You are so right about the third critique. So many people think that the third critique was written when Kant was senile and so they dismiss it entirely but in the last part regarding the critique of teleological judgement he really sets the foundation for German idealism
I know this was years ago and you may qualify much of what you said concerning Kant’s CJ. For Kant nature as ‘techne’ was quite explicit. While you made a good argument for the shift we experience in Schelling’s understanding of consciousness and nature, the sense of beauty in nature accompanies the harmony of cognitive powers with the form of the object’s presentation without determinative concepts to bring it under. Moreover Kant felt that the appreciation of natural beauty specifically indicated moral character in a person more readily than the development of a high degree of taste in fine art. You are correct in saying the ‘regulative’ function Kant’s ‘super-sensible’ (posited as intermediary) collapsed in Schelling so that ‘freedom could be come conscious of itself’. Feeling, for nature, however was very strong in Kant, despite there Love in the Groundwork was spoken about not as an emotion. Love for Kant was part of the intuitive intellect, that could grasp the whole, which would already have the pure practical principles embedded in Love without the need for discursive maxims that our kind of mind which is mostly ‘discursive intellect’ needs maxims due to the egoic bodymind situated in inevitable inclination. ‘Sainthood’ would be the kind of consciousness as an ideal of love which is situated in the whole without the need for particulars.
Why is does it sound like infinite jelly beans being dumped into a glass jar from the 25 minute mark and on? Wind up alarm clock rolling on. Miniature jack hammers used by ants in a porcelain sugar bowl. The sound of a million migraines pouring into the matrix. Why?
Trancdental systems it's practically the same thing as kant, but kant wants to rewrite the old testament, kant is intention non criminal and schelling is self intention?
Jonathan Townsend there’s a 1970s collection of translations. I must find it then give it to you. It’s his stuff on freedom, like his deduction of freedom or the moral law
Great video, thanks for sharing. Do you happen to be familiar with the Russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev's work: "The Destiny of Man"? I ask because it's among the most illuminating in regards to expressing freedom as quintessential to being, both for God as well as for humankind, I've yet to come across. It's a worthwhile read and I'm relatively certain you'd enjoy it if you haven't already. Peace be unto you.
On 34:00 and foreword you talk about how some kind of organic unity must be present in the universe as a whole, so that theleology is present "from the beginning" - and you present that as original with Schelling. But didn't Kant say the same thing in the preface to The Critique of Judgment saying that it is the fundamental presupposition of the very function of the (reflective) power of judgement that there is a a relation of the form of purposiveness having our formation of the concept of nature as one of its relata and the appearance of the natural world as its other relata. E. Cassirer gives an example of Newton's laws as something we got through time, acquiring it form more and more specific diverse laws that we got from Galileo, Descartes and others. So we do have a kind of a concept, although not knowledge, as you rightly point out the difference between the two, of nature as a whole that seems like it's designed for the purpose of our knowledge it. And that is the part of the explanation of the possibility of the judgement of pure taste. So, the purposive concept of nature as a whole, not just with regards to organism, is present in Kant. The kind of purposiveness is formal, and that's the difference between the purposiveness of organisms, which is internal and objective. A concise formulation of this point can be found at the end of the one of the paragraphs at the beginning of the Analytic of the Sublime in the 3rd Critique.
You can not observe an effect and assume it's cause. That freedom being the ground bit is an ascertian ask for evidence. If none is provided use Hitchens razor and dismiss it.
Great video, I'm writing my Thesis on Schelling and your lecture helped me a great deal. Kudos.
You are so right about the third critique. So many people think that the third critique was written when Kant was senile and so they dismiss it entirely but in the last part regarding the critique of teleological judgement he really sets the foundation for German idealism
I know this was years ago and you may qualify much of what you said concerning Kant’s CJ. For Kant nature as ‘techne’ was quite explicit. While you made a good argument for the shift we experience in Schelling’s understanding of consciousness and nature, the sense of beauty in nature accompanies the harmony of cognitive powers with the form of the object’s presentation without determinative concepts to bring it under. Moreover Kant felt that the appreciation of natural beauty specifically indicated moral character in a person more readily than the development of a high degree of taste in fine art. You are correct in saying the ‘regulative’ function Kant’s ‘super-sensible’ (posited as intermediary) collapsed in Schelling so that ‘freedom could be come conscious of itself’.
Feeling, for nature, however was very strong in Kant, despite there
Love in the Groundwork was spoken about not as an emotion. Love for Kant was part of the intuitive intellect, that could grasp the whole, which would already have the pure practical principles embedded in Love without the need for discursive maxims that our kind of mind which is mostly ‘discursive intellect’ needs maxims due to the egoic bodymind situated in inevitable inclination. ‘Sainthood’ would be the kind of consciousness as an ideal of love which is situated in the whole without the need for particulars.
Why is does it sound like infinite jelly beans being dumped into a glass jar from the 25 minute mark and on? Wind up alarm clock rolling on. Miniature jack hammers used by ants in a porcelain sugar bowl. The sound of a million migraines pouring into the matrix. Why?
Vitarka = left brain, negate, divide, oppose, use rank and rule.
Great talk/ discussion. Would like to read Schelling, wonder where I should start
Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature (1797)
Trancdental systems it's practically the same thing as kant, but kant wants to rewrite the old testament, kant is intention non criminal and schelling is self intention?
Audience might be helped to know which text(s) are being read from ...
Very nice discussion/talk,
Where may one get English editions of early Schelling (up to 1800ish)?
Jonathan Townsend there’s a 1970s collection of translations. I must find it then give it to you. It’s his stuff on freedom, like his deduction of freedom or the moral law
Great video, thanks for sharing. Do you happen to be familiar with the Russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev's work: "The Destiny of Man"? I ask because it's among the most illuminating in regards to expressing freedom as quintessential to being, both for God as well as for humankind, I've yet to come across. It's a worthwhile read and I'm relatively certain you'd enjoy it if you haven't already. Peace be unto you.
On 34:00 and foreword you talk about how some kind of organic unity must be present in the universe as a whole, so that theleology is present "from the beginning" - and you present that as original with Schelling.
But didn't Kant say the same thing in the preface to The Critique of Judgment saying that it is the fundamental presupposition of the very function of the (reflective) power of judgement that there is a a relation of the form of purposiveness having our formation of the concept of nature as one of its relata and the appearance of the natural world as its other relata.
E. Cassirer gives an example of Newton's laws as something we got through time, acquiring it form more and more specific diverse laws that we got from Galileo, Descartes and others. So we do have a kind of a concept, although not knowledge, as you rightly point out the difference between the two, of nature as a whole that seems like it's designed for the purpose of our knowledge it. And that is the part of the explanation of the possibility of the judgement of pure taste. So, the purposive concept of nature as a whole, not just with regards to organism, is present in Kant. The kind of purposiveness is formal, and that's the difference between the purposiveness of organisms, which is internal and objective.
A concise formulation of this point can be found at the end of the one of the paragraphs at the beginning of the Analytic of the Sublime in the 3rd Critique.
Polarity is the essence of nature.
In the end Morality is a Choice that is what makes it a Free Choice. There can be no Law governing it.
Good lecture, thanks. Don't like the interruptions from the other man though. Let the man (the younger) speak!
Yeah the older guy is annoying
Very profound. Thanks for uploading.
Great video.
48:30 - Jesus, calm down wft
You can not observe an effect and assume it's cause. That freedom being the ground bit is an ascertian ask for evidence. If none is provided use Hitchens razor and dismiss it.