Video

This is true my ancestors came from there until they became mexicans they told me

This talk is disappointingly shallow and generalistic

Ever since the Zoroastrians invented monotheism which was handed down to the Israelites via Abraham and then onto the Christian’s by Constantine and then onto the Muslims by Mohamed, the world has been arguing about whether this allegorical being really exists or not But it is like arguing if Raskolnikov actually existed or not, both are fictitious characters, both are mere inventions and any discussion about their reality is based on so many presumptions about perception and a concrete elf existing noumena works that it is surprising Kant took it so seriously As well as that his ontological scepticism did not take into account mathematics which is neither an a priori nor an a posterior proposition but arrived purely through deductive logic

Very clear.

Radagast!

Is there a reason this book is 70$ on amazon?

Excellent messaging for us the love to paint. Thank you!

Its real, i left my heart there, and i no longer feel it

I knowing know I'm late to the party, but holy moly. My life is changed after watching this video. So many of these thoughts I've had myself and am exploring but you have helped further broaden the scope of my lens. Huge fan of the work you're doing, guys. I resonate with a lot of what was being said and find the concept of genetic Memory fascinating.

Silly man

Hyberborea mentioned.

Anyone holding the trope that Ayn Rand merely regurgitated Nietzsche will have that myth shattered by listening to the last 10 minutes of this video.

But is universal subjectivism merely a subjective construction? Kant's philosophy, and all philosophies based on it. is self-contradictory. If I cannot know what is true, than there is no reason for me to believe that what Kant asserts is true either. All forms of radical skepticism fall into the same trap, and have since Gorgias and the ancient pyrrhonists.

This feels so good to hear someone as talented as Kaja Norum experience something many aspiring classical artist go through when dealing with the many teachers/professors through out our journey. I had art teachers in high-school and university that talks about how a brown canvas brought them to tears. To hear that you were told to "belong to your time" really hits me, my AP Art History teacher in high school tell me that I should move on and focus on the movement in my "lifetime". I also ended up skipping those classes and they were relentless in letting me know my desire to paint classically was "outdated" and "its been done"... "be original".

20 churches in Italy claiming to have the foreskin of Jesus and 20 kitsch painter mouths in Norway claiming to the have the foreskin of Odd Nerdrum.

First is it 100% true that early metronomes were based on a bpm scale? Not inaccurate or broken, just different like Celsius vs Fahrenheit...?

Carl Jungs work would compliment a lot of Nerdrums philosophy and understanding in the way he approaches his work.

Too many interruptions

This is poor advice. There is nothing toxic about linseed oil. There is something toxic about turpentine. The video is basically: “I found that looking at flowers and rinsing my mouth with bleach caused severe mouth ulcers, so I stopped looking at flowers”.

Fantastic! Although I was out of my depth both in philosopy and art, it opened ways of understanding.

Ignoring art historical facts to confirm your (or Odd’s) views obfuscates the truth which seems to contradict your whole shtick.

Kant provided a solid foundation for empirical realism. In fact, it is the only solid foundation for empirical realism, which avoids both skepticism and dogmatism. I find it hard to imagine anything that contrasts more greatly with postmodern relativism than empirical realism.

The difference between phenomena and noumena is, to some extent, artificial or partial.

Arguing for the "existence of God" is missing the point, if ordinary existence is what is meant. Human beings have rational capacities, but such do not exhaust their powers. Ordinary existence is of primarily finite objects, or, preferably, of primarily finite processes.

The reality is classical culture [based on the transcendentals of unity, beauty, goodness and truth] was being undermined by the scientific materialism of the Enlightenment. Kant's aim was to defend these ideals [largely in his Critiques of Practical Reason and Judgement], but with the focus here on epistemology/ Critique of Pure Reason, this has been missed. Why? Because today's thinkers are largely coming at it from the epistemological perspective. If they were more historically/ classically trained, other persepectives would be opened up to them.

Ok

"How Immanuel Kant Undercut Classical Culture and Led to Postmodernism". The title is wrong. Kant defended classical culture from the dogmatism/ rationalism of the Enlightenment... hence the Critique of Pure Reason. The title should be "How Immanuel Kant Undercut the Enlightenment and Led to Postmodernism"

Seems to me that Hicks has worked his way back to Kant, or projected a modern pre-occupation [the critique of postmodernism] onto Kant. This is where the history of thought [think Vico] comes into its own in order to truly understand and engage fully with a truly great thinker.

