Kant’s Ethics: Homophobia, Child Killing--and Derek Chauvin
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- The first part is an intro to Kant’s ethics.
The second part of the video talks about Kant's homophobia, his defense of killing "illegitimate" children--and what it has to do with Derek Chauvin.
Kant's Philosophy | Why we Need a New Enlightenment:
• Kant's Philosophy | Wh...
Another video about Kant:
BAD Philosophy Videos! (Philosophy Tube on Kant's Philosophy):
• BAD Philosophy Videos!...
0:00 Kant's Moral Philosophy
12:13 And: What's Wrong with It
Sources:
Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals. (Mary Gregor tr.). Cambridge University Press: 2017.
On homosexuality: p. 68
On servants: p. 101
On death penalty: p. 116
On “illegitmate” children, p. 118
Friedrich Nietzsche, “Metaphysics of the Hangman”: Twilight of the Idols, “The Four Great Errors” (7).
----
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
Thanks to Jim Lei Wanjun for selecting images for illustrations.
Many thanks for your support!
A general question on your proflicity theory. Do you think its related to the age group which is culturally predominant?
I see "(Role) Sincerity" as being the mode of identity of older people (elder matriarchs, patriarchs, etc.). "Authenticity" as being the 25 - 45 mode of "self-assured adulthood". And proflicity as being *adolescent*.
As we go from children -> teens -> adults -> elders we morph from: derivative of our parent's identity; developing our own with others; having our own and pursuing it; others needing us to occupy stable roles.
Have we moved to an era of profilicity only in the sense that adolescents now drive culture? So we are in an era where people without stable senses of identity who use /the group/ to form it, are driving what it means to construct an identity?
(And likewise, was the 20th century the era when the elders lost their cultural power.)
@Ecureuil Superheros ancient greece?
Doing anything on Wilfrid Sellers anytime soon? - a UPitt alum
But what about Hannah Arendt's assertion that that guy who was responsible for genocide was not understanding Kantian ethics?
Really enjoying your videos. I’ve found people who speak German seem to make complex things understandable in English for some reason. First noticed this when I’d listen carefully to the F1 driver Micheal Schumacher and the executives at BMW when I worked there. In the end though I’ll stick with Adam Smith’s moral Sentiments. Appreciate Kant’s approach and brilliance but in the end doesn’t seem exactly scientific to me. There’s no double blind studies or lab coats in any of Kant’s conclusions or proof of any of his insights. No map of the mind showing areas of the brain where the forms of intuition are in the subject or part of the object. If we’re wrong In thinking they’re in the mind then where are they? In the end a shell game between the noumena and the phenomena I guess. Like Nietzsche said of Kant and of Christianity, it’s a form of Platonism.
I love the disclaimer at the beginning. Always good to remember the reality about the platform we're using.
What do I do with it now? I'm still watching the video
@@aletheiaverite close the platform after the video or seek with intention instead of numbly scrolling. just be aware of the nature and function of the environment you are engaging yourself within.
humbly just my 2 cents :)
@@aletheiaverite realise that there is probably no human interaction or experience that does not have some sort of negative consequence and that if you where to truly rebel against every "system" or "hierarchy" and live life for yourself you will just end up dying in agony, or more likely, creating a bunch of new ones. I think the disclaimer message is pretty sanctimonious tbh, and it was one of things that put me off this channel- it's sort of yearning need to be "against the grain", I find that's usually just an excuse for creating another, more exclusive, less pluralistic "grain" so to speak.
@@hamishwhitehenderson5197 I agree with the disclaimer. I don't know how many hours I wasted on facebook before I quit it. The platform really is designed to keep you hooked and mine your data, if you quit social media et.c. you'll be surprised how much time you gain. I think the disclaimer is a good reminder.
That warning at the beginning is fantastic. Really makes me stop and think whether I actually want to watch the video, or am just feeding an addiction. Thank you for being so responsible.
Your wants are conditioned by your surroundings. No escape.
Don't take the warning at the beginning all too seriously, though. Cause if you do, you might end up in what Moeller here called the "psychological pathology of ethics" and regard your "addiction" to CZcams as a moral problem!
Pink Moon :)
Spectacular?
With regards to a defence against homophobia, since the idea is mentioned, I would like to argue that one shouldn't say: "being gay isn't a choice, therefore I cannot be blamed or held accountable for my homosexual behaviour", alternatively one should argue that: "If it were a choice, and it isn't precisely clear whether it is or not, there would be nothing immoral about having made such a choice to enjoy romantic evenings with, or have sex with, or marry someone who is of the same sex, or who is transgender/doesn't fit inside the gender binary."
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 I’m dumbfounded by the notion that ‘without religion there is no real solid moral foundation for anything’ - I mean my personal favorite is Wittgenstein’s public language argument, but there are several arguments for moral realism that aren’t justified via religion. Social norms aren’t necessarily arbitrary, rather infested with ideology - but that doesn’t mean we can’t find truth. Concerning the last sentence, I’d argue that that which is moral must take every sentient experience into account, so in this context we could say it means consent. Neither murder nor pederasty adequately address consent, however homosexuality does (I’m assuming the encounter is consensual, but if not this clearly doesn’t apply) - like homosexuality does take into account the self interest and experience of the participants -> resides within the function of language and doesn’t stop us from getting closer to spirt.
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 a) it is our function to search for truth, rather than something we should do b) no, how is it arbitrary?
Kant shows us how the most critical thinking people can be complete assholes.
I disagree. It is possible that he is merely trying his best to fit his model of moral science into real life.
We wouldn't say a a scientist that test his new medicine on guinea pigs as asshole, even though both the scientist and Kant are merely trying to find a scientific solution to save humanity, and in the process harmed lives.
An asshole is someone that already know that doing so hurts people without benefits, but proceed to do so anyway.
@@williampan29 I truly struggle to see any common ground between a scientist testing a medicine and a philosopher (or a scientist for that matter ) being either a pleasant or unpleasant person.
@spiritualanarchist8162
Supposed a scientist observe an ecosystem. He came up with the theory that the ecosystem is being destroyed by avian species. Therefore he proposed that in order to maintain that ecosystem, when a person encounters a beautiful bird of that ecosystem fighting over a pray against a snake, he should help the snake kill the bird.
Do you think the scientist is being an asshole?
That is the same mentality of Kant when he wrote the book. He created a scientific morality model, and then deduced that homosexuality and child killing fits according to his model.
Therefore Kant is oversimplifying reality, and was unaware that his model is not neutral but heavily culturally biased, just like the mentioned scientist perhaps oversimplifing birds as the sole invasive species.
But they are merely creating a scientific model; they do not themselves enjoy killing or making creatures/human suffer, which to most of us, is what an asshole do.
For me, only when there is archeological evidence that Kant was still alive, had a debate with someone that properly refuted his argument that homophobia is scientifically morally just, and he proceeded anyway and even felt delighted when seeing gays suffer, that will made him an asshole.
@@williampan29 Well it's partly just the time he lived in Being gay was as coïnciderend an aberration, a sin , etc, etc . And gay sex was a criminal offence until the 50thies in the U.K
The comment about children is a bit harder to comprehend. My point is that philosophers, scientists and what have you are just humans. And humans have flaws, even those with great insight have been known to be very narrow minded on daily topics. . I believe it was Socrates (Plato ? ) that declared that women had the same intelligence as donkeys ! Talk about being an a-hole !
@@spiritualanarchist8162 fail to consider a party's perspective isn't really a flaw, especially a moral flaw, because like the professor said, we are amoral by nature. Morally does not objectively exist and self-evident.
If one day chicken and cows become so intelligent and they started a war and defeated us humans. They capture you and claim you are an asshole that fails to consider the feelings of chicken and cows when you eat them, what would you likely to say?
"I'm not an asshole. I just eat you like everyone around me do."
Thus, there's no objective definition of asshole. For we, like Kant, merely adapt and see the world like others 99% of the time.
