Kant is wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 січ 2022
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Nationalism Debate: Ya...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Noom: trynoom.com/lex
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex and use code Lex25 to get 25% off
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Yoram Hazony is a national conservative. This is a conversation and debate about national conservatism vs individualism.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Actually disgusting, shouldn't even be a clip for someone to digest such an incredulous statement with no legitimate evidence to substantiate the claim that Kant is wrong.
Well Lex is just clipping what he deems to be the most interesting parts of the interview
Isn't 1933-Germany enough proof, that kant is in fact wrong?
How fucking dare you!
I don't have any idea who this speaker is, but he seems to fundamentally misunderstand Kant.
He's an objectivist, basically a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy. And she called Kant as the most evil man in mankind's history.
@@funny3291 Wow! That's crazy! Thank you for the info.
he is the worst!!!!!!!!! im an objectivist!!!!!
2:04
“You can’t have pure ‘Reason.’”
Boy, you’re not gonna believe this.
I just Kan't
Literally Kant even, bro.
@@dabidibup
And Scarekigarded
As an academic philosopher with quite a bit of experience with Kant, just no.
Yeah wtf. The empiricist illusion just won’t die.
philosophy majors/fans worship kant like a religious figure. But the fact is all the guys ideas are just completely made up, unscientific and unproven.
@@womp6338just like when you look at the history of psychology
I want to know which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with. "Just no" isn't a substantive response.
No way that is the categorical imperative with sense reality and reason according to kant on the categories, that nonsense we read. But in the everyday, just no?
Don't get hung up on semantics. Kant is among of the greatest philosophers in western history. To suggest that he is destructive to the enlightenment is an embarrassment. He does not divorce reality from experience. Experience is reality --a posteriori. The genius of Kant is he showed that the mind and its categories of reason play an active role in the construction of reality. In the Kantian paradigm he separated the realm of knowledge from the realm of faith. The rational from the non rational. Kant was and is the embodiment of reason and reason is at the core of the enlightenment.
philosophy majors/fans worship kant like a religious figure. But the fact is all the guys ideas are just completely made up, unscientific and unproven.
your every statement is a fallacy lol
Get someone like Bernardo Kastrup or an actual Kantian to talk about Kant's philosophy rather than someone who gives out blanket statements such as these. Ofcourse it's clickbait but we expect better from you Lex.
Well you're going to have to watch the full segment to get the full discussion
@@violent_bebop9687 Yep...but it's these clickbaity titles that always get me triggered. xD
His claim about Kant divorcing reason from reality is just insane. He divorces it from old conception metaphysics -- which is literally the opposite of what these dopes are claiming
Absolutely. To say he "deeevoases" reason from reality is so infinitely dumb. Kant's philosophical apprach is just that: humans' inability to reason due to obvious material and immaterial setbacks, and the relativity of objective reasoning in the world before us. I always say, imagine if we all secreted LSD naturally and viewed the world through that lense. What reason and reality would come out of that?
@@exhainca I get it but it is only justified if Yaron's entire reasoning is this 3 minute video. Again, you dont have to invest time in his work, but to make fun of him based on this video is juvenile af. Also, I dont think its fair to summarize Kant's work in the best way possible (as some beacon of reason) to refute someone's criticism of him. And your LSD example is kinda counter-productive in supporting Kantian philosophy. At the end of the day, Yaron is a Randian, Rand hated Kant, he hates Kant. And they have both put out fleshed out reasons about their opinions.
At least we got Ayn Rand vs Kant Epic Rap Battle
Lol 😂 these two, “we’re empiricist’s!” Kant, “let me show you how to blend empiricism with rationalism.” This guy, “Kant is destructive to philosophical thought!”
No person who uses emoji has intelligence
@@rat_king-😚
Brook made two different claims there but passed them off as the same. He first says that we can "abstract" truths from the past which may or may not be universal (the hope, I'm guessing, is that their historical reality gives them more force). He then says that we learn morality through engaging with the past and learning more and more about it. Those are two different claims.