Give Kant his due. Who is seriously going to argue against optics today... that sensory data hits the eye and that the brain thereby represents an image. I think what we also need to do, to truly apprecaite Kant who is a great thinker, is to not solely focus on his epistemology at the expense of his wider thought.

How could Kant be considered the father of postmodernism, when he was in fact the defender of the classical faith against the dogmatics of the Enlightenment? It takes one heck of an interpretation of Kant to paint him with that [enlightened] brush. lol

Seems to me Kant was fighting to defend classical culture against the likes of Rousseau and Hume etc. Kant's main aim was to keep a foot solidly in the normative/ universal world with his distinction between practical and theoretical reason. The problem was those in his wake swept the practical part aside. Kant's main enemy is fanaticism/ dogmatism, whether of a religious or rationalist nature. You say Kant says 'we can not know the basic things of life', but you should also say that Kant says these basic things are also normative beliefs that we belive insofar as we are practically exercise our moral/ rational agency. I think you're focusing on his skepticism... without highlighting that the skepticism is only directed at theory... which is actually common sense. When Kant says we can not know reality, all he is saying is that we can not know it in purely theoretical terms. Over and above that, and more importantly, Kant says we are constrained to practically we believe in reality. This serves to frustrate the ideologue on the one hand, and defends common sense on the other. I think you're giving Kant a bad rap here. Sure, you can take half of Kant and say he was a precursor to postmodernism, the enemy of classical culture, BUT you can also take the other half of Kant to say that he was defending classical culture [making room for faith] against the onslaught of the Enlightenment. This second half of the sentence negates the first. I think you haven't recognized fully the distinctions between classical culture and the Enlightenment... and tend to blur the two. In sum, I think you've over-emphasized Kant's epistemology, taking it too seriously/ literally at the expense of his wider thought.

14 notes a second is not that hard if your technique is good. Just set the metronome to 60 and play a two octave scale beginning and ending on consecutive ticks. I experimented with this and made a video of me doing it if anyone is interested.

Moscheles, born 1794, heard Beethoven play and was part of the musical world of his age. He put metronome marks to Beethoven's piano sonatas. For Op2#1, in 2/2 time, he write minim=108. At 108 minims per minute (single beat), it's not unreasonably fast at all. In fact, it's often played faster than that. With Wim's double beat theory, you would have 54 minims per minute, which is ridiculously slow.

The clue to explain the whale symbol, may be biblical, aka - something from the book of Job. As for the 'colour' white does not exist. White is an illusion produced by the brain when the retina is stimulated by a combination of natural wavelengths of light. There is no white in a rainbow or outside the brain. There is no wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that corresponds to white. White is a lie. However this science may not have been known to Melville and likely the colour white represents something along the lines of what you were discussing in the video. God, purity, the infinite, the unknowable or unattainable or some other such notion. Too bad we will never know. I like the idea that Ahab is just challenging nature or god, like Prometheus. I don't agree that Ahab is trying to escape death - I think he is driven by passionate hatred and anger and the idea that man cannot completely control nature, as created by god. I would smite the sun, if it offended me. Its self destruction by ego, not too different from the sin of Adam and Eve, what always pissed off the Greek gods - hubris. The style may be Shakespearean but the template is the bible (this coming from a pagan) - call me Ishmael.

Very interesting . They speak about religion, The greeks and christianity, the greek gods may have given a more free way of life, without sin, and the scare of eternal damnation . But listen what did Jesus say that offended anyone ? He said Love your enemy, that means the greeks, that means the Hindus, that means your neighbour, Palestine too . Remember the Samaritan who helped the poor fellow on the ground, the samaritan didnt even ask for his belief, he just helped him and even payed for his stay at the inn . We have been given the true word of our creator and his Son, Jesus . Thats scary, suddenly we know what our creators intentions for our lives, its not to religionize, but to belive . Love you guys ! all the best from here, stay cool . 45:30 Nerdrum says were in Marxist times, and the irony is that Socialists are godless, they are atheists, but use the gospel freely witouth crediting the author, likewise sociology . And the conservative rightside, are usually believers . Astronomer Fred Hoyle said, it was better back in the aristocratic times, for they didnt have to rely on comittys for wild science projects, some crazy rich aristocrat could blow off a million dollars on a wild expedition, like Uncle Scrooge . Before socialsim bought the entire education system and institutions, kings were the artist customer .