You see Kant as assholes, because your present environment starts telling you to pay more attention to gay rights and children rights.
I'm seriously aiming to binge watch all of Professor Moeller's video essays. It's highly addictive Please upload more!
Bitte mehr davon!
My attention has been attracted via the promotion of this channel, and I am not disappointed.
I think that for you to affirm that Kant's view on these issues is influenced by his time, you would need to show that his opinion on these issues doesn't follow from his theory. Because simply appealing to our intuition on these issues, which for most of us would say that Kant is wrong, only means this : either Kant has found what is actually good and we need to overcome our intuitions, either our intuitions are for some reason correct and Kant didn't apply his theory correctly/made a false theory or maybe everybody's wrong. So it's a bit like you assumed our intuition was correct, but how can I know if my intuition on something is better than anyone else? Including dead people.
Thank you for you clarity in both thoughts and words. A real pleasure to watch!
In defense of “zeal”, it’s very difficult to combat “zeal” without using your own “zeal”.
If a threat to you refuses to engage in honest dialogue, then you can only respond in some strong act of counter-conviction in your own defense. It’s not out of the ordinary for such displays of defensive conviction to come off as uncompromising and dogmatic.
So dogma is everlasting
Nice try, except its people of the right and in the centre wanting to have honest dialogue. The left absolutely refuses to do this. They attempt to deplatform anyone who disagrees with them by shutting down lectures, harassing and abusing dissident academics and political commentstors, doxing, threats of violence and so on. They call anyone who disagrees with them "nazis" and say these so-called "nazis" should be attacked, never debated. And then clowns like you have the audacity to act like it's the left who want honest dialogue. No, the left HATES dialogue. Dialogue means two parties communicating, but they dont think the other side should exist, let alone be able to communicate their ideas.
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 "Everything other than your own power is a threat to your own power." This is false. A world in which you alone had power would be a mad house..
Try to imagine yourself a master with a slave that has no drive or motive power of their own. Just a lump of flesh. What would you do with such a (non)person? Impotently issue them orders they can't enact?
Worse, imagine a world of things with no powers - no potentialities to actualize. What would there be to do with them?
It is because "other" has power we do not that we act at all. To alone have power is to be devoid of means, and thus to have no power.
@@bigfat4172 Kind of. Action is everlasting, and you're forced to make choices or at least do stuff, even the choice to not move is a choice of what action to take.
There has to be some cross over of values for compromise to occur. Otherwise, you're forced to submit or fight.
If you doubt all your positions including that of self-preservation, you function as if you are submitting.
You need to hold on to some position(s) arbitrarily, at least as value judgements, for you to oppose anything.
@@xenoblad I don't think you read what I wrote radically enough. What I wrote should be read as a critique of opposition itself. At least as any final end.
My claim would be that it is not the power of others but their lack of power (weaknesses) that prevents the full expression of my own powers.
"... for you to oppose anything." Why weaken yourself in that way?
Some minor feedback: could you use a more readable font for the warning? At lower playback quality, thin lines are erased, which works against the font you’ve used.
I’m watching at high quality, there is something funky about it. I might not have needed to but I think I paused to read it. For some reason it does not jump out as clear as it could, not sure if its the font, color, size spacing some mix or something else.
Fantastic episode. Thank you. Will you be discussing Lacan's essay "Kant with Sade?" Derrida has an interesting discussion of Kant's account of lying (and Arendt not discussing it in The Modern Lie). And Derrida takes up Kant's view of the death penalty in his death penalty seminars.
Very interesting, thanks so much for this kind of videos!
I just googled "wokeism" to test whether I understood its meaning. Except for one article from India, all the top results were from right-wing American sources. They defined wokeism using phrases such as the following: "the new state religion," "seeks to create a Marxist utopia," "trying to destroy all of western civilization." The conservatives using this language did not seem to realize that they were contradicting themselves in their passion to condemn wokeism.
You use "wokeism" in a way that seems neutral, as if it objectively names a well-defined political ideology.
But I could not find any other person on the internet who uses the term this way.
It would be really helpful if you could explain what you mean by it, and why you're using such a loaded term in a philosophical discussion.
By "wokeism" I mean the civil religious, dogmatic, hypermoralist discourse in media and politics that evolved out of "identity politics" in the "West." I agree with leftist critics of identity politics (e.g "A Leftist Critique of the Principles of Identity, Diversity, and Multiculturalism" by Richard Anderson-Connolly, the works by Adolph Reed Jr. and Walter Benn Michaels) that there is no Marxism in "identity politics", but that it is the "left wing of neo-liberalism" (Adolph Reed Jr.). Also, it clearly doesn't "destroy Western civilization" since it is a specific Western phenomenon rooted in a secularized Christianity and tied to capitalism--which is clearly noticed in non-Western countries like China. I think that "wokeism" subverts the political left in the West. Even mildly socialist leftists like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have been sidelined by their increasingly "woke" parties. Wokeism is an ersatz left, and the "right" (Jordan Peterson, the book "Cynical Theories") has succesfully created the false narrative that you found through Google. Wokeism serves the right since it makes the left no longer left.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027
That was my issue too, I was kinda shocked, stopped and looked at comment section to see if anyone was bothered.
So
that's really strange reply,
given that it's basically just newest iteration of "politically correctct" "sjw" "cultural Marxist" and whatever insult they want to throw at anyone criticizing bigotry & suggesting people treat each other better.
Those people (trolls, online abusers, some in academia, unfortunately) added -ism, to woke.
Can it be neutral if no one is claiming it for themselves, and you're also criticizing it? (in a way I don't really get, I must admit, but it sure feels like both-siding)
And seriously, for what I see called wokeism in the wild, no, it does not make left no longer left, it would be making left more humane an appealing to more people (if anti identity politics guys were not ruining it)
It's a false dichotomy.
And I say this as a person who felt that as a child/teen in now non existent socialist country.
(double standards and injustices). I wanted things better *within* and wanted to be politician (as 14yo in '87) before adults decided wars are the answer.
And looking back we were pretty progressive country. It was noticeable but wasn't _that bad_ (especially after understanding the "west" since I got internet, made friends and listen to regular people, some things still stand despite retraditionalization).
Families' values from previous generations are not easy to go away, and efforts were being made....
I'm not sure about labels for myself, but I sure don't want to have anything with capitalism, exploitation, conservativism, hierarchies and treating anyone as second class...
One can't "neoliberalism" me.
(I have something to say about those sidelined, but my comment is too long already)
@@al.the. Al the Al and Frank : use of the term "woke" and "wokeism" makes perfect sense if you are immersed (but not too immersed) in a social mileu where some people can thus be described. It conveys an element of hyper-moralism but also of corporate pandering, a hint of bad faith and/or ignorance, as well as a desire to strictly censor and/or victimize anyone who does not carry the same attitude. Like with most terms, looking for a precise definition is a fool's errand.
Check out the back catalogue of the late great Michael Brooks on TMBS and his discussions with Adolph Reed JR
@Frank Marcuz
It is a great honor to critic one of the luminous ever who revolutionised philosophy with his entries.
What comes natural and what comes as a learn behaviour. The word NICE, you will not be surprised seeing any other thing than generosity from a nice person. It come with a territory and cannot be equated with morality. The means justify the ends.
While moral standards are an effort within a personality codes in a civilised socuety. You are a medical doctor by training, the end justify the means in case of upholding good ethical conducts. You imitate and play idiocy as you are guided by principles which makes you to keep it straight and narrow. Avoiding all temptation knowing the end shall be insignificant to your true natural self, but for the purpose of morality and call of duty [professionalism sake]. It is what the lecture demonstrates. The end justifies the means. You end that way because of the job description, therefore you have acted within good morality interest by persuasion than by what comes natural.
