I never comment on CZcams videos but I had to with this one. As a philosophy hobbyist I appreciate indie content creators discussing my favourite concepts. Thank you!
@@TheologyMadewhat do you mean your joke aside, or that technically it would have more so been Hume? The quote is *directly from Kant* writing about Hume in the Prolegomena: “I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber" You fundamentally messed up a fact there, not least because Hume had already died before Kant published his major philosophical works.
@@michaelwu7678 Unfortunately, in most cases in which the term “philosophy” is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and/or ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma (lawlessness), which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture, in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or a single country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, since he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, as well as adhering to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur!
So, if I am a vegetarian for moral reasons but prepare meat for my carnivore family who are not vegetarians, is that a moral act? Or an I betraying my own morality?
Good question. From a Kantian perspective his approach would probably be to look at the first formulation of the categorical imperative that we should act only according to rules that could become universal laws, Kant might argue that preparing meat for one’s family is done out of duty and harmony. The second formulation is that we should treat humanity as an end in itself and it a means. Preparing meat for your family would be respecting their autonomy and allowing them the right to make their own moral choices. And then from the lens of duty, Kant placed emphasis on acting out duty rather than inclination, this duty to serve your family food they would eat could supersede personal dietary choices. And then Kant also strongly emphasizes moral autonomy, he would probably argue to make the meat is respecting their autonomy, but to eat it yourself would be to disrespect your moral choices. What about you? What do you think?
@@TheologyMade thank you for these thoughtful comments. On the one hand, I don’t want to contribute to the suffering of animals. On the other hand, my family would be upset if I stopped preparing the foods they like. So which moral position is more important: the moral position that causing unnecessary suffering to animals is contributing to the immoral factory food industry and my personal guilt and sorrow, or, that not feeding my family the food they thrive on and desire, which would disrupt family harmony and therefore the harmony of the world? Sorry for the long windedness. I inevitably yield to family harmony and health. Otherwise they might resort to the horrific standard American diet. :)
What a brilliant mind, that little Kant. Only, all three postulate are false. It's a similar tragedy with theology too: smart minds building magnificent cloud castles on a foundation of false assumptions.
@@TheologyMade since I'm meta ethically a moral antirealist (emotivist-error-theorist-blend) I am not too concerned about it. Compassion informs my values and consequentialist thinking guides me.
@@TheologyMade it's (almost) the same as for other primates and other social mammals. A post hoc rationalisation that neatly builds a framework is fine but obviously not needed.
A critique of pure reason is so badly written, a person can read just about anything they want into it. And they have. A lot. The history of Kant is complete nonsense.
I never comment on CZcams videos but I had to with this one. As a philosophy hobbyist I appreciate indie content creators discussing my favourite concepts. Thank you!
Thanks for commenting!
Brilliant!
Thanks, bro!
Thanks.
Thanks for watching!
Hume awakened Kant from his dogmatic slumbers
My joke aside, yes technically it would have more so been Hume.
@@TheologyMadewhat do you mean your joke aside, or that technically it would have more so been Hume?
The quote is *directly from Kant* writing about Hume in the Prolegomena: “I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber"
You fundamentally messed up a fact there, not least because Hume had already died before Kant published his major philosophical works.
@@michaelwu7678 Thank you!
@@michaelwu7678
Unfortunately, in most cases in which the term “philosophy” is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and/or ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma (lawlessness), which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture, in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or a single country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, since he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, as well as adhering to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur!
@@michaelwu7678No ! It’s a joke. There is room for humor even in philosophy.
Interesting video. The CZcams algorithm worked this time.|
Thank you.
Glad to hear it
So, if I am a vegetarian for moral reasons but prepare meat for my carnivore family who are not vegetarians, is that a moral act? Or an I betraying my own morality?
Good question. From a Kantian perspective his approach would probably be to look at the first formulation of the categorical imperative that we should act only according to rules that could become universal laws, Kant might argue that preparing meat for one’s family is done out of duty and harmony. The second formulation is that we should treat humanity as an end in itself and it a means. Preparing meat for your family would be respecting their autonomy and allowing them the right to make their own moral choices. And then from the lens of duty, Kant placed emphasis on acting out duty rather than inclination, this duty to serve your family food they would eat could supersede personal dietary choices. And then Kant also strongly emphasizes moral autonomy, he would probably argue to make the meat is respecting their autonomy, but to eat it yourself would be to disrespect your moral choices.
What about you? What do you think?
@@TheologyMade thank you for these thoughtful comments. On the one hand, I don’t want to contribute to the suffering of animals. On the other hand, my family would be upset if I stopped preparing the foods they like. So which moral position is more important: the moral position that causing unnecessary suffering to animals is contributing to the immoral factory food industry and my personal guilt and sorrow, or, that not feeding my family the food they thrive on and desire, which would disrupt family harmony and therefore the harmony of the world? Sorry for the long windedness. I inevitably yield to family harmony and health. Otherwise they might resort to the horrific standard American diet. :)
What a brilliant mind, that little Kant. Only, all three postulate are false. It's a similar tragedy with theology too: smart minds building magnificent cloud castles on a foundation of false assumptions.
So if you find these postulates false, what are you building your framework from?
@@TheologyMade since I'm meta ethically a moral antirealist (emotivist-error-theorist-blend) I am not too concerned about it. Compassion informs my values and consequentialist thinking guides me.
He was also a massive racist
@@peterp-a-n4743 but what is compassion apart from a universal framework for it to root itself in?
@@TheologyMade it's (almost) the same as for other primates and other social mammals. A post hoc rationalisation that neatly builds a framework is fine but obviously not needed.
Kant's understanding of morality was FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.
Why is it fundamentally flawed?
A critique of pure reason is so badly written, a person can read just about anything they want into it. And they have. A lot. The history of Kant is complete nonsense.
You got any defense for your position on the critique of pure reason? To say Kant is complete nonsense, is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.
That is simply not true.