You should interview swedish professor Anders Kaliff about Nordic bronze age (and indoeuropean culture/mythology) as the cradle. Also professor Anders Winroth in Oslo have similar views!!!

And then Jung turned it into a mystical cult, this strengthens Freud even more

This is COPERNICAN about ‘the guy’ who said his work was Copernican. Kant has wrought havoc through his idea of the construction of reality by the human mind. The morass of ultimate subjectivity we have reached in the first quarter of the 21st century- e.g., I am a woman, says a man, because I say I am a woman - goes directly back to Kant.

Fun to listen but totally disagree lol

Dude, pick a lane. You're jumbling up the timelines and the DNA. And your story is just wrong.

I've come back to this horror story... Where is this masterpiece? This must be published! It's something that could be used as a cornerstone for building against the modern deception against creativity. I think you are a pillar in the darkness.

wow this was a really interesting video!

In 1808 Beethoven organised and performed in a huge concert of his own music. The concert lasted 4 hours (6.30 - 10.30) If you add together the lengths of all the pieces (symphonies 5 and 6, choral fantasy, etc etc) it comes to just under 3 hours (played at the speeds we all use). This is with no breaks between pieces and no interval. If you take into account an interval (the concert was in two halves) and how long it takes to change performers etc etc, 4 hours is reasonable. If they had played the pieces at half speed (as suggested above) they wouldn't have been able to perform the concert within the 4 hours. It's a silly theory.

Vv vvvvvvv vvvv!

Just to clarify - Stephen Hicks means 'the latter part of the 1700s' not 1800s, when he is talking about David Hume.

Just bought my copy today. I have a Barnes & Noble literally a minute drive from my work. Drove straight there to buy my copy, and I’m immensely excited to dig into it.

Is there a way to communicate with Mr. Freckeus?

46:00 About the Sublime: “I am sick of hearing of the sublimity of Milton” - Mary Wollstonecraft, "Thoughts on the Education of Daughters", 1787 This was written 3 good years before Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", which should make anyone pause to rethink whether the Sublime really rose to prominence after 1790 because of an obscure philosophy book by a difficult philosopher. As it is, recent historians have done a lot to correct this misview; i can point out two studies: Caroline van Eck (ed), "The Early Modern Reception and Dissemination of Longinus’ Peri Hupsous in Rhetoric, the Visual Arts, Architecture and the Theatre" Thomas Matthew Vozar, "Abstracted Sublimities: Milton, Longinus and the Sublime in the Seventeenth Century" And recently, Kevin Killeen in "The Unknowable In Early Modern Thought" has suggested that the idea of the sublime is indissociable from the rise of science and of the use of scientific instruments such as the microscope and the telescope, whose radical dissolutions of human senses of scale have trained humans to look at nature with renewed awe. This is highly ironic, to think that the Sublime, seemingly so irrational, is the product of the pursuit of reason. But then again, any 17c sceptic like Pierre Bayle could have told you that reason, taken too far, turns upon itself: “It [reason] is a guide that lads one astray; and philosophy can be compared to some powders that are so corrosive that, after they have eaten away the infected flesh of the wound, they then devour the living flesh, rot the bones, and penetrate to the very marrow. Philosophy at first refutes errors. But if it is not stopped at this point, it goes on to attack truths. And when it is left on its own, it goes so far that it no longer knows where it is and can find no stopping place.” (Bayle) This is one of the great ironies (and tragedies, if you're so inclined) of modernity; that the reason which Mr. Hick puts on a pedestal, the reason that led to his beloved Enlightenment, also has this dark side that causes contrary consequences. This messiness is the essence of history. Unfortunately, Mr. Hicks shows no interest in understanding the history of ideas in this wonderful maze of unforeseen side effects; he's only concerned with (1) controversially pegging Kant with irrationalism and (2) making him a forerunner of "postmodernism". This is simply the culture wars; it's about making bad history to darken his enemies. There's no intention to actually provided disinterested, specialized information.

Most of the tenets of her Objectivism have been kind of flatten by quantum physics and the role of consciousness in the fabric of reality. I find her ideals more like an egocentric trip than anything else. Plus just look around and see what capitalism has done for the world… we are just cooking the planet with the 1% laughing to the bank🙄

I hate to say it, but what a bunch of reactionary dorks these people are.