20:05 *why care about religion* “But here’s Feuerbach saying that we don’t have to view these holy books in that light. Maybe they aren’t entirely useless, maybe we can view them as historical documents, anthropological works of art that help us understand the moral progress of humanity.”
I have listen to this episode for the second time, I intend to listen ten more time. Why , because I feel that my brain is being reshaped and that it will never go back to its old shape.
Well done. You laid out the main points of Feurbach very successfully. He has some good ideas. Although I don't think it's only humans that are self-conscious, not by a long shot. Thanks.
A constant in all philosophers thus far: arrogance. We talk about self contiousness today, as if we could even try the exercise of getting into a frogs head to unvail what it was thinking. We think of consciousness, of reason, of inteligence, of language as human characteristic, but it has already been prooved that at least the latter three are not an absolut quality but a continuum: animals comunicat in different levels of sophistication, and they have different levels of sophistication of their inteligence (mainly, according to brain size, but not exclusively). So why do we insist in viewing consciousness as something that some being either has or not? We seem to be grasping to our last resource to feel above animals: THIS IS WHAT MAKES US HUMAN. What if you were wrong? what if a frog had a rudimentary level of consciousness, such as ancient hominids had rudimentary of consciounes, if compared to our current one. What if this all is just different level of developement in our inteligence and perception?
I think you really need to drop the edgy and sophomoric questions and start with an understanding of basic philosophical terms then dig into epistemology and metaphysics. There is a difference between dualism and theory of MIND and consciousness, intelligence and knowledge and perception.
Lacan said God is unconscious. Zizek says that God needs our help, that we are closest to Him in our very distance from Him, in moments of utter alienation.
I don’t know why reading about the first point you made about philosophical superstars. It made me wonder. Isn’t it technically philosophy’s own fault that we haven’t achieved the dream Platon so desperately wanted? Not only as you said, do we have a whole canon to read to get to things more relevant to the contemporary world. It is also then treated as a very high brow endeavour. If philosophy truly wanted to achieve its goal, would it not be more suitable to just have a magazine and tabloid discussing the issues of Athens, and then insights from various philosophies throughout history? Instead of the arduous process we have currently. In any case not a literal philosophy magazine but more the idea the discourse again needs to bleed over into the common dialogue. Food for thought.
21:44 This applies to ideology in general does it not? Zizek might say that it’s our current landscape-that people claim to be “non-religious” and thusly non-ideological but are taken more than ever in that way.
15:52 from one extreme to another:p 26:42 myeah no, too many people take old testament into consideration and contradictions like "god is jealus" and "jealusy is sin" aren't working for their sanity...
Why is Feuerbach considered a materialist? He's not anything like Ernst Mach. Anti-Christianity doesn't necessarily mean materialist. Scientists doesn't necessarily mean materialist. I also think that to say distinctions aren't meaningful because they will change and cease to exist is like saying because your life will change your life now is meaningless. That argument is no different than the human hating of the religious.
I think Feuerbach focused too much on the concept of 'love' and as it may be subjective in terms of philosophy, I suggest changing the word 'love' to 'humanity' so it would make more sense. It has ties to the concept of rights and responsibilities.
Well the idea of Love implies many things specially in the religious, selfless sense, to love something or someone, you must know it ( or think you know it ) and you must also care for it, which implies that by caring and loving the object you also accept the rights and responsabilities you mention, So through this you can sort of see how Love and self-consciousness can be easily related
@@fenixman2 that's where a problem lies, accepting the rights of others does not necessarily mean I care or love for that person, it can just mean I respect themand as a human just carrying my responsibilities to respect other's right.