As the lecture inspired a difference between morality and what comes natural. Disobedience was a first sin of Man in the Garden of Eden. Hence morality is a learn behaviour which requires an effort to avoid any form of temptation. It is not you true natural intuition but an engineered or a perceived outcome. That's what good moral standing is all about. Over comes all challenges of temptation, what matter is of speculative measure of a premeditated results 'whether by hook or crook scenario. Jesus Christ overcomes sinful nature of the flesh. Despite all Satan motive, but it was the end which has inspired him, and that was gain through prayers God's mission on Earth to conquer death, he confessed before his disciples. It comes strong in this scenario what Immanuel Kant is saying about 'end justifies the means. Natural inhibition and morality attainment
alexmagagula70@gmail.com
You’re my new favourite channel! Very grateful for your content :)
Appreciate the videos, would be interested to see you address Rick Roderick's lecture series on Kant, or maybe expound on some of his points. Thanks again.
9:55 is potentially problematic.
A hundred percent self-control is something that Kant has his own problems with and actually calls the Stoics out for. It is to demanding as we would say today. I do not know the citation of that passage on the fly, but if interest exists i can look it up.
Sorry, i know that this is a video with another focus and only ~30 minutes long. It is just something i wanted to point out.
" actually calls the Stoics out for" do you mean it is Stoicism been criticized of?
Can you also upload these lectures onto spotify so I and others can listen in other situations?
0:06 oof that is the best disclaimer i have ever seen.
Would you record and post your lectures in your Kant course? I would really appreciate that.
A bit late for the comments, but do you think you could do a video on Deleuze? I would love to hear your opinion on him, especially your take on his concept of deterritorialization in relation to your thoughts on identity.
Last things made a great video essay on Deleuze and the deterritorialization of protest itself.
I highly recommend it
(the scariest black mirror episode I ever saw)
czcams.com/video/YfDQSbwI99Y/video.html
@@aldoushuxley5953 That video is reactionary bs. Deleuze wasn't against deteritoriallization which came with capitalism, his critique was capitalism being reterritorialized. He(and I agree with him on that) applauded the destruction of feudal system and the rigid institution of marriage. His point was that you shouldn't get stuck in the same place for too long. That's the problem with reactionaries, they see a nuanced take on social progress and immediately think: Oh yeah, he said progress is bad and we need to enslave women.
@@larsonlary98 Obviously the video is from a reactionary perspective.
So?
Deleuzes genius was in understanding the process of deterritorialization, not in judging weather that is a good or a bad thing. That is for the reader to judge ultimately.
I do not think it is a good thing. The happiest people in america are still the Amish. There might be something to those old rigid structures after all ;)
One also wonders why leftists are so anti capitalist. It is the reason for all social progress you have achieved. Why do we have womens rights now? Not because some silly marches, but because
1) technological advancement made the old role obsolete (less children, and with machienery, there was no need for "housewifes" anymore)
2) capitalists wanted more cheap labour and more potential consumers
It always is funny when you guys talk of "opressive structures", when these structures are the reason for your power today.
And btw:
Enslave women? Wow, not a strawman at all. Well done
Btw quick Deleuze quote:
There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it as a box with something inside and start looking for what it signifies, and then if you're even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. And you treat the next book like a box contained in the first or containing it. And you annotate and interpret and question, and write a book about the book, and so on and on. Or there's the other way: you see the book as a little non-signifying machine, and the only question is "Does it work, and how does it work?" How does it work for you? If it doesn't work, if nothing comes through, you try another book. This second way of reading's intensive: something comes through or it doesn't. There's nothing to explain, nothing to understand, nothing to interpret.
Deleuze works for us
@@larsonlary98 Also, the way in which protest and revolution is commoditized and that identity too deterritorrialized is quite important to leftist "revolutionaries" of today (ahm ahm Antifa and BLM)
Great video as always! Please keep it up
Saved to watch later!
Absolutely fantastic content. I'm glad the algorithm made the mistake that it did.
So right!
The algorithm that recommended exactly what you indeed very much enjoyed?
@@peterp-a-n4743 Yes. The same algorithm that often fails to do so.
@@rvnsglcr7861 the algorithm knows all. There's a hidden wisdom behind all its glorious decisions. Praise be
does anyone know what type of camera is used to shoot these videos?
We use a Lumix G9 for these videos, it is an excellent all-around camera except for the not so reliable auto focus when shooting videos. -- Fai
@@carefreewandering thank you!
what an absolutely wonderful video, thank you
Your lectures are fascinating. Thank you.
I like how you throw in the occasional smiles at every interesting turn of the subject, it really makes me think deeply about what you are saying.
didnt feel like half an hour at all, very interesting as usual
Is there a way in which giving up the axe murderer's target to the axe murderer is to use the axe murderer's target as a means to the end of one's own obedience of moral law?
Wundervolles Video. Es ist großartig, dass Sie einen Weg finden, sich nicht in die Kulturschlachten verwickeln zu lassen, die den aktuellen politischen Diskurs so schrecklich machen - den Idealismus (im Sinne der "Deutschen Ideologie") auf beiden Seiten. Bitte mehr davon!
Hey. Love your stuff. I have a question. What is your thought on art? As a concept.
Nice thank you for creating the material!
Massive respect for having the Julian Cope book on your shelf.
Ruled by pure matter or ruled by particulary expressed signs of pure reason both end in the absurdity of their own reductions. Which end do you like better?
You have to mix it
If I understand your argument correctly (re: moral reductionism), when we describe a particular action filtered through a moral lens, we erase all of the 'messy' real world factors that went into that act. For example, in describing a child as 'illegitimate', Kant erases all of the (varied--each case is different) complex factors that contribute to each 'production' of such a child.
But, I wonder if you are doing the same. Here, we have a few instances of (mis?)judgment, and we are expected to apply an evaluation of 'pathology' not only to that one judgement, not only to Kant himself, not only to his moral philosophy, but to many varied theories and practices that occur under many different circumstances, etc.
Maybe moeller means ‘ pathological’ as ‘potentially causing harm’
@@sash3497 Maybe, but then the question is: is there something wrong with that? We're supposed to be doing away with realism, right?
@@sash3497 But, okay, let's say that we can all agree that harm is 'bad' (i.e. we would all prefer that there was less harm). I can agree with this. I'm sure Kant would also have agreed.
How do we move from this one instance to the entire deontological project? I haven't watched this video in (it looks like) 9 months, but iirc, the argument was something like:
1) Kant made a judgement about a person.
2) Kant perfectly applied his own moral theory when making this judgement.
3) From 1 and 2: this lead Kant to judge the person in complete isolation from the circumstances that lead to the action that is the subject of Kant's judgement.
4) From 3. Thus, Kant's deontology is 'pathological'.
5) From 3: This all moral theories are pathologically (because they all lead to this kind of 'isolated judgement').
If I'm characterizing this correctly, I don't even think this is valid, much less sound. I don't think 2 is true, and I don't think the move from 1 and 2 to 3 is warranted. I also think the move from 3 to 5 is unwarranted (I'll grant 3 to 4, but I think that's rooted in a mischaracterization of Kantian ethics).
Also, a thing about judgement in Kantian ethics. We are primed to think of moral judgement as 'judgement of souls'. That is, we judge that some person is 'bad'. But this is senseless given Kantian critical philosophy. For Kant, we are not and cannot be in the business of judging souls. We just don't have access to the relevant information to do so.
Rather, we judge actions, things people do. This is a difficult matter, but certain actions cannot be done with a good will (e.g. r@pe).
@@Not_that_Brian_Jones I’m not sure 1 and 2 are true. Also I think a video can only give a snapshot of a complex argument. I’m sure what you say is a useful analysis /argument
Is that Blame! manga on the shelf in the back? Nice.
As a Blame! enjoyer, I second this.
Very nice demonstration of absolute morals leading to mass retribution. Having grown up in the old USSR this discussion brings to mind the direct line from Kantian morals, inherited through Engels, to the red terror.
But, living in America, this kind of critique seems rather abundant. The American right loves to drone on about this when discussing wokeism (and the red terror, for that matter).
