Відео

Thank you!

Good idea!

Thank you!

Yes :)

Thank you!

Yeah, I think times have changed! We gotta call ourselves philosophers now. Never heard that about Thales; it's always Pythagoras getting the credit :)

@@philosophemes en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus

@@exlauslegale8534 "Many regard him as the first philosopher..." That statement is true, but the term "philosopher" wasn't being used while he was alive. The term was coined by Pythagoras, and it was given its traditional meaning by Plato. www.quora.com/What-made-Pythagoras-say-that-hes-a-philosopher

So you're a fan of Kant's work? I find most people disagree with Kant. How do you mean "first of all"?

@@philosophemes He has shown how to think critically about external objects. And I think he is the first person to say that there can be a world without mere empirical troublesome reality, one can dream to live much secured, creative and free in an abstract world(ideas).

@@kadaganchivinod8003 I definitely believe in the Kantian Copernican Revolution!

Good question! Thanks for your question. I’ll try to be brief. On the one hand, some Bergson scholars claim Bergson’s critique of Kant in Time and Free Will (1889) turned into a qualified endorsement by the time of Creative Evolution (1907). On the other hand, I acknowledge there are multiple ways to read Kant. I follow Schelling and Schopenhauer (and Kierkegaard). Deleuze’s reading of Kant is, of course, influenced by Bergson, but I don’t think we can give Bergson all the credit for Deleuze’s ontology. I like Heidegger’s way of handling Kant (Heidegger’s “Kant books” are helpful for getting a deeper grip on Kant). I don’t endorse everything Heidegger says about Kant’s philosophy (nor do I endorse everything Schelling or Schopenhauer say), but it seems to me Kant is the best philosopher for appropriately relating to mind-external reality. Perhaps “appropriately relating to mind-external reality” shouldn’t be difficult or a difficulty at all, but it really does seem to be a difficulty for humans. When I was a college student, I watched class after class and professor after professor get stuck on the same issues, namely how to appropriately think about our relation to mind-external reality. Once I came to understand Kant - and in all sincerity it was not easy for me - all of those difficulties simply dissolved. So, I see Kant as an antidote for (maybe all of) the bungled philosophy that is popular nowadays. That’s why I think Kant is worth getting clear on, and that’s why I’m committed to helping others understand Kant. Plus, as all the great philosophers after Kant acknowledged, learning Kant IS learning (the scientific structure of) philosophy. I hope this helps!

Interesting. I wonder what you'll think about the next video in this series (hopefully out soon) on Symbolic Extermination. Thank you for your comment. It made me think about how Gabriel Marcel and Jacques Ellul thought that technology profanes experience, making technology itself seem sacred. Harming someone's cellphone is an act with serious consequences, despite the fact that humans lived and survived without cellphones for millennia. It is also interesting to see how technological mediation and religion (the traditional practice of religion) seem incommensurable. Other than calendar reminders and Zoom, it seems like religion requires some level of in-the-flesh participation for which technology/technological mediation cannot substitute.

@@philosophemes In this case the medium of memtic innoculation, be it organic or technological, is irrelevant compared to the induced disassociation. Take the Bonfires of the Vanities. It didn't take cellphones to transmit a toxic mental landscape amid the population to make them believe that acts of mass destruction and assault were serving their god in some fashion and were good. Or the Crusades. Or idealogical driven colonialist genocide. Bad ideas have always existed. People exist in a virtual state within their own mind recontextualizing reality to fit their own preconceptions, confined in what I call the perceptial cage. Technology simply shifted the ones shaping this landscape from the religious to the mercantile. And honestly, arguements like this video's just sound like the old paradigm of state sponsored faith and custom whining it got beat in its own game.

@@philosophemes As for the cellphone destruction example, tell me. How well do those who practice Islam take burning the Koran? Or Christian fundementalists take burning the Bible? Even though they are just constructs of paper and ink in objective reality the "sign value" assigned to them by those who accept that religion into their mental landscape will not see it as a simple act of destruction but a personal affront.

@@ravendelacour1917 Interesting. It certainly seems as though some people attach that kind of value to cellphones, for sure.

@@philosophemes This is why I say that hyperreality isn't a new thing but the norm. Humanity always had sign value systems but the systems change. Over 2000 years ago, a crucifix was a symbol of fear as a form of brutal execution used by the Romans. Now Christians see it as a sign of hope throughout its assigned sign value of Jesus's ressurection. Indeed this conversation 2000 years ago might be people complaining that people were abandoning the traditional values of Mitranism for this fringe cult around a martyred Judaic carpenter who encouraged pacifism and anti-Roman values.

That's great!

You're the first person to quote the Big Lebowski! Thank you!