@@mingw2342 well yes but I think its going to also have alot to do with the context youre using for the words "rights" and "love" and so on, personally I think "Rights" are an interesting thing, because they always come from some sort of divine background, go back a thousand years and the only practically every right was some sort of "divine right", granted from the Mercy of God to his subjects out of, yes, Love. Then in the enlightenment we see that as we replace everything divine with human, we still need to mantain the concept of authority and "rights", so instead of having them come from god's merciful all-encompassing love, we replace them with a solidarity born from the our common ground as Humans, we grant each other rights not out of mercy but love of everything that being Human means, and through this Love we solidify the right. But even this latter interpretation of Rights are deeply related to the concept of Love.
It might be easier to see if starting with awareness, which plants, fungi and animals have arguably to some degree. How do humans and animals differ? Exclude the larger brain creatures (bears etc) for now and look at how birds increase their awareness, using sound, or dogs using scent, as a group, with awareness being external, versus humans internalizing awareness with the brain. Love is for birds this rising up of awareness thru the group interaction. It encompasses both the act of communicating and the result. Humans mimic Nature, but in this case there's a problem because of this essential difference. Can you see how the internet is a huge step forward in creating this same mechanism that birds etc already have? Intelligence consists of cleverness and awareness. Each bird is clever in their natural environment, but on their own, not so aware as humans. Humans have a large potential for both. Environmental degradation, machine noise, fences and so on reduce this awareness in other creatures in favor of cleverness. It weights the situation in favor of those with more cleverness. The question is whether awareness is additive and higher level intelligence and thus desirable, and if so, what it means that awareness and different flavors of cleverness are reduced. Cleverness is the ability to perceive and manipulate the manifested energy in the environment. If we step up to a planetary level and evaluate intelligence there as a collective, is it being diminished by an overemphasis on cleverness by humans, as in a inverse relationship? Group size becomes a major factor here, imo, in the creation of localized awareness. As the group size increases, so does cleverness. The economic system removes power from the individual and of course that individual tries to get it back. A giving economy will help here, with small DIY communities, quieter machines that don't stink, no fences etc. Higher level rights and responsibilities, not so human-centric, might avoid the current large scale "painting oneself into a corner" type of thing.
When I think of "who are the philosophers of today" I think of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. Or occasionally other thought leaders who move from one sphere (their own expertise) into the social or political sphere (which makes it accessible by making it impactful in your own life). Another example could be Peter Thiel. It would be hard to listen to the Harris / Peterson discussion (( ua-cam.com/video/jey_CzIOfYE/v-deo.html )) and not say this is an important philosophical discussion that pertains to our place and time in history. Today's philosophers are thought leaders who are accomplished and recognized in one field, pivot to outreach of some sort, and begin to contribute almost as successfully in that way.
The part about the frogs is actually a big thing about Feuerbach's (later Marx's) theory about the species-being and how it relates to alienation from self. The removal of self from the totality of I and Thou.
No, the greatest insights in your life didn't come from the store clerk or the homeless man. This is just absurd pandering. This is even made worse in that it is portraying Feuerbach who was in fact a philosophy professor.
20:05 *why care about religion* “But here’s Feuerbach saying that we don’t have to view these holy books in that light. Maybe they aren’t entirely useless, maybe we can view them as historical documents, anthropological works of art that help us understand the moral progress of humanity.”
Talk on Feuerbach begins at 4:20
Thats the beauty of this guy
vry nas
I have listen to this episode for the second time, I intend to listen ten more time. Why , because I feel that my brain is being reshaped and that it will never go back to its old shape.
man a year late but my family name is feuerbach I wonder if hes an ancestor
“The power of miracle is the power of imagination” -Ludwig Feuerbach
Good summary but too much extraneous stuff.
oh god your pronounciation of Zizek is hillarious
Well done. You laid out the main points of Feurbach very successfully. He has some good ideas. Although I don't think it's only humans that are self-conscious, not by a long shot. Thanks.
Thats what makes those ancient greek thinkers so great, there are no modern equivalents.