What I think is really lacking in this time and place, is the understanding of the concepts of freedom and autonomy. While the Stalinists of the early 20th century seemed be convinced that they could deduce fundamental moral truths scientifically, Americans insist that achieving freed is as simple as removing external restraints, completely failing to see that unless an insight into "necessity" and absolute natural law is achieved, real autonomy is equally out of reach. After-all, the great October revolution was about giving freedom to the Soviet people, and freedom pre-supposes the possibility of autonomy.
Seems that the majority today thinks they can have their cake and eat it too: deny the existence of absolute natural morals and yet somehow gain freedom from all encompassing context within which they were born and live.
I guess what I am trying to say is, it would be nice to see you do a segment on "freedom".
What a *fantastic* lecture! Who is the lecturer? Has he posted anything else?
The whole channel has videos he created. But, he's also written some books too, a lot of commentaries on eastern Phil if I'm not mistaken
Wait do you read the BLAME! manga ??
Interesting conclusion, great video!
Professor, new to your channel. Love your presentations.
I have a question that I’ve been thinking about for a long time, and it is this: German philosophers tend to be difficult to read. Kant is a case in point; Max Weber comes to mind; Carl Jung is another. So my question is this: is the difficulty to read them due to bad writing style or bad translation, or is the defect in the reader?
Kant is easy. Just ask yourself how his ideas rationalize the evasion of focusing mind onto onto reality. Put a big blob of pretentious nihilism, w/footnotes, between your mind and reality and analyze it until you can get off your toilet.
I have not read Weber yet, but in German, Jung and Kant were not any more difficult imo than any other philosophers.
Nietzsche I had problems with at first.
Imo, the french have the worst writing style
@@aldoushuxley5953 Very interesting. Actually, Nietzsche always seemed more accessible to me. I started reading him when I was still in High School even though I did not understand what he was talking about, naturally.
I have come across bad translations in the languages I know. Sometimes, a good translation of anything seems to be a rare thing. I speak several languages; regrettably, German is not one of them.
@@cabezzadevaca4157 That is always something you can change :)
I am trying to learn italian and spanish right now.
With Nietzsche, I guess it was not the language that was a problem for me, but how dense his stuff is.
My french is terrible, so I read them in German, but Derrida and Deleuze I thought were very hard to get into.
Many of the "newer" philosophers have the tendency to make up many neologisms to be obscure and hard to understand on purpose I think.
(Because philosophers are vain, and that makes you sound smarter and makes it harder to critizize you)
The same is true for other writers. On the right, for example, I like Moldbug a lot, but the amount of concepts he invents and then disregards in the next chapter is simply insane.
@@aldoushuxley5953 there is this idea that naything too easy to grasp is quickly moved past. The ancient Zen masters purposefully used enigmatic phrases that the individual had to think deeply about, often for many years, before they fully understood the point being made.
Kant couldn't accept the historicity of human existence, hence his angry tirade against Herder.
Perfectly said.
It's just yourself, are you joking? You want to leave it on. You should be angry about just yourself. Why would you say something like that?
What are the most accurate English translations of Kants works?
He showed the penguin cover of the kants book ,maybe that would be his choice
Better read it in german. Good knowlage of the german language will give you access of to the brst philosophers of the mordern times.
Your channel is great man.
Great video! What is your opinion on the relation between kant and game theory. I have assumed that instrumental rationality and kantian rationality were the same for a while and was surprised to hear that some argue that they are different. I feel like the very notion of the nash equilibrium is exactly what kant wanted to refer to when talking about a law based off of moral obligation, given through reason and is independent of the agents it operates with (best strategy even if opponent changes strategies) you bring this idea with one pertaining the common sense principle where all agents know each other is rational and know each others desires, it seems very similar to the universal aspect of the categorical imperative. Anyways thats my view, i am interested to hear your ideas on this.
Kant would have rejected game theory. It is the diametric opposite of what he is driving at.
@@jonathanbailey1597 im intrigued to hear your view if its ok with you. I guess one view against it would be that "autonomy" isnt really a possiblity within game theory. Or you could say that the rational agents place laws on themselves through nash equillibria. Im not sure on the autonomy point. One could also say that the rational agents act on hypothetical imperatives (if i want x then i will act y) but it only applies for scenarios when agents know each others wants as well (besides bayesian stuff), so the equillibria would be the closest thing to a natural law that kant regularly compares his system to since all agents abide by it. There also his examples which seem to match up too, like purely rational agents wouldnt lie due to common knowledge, where the desires of the other agent as well as their known rationality are known to others due to how the other agents would already be able to predict the lie and change actions with it in mind before any action on the soon to lie agent occurs. Thus the will to lie negates its own action. I might be wrong either with my understanding of kant or game theory (if so sorry) but so far it seems like a similar match to his thoughts
@@Jared-vq8qg It's merely that the basic understanding of what is rational between Kant and say Nash is different. Nash works on the assumption that what is rational is that which maximises the consequences/benefits. Kant on the other hand has rationality grounded in laws that are not evaluated by the outcomes.
@@jonathanbailey1597 gotcha, thx for your view, i suppose instrumental rationality might be the strongest point against this interpretation
I wish that this video came about before I had to take my exam on Kant (I failed, although I think I can attribute that to never actually reading Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals)
You are probably right about a lot. But how are we supposed to be critical of 'woke-ism' if the term is so politicized and under-defined?
@gu4t4f4c I've never met a single person who identifies as a "wokie" so its hard to talk to them. At this point "woke" is just a label, not an identity.
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 You didn't mention a single name because either you don't know any or you realize that after you google and post a name no one would recognize them. They don't exist in the public consciousness outside of a right wing boogie man.
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 The idea that Derek Chauvin was guilty wasn't formulated in a think tank by some intellectuals. It was formulated by seeing a video, and for many augmented by their direct experience with discrimination. If thinking Chauvin deserved to be convicted is a sign of 'wokeness' then the entire 'center' and even some of the 'right' are woke. I honestly have no idea what 'wokeness' is other than a label to apply to anyone who says racism still exists and is wrong.
The belief that all ideas are created by a handful of great men and the common people in the street are just echoing them is ridiculous. My beliefs against racism are based on my direct experience and most racists I've encountered will be happy to share their personal anecdotes to explain their prejudices. The ivory towers are full of drones, not puppet masters.
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 A think tank was needed to create a pathetic oversimplification like 'American police force racist'? Some police are racist and treat the population they are assigned to protect differently according to race. You seem to suggest that the very idea of 'racism' doesn't exist except as an imaginary idea dreamed up by some devious academics.
'Racism' is really not so complex as you suggest. It just requires some grouping of human beings into categories of 'race'. When one believes that individuals should be treated according to their category and not their individual acts and humanity, one is being racist.
How these groupings are defined and what degree of difference they should represent has been evolving and is an on going political battle. Of course I am informed and influenced by my culture, but the idea that I am not also embedded in my direct experience, or that I am unable to question/reject cultural norms and beliefs is dark comedy.
The idea that intellectual elites, such as Kant, escape their cultural influences by pure reason was addressed well in this video.
You label me 'slave' in some an abstract ineffectual sense, but real slavery as it was practiced in America for centuries was is a prime example of racism grounded in reality. Distinction had to be made between those deemed free by the constitution and those who could be considered property. Race was the distinction used. Are you so far gone that you believe that race based slavery is some propaganda fake history invented by academics to control people?
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 "The issue is that this idea (racism) is completely opposed to the natural world and reality itself, well the idea of there being an alternative to these sort of groups and so on." - It's not and idea for me, it's the reality I live in.
"There are clearly things you won't examine but take as axiomatic" - such as? Of course there are things I take as axiomatic, reason doesn't proceed without axioms. No, mob lynching is not justice, was that supposed to be difficult to answer? You limit people to passive receivers, which we are for sure and must be at some point, but the freedom to seek and the ability to experience reality is open to many. Growing up on Hollywood movies doesn't mean you can't grow, see other perspectives, and even reject/replace/alter ones view on Hollywood movies.