National Socialism, eh? Say what you about it, Nihilism didn't cause a world war that killed 140 million people and caused trillions in property destruction.

Thank you!

Thank you for your comment!

Well said! Schopenhauer was spot on about him.

Thank you. I appreciate the comment. I understand what you're pointing to, but I don't think it's equivocation. All ideas are virtual ontologically, so when I sometimes lay stress on the virtual aspect, it may sound like I'm referencing its ontology (which would be an equivocation), but that is an artifact of summarizing for a video. What I'm actually laying stress on is the virtual place in the judgment process when it is not preceded by actuality informing it.

I appreciate your comment. It's a heavy thought. I find myself wondering about how the human mind changes as we become more and more posthuman.

The brain cannot comprehend it.

@7TheWhiteWolf Have you tried unplugging and then plugging it back again

@@thesilentgod7863 The switch from Smartphones to AI Assistant phones (that is happening right now) should have an effect on us. I was waiting in a line the other day and heard two young adults talking about how they don't like watching movies because movies take too long. And, I saw a snippet from a movie the other day in which one character said to another, "We could write it down like our ancestors used to do." That affected me. I thought: Yeah, this isn't the world I was born into/technology is shaping us.

@@thesilentgod7863 Once again, you’re making the mistake that a Posthuman would have to be a ‘computer’ or a ‘robot’, it might wind up being more of a 5th transdimensional entity, much like the Q or Trelane’s parents from Star Trek.

Well said! Thank you for your comment!

Sounds like you're a proponent of trans-humanism and not post-humanism. So, it makes sense that you'd say post-humanism is just a philosophy. My interest is in explicating the gameboard, so to speak. I'm trying to show the different positions and how they relate to one another, so we can more easily discuss the issues and think about the philosophical relations between positions. Thank you for your comments!

@@philosophemes ok. I believe I am transhuman. ChatGPT supported me. ❤️It is a cure.

@@philosophemes ok

Transhumanism is the process and Posthumanism is the final outcome.

Correct.

could we see a self driving nascar competitor tho?

Not sure what you mean by "best"? Are you referencing something in the video or in a comment? There are certainly popular philosophers who advocate for post-humanism. The most popular topic by far in this area is identity. So, there are folks on the internet claiming "your profile is your identity" regardless of your physical embodiment. That's post-human; that's not trans-human. I'm preparing a podcast on the topic, though it may be some time before it gets posted. It's like we noted in our book on Simulation Theory, it may be the case that innovators reach for trans-humanism, but end up grabbing post-humanism. So, we'll see how it all turns out... All this technological mediation. Thanks again for your comments!

@@philosophemes Thanks for your detailed answer. There used to be a theory that your real home was your email address. I think that would be transhuman and not post human. I will get back once I have more clarity. --- Yes, there was a meme suggesting that for many digital natives and transhumans, their email address feels more like home than a physical location.

Thank you! I'm going to be posting videos on existentialism eventually. I hope you come by and make more comments! I enjoy your drum playing!

@@philosophemes Thank you so much for listening Frank and I'll definitely check out more of your videos.

Thank you for your question. The standard answer is (not necessarily in this order), Heidegger's Being & Time, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and Deleuze's Difference & Repetition.

@@philosophemes I heard a similar kind of example in Deleuze also like Hammer, "while driving a car you aren't aware of the car". Are there any similarities between these two philosophers sir?

@@kadaganchivinod8003 Good question. I wonder if you have the Deleuze swimming example in mind. Almost all of the Heidegger and Deleuze scholars I know definitely study them together. It can get complicated pretty quickly. However, I would say that what Deleuze calls Difference is Being in Heidegger. The folks studying this connection tend to look at the later Heidegger texts, not Being & Time. Do you have a particular interest in Heidegger or are you pursuing a particular philosophical question? In general, I would say, Analytic philosophy simply doesn't understand - or, rather, just isn't interested in - Being. Analytic philosophy seems to be concerned solely with language. As they continue to accept (Brandom's correct assertion) that Analytic philosophy is a development of Hegel's philosophy, we'll see if they develop their tradition of philosophy into something other than philosophy of language. In other words, I think Analytic philosophy is not where true seekers of philosophy should look.

@@philosophemes I'm going through Todd May lectures on Deleuze sir, he used that example. While I was watching your video on Heidegger somehow I got connected.

​@@philosophemesI'm an aspiring filmmaker sir, would you suggest any particular philosopher or theory to me.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comment. That's Adorno's critique of Heidegger as well: It's all "jargon" and gibberish. Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" is responsible for a lot of the unreasonable critiques floating around regarding "continental philosophy." Imo Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately develops Kant's Transcendental Method than the development that can be found in Husserl's phenomenology.