The act of the historian is different from that of the preacher/prophet/moralist. One can be an excellent historian who constructs narratives from a given set of archaic findings while also having no moral compass. In fact, a historian guided in his research by strictly his moral compass is likely liable to leave out historical realities (think of any culture that would done something repugnant to contemporary North-American views - so all of them, pretty much). Thus the very act of writing history and the act of extracting morals from history are simply two different activities.
Last, we can also ask: how do we extract the principles from history? Upon what criteria do we base these abstractions? I must assume that Brook will, at this point, become either a rationalist himself or he will appeal to his own experiences of what he has taken to be moral - but those experiences are formed within an alternative historical space to the history he studies, and he therefore never should have appealed to the history in the first place.
In short, this is stupid.
I don't have very deep knowledge of Kant. But it's enough to tell that this guy has zero understanding of Kant's ideas.
I'm not Kant literate, but Brook seems pretty lightweight. Kant built the foundations on which Western civilization was able to develop value-based societies without reference to some god, revelation or scriptures. And the statement that "Kant is wrong" (or Brook's Kant-bashing) is meaningless, as a more appropriate question from an academic standpoint is whether Kant "was" wrong in his time.
That being said, not sure we've been able to use the tools he bequeathed us. It seems that the US (and quite a number of European countries) still need a healthy dose of Kant when looking at all the conversation and debates on religion and faith, starting with the topic of whether moral standards can be grounded in reason, and thus be articulated in law and achieved in society without the quixotic oversight of an invented greater authority. Looking at this from France, it's clearly still work in progress.
Seeing how a society founded by zealots and bursting at the seams with religious beliefs of all stripes can come to believe at a massive scale some of the craziest ideas could be indicative that, not only "Kant was sooo right", but in fact "We need Kant." And these are my suggestions for the the title of the follow-up episode.
Now, I'll grant you that, even if Kant freed us, his sentences were just too damn long. So much that not a single one could fit within a tweet. However, "Kant is wrong" seems to be the right length for our times. :-)
He divorces reason from reality? No... no no no... So wrong. Reality, the only one that matters, is our experience qua human beings, which is structured by certain universal categories -- and whatever knowledge we have is about this reality and thus any and all knowledge we may have must adhere to the laws of these universal categories.
@Little Kings Media. All we have access to is our own experience. Our conscious experience is the only reality we are in touch with directly. We do not have access to the way the world is in and of itself (apart from experience) and never will... and therefore, if we are going to say that we have knowledge of something, that knowledge must be in some way about the things we experience. Kant thinks that there are certain universal cognitive categories or laws that provide order to the raw data we receive through the senses -- making them the kind of conscious experiences we have as human beings. Therefore, our reasoning and knowledge must be grounded in our experience and the the laws that government them and make them possible in the first place (e.g., causality and dependence) -- otherwise our reasoning is not grounded in reality.
You proved his point. Your claims is that the reality we experience isn't actually the reality that exists independently of consciousness. In essence, your reasoning isn't based on objective reality but merley one of the mind.
Kant argued that he found one very specific limitation on the use of rational speech for our current human form of life -- that metaphysical propositions made purely from a standpoint within physics qua physics are a category error. Or, in other words, that one cannot put into words that which transcends possible experience on a day to day basis, and therefore, it is precisely only on an empirical basis that religion can be judged constructive or destructive. I'm not sure what angle of interpretation lands one to extrapolate Kant's purpose to be a complete separation of reason from reality. Moreover, I don't think any modern neuroscientific approach (that Kant laid the groundwork for) could admit of a genuine distinction between rationalism and empiricism, since we derive knowledge from the senses a posteriori as well as from the a priori structures of language and logic that categorize inputs as such, and so on. However, I will watch the entire interview next. Very interesting.
If I were to critique Kant, it would be precisely on the basis that he was too rationalistic, and insufficiently empirical in his social judgements. Specifically, his essay 'What is Enlightenment?' bespeaks a total lack of appreciation for brain inequality, and thus the material world we inhabit. Kant wanted to believe, religiously, that nature is telling us a more optimistic story than it really is. But then, paradoxically, our ability to improve our circumstances via the will to construction is a more optimistic story than any Eden after all.