"Isn't it interesting that you think of those that abolished slavery when it is brought up?" Some Americans fought and died to abolish slavery, some fought and died to preserve it. It wasn't an unanimous decision reached by logical debate. The ideas that supported slavery didn't magically vanish into thin air. I mentioned America because that is the cultural historical backdrop of the Chauvin case, the original context.
'a human constant' - did you read what I wrote and mean 'race based slavery' is a human constant? Or did you mean slavery in some abstract philosophical sense? If you read 'race based slavery' and don't know what that has to do with racism then there is no point communicating with you further.
Please enable the subtitles.
I think Kant's aim was to create literature whose propositions exist in the same way like corresponding matter does it. Practical freedom.
Which is on a special degree also pathological, when one indiscriminate insits on his propositons as general laws.
(11:17 onwards) There's something made into the wood of Kant's axe, that you can't see on the surface, which, if removed, would cause the handle to snap in two had you tried to use the axe after it's deconstruction. In other words, the moral dilemma possesses within itself a dichotomy. I would argue this dichotomy is a false one. The idea implicit with Kant's thought experiment is that you have to either tell the truth or tell a lie. Reveal the correct -or an incorrect- position of the potential murder victim. However, one could simply refuse to give any information, slam the door and call the police. It's by no means lying or dishonest to hide information from someone. If someone would retort by saying something like "assuming you have to lie or tell the truth, which is it moral to do?" then we have made our thought experiment unrealistic and therefore not pertaining to real life. And a thought experiment which has no bearing on reality ought not be one we discuss any further.
@@SorryPlayAgain My main problem with the CI is that it ignores the complexity of human minds. Moral thinking is placed in values. Values which change over time. Some are culturally determined and others a result of individual's own thinking and life experience. There are no universal human values. You might argue eye for an eye. But some forgiveness. Others both. Take vengeance and forgive them simultaneously. And forgiveness and vengeance sit right at the bottom of reciprocity and also comprise it. So, it's a truly important human value. Perhaps the lowest-ranked value in the worst parts of the world and highest-esteemed in the best. So, the fact that people differ, within the same culture, along such a value judgement indicates the problem with 'if only everyone did this, and no one did this, the world would be a better place to live'. I am not a Kantian haha
Kant was a death-worshipper.. Truth-telling for him is independent of consequences. Its a "good" will..
@@TeaParty1776 Yeah, he was. Have you read any Neitzsche?
@@TeaParty1776 just western absolutism and reductivism
@@noonward ?
I feel as though there is yet to be a proper analysis of "woke-ism" as it pertains to its ideological manifestations, other than say Zizek describing the hidden contradictory promises and abdication of responsibility from one's own perspective or place in institutions and cultures. By the end of the video, yes in a way the post enlightenment, post kantian contemporary moment is far from informed by the post modernists other than disputes against meta narratives. But where does that leave the philosophical or critical traditions we see today the post modernists and critical theorists originally started? For me that is the true left that have already begun asking more revolutionary questions. Also based on that viewers book recommendation I sincerely hope this channel doesn't let the well get poisoned by bad faith actors who will see your critiques of contemporary leftism as fuel for their post kantian, and far less justified retribution in the first place.
Good reply!
I suggest you check out the channel "new discourses".
They understand "wokism" very well imo
@Infernal Moondance I take issue with the notion that the expressions of wokeism is an inherently leftist movement or phenomenon, at best it's a neoliberal sublimation or co opting of old leftist histories and traditions. We are sociological creatures, therefore origins of terms lose practicality as the linguistics evolve over time. That why people generally disagree over basic facts, theres a different cognition going on that isnt rational, so the origin of the term woke etymologically is hardly relevant or practical anyways. Also I saw those transphobic comments on the previous identity video about Abigail. If your that intellectually stunted, dont bother commenting on videos or else people will see how stupid you really are.
@Infernal Moondance when I said wokeism was co opted by neoliberalism from old leftist histories and traditions, im saying that it WAS from the streets, theres no disagreement there. However those streets were not liberal left wing, they were leftist, theres a huge difference.
When I said people generally disagree over basic facts, I wasnt abdicating myself or anyone from that. When I meant people dont think rationally I meant none of us ever purely think rationally, including myself. Case in point you're "justification" as to why you're not "transphobic," although from a purely rational perspective might make sense, actually doesnt make any sense in the context of this conversation or what's going on in the real world with other people, because when you say a trans woman is a man, you are irrationally imposing your own dogmatism on others.
Its narcissism and arrogance to think that you yourself can clearly define the terms and conditions of what philosophy, politics, or even the truth is. I mean for christ sake not only are you transphobic, unsurprisingly you make a bold claim that sociological thinking is genetic?! Do you even know what you're talking about??? Actually dont bother with a reply because you obviously dont.
@Infernal Moondance I could say the same for you my dear friend. How does it feel to be so wrong its funny?
OK, this actually misses the point. Kant is arguing against Hume, who claimed that ethics is a matter of emotion and habit, which is to say that ethics, good and bad, doesn't actually exist. Kant shows that there are in fact ethical imperatives that can be derived a priori, without reference to emotion and habit. For instance, that "everyone should lie" is an impossible imperative, because lying presupposes truth-telling as a norm. Unless you have something like this, you really don't have a ground for saying that something is good or bad at all, other than that you don't like it.
In other words, this criticism is not serious, and that Kant had beliefs that are at odds with what you assume to be good is irrelevant.
It's not that Kant has beliefs at odds with what he assumes to be good, that was by no means the point of the critique. The critique pointed out that Kant in many ways clearly acted to justify his own cultural prejudices. Thus, it's irrelevant whether Kant was right or wrong, but only that this so-called categorical imperative which depends on any specific time or space (any specific culture's norms) is by no means actually independent of those.
I will not criticise your first paragraph, though. If anyone else wants to try that, it's on them.
No, I would not agree with that. The categorical imperatives in the Kritik der Urteilskraft are very general, of the sort that I mentioned -- what you can derive from the principle of noncontradiction, more or less. That Kant later stepped outside of this area (and I haven't read the Metaphysics of Morals since I was an undergrad long ago, so I will not comment on that) is not relevant to his argument in the CoPR. To attack that, you would have to demonstrate that, for example, a society in which lying is a universal norm is possible.
@@user-ub4ud9gy4d There is only one categorical imperative, you're talking about moral laws. Regardless of that, them being general or not does not change the fact that these moral laws VERY conveniently match Kant's prejudices. That's like... do you know Dream, the Minecraft Speedrunner who cheated in such a way that having his level of luck would be a chance of 1 in 10 to the power of 22? Yeah, you'd need that level of luck for the laws of morality to match your prejudices the way they did with Kant.
The Critique of Practical Reason is what I am limiting myself to, because as I have said I read the Metaphysics of Morals when I was an undergrad, and that was... a long time ago, whereas I read the CoPR just a few years ago. What you say may be true about the MoM, but the laws/imperatives/maxims/what-have-you in the Critique of Practical Reason are EXTREMELY broad and would apply to any culture I know of (probably because, as Kant says, it would be impossible for it to be otherwise -- it is simply impossible to make "always lie" and "always kill" into imperatives).
I just had to watch again to see the ❤️ heart/brain see saw. Just love that thing.
I gotta disagree on the Derek Chauvin point. Yes wokeness is out of control but Derek Chauvin wasn't on trial for a bad tweet. He killed someone. How is he to be treated differently than any other murderer? Nobody called for the death penalty for him. People just demanded that he faced consequences for what he did. If anything this obsession of guilt you're talking about applies more to George Flyod who they tried to paint as a thug and deserving of what happened to him.