@@philosophemes What do you mean by "Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately develops Kant's Transcendental Method"? As most scholars say Kant"s whole project is nothing but proving external objects, in a way answer to Hume's skeptical doubts regarding external world. What's exactly Heidegger's main goal in Being and Time?

​@@kadaganchivinod8003 Very good question! So, when I was getting my undergrad that's what everyone told me too: Kant's not really worth knowing because he had some strange ideas that no one believes. I walked around for a long time believing that was true (without ever deeply studying Kant), and when I was getting my PhD, I realized what a great disservice those people did by pushing those prejudices. If you read the great German philosophers in Kant's wake, you hear them all saying the same thing. It's definitely worth knowing what that is! I'll put it this way to be as brief as possible: Kant's "Copernican Revolution" truly revolutionized philosophy. So, it really is like Lewis White Beck said, "You either philosophize with Kant or against Kant, but you can't philosophize without him." That's not just praise - it's literally true. Part of Dr. Peterson's rise to fame included talking trash about Kant, but if you listen close to Peterson, he doesn't understand Kant. So, to answer your question more directly, there's an interesting topic running in the background regarding Husserl and Heidegger. Husserl (exactly like his classmate Freud) started off by attempting to take all the credit for phenomenology himself. Then, when his student Heidegger became more popular than him, and Heidegger's definition of phenomenology (from, for example, Being & Time) had won the day, Husserl responded by showing that (in his opinion) he was only developing Kant's philosophy. That's why you sometimes hear Husserl's phenomenology called "transcendental phenomenology" (there's, of course, more to say about this but not in the confines of a UA-cam comment). The problem with Husserl's phenomenology - and, I know that people treat him like the "underdog" they want to win, but... - is that it is too Cartesian. Heidegger famously made that critique, and Heidegger was right. Just think, for instance, about Husserl's "Cartesian Meditations." Hence, it is possible to see both Husserl and Heidegger as two different attempts to work out/further develop Kant's Transcendental Method (which, by the way, is what Fichte, Novalis, Hölderlin, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard were all avowedly doing). And, because Husserl's development of phenomenology was ultimately too Cartesian, Heidegger's phenomenology more accurately developed Kant's Transcendental Method. Don't listen to "most scholars" when they are dismissive of Kant. It's a huge mistake. There's a movement among the young UA-cam crowd to hate on Kant's philosophy because of personal things about Kant. All that is silly. It's like Goethe said of Kant, reading a page of Kant is like walking into a well lit room. The German philosophers in Kant's wake thought that he had to have been divinely inspired to write the Critique of Pure Reason. For us to disregard that is a mistake. I'm putting together a bunch of content on Being & Time. So, I'll hopefully post about it sometime in the near future. What I would say to that question now is something like this: Regardless of what Heidegger's main goal for Being & Time may have been, if you study Being & Time, it teaches you to develop what Heidegger called a kind of "circumspection." For example, "the moment of vision" is one of the most profound things ever written in a philosophical text in the 20th century. It is related to circumspection; it is in Being & Time; and, it comes from (though Heidegger doesn't tell us this) Kant's 3rd Critique, the Critique of the Power of Judgment. If you go down this path, you'll be walking in the footsteps of the greatest German philosophers of all time, but contemporary scholars will push back because they - some explicitly - think it's not politically correct to say anything critical about Husserl. But, that's silly. And, it's not philosophy, it's social-club glad handing. Cheers!

@@philosophemes Yes sir, imo KANT is evergreen. It's like an Ocean, one cant put boundaries.

@@kadaganchivinod8003 I love it! Love it! Love it! I wouldn't be able to formulate half of the philosophical thoughts that I can formulate were it not for Kant! He's every bit right there with Plato and Aristotle for me! Thank you for your comments!

Thank you for your comment! I'm super happy this helped!

Love it! (Or, maybe we could say, "Stop! Un-ready-to-hand hammer time") Nah, I like yours better ;) Cheers!

"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh..."

Great quote!

I think you're absolutely right. And, I hope so too.

I don't even think School of Life is even reading Stanford. I think it is just one writer who has a very monomaniacal fetishization of philosophy, and likes the *idea of* reading philosophy more than he likes understanding what he's read. He's been called out for it many times.

Very nice video btw, I watched several on this book and this is the first that actually gave me insight into the "fever" idea. Which makes sense with the contemporary reading that you're giving to the text.

@@yrobtsvt Thank you! I appreciate that.

@@yrobtsvt I did not know that he'd been called out for it. I try not to get frustrated when I see what passes for philosophy on the internet, but the philosophy professor in shakes his head and wants to make things better. I have another video coming soon on "Telescopic Superficiality." A concept from Baudrillard. I hope you'll have the opportunity to view it and, perhaps, enjoy it.