He just kant be right
Where does Kant ever say we do not have direct experience of reality? Kant says that as subjects we constitute objects of experience such that they are possible objects of experience for us. We give experience the form, but the matter is entirely from sensibility. The a priori parts of our judgments of experience could never possibly even be given in sensibility, so it is false that Kant denies we have experience of "reality."
Well, to be fair, this is the common objection to Kant. He denies direct realism. He further claims a near total epistemological void in regards to our ability to understand anything about the “thing-in-itself”. But he provides good arguments! His critics don’t like the conclusions but rarely critique the logic that gets there.
Kant wrote so much about globalism, that ended up having his grave turned to another country kkk
not many were able to do this
No, this is the historicist/materialist view -- we have some kind of primary experience (sense-perception), then slap a principle on it (to make sense of it, to "explain" it, etc.).
The more enlightened view is to understand that principles precede our sense of reality. Our sense of reality flows out of what this man would call abstractions. The "ab" in "abstraction" literally means "out of" or "out from."
Historicism/materialism is how people get trapped by their "history." They end up venerating it, worshiping it, turning it into a dogmatic replacement for the Platonic forms that they vehemently deny.
The girl said why am i crying with no tears
Plato and Kant were of the most destructive?!?!?! Idk if i can stand behind a statement like that
He definetly does not understand Kant. By the way, how can you make the claim that reason is attached to reality? Do you have the privilege of observing the reality detached from your own reason to prove your claim? Nothing can be said of “inconditioned” reality.
Universal principles CAN'T come from experience, he's basically and exactly repeating what Locke said in Essay Concerning Human Understanding with the exception that Locke actually admitted that science can't have necessary knowledge of the world, if you don't assume concepts like cause-effect apriori, science doesn't work and you fall into skepticism (like Hume did) (There are some instaces like quantum physics where these concepts are debated but, for now, they're only hypothesis).
I'm aware that Kant's ethics could be criticized, but I think that his Theory of Knowledge is almost objective.
Yes - how could universal and necessary judgments ever possibly come from finite sense-perceptions??
He don't understand Kant.Was looking for aprori principes, how reality is possible for us, have nothing with destructiveness, but truth. He might have been wrong in some things like everyone, but he was one of bests. Like Plato, who was so much in a favor of human nature, spirituality, then logic, was most possitive serious thinker i ever know, destructive? He thinks if we know separate from feelings logic, mats, that is bad, to know the world like it is, not in our nature and soul?How would be any scientific discovery even possible without separation?
Continuing the bold Objectivist tradition of criticizing philosophical figures that you never understood in the first place. Embarrassing.
Damn they are so wrong
No, your statement "kant is wrong" is moral one, you can't refute kant.
Kant divorces reason from reality. He divorces reason from history. He divorces reason from experience.
Who agrees with Yaron's general assessment?
It's a piss-poor reading of Kant.
He obviously hasn’t read Kant. Kant’s whole projecting was RECONCILING reason and experience. ‘Pure reason’ is divorced from reality, but pure reason serves a very limited function in validating foundational truths. Kant’s whole dialectic is concerned with re-integration the concrete and the rational
Bad
JB is most dogmatic hands waving and saliva speeting demagogue I have ever seen. If it wasn't Lex's show, I would stop listening after he dismissed Plato and Kant in one swoop. What a clown.
It's oversimplified certainly
Kant is generally a good philospher. I do not agree with this.
he isnt talking about philosophy. he is attacking kants geopoliticals insights. basically "cosmopolitan purpose" and "perpetual peace" are pure bs
while ‘intellectuals’ pontificate the 99% remain in bondage. bourgeois to the marrow.
kant is the destroyer of the enlightenment. reason and the pursuit of happiness are the only things we have.
Kant > Yaron
yaron>kant.
Jak sama nazwa lub przydomek owego pana na to wskazuje : Kant - to kanciarz a więc ktoś , kto kłamie .
Deceiver .
Please do more interviews like this! Awesome work Lex.
He obviously has not the faintest idea about what Kant is really about. Yes, Kant did not write much about history, he was more concerned about science, ethics, art and how to make the world more pieceful. Nobody can deal with everything. And about history Hegel said enough later.