Respectfully, I think you've missed the point a bit. The point being argued is not over whether the "woke" crowd's demands for Chauvin's conviction are reasonable - we've all seen that video and we all know the law. A lot of people attribute wokeism to postmodernism and Dr Moeller is arguing against that. In fairness, you are right that the demands are not strictly retributive; there are no widespread demands that Chauvin pay for Floyd's life with his own as far as I can tell. But it is that "ecstasy" over Chauvin's conviction that Dr Moeller mentions (which is apparent listening to these people speak) which suggests that they are not driven by postmodernism, a rejection of metanarratives. They in fact do have a narrative in which Chauvin's conviction is a victory for the "woke" people. That is my interpretation of what Moeller is saying.
@@robertbruce7609 Lol ok. I guess I did miss that.
George wasnt "killed"
@Jack Smith 🇰🇵☦️🥔 No, but he did kneel on his neck for nine and a half minutes, on video. Whether drugs were involved or not, that is murder.
I'm not sure why you're still defending a person who got his due process, and was found guilty in a court of law? It's almost like you have some ulterior motivation here...
Either way, this video wasn't meant to analyze the cause of George Floyd's death.
@@robertbruce7609 I do agree that it was a "victory" of sorts, but the narrative that this takes place in is descriptive of or derived from a real existent issue or characteristic of certain institutions, so the victory was more about some change occurring, and a cop finally getting arrested for what he did, rather than arbitrarily this one specific cop being worse than the rest. In the academic sphere at least. However most people and observers probably thought of it in the more personal and specific sense, because these days that's how it seems to go. And then that majority is used to make a whole side of the political spectrum look bad, and overlook that the best of that side, and the actual theory or purpose behind movements, could actually have a lot more merit than any of the people making fun of the not so educated masses.
I won't even pretend to me more well versed in Kant than the gentleman in this video is, but in my perception there's a mistake in his analysis.
First of all, let's be clear that I find Kant's views on homosexuality, slavery and other things absolutely abominable.
That said, it should be noted that there's a difference between Kant's moral philosophy and Kant's beliefs on morality. If you apply Kant's categorical imperatives to the examples mentioned in the video, you will clearly see that slavery is wrong (therefore, you can't even have a servant) and that there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Basically, Kant applied his own moral framework incorrectly in these instances.
My point here is that dismissing Kant's work on moral philosophy because of the above seems to be the same as dismissing Pythagoras theorem if he had showed an example of it but made a mistake on that calculations: e.g., a=3, b=4 so if square(a)+square(b)=square(c), therefore c=9. The calculation is wrong, but the theorem is still correct.
Note that I am not trying to prove Kant is unquestionably right here, all I'm saying is that people try to use some of his obviously wrong moral positions to invalidate the moral framework he proposes, when in fact this doesn't invalidate the framework, but at best proves he was an hypocrite.
That all said, I think that is overall a good video and I might even have missed some of the points in it, so I'd be curious to hear someone else's take on my comment.
Hey, did you get some kind of response to your comment? Like a video responding to yours and other questions.
@@VashdaCrash not that I am aware 😅
@@pedromartinstimoteodacosta1710 well that sucks :(
Is a good comment, mate.
Does it show the inherent difficulty in applying the moral law? Hence it’s weakness ?
@@sash3497 when I read critique of practical reason, I personally viewed it as a restriction and limitation on doing things for the sake of an inherent "good", as if that were always measurable or dictated by God
This is what i call Pretentious (or High-minded) philosophers. I don't say these philosophers are wrong (I like and agree with many of Kants ideas), but at some point many of them stopped doubting themselves and started believing they are absolutely right. As my grandma says: You should never be too strict with your thinking and ideas.
It sure is a tightrope!
@@jonathanbailey1597 It sure is. All of these guys (or gals), with radical and innovative ideas, with ideas ahead of their time (especially in the past, when dogma and culture restrictions were so strong) had to be some kind od fanatics to even get ideas like this, let alone spread them in public. So, in a way, it is inevitable for them to become high-minded; fanaticism and high-mindedness go hand in hand. This should always be taken in the account when criticizing them! But i still think it should be criticized. If nothing else, to limit myself from going to high up in the clouds if i ever get some new, crazy and innovative idea. :)
But I would always love to hear other people's opinion on this.
@@jovanmitic6812 To be honest, I am in an academic setting myself and what you say is sadly true. High mindedness and arrogance are rife, but as you correctly say, the generation of ideas stem from the institutions in which these rather undesirable traits are indeed rife.
Is that BLAME! the manga?
Great video!
To be precise, people usually say: don't do anything what could hurt others and what you don't want yourself. Kant said, nope, this is false. Hurting doesn't lie always in your own actions and the emotion you have yourself and what if you want to be cut by a knife, does it it justify that you were allowed morally to cut others? No, therefore you have to get rid off all the heteronomous will. It matters not what you want, it matters what isn't in itself paradox and nills itself by put your will and even your actions all over the people. The example: can you will (want) that property comes from robbery? No, because if everybody do this as a general law, there will not be any property and robbery is impossible.
That's the same Proudhon fell in, when he claimed that *property is theft* .
People don't own anything except by social contract. And if land is stolen by a stronger society then it is explained away and over looked, even while they are willing to kill another who might come and take what they took by force.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 false.
A social contract does not exist at all and describes a very bourgeois thinking like Anarchism.
Property exists because someone is stronger than others.
Very good 🙏 I was reading the phenomenology of spirit. In that Hegel critically examines enlightenment and predicted communist terror as the outcome of pure reason. He says that enlightenment discards utility ( Jeremy Bentham) and trust ( Adam Smith). I realised the full significance from the introductory part of your talk.🙏
What justification do you give for your claim that Hegel predicted Communist terror? I’m intrigued
@@siobhanchristine-bligh183 In Hegel's phenomenology and in philosophy of right Hegel explains the root of fanaticism. In all works Hegel critically accepting Kant. Kant identifies universal in the Human "I". But Hegel says that, universal+ particular is human "I". Kant's categorical imperative is only universal and it denies particularly which is individuality in man. This particularity or individuality is later Interpreted by existentialism as individual freedom.
Considering all individuals as a category is the denial of freedom. In philosophy of right 5,Hegel says that this is what happened in French revolution. And This is the root of hindu fanaticism in India. universalism is the core of Catholicism (I am a Catholic) but not of Luther (Hegel). Universalists erase particularity. This Hegel explains as terrorism ( Phenomenology of spirit chapter vi,B iii Absolute freedom and terror.). This universalism is the centre of Communism practiced in Russia.
Actually communism is a Jewish Aristotelian, Christian, hegelian view (philosophy of right,260, Nicomachean ethics,1094 b). For them it is society + freedom, or universal+ particular but for Marx only universal and no individuals or freedom. This is collectivism. 🙏
@@franciskm4144 i don't think you have any understanding of marx. marx's philosophy on morals and human nature is more complex than "MuH CoLlEcTivİsM" but if there is anything to blame marx, it is incorporating hegel so much into his philosophy. Hegel is the one who was absolutely fascinated with Roman Empire for example, not Marx. I, as a socialist, respect Marx, tho i am not a marxist. And i am eager to see ANYONE who is not a socialist and actually read Marx then opposes his works. Again, both in academia and in mediums like these, there is no one that can critque marx rightfully. It seems like only other socialists can critique him rightfully. Probably because non-socialists do not read huge books of Marx.
@@pygmalion8952 Dear friend, I have purchased all works of Marx, Engels and Lenin in 1986. Since I have been teaching economics from 1981 it is self mandatory to me to read the works of Adam Smith, Rousseau Mill Ricardo etc. Merely by reading Marx no one understands Marx. For example how do one man understand labour theory of value? Fortunately I taught economic philosophy for 16 years.
I just ask you some questions. Where from Marx got the idea of abolition of private property? Where actually he explains alienation? Has he made any attempt to decipher original sin of Jewish Genesis? Where from he got the idea of primitive communism?
Most of the people know anything about Hegel. Marxists interpreted Hegel as idealist. Lenin says that he is a materialist. People are not reading and assuming that all others are not reading. I am lucky that I am a son of Marxist. Good luck 🙏
Good points. So Kant's cultural context violates his own categorical criteria for morality. This is not to be taken however to throw away the "bastard" of reason with the bathwater of culture. That a secular metaphysic was an escape from one form of dogma, and that the escape from that secularism led to another form of dogma doesn't diminish the value of defined categories; in fact it may be the only type of defense we have left cognitively in philosophy against the attempt to destroy all meaningful categories whatsoever.
