Idealism Part 1: Berkeley and Kant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 гру 2023
- We've learned about rationalism and empiricism as the two important movements in early modern philosophy, and the most important one that followed was idealism, which was an attempt to adapt and synthesize these previous two schools. George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant are crucial figures in this era, so let's learn about them first!
Script by Luca Igansi
Watch the whole Philosophy/Logic playlist: bit.ly/ProfDavePhilo
Psychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePsych
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMath
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology/Genetics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
Geology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGeo
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
It should be noted that idealism as a political view is not the same as the metaphysical theory idealism, though Immanuel Kant is associated with an enlightenment idealist movement in perhaps a political goal of a perfect rational society, this is idealist in another sense and it is important to differentiate these 2 definitions of the word
yeah I was thinking that like wtf
Thank you. That initial definition of idealism is omniwack given the rest of the video.
I remember having to read Kant's Prolegomena during my first year of studying philosophy and being blown away by it. I devoted both my theses to his work. His epistemology and honesty pertaining to the limits of Reason, as well as its implications for religious arguments, are still valuable.
Thank you for making a series on idealism, it's a view worth exploring. I'm looking forward to watching more. Here's a few constructive notes I have for this video:
1. Berkeley's name is pronounced like this: bar-klee
2. Berkeley is regarded as the first idealist in _modern_ philosophy. Idealism goes all the way back to Plato, and even further back to Indian/Hindu philosophy
3. There are many different versions of idealism. Just like how there are different versions of materialism, like reductionism vs eliminativism, there are also reductive versions of idealism and eliminative versions of idealism. This means some believe material objects are real (which may be reducible or irreducible), or they may believe that material objects are not real.
4. You seem to already know this, but I'll just say this for clarity: most idealists believe objects and the world we perceive are real. Idealists just believe objects are mental instead of material, or they believe the mental is _prior_ to the physical like you noted in the video.
Very useful summary.
Hey Prof. Dave has an Emmanual Kant video!! That's such a coincidence I just recently got his stuff to read. Looking forward to this video as an introduction to his works.
just found the channel... topics are exciting!!!
Very helpful. Thanks!
Thanks sir..I just love the way u present the facts and information ❤
Thank you
According to Bryan Magee, Kant's "Copernican revolution" has still not been sufficiently dealt with by anyone coming after him. In that regard, we're still stuck in the 18th century. However, Kant himself was stuck with Newtonian physics and his philosophy (obviously) did not take into account recent scientific developments. We need a new Kant who can synthesize and systematize everything we know in a proper manner.
Great series. One minor correction though. The painting (7:26) depicts Jacobi, not Kant ;).
sir, we need a lecture about noise function 'simplex and perline'
Time and space are so utterly mysterious. We know so much about it but I think we'll never know all of it.
They are creations of perceiving.
thx for underlining the inherent contradictions in Kants philosophy... you know we germans love to make a fuzz about how great he was... well...
Thank you, DinoPart Man
I has a spirit of wanting to learn everything like you, but I'm so difficult to put myself in the discipline, sir, what can I do?
Intro never gets old
Fan from the another side of the earth 🌎🌍,
we like your content,
Matter is a form of energy. All aggregates of matter are energy same as light. Not only Einstein‘s E=MC2 proves this, Quantum physics confirm this by the discovery that particles and waves are the same.
All of us are guided by instincts in order to determine our preferences, idea of freedom To form rational conclusions might not equate to free will.
Unfortunate choice of names, given that “Berkeley hunt” is Cockney rhyming slang for the C word.
Also for context, “Berkeley hunt” is normally shortened to “berk”.
Ha, now when I call someone that, I’ll know the history of😊
Your having a Turkish?
TIL we can't say "hunt" because it rhymes with "cunt"
Lol thanks for posting this right after I finished my ethics final
Good information in this series, but weird how some names are pronounced.
“Berkeley” is pronounced Bar’klee when it used to refer to the philosopher in question.
❤
I Kant…
… I simply Kant😂❤
The joke never gets old to me
Don't worry, Kubla Khan.
🙂👍
I kant explain as a marxist how much i appreciate this
I think you might also appreciate kantenintal philosophy (couldn't help myself).
Although Marx is a dialectical materialist underneath his theory are idealist concepts. For example alienation. How? Hegel's human-spirit proposition, Marx said that those poles of idealism-"spiritual ignorance" and "self-understanding"-are replaced with material categories, whereby "spiritual ignorance" becomes "alienation" and "self-understanding" becomes man's realisation of his Gattungswesen (species-essence).
In this way Marx interprets idealist concepts into material conditions or it’s materialist effect which can be studied empirically.
But the foundation is still an idealist concept. How for example is a human being alienated from himself? Today we can give a psychological answer, for example dissociation, but then the answer would be Man‘s a priori nature back to Kant.
Lenin completely bulldozed over the idealist foundation and hated Kant.
I didnt know kant was a racist or a misogynist that aside I do subscribe to deontology. Specifically deontological pluralism similar to W.D Ross but off the top of my head i cant remember what the difference was.
