Big props to Prof. Dave. That man could 100% hop on the UA-cam bandwagon of dissing and reaction content judging by the fact that the videos he makes like that get a ton of views, but instead he chooses to put out banger videos on topics like Idealism. Respect!
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.
great additions. Idealism is such a vast topic that you can't really do it proper justice in a 10 minute video. Kant alone would take at least 5-10 hours to grasp somewhat surface level, let alone the whole progression from Greeks to Kant haha
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
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.
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.
Thank you! It seems that Kant’s notion of freedom reduces to Spinoza’s. Also the transcendental nature of space and time seems like Spinoza in different words.
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.
. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." Boswell: Life Bing search
@@jamessheffield4173 Me too. I think it is hilarious as an attempted refutation, however philosophically impoverished. Indeed, it is because it is such a terrible rebuttal that I find it amusing.
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
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.
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.
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?
@@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?
@@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?
Idealism has ZERO to do with the "movement towards ideal society/ethics/everything." You're conflating metaphysical idealism with the colloquial usage of the term idealism. They mean two different things.
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.
It's more complicated than in the video. Actually he was making fun of people who reduce intellectual properties to colour. But he thought - of course scientifically wrong (we know today) - that the different climate does account for difference in culture and intellectual capacities. The climate near the equator has a bad influence on the intellectual capacities, according to Kant. But he was not a racist in a biological sense. If black people just live long enough in the European climate they would be identical to us.
"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).
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
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 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.
Big props to Prof. Dave. That man could 100% hop on the UA-cam bandwagon of dissing and reaction content judging by the fact that the videos he makes like that get a ton of views, but instead he chooses to put out banger videos on topics like Idealism. Respect!
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.
great additions. Idealism is such a vast topic that you can't really do it proper justice in a 10 minute video. Kant alone would take at least 5-10 hours to grasp somewhat surface level, let alone the whole progression from Greeks to Kant haha
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.
@@theautodidacticlaymanYeah, Professor Dave, who isn't a professor, isn't even a student of philosophy. This is stuff we learn in Intro.
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.
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 useful summary.
Fan from the another side of the earth 🌎🌍,
we like your content,
thx for underlining the inherent contradictions in Kants philosophy... you know we germans love to make a fuzz about how great he was... well...
Thanks sir..I just love the way u present the facts and information ❤
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.
Great series. One minor correction though. The painting (7:26) depicts Jacobi, not Kant ;).
Very helpful. Thanks!
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.
Thank you, DinoPart Man
Thank you! It seems that Kant’s notion of freedom reduces to Spinoza’s. Also the transcendental nature of space and time seems like Spinoza in different words.
Thank you
Intro never gets old
sir, we need a lecture about noise function 'simplex and perline'
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?
I Kant…
… I simply Kant😂❤
The joke never gets old to me
Don't worry, Kubla Khan.
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.
Lol thanks for posting this right after I finished my ethics final
I Like the more poetic philosophers, its because I don't really understand kant, he's also good at practical things, which I failed at my whole life
“Berkeley” is pronounced Bar’klee when it used to refer to the philosopher in question.
. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: Life Bing search
A terrible argument that no serious thinker accepts, even those who disagree with Berkeley.
@@Professor_Pink I know, but I love it anyway. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Me too. I think it is hilarious as an attempted refutation, however philosophically impoverished. Indeed, it is because it is such a terrible rebuttal that I find it amusing.
@@Professor_Pink I learned it from a graduate student in philosophy, we were both amused by it. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Well, as one fellow graduate in philosophy to another, I appreciate your kind blessings.
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
Good information in this series, but weird how some names are pronounced.
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.
So Berkeley did posit the existence of god as a response to accusations of solipsism as the absolute spirit that perceives everything all the time
A "strong conception of reason" does not make one a "rationalist." Berkeley wasn't a rationalist.
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.
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?
Idealism has ZERO to do with the "movement towards ideal society/ethics/everything." You're conflating metaphysical idealism with the colloquial usage of the term idealism. They mean two different things.
🙂👍
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...
It's more complicated than in the video. Actually he was making fun of people who reduce intellectual properties to colour. But he thought - of course scientifically wrong (we know today) - that the different climate does account for difference in culture and intellectual capacities. The climate near the equator has a bad influence on the intellectual capacities, according to Kant. But he was not a racist in a biological sense. If black people just live long enough in the European climate they would be identical to us.
And for the mysoginist part: he was merely describing how he perceived woman in his culture. It's subjective and unscientific, but not mysoginist.
You don't actually read Kant for his empirical theories. He got almost everything wrong there, but the philosophy is top notch, still.
❤
10 min gang 👇🏻
the longer enlightenment liberalism plays out, the more vindicated Kant is in his “racist and misogynist” writings.
Are there many prominent European thinkers from the 1700s who weren't racist and misogynistic?
If Kant were a toucan, then he would be a TouKant. Could also be TouKanye the rapper.
First comment !
Awesome, where’s the cake,I like cake and turtles
@@donchristie420same bro
@@donchristie420same bruh!
"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).
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.