Thank you for the context and good analysis.
so did Kant use the term "commonwealth" or "society" ?
i dont think they are the same. commonwealth is an accounting system while society is a broad description. Kant simply sides with the collective. the law does not say that the individual ought to be valued over the collective. how does his law even relate to individualism over collectivism ? so far it is not clear to me... it seems he is following his law but also holding a separate value. on a technical level i dont see the paradox.
edit: after rewatching it i do see how this paradox is applied but by that measure every principle is dogmatism. you can not set axioms within any system that are universal since you are always (to paraphrase Hegel) trapped within your historical contingency. one could simply rephrase Kants position as an accounting mechanism. it does not matter that it is moralistic reductionism since its purpose and function is achieved. you could add all the listed complexities to the "illegitimate child" category and still side with the "commonwealth" and for the position that it is not "murder". again it falls on the collectivism/individualism axis that is apparently not addressed within this system. if anything i have way more questions after this video :)
Shout out to mr. Editor. I like it when you put some text on the screen to give an overview!
Is it possible to have subtitles? Thank you!
Love it.
Regarding Kant’s racism…doesn’t he violate the prescriptions in the First Critique, though? Before we even get to moral philosophy, what does he say? “Apportion belief according to evidence,” correct? Living in Koenigsberg, how many black people do you think Kant met? Probably none. So he’s making metaphysical judgements about people with no empirical evidence to back up his claims! Sure, we could point to, like, “Well, it’s just what he read in books,” and that’s empirical evidence. But how does that justify, in Kant’s mind, a hierarchy that presumes European culture is “better”?
I think we owe a lot to Kant, as a person, he was incredibly interesting…but it’s like anything. Deontology is a good thing to know. From my experience as a middle school mathematics teacher, Kantian deontology is how we should teach children-don’t disrupt class, not because the teacher will buy you candy if you’re good, but because it’s the right thing to do…because as you mature, you recognize that maybe you DO learn things in school, and other kids disrupting class get in the way of that.
I think of it, like, “Kant’s universal reason would have me do x in this situation, utilitarianism would have me do y, virtue ethics would have me do z. If x=y=z, it’s probably a good thing to do.”
> So he’s making metaphysical judgements about people with no empirical evidence to back up his claims!
Thats the whole point of his "philosophy."
Well, Durkheim is pretty interesting in this regard: the demand for punishment. Ideas do not govern human lives.
Most of the comments here prove that no matter which philosopher humans examine, they almost always like those who reinforce their own modern biases and dislike those who don’t.
HEY NO! Kant’s philosophy doesn’t just end at practical reason! Don’t leave out the 3rd critique the judgment and Kant’s aesthetics is just as important to Kant’s philosophy as his ethics and epistemology/metaphysics
Sure, I should have phrased that differently at the beginning.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 A video on aesthetic’s in general would be nice I think too many philosophers neglect that side of philosophy
@@tcmackgeorges12 Agreed, Munch's, The Scream and Duchamps, Urinal, really help to sense the noumena.
Oh and I figured that all out myself, back then it was known as sniped knowledge
I think one common thread here is the position of moral realism. In a way these pathologies are almost inevitable if one assumes morality to be akin to natural law, woven into the fabric of reality. In this view of morality it's not surprising that human beings have empassioned and violent responses to apparent violations.
There's also an issue of epistemology (how moral realists arrive at these laws they think they know) but it might be reasonable to just work with imperfect knowledge. We do not seem to have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for the "accurate" moral laws to be discovered.
"Christianity is the metaphysics of the hangman."... Your application of that quote is totally irrelevant to Nietzsche's concerns in it.
The quote is correctly applied here, because Nietzsche speaks about retribution as well: That secular justice moves away from it, but Christianity insists on it (at his time, mind you). And Kant was in this regard just as dogmatic as the church.
I really liked this video. After I got my degree in Psychology I took several philosophy courses. The professors all sucked but one. If I had this guy as my teacher I might of got a second BA in Philosophy. So many shoe salesmen are hiding in universities and the priesthood and the military.
and go get a masters, then a PHD. then go get his degree in science all at the same school in Canada. there just too good and its not even that difficult but she wants you to develop your own and she wants it now. they are really mean about seeing the process of transcdental idealism and reverse liability and just want to do it again. He would fix them up in our movie but they don't even have time for that so they demand all this play money and they think its mine, and any capital goods i get to control them they believe is there's. A gay son, and a gay daughter.
I hope you could make a video on what Kant means by 'pure reason' next
Reason ALONE. Free of anything empirical.
@@anlace3447 Absolutely impossible because words have visual and sound forms which cannot be detached from their meanings.
@@EmptyKingdoms except when we translate most ordinary words into other languages? I mean, as far as I know, "狗," "hund" and "dog" all have the same extension.
@@2tehnik @@2tehnik However, as you might already know, language is inherently a system of deferral, and contingent in the sense that it is flawed in describing absolute phenomena.
Take "fish", or "tree nuts", for example. While this might seem to work with "dog", I'd argue that this is not the case.
For example, there are many languages in which there is no collective term for "tree nuts". This displays how signifiers merely collect together examples of naturally occuring phenomena in an irrational, arbitrary system of deferral.
Similarly, many biologists have tried and failed to create a consistent scientific definition of "fish". There simply isn't one, and yet no one would question "fish" in daily usage.
This is inescapable, and extends further to any word that does not simply signify a basic rational function or singularly constitutive entity, such as in mathematics and in the contemporary study of quantum physics.
@@justinfung4351 I think my point was that there are cases where it works just fine, like 'dog.' Rather than there *always* being some proper translation.
But sure, could you do such an analysis for 'dog'?
You read Blame! as a study of nihilism ? Or just for its architectural point of view.
How do you know he read blame! ?
@@MaviRB In this video , Behind him
Surely Kant is contradicting himself. None of this exactly squares with treating people as ends rather than means. Also many of his ideas seem frankly idolatrous. He is failing to see the wood for the trees.
@Infernal Moondance And that could be argued to be a contradiction, since this definition is not properly based in reason. I guess, the main issue of Kant is his premise of the possibility of full autonomy. The categorical imperative does work at times and may even give some "true" moral laws: A general law - of whichever type - to not lie for example is very much necessary for communication to function. At the same time it leads to supposed moral laws, that are based on false autonomy, because we as human beings seem to be unable to be completely autonomous and are always subject to heteronomy like psychology and culture. Hence the idea of a categorical imperative may theoretically work, but is practically flawed.
@Infernal Moondance Even if that may be the case I still try to be wary of my own reasoning. Although I may not see where it's clouded by my experiences, culture and emotions, I am sure it still is and I will most likely never be able to fully get rid of it. Hence I don't believe I or any other has the ability to find the whole moral truth, which would be the endeavour Kant tried in his ethics.
@Infernal Moondance Hmm. That's were I beg to differ, I think. Reaching for answers just to find that these particular answer can't be reached is an answer in its own right. And still striving for a better understanding without fully knowing which reasoning of yours is right and which is not is still a worthwhile endeavour, because although it may be flawed it will still be better informed than if you had not tried. Being wary of your own reason is merely an exercise in keeping your mind open and humble. It's not a good reason to not think about questions or is it?
@Infernal Moondance I doubt that it cannot be rationally argued against, given the fact that his argument is full of premises and analogies. For a certain society with these premises it may be rationally correct, however, the premises used itself aren't. But yeah, I myself am a huge fan of Kant's ethics. There are a lot of different ideas you can derive from them.