A constant in all philosophers thus far: arrogance. We talk about self contiousness today, as if we could even try the exercise of getting into a frogs head to unvail what it was thinking. We think of consciousness, of reason, of inteligence, of language as human characteristic, but it has already been prooved that at least the latter three are not an absolut quality but a continuum: animals comunicat in different levels of sophistication, and they have different levels of sophistication of their inteligence (mainly, according to brain size, but not exclusively). So why do we insist in viewing consciousness as something that some being either has or not? We seem to be grasping to our last resource to feel above animals: THIS IS WHAT MAKES US HUMAN. What if you were wrong? what if a frog had a rudimentary level of consciousness, such as ancient hominids had rudimentary of consciounes, if compared to our current one. What if this all is just different level of developement in our inteligence and perception?
I think you really need to drop the edgy and sophomoric questions and start with an understanding of basic philosophical terms then dig into epistemology and metaphysics. There is a difference between dualism and theory of MIND and consciousness, intelligence and knowledge and perception.
Lacan said God is unconscious. Zizek says that God needs our help, that we are closest to Him in our very distance from Him, in moments of utter alienation.
You can’t listen to this on iOS app, but you can on my laptop... any idea why? I like listening to this sort of thing while walking my dog.
Great stuff, thanks!
I don’t know why reading about the first point you made about philosophical superstars. It made me wonder. Isn’t it technically philosophy’s own fault that we haven’t achieved the dream Platon so desperately wanted? Not only as you said, do we have a whole canon to read to get to things more relevant to the contemporary world. It is also then treated as a very high brow endeavour. If philosophy truly wanted to achieve its goal, would it not be more suitable to just have a magazine and tabloid discussing the issues of Athens, and then insights from various philosophies throughout history? Instead of the arduous process we have currently.
In any case not a literal philosophy magazine but more the idea the discourse again needs to bleed over into the common dialogue.
Food for thought.
21:44 This applies to ideology in general does it not? Zizek might say that it’s our current landscape-that people claim to be “non-religious” and thusly non-ideological but are taken more than ever in that way.
This was so helpful! Great video, just subbed
Thank you very much. This was really helpfull.
I like your style, youre like the Dan Carlin of philosophy (in your approach and speaking style).
thanks so much for creating this, very interesting ideas
in the Mosaic original religion God was mainly: the authority behind the legislation. All the rest are later developments.
"What makes a frog, a frog? This is antiquity in a nutshell."
-Stephen West
15:52 from one extreme to another:p
26:42 myeah no, too many people take old testament into consideration and contradictions like "god is jealus" and "jealusy is sin" aren't working for their sanity...
It was before logical contradictions were formalized by Aristoteles. So no insane due to 2500BC standards.
Finally! A guy that tells it like it is. Bravo for this philosophy ... and your clever way of presenting it.
So annoying to hear people say Feuerbach was the atheist philosopher when all he wanted was to understand the concept of religion.
Humans learn to be self conscious. We aren't born with greater ability to be self conscious than a horse or bird.
Why is Feuerbach considered a materialist? He's not anything like Ernst Mach. Anti-Christianity doesn't necessarily mean materialist. Scientists doesn't necessarily mean materialist.
I also think that to say distinctions aren't meaningful because they will change and cease to exist is like saying because your life will change your life now is meaningless. That argument is no different than the human hating of the religious.
Who's the Plato of 2020? Giorgio Agamben!
Great video, thank you very much for the research!
Damn. This is some deep stuff, and i love it.. keep up the great work!
I think Feuerbach focused too much on the concept of 'love' and as it may be subjective in terms of philosophy, I suggest changing the word 'love' to 'humanity' so it would make more sense. It has ties to the concept of rights and responsibilities.
Well the idea of Love implies many things specially in the religious, selfless sense, to love something or someone, you must know it ( or think you know it ) and you must also care for it, which implies that by caring and loving the object you also accept the rights and responsabilities you mention, So through this you can sort of see how Love and self-consciousness can be easily related
@@fenixman2 that's where a problem lies, accepting the rights of others does not necessarily mean I care or love for that person, it can just mean I respect themand as a human just carrying my responsibilities to respect other's right.