He is funny and judgemental
Ask him if he has ever read kant..i honestly doubt it. He lacks the capacity to read proper philosophy
Either he doesn't understand Kant, or he finds Kent's propositions inconvenient
Damn, Kant? I really got a lot of good insight reading him. I’m damn sure no philosophy professor, but my limited mind does not agree.
It's one of the reasons Rand hates him. It's because so many of his views can be seen as good. But when it comes to the fundamentals, Rand disagrees.
Kant uses Science (Reason) to justify Christianity (Mysticism). Kant is overt about this , in many of his books. He doesn't hide this fact.
Also, you should see what Kant did concerning racism... BIG YIKES.
@@DeeperWithDiego Wow I never knew that when I read Kant in classes. But after looking it up, he doesn't even try to hid it. Why is his ideology still so dominant if those were his true beliefs?
@@ab_c4429 Kant appeals to "both" sides of this coin - science and religion, but through mysticism.
Let me explain as plainly as I can.
Kant holds that you create reality. This is in essence his entire philosophy.
If you are a man of Religion, if you want God to be true, then he is.
If you are a man of Reason, if you want global warming to be true, it is.
Neither approach requires any logic to arrive to. The method you arrive to any conclusion you want is through your feelings. Kant is very Platonic in this sense.
Take Ben Shapiro, a Jew. He has stated he is a student of Kant, and this is how he justifies his views.
Take Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian. He makes videos on Kant because he is also a student of Kant.
Now, take pretty much any modern "mystical" Scientist... And if you ask them about Kant, they'll agree as well.
Kant justifies any fantasy you want. You want America to be fundamentally racist? Why not. You want to teach white babies are born racist in Arizona schools, Kant agrees. You think God gives you morality, and without God you'd be a drooling raping monster? Sigmund Freud, Dennis Prager agree.
Do you hold the race, or society, or the tribe, or some collective above the individual? Kant was the originator of this.
Kant appeals to emotions, at the end of the day, he appeals to anyone who hates reality, and wants to live in the fake, made up world of their making so they can feel good about themselves... in the short term.
Kant is the most evil human being to have ever lived. He knew what he was doing, and wasn't shy about destroying the Enlightenment to make way for Religion.
@@DeeperWithDiego Thanks for that explenation. I will study this further, because it seems like almost anyone adopts Kant's belief. Even atheists.
I doubt any of These Guys ever read Kant in German
They didn't even read Kant in whatever language, I assure you.
principles are not inventions but discoveries, like math. geeeeeeez.
LOL this guy doesn't even know what he's talking about
Dude needs to learn some Kant first.
If I can convince you that your mind is not a reliable source of information regarding reality, I can eventually eliminate all your certainty about what is and is not real.... then I control you.
I hate Kant, too, but I'm with everyone else, he doesn't seem to get Kant.
Kant is aggravating because what he could have written on a bar napkin was placed inside a text twice as dense and convoluted as the bible
@@Havre_Chithra that's true
kant is wrong!!!!!!!!!!
How embarrassing for these two AKs.
He Kant be wrong... see what I did there? Har.
Harhar
And the guy in the Kippah doesn't divorce reason from reality? 🤣
Silly men here. Silly
My god it sounds like he’s saying the c word 🤣🤣🤣
🌈🌈🦄🦄
why you all mad in the comments? Kant said the realty cannot be ever reached and that's a very destructive idea as most of us aspire to build our world upon our understanding of reality. its the most undermining statement to any knowledge , makes knowledge or opinion tame
you can still know the world, even if you can only explore it from a spacesuit.
Reasonable conclusions are under no obligation to be what you consider destructive or constructive, nor to make you happy or reassured in any way. Kant makes a very good case that we cannot know anything near what we think we do. Humility is a better response than denial.
The end of the universe can never be reached, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to explore, understand and learn from the stuff we can reach.
@@michaelcriger6359 Kant is like the least humble philosopher you can read.
Omg what is he talking
“DeWive”
Kant uses Science (Reason) to justify Christianity (Mysticism). Kant is overt about this , in many of his books. He doesn't hide this fact.
Also, you should see what Kant did concerning racism... BIG YIKES.
I love how weaker minds use the word hate.
He was wrong. Facts, not an opinion.