He wasn't pro antifa and communism though.
@@goldwhitedragon he lived and died over 100 years before this ideas were conceived...
And yet the physicality of nature isn't contingent on a mind existing.
If a tree falls in the woods when no one is around, does it still kill the poor furry fecker who couldn't get out of the way?
The poor furry fecker has a mind too! And Berkeley would say God also has a mind (an Infinite Spirit) and knows everything in the physical world.
@@KamikazethecatII
Oh well of course he would have to drag his favourite cosmic wizard into it.
An unnecessary and irrelevant complexity of no merit.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 He would say matter is the unnecessary complication. Everything we actually experience is a perception or idea in our mind, so what’s simpler, admitting the existence of the things we know exist from our internal experience, minds and ideas, or adding external matter in addition? We can explain all of physics by admitting the existence of an infinite Mind, so what do we need matter for at all?
@@KamikazethecatII
That's not admission; it's belief, and again, with no logical merit.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 I don't really see the difference, admitting the existence of something necessarily involves believing in something. And I think you're stubbornly refusing to see the logic.
Think about it like this. It's more parsimonious, a simpler theory, to admit the existence of fewer kinds of things. We know that at least two kinds of things exist, minds and ideas, because we are a mind that perceives ideas. Everything we know about the physical world is through ideas in our minds. We need to admit the existence of some kind of external objects, because things happen to use which we have no control over. So what's more parsimonious, to believe in external objects belonging to the same categories we already have to believe in, minds and ideas, or external objects belonging to a completely different category?
First comment !
Awesome, where’s the cake,I like cake and turtles
@@donchristie420same bro
@@donchristie420same bruh!
10 min gang 👇🏻
If Kant were a toucan, then he would be a TouKant. Could also be TouKanye the rapper.
thank you jesus
You're welcome.
If we are all God's children what makes Jesus so special? Some of God's other children have shown all of humanity great things. Why not praise them as well?
@@yesitcanspeak well the popular Christian doctrine is that Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God, He existed before all ages, alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit, and all reality was made through Him and He later became incarnate, thus becoming a human being. Of course there are further theological details, but that's that in a nutshell to my knowledge
@@yesitcanspeak it's because he looks like Jesus friend
@@yesitcanspeakPlenty of people do. No reason you can't be a fan of all awakened beings. Or just one exclusively. It's all good
The material world isn't real? Too bad, that's the world that I exist in, I suppose then it's logically impossible for me to have stolen all of your legal tender, given that neither it nor I actually exist
Actually, idealism doesn't say that. It accepts both idea and material, but idea always above.
thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) is different from what Kant called the phenomenon-the thing as it appears to an observer. This can be clarified the map of a world is not the same as the world.
There is an out-there but the mind perceives the phenomenal map of out-there. All the world is apprehended by the senses, but we are in the habit of believing our sense perception is the world, demonstrably not so. For example we can use a tool like see x rays to increase information of the map of out-there but that is still not what is out there only a more information for a map of what is the thing in itself.
@@matthewkopp2391 I get that part, the argument I heard was that the world itself doesn't actually exist, like we're living in the matrix or whatever
@@thieph Why are ideas( which merely explain the outside world) above material phenomena?
@@matthewkopp2391 What you are describing is just indirect realism, which is different and doesn't imply idealism. X-rays help us perceive electromagnetic radiation from the outside world which is processed by our retinas and integrated in our visual cortex with other associated sensory data and produces an image to the individual. Sentience is just an emergent property of the physical( and the elimination of all conscious life won't affect whatever objective reality exists), not the other way around.
"women and other minorites"? I've got that kind of pedantic mind that flagged that and then didn't hear another word. (edit: I know you didn't mean to imply women are a minority compared to the white associates of the philosopher but it can read/sound like that. No biggee.)
I never really studied philosophy but did tertiary level maths and physics. I tend to work out the clutter in my own mind rather than read books (by and large other people's misunderstandings imo). Arrogant? Yes but countered with a corresponding degree of humility (not too much I'm not that great (ref. to a joke)).
I've surmised that there seem to be a lot of big words in philosophy and unlike an occasional big word one may encounter in math, they have a kind of hand wavy definition. Clearly I like accuracy and precision. That being said I hold song lyrics on a par with religious texts and can reconcile all of that with an understanding of the " dualistic" forms of words and phrases into literal (scientific) and the figurative/metaphorical (Artistic). The dead and the Living. The word religion can be chucked as far as I'm concerned. (edit: Though God and Holiness are not to be chucked). Why am I saying this stuff now? Its nearly 10 years since I had any revelations of understanding which gives support to the idea that there are no more (edit: I've just related a tiny little part of my understanding). (I'm NOT saying I know everything, nor am I interested in such an impossible pursuit). In that time I've just lived with the ideas in my head and what I used to think were going to blow people's minds now seem almost inconsequential. I suppose that's expected and just as well really.
Anyway all of this comment is rhetorical so no need to reply until I actually ask you a question.
I think you do good introductory presentations of things from a wide variety of fields and hope you appreciate that summarisation (based on the very small percentage that I've watched).