You are the first person I have seen who publicly notes the similarities between authoritarian political correctness and European Christian authoritarian strategies. For example, cancel culture is shaming & shunning. The only difference is that it is primarily directed members of an in-group, as opposed to old fashioned out-group alienation. People who harp on post deconstruction rhetoric are unwilling to engage in deconstructing Christian moral pathologies, specifically the obsession with patriarchal authority, gender roles, Christian nationalism, and the way ethnicity intertwines with these values, as opposed to operating as an independent variable.
Really interesting about the preference for retribution among Christian groups. God straight up says "vengeance is mine" in deuteronomy
Kind of gives a good reason why people possibly should shy away from studying philosophy. They study this guy and venerate him? And we need an intellectual argument why his idea about killing illegitimate children is not a good one. In 2021? Next I want to hear a debate about whether slavery is wrong, it's still up for debate apparently.
absolute mad lad
I dont know what wokeism is did you explain it in another video?
This reminded me of the big P and small p philosophers, la former being captured vy the state...
Really cool video! I already wasn’t a huge fan of Kant when I read his groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, and now I have more ammunition to use against him ;)
Also I think it’s good to point out the dogmatism and problems of wokeism, and I’m saying that as a leftist
It's nice seeing a bunch of leftists interested in a critique of "wokeism" instead of mindless rightwingers trying to discredit the entire left. I too am a leftist and am very wary of the essential moralizing, and personalizing practiced by the growing "woke" community. I care about individual persons in my social circles...in my political world I care about systems (a trite summation, but it at least points to what I'm getting at)
what's the point of reading about someone's philosophy not in order to learn anything but to have 'ammunition' against the author? Seems like a petty and resentful enterprise of the tiny-minded
@@helvete_ingres4717 Indeed, I myself think Kant isn't perfect, nobody is, but his work is to be respected, for the flame he lit, carried on by Hegel and others, shines bright. I do not agree with everything he says, but to slander him is nefarious. Same goes with Marx, as I find the Theory of Class Struggle to be wrong, but his economic writings evolved into a successful Centralized Model, and we wouldn't have Denmark (Very Good Economy) without him.
I’m sorry to say this here, but is BLAME! worth reading?
Yes it is.
8:25 Anti-Dühring Chapter 11 “Freedom and Necessity” “
So was Kant a moral objectivist? Because it sounds like his moral framework stems from moral objectivity rather then moral subjectivity or moral relativism.
I’d always believed the superstitious dogmatism to be his main target rather than whichever generic doctrine that’s been attacked.
Nah, it's "do what thou wilt".
(Objectively speaking.)
(What with that being what organisms do.)
(It's a great way of discovering where people's boundaries actually lie, so you can really take them into consideration.)
Could you talk about the moral philosophy of the youtube channel "Perspective Philosophy" in his video called "Morality Is Objective, Even If There Is No God."? Then you also could talk about his form of commodification. I also think he is an interesting contrast to your amoralism.
It would be great to see someone educated critique him because (thus far) he’s only been addressed by laymen
I would love to see this considering that I disagree with just about everything Perspective Philosophy says. Like how the hell do you justify socialism by using John Locke? Its absurd to me
President Sunday already made a good response
Thanks for putting that warning at the beginning, I have spent the last couple of days in a youtube rabbit hole because I am procrastinating and should actually be studying for my exams. I took a minute to reflect and instead of continuing on with this video, I'm going to resume studying.
It makes you wonder why anybody with such an absurd system would bother to write books (since people can't "know" what is in them), but that is to get a glimpse of the idiocy of Kant's philosophy.
Wow, he was a proper Kant.
This was really interesting, thank you.
I made a similar point about retributive justice during the original George Floyd protests: that the focus on ensuring Derek Chauvin (et al.) were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (or beyond, as many were calling for at the time) has the paradoxical effect of disarming systemic critique.
The intuitive appeal of retributivism and lex talionis is very strong, but prosecution as punishment individualises the problem. It seems as if the claims from the online left were incompatible: if the problem is systemic racism, embedded in the structures and institutions of policing, governance, and the economy, then Chauvin cannot be considered truly responsible for his actions. He is a product of the already-there social environment, and while that necessitates rehabilitation, and should prevent him continuing to serve as a police officer, it does not make him personally responsible (and thus deserving of punishment).
I read an article somewhat recently on moral luck which suggested a similar point about the incoherence of blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. It all has me thinking about what an ethics of subjectively experienced responsibility without a corresponding carceral/juridical/retributive understanding of guilt would look like...
An obvious counter-argument to that, however, is that police officers not being prosecuted to the full extent of law is a major part of the systemic issues of police brutality, misconduct and accountability. Of course zooming in on Chauvin's conviction is harmful (as if a single conviction would solve a societal issue), and of course the American system of vindictive justice is crap. However, in a country where third offenders serve life for minor crimes, a police officer being shown leniency after committing murder (as perceived) on tape would be shown leniency could be seen as not only suffering a vindictive justice system, but also a selectively applied one.
@@libertyisjustice Yes absolutely. I think a lot of my concern at the time was motivational - more about the punitive/retributivist elements of the backlash against Chauvin than the backlash itself and the calls for even application of the law. Obviously the latter is very much a systemic concern, related to the precedent rather than the individual.
what actions? floyd so obviosuly od-ed on junk.
@@libertyisjusticein what country are you referring to?
I mean, Kant really sounds like shapiro of his age, doesn't he.
I mean, isn’t a normal conversation between two people also produced to attract each other’s attention and promote one selves?
Not so sure about mining people’s data for profit in real life, but I’m sure we can come up with an analogy
id love to hear a more extended analysis of what you think about the problematic nature of 'woke-ism' as you say
Okay. Is it Kant like "pants" or is it Kant like "aunt"? Because I have been told it's one or the other by people smarter than me
It’s neither. German is a cool language, and the a sound in Kant is just a sound that doesn’t exist in american english. It’s closer to aunt than it is to pants tho.
Interesting video as always, I had no idea Kant was to that extent a person of his time. However, what bothered me a lot about this video is how you treated moral philosophy as if it were one thing. Surely, what you have called the "philosophical", "social" and "psychological" "pathologies of ethics" here are less of a problem for normative theories other than Kant's own, mostly utilitarianism and its many varieties, and the contemporary attempts at reviving virtue ethics. Specifically you seem to say Kant claims to be anti-dogmatic and then proceeds to dogmatically justify the (mainstream Christian) morality of his age. Utilitarians, on the other hand, have historically sometimes used their theory to do the opposite, pushing for women's rights, acceptance of homosexuality and better treatment of animals in times back when most people were not convinced of these ideals.
And even then, though I am no expert, I can imagine a coherent non-dogmatic Kantian normative ethical theory, I suppose that is what the small but passionate group of neo-Kantian academics are engaged in, anyway.
Also, the critique that most moral philosophy reduces complex events without a clear answer into riddles with an easy (but often inhumane) answer, while interesting, is not that new, and various attempts have been made to come up with an ethical theory that does take emotions and relationships into account, notably ethics of care, contemporary virtue ethics and so-called 'empirical ethics'.
I don't know, I don't think matter "follows" the law of gravity.
Also, studying physics, most of the problems are only exactly solvable on very simple situations and it can get very complicated very fast if you have to account for more entities, effects or even interactions between things which are usually described by different models. I'm sure there's a lot more to it, but on a first look the idea that a person with an axe looking for someone to kill should in a sense be mapped to a very simple, hermetic, well defined law of physics in how "unbreakable" it should be sounds pretty nonsensical to me.
It just occurred to me, what would kant say about strange attractors and chaotic phenomena in physics?
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p beautiful man, this is a realm I think about a good amount the multi-variable synchronicity outside of the connections of physical laws. Chaos seems to be like a harmony of infinite systems bound by a finite dimension in a way. Semantics truly limit our understanding of reality yet understanding Semantics helps us further understand reality.
Most are in a state of submission through a form of non-physical torture through cultural programming into slight levels of mild dissociative mental trains in a way that stay in that rail until you build a whole new railroad and time their train at the right moment to shift the train into the other fresh railroad.