ar it

Don't really know much about philosophy but I've been subscribed for a while and I'm really interested in Philosophical video essays😊 Interesting video by the way

only realism is the idealism

Read Nargajuna

..reverse trancdental psychology on nuclear family formation... oh yeah... you were supposed be here first.. same with heidegger ontologymm its a nix of material deconstruction and idealism

You're a realist? Ok name every possible experience. Check and mate, read some Kant.

Are you mexican?

Nah I’m not following

You have a pleasant voice, subscribed! 🙏

Could you make a video about Schleiermacher On religion .

I must ask: considering in light of Jorge Luis Borges' reflection that "Reality is not always probable, or likely." And exploring the viewpoints of Ivan Illich, who boldly states, "The moment we cease to be willing to suffer for what we believe, we cease to believe," and Kerstin Hänggi, who proposed, "In every act of rebellion, there lies a semblance of the sacred.” - In the midst of a purveyor's maze of dogma, how can we comprehend the intricacies and inconsistencies present in the helixes of substrate, particularly in light of the intense encouragement of putrid urgency? What aspects of the rapacity of the calculating dominance lend themselves to our human incomprehension, especially when faced with a deafeningly dim quietus? Moreover, how can perspective of a militant babbling that builds itself out of the caustic conundrum philosophize the hidden rites of heretical petulance? Is it possible to examine how preconceived ideas stifle originality and how the sapid outcasts of profane dissent survive the wreckage of social mockery? What relevance does the comparison of the last two, nonsensical displays, of the ostentation and the animosity that characterize us, promote a more productive dialogue of self? I hope this can be made into a video, basically are there any philosophical points on this notion that you can help me study more into this information I posed here? Thanks!

So the explanation has shortcommings At the beggining you say that realism is a older trend beggining in aristotle. Then, in the midle, you say that plato was an idealist. In fact, it is possible to argue that those philosophers were neither cause the debate was not there. By the same token, if you say that the debate need not be there explicitly, then is possible to identify both idealism and realism early on on the continental tradition. More than that, you seem to confuse realism with empiricism. Direct access is not the same, to many, as direct access to reality (the same holds for indirect access). Realism can be thought of as epistemogical and/or ontological and have many shapes. The sane with realism. For example, the idealist trend after Kant in some extents is read as idealism without noumena. So Idealism in this tradition cannot be defined by the notion of noumena. More than that, Husserls idealism can also be identified as a "idealism withouth noumena". We can argue that another error appears when you say that all medieval philosophers were realists. In fact realism were a ontological position that was disputing place with nominalism and conceptualism in a way that we can see that is not thr case that the enemy of realism is always idealism. The definitions need refinment. Realism and Idealism can be opposed in the question of the place of the subject. But even here the lines get blurry since it is needed to find a palce for the subject in reality. I recomend you to read the new trends of realism that come from Speculative Realism and New Realism, specially: Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude" (2007); "Speculative Realism" the trabscript of the symposium in Collapse vol 3 Editted by Robin Mackay (2007); Markus Gabriel's "Why the world does not exist" (2013) and "Fields of sense" (2015); Finally Graham Harman's "Object Oriented Ontology" (2018)

So this 'world' humano can't access is only conceive by faith? We Just habe to believe that exists?

Where are you from?

Brilliant video, love your way of explaining this

materialism > idealism

The UA-cam algorithm has blessed me. As a beginner interested in philosophy, what light hearted books or material do you suggest to get started in the area of philosophy?

UA-cam algorithm pulled through, nice video

Some good, deep, unprotected analism 🐒

Can you give the docs or notes

Heyy, I just discovered your channel totally by chance. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I've been loving the videos. I'm glad your channel reached me here in Brazil! 🥰

Can you explain to me how her idea that perceptions of other people could possibly originate in those other people instead of in the mind like all other perceptions? It would seem to me that enpathy is a natural/basic application of the development of "theory of mind" and mirroring at a young age. Her explanation makes it sound like ESP.

Thenk you professor so much ❤.

Dear professor I have a question not related to von Hildebrand or Kant, it is about Aristoteles and Aquinas. The question is to my knowledge Aristotle and Aquinas believed in direct realism but also called naive realosm and I as objectiv idealist think thet position is nonsens for exemple halucination is very comon objection to direct realism. Could you tell me did they realy hold ther stupid pozition end are you idealist, materialist, realist ? Thenk you .

I thought this video was about Andy Dufreugne from Shawshank Redemption, 😂 But I learned a lot, thanks 😺

Keep making videos I appreciate you work and thoughts man 👍

Hey bro! It’s like 5 am and I just came across your channel today since I’ve been deeply interested in Edith Stein and phenomenology! I am deeply appreciative and grateful for your videos since there are not too many out there regarding this topic, and you explain this complex topic really well, keep it up!

letsssss goooooo

Casually browsing phenomenology UA-cam and run into one my favorite classmates! (This is Jordan from Contemporary Philosophy) Great video!

GOD bless

Surprised to hear you like bonaventure. I always thought I was alone in the world keep you beautiful man. Every time I watch a video from you I feel divinely illumined

SCOTUS needs to eat a scone or something because he is obviously hangry

It’s about time you are talking about a true doctor of the Church ❤

It seems bonaventure got this from Aquinas

First comment

You're one of my favorite UA-camrs! Keep it up!

im not a christian, and i get a strong sense that you and i would not agree on much at all (or that you would not like me because im queer), but you speak about your topics with a real passion and interest which i appreciate. ive watched a few of your videos now and i really enjoy watching. my main note: tell me more. a lot of times you seem to think if you speak more about interesting side stories and fun facts that youll lose the viewer, but if you properly bake those bits into your structure in a convincing and interesting way then those can be some of the most captivating aspects of an outline. make your videos however you want of course, but i think it would do you good to do that. and i saw someone comment on a video that you should improve quality but honestly i think it looks and sounds fine, you just need to make the visual aspect more eye-grabbing or easy on the eyes, ya know?

Dude. Your good. This was really helpful for me. Maybe do some editing first though and improve video quality. Keep it up 🫡.

When I hear John speak joy springs from my heart and I began to sing out in praise!

This man is scary smart! Big brain