@@mingw2342 well yes but I think its going to also have alot to do with the context youre using for the words "rights" and "love" and so on, personally I think "Rights" are an interesting thing, because they always come from some sort of divine background, go back a thousand years and the only practically every right was some sort of "divine right", granted from the Mercy of God to his subjects out of, yes, Love. Then in the enlightenment we see that as we replace everything divine with human, we still need to mantain the concept of authority and "rights", so instead of having them come from god's merciful all-encompassing love, we replace them with a solidarity born from the our common ground as Humans, we grant each other rights not out of mercy but love of everything that being Human means, and through this Love we solidify the right. But even this latter interpretation of Rights are deeply related to the concept of Love.
It might be easier to see if starting with awareness, which plants, fungi and animals have arguably to some degree. How do humans and animals differ? Exclude the larger brain creatures (bears etc) for now and look at how birds increase their awareness, using sound, or dogs using scent, as a group, with awareness being external, versus humans internalizing awareness with the brain.
Love is for birds this rising up of awareness thru the group interaction. It encompasses both the act of communicating and the result.
Humans mimic Nature, but in this case there's a problem because of this essential difference. Can you see how the internet is a huge step forward in creating this same mechanism that birds etc already have?
Intelligence consists of cleverness and awareness. Each bird is clever in their natural environment, but on their own, not so aware as humans. Humans have a large potential for both.
Environmental degradation, machine noise, fences and so on reduce this awareness in other creatures in favor of cleverness. It weights the situation in favor of those with more cleverness. The question is whether awareness is additive and higher level intelligence and thus desirable, and if so, what it means that awareness and different flavors of cleverness are reduced.
Cleverness is the ability to perceive and manipulate the manifested energy in the environment. If we step up to a planetary level and evaluate intelligence there as a collective, is it being diminished by an overemphasis on cleverness by humans, as in a inverse relationship? Group size becomes a major factor here, imo, in the creation of localized awareness. As the group size increases, so does cleverness. The economic system removes power from the individual and of course that individual tries to get it back. A giving economy will help here, with small DIY communities, quieter machines that don't stink, no fences etc.
Higher level rights and responsibilities, not so human-centric, might avoid the current large scale "painting oneself into a corner" type of thing.
Zizek is pretty close to philosopher king
17:30
Mit Puepsen geht alles besser!!🤩🧐🤮👀🤑🤢😫
fyi: that is not how you pronounce zizek
Your title is Feuerbach on Religion. Just a reminder.
When I think of "who are the philosophers of today" I think of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.
Or occasionally other thought leaders who move from one sphere (their own expertise)
into the social or political sphere (which makes it accessible by making it impactful in your own life).
Another example could be Peter Thiel.
It would be hard to listen to the Harris / Peterson discussion
(( ua-cam.com/video/jey_CzIOfYE/v-deo.html ))
and not say this is an important philosophical discussion that pertains to
our place and time in history.
Today's philosophers are thought leaders who are accomplished and recognized
in one field, pivot to outreach of some sort, and begin to contribute almost
as successfully in that way.
Oh, and Ayn Rand. You mustn't forget Ayn!
Chomsky
Instead of spending valuable time learning a bit more about Feuerbach I've just heard a guy talking about frogs for 5 minutes...
The part about the frogs is actually a big thing about Feuerbach's (later Marx's) theory about the species-being and how it relates to alienation from self. The removal of self from the totality of I and Thou.
Feuerbach is bringing forth both a dialectic and metaphysical analysis of being
Have you listened to Jordan Peterson?
Talia Spencer I sure have, son!
Peterson is reaktionär
No, the greatest insights in your life didn't come from the store clerk or the homeless man. This is just absurd pandering. This is even made worse in that it is portraying Feuerbach who was in fact a philosophy professor.