Jordan Peterson Kant Initiate A Priori
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 12. 2020
- I think that's the sort of thing that was alluded to by immanuel kant when when he was criticizing the notion that all of our information comes from sense data which would be the pure empirical perspective right because when you encounter the world you encounter it with a cognitive structure that already has shape and so it's it's already in you this structure and without that a priory structure you wouldn't be able to take the formless potential and give it structure and i think that's something it's akin in some way to the idea of god the father and i'll try to develop that idea more it's it's the it's the notion that there's something in all of us that transcends all of us that's deeply structural that's part of this ancient well i would say evolutionary and cultural process that enables us to grapple with the formless potential and bring forth reality roughly speaking and then there's the final element and that element seems to be something like consciousness itself the consciousness that actually inherits in the individual so it's not only that you have a structure it's that the structure has the capacity for action in the world and it's like it's you're this you're the spirit that gives the dead structure life it's something like that and as far as i can tell the trinitarian notion that characterizes christianity is something like well formless potential which is never given a the status of a deity in christianity and then the notion that there's an a priori interpretive structure that's a consequence of of our ancient existence as as beings it goes back as as far in time as you can go the notion of a structure and then the idea of a consciousness that that is the is the tool of that structure and that interacts with the world and gives it and gives it reality and that's the word as far as i can tell and so the notion is is that there's a father and that's the structure and there's a son that's transcendent that characterizes consciousness itself and that it's the sun the the speaking of the sun that is the active principle that turns chaos into order and god it's such a sophisticated ideas as as far as i'm concerned because well there's something about it that's at least phenomenologically accurate because you do have an interpretive structure and you couldn't understand anything without it your very body is an interpretive structure right it's been crafted over let's say three billion years of evolution without that you wouldn't be able to perceive anything and it's taken a lot of death and struggle and tragedy to produce you the thing that's capable of encountering this immense chaos that surrounds us and to transform it into habitable order and then there's the idea too of course that's deeply embedded in the first chapters of genesis which is a staggering idea you know and and certainly not one that's likely that human beings were made in the image of god both male and female were made in the image of god and that's of course a very difficult thing to understand partly because the god that's referred to in the in those chapters has a kind of polytheistic element although it's an element that's moving rapidly towards a unified monotheism but it's not also obvious to me why people would come up with that concept because i don't really think that when we think about each other we immediately think god like... - Jordan Peterson
- Zábava
It's the synthetic a priori that Kant discovered rather than what Peterson is on about.
Thats essentially what he tried to do with the Critique.
I’m not sure if I’ve seen this talk, surprisingly
How could you detect an a priori structure with biology when biology already works with that a priori structure. He should have read Kant more in detail.
Say more!!!
Divinity of Number
All things considered Andy, I think he does a pretty good job with Kant considering he’s not a Kantian scholar.
And to that end, I don’t know that he’s making the claim that the a priori structure can be “detected,” whatever you mean by that, but simply that it “is” which is ironically self-evident and therefore taken for granted. Similar observations are made by Gadamer about “tradition,” and “horizon,” at least as best as I can tell.
Regardless, maybe instead of your “withering” critique of Peterson-I obviously mean that to be taken sarcastically-you might try contributing to the conversation .
@@rjwasser8312 No. He does a piss poor job, and he should've reread a bit of Kant before talking about him in front of this many people in such a setting - he's even done this before where he talks about Kant's notion of the thing-in-itself during a university lecture.
@@tuffkookey6108 He didnt really say much about Kant here and what he said, that Kant believes there exist a transcendental “structure” within us, is right. Kant believes every human is a partial rational being and as such recognizes the laws and possesses “Achtung vorm Gesetz”.
How exactly do you think Peterson misrepresented Kant?
The idea of subjectivity as hypostasis of the thinking, sentient or transcendental subject, has become the center of a series of idealistic and spiritualist philosophies, as well as a multiplicity of critical ramifications that preserve the same ontological structures, varying their contents.
The presence of this type of ideologies, generated in modern Protestant states, requires adjusting the idea to its peaks as a way to counteract its political implantation in the present.
Luis Carlos Martín Jiménez - The man who broke Kant.
Does Jiménez write with pretentious predictive text? Or is it translated and no competent person has tried yet?
Si.
What's the name of the image at 0:35?
Sefirot tree
Where can I find the full video?
czcams.com/video/hdrLQ7DpiWs/video.html
@@UnicornLaunching Thank you.
@@edwardelvic5886 Happy to help! Or hurt depending on which side of JBP you're on lmao.
@@UnicornLaunching love em
He’s using worlds like phenomenology, and talking about the trinity…
It’s bad.
He's SOOOO smart!!
actually that's first philosophy year in college-level
also he makes mistakes along the way, the transcendantal subject is not at all due to a cultural development to Kant and it is not a psychological or cognitive structure
he's very good at making himself look smart because all he does is talking basic (and erroneous) philosophy mixed with psychology in front of right-wing people who only have ever read business books
@@jean-mariebigard5512
He never said _Kant_ thought that, although it seems to be something Peterson thinks himself.
Peterson, in general, justifies his phenomenological views with his psychological practice, which is hardly unique: there’s an entire branch of psychology devoted to transcendental analysis, in the aptly named “phenomenological psychology”.
I don’t understand why you think us right-wingers only read business books.
You may be referring to our propensity towards laissez-faire capitalism, but most books on that in and of themselves have only tangential relationship to business; Hayek and Mises come to mind.
His claims about Christianity and it’s telos reveal a very twisted and uneducated view of a few, extremely necessary concepts. Image of God and monotheism. He unfortunately is very uneducated in the “type” of monotheism very present within the Old Testament evidenced in the use of the words Elohim(plural) and El Elyon(Most High God). These 2 terms are essential to catching the monotheism in the Old Testament. Because yes there are “other Elohim” other spiritual beings that have (been given) charge over humans that put forward in the OT, however, these are very clearly clarified in so many places as being lesser than Yahweh… Yahweh(El Elyon Most High of all gods) is “species unique”. If you want thorough scholarly work on this, check out work of the late Dr. Michael Heiser. The image of god is another thing he really messes up, putting forward a gnostic understanding within a real Hegelian philosophical framework. However, I know that from other videos of his I’ve listened through. The image of god is not “divinity within”. No. It’s a role within humanity alone of “imaging” their Creator. If you make the image qualitative, you’ve gone wrong. It’s a role. And Jesus, in respect of His human nature, was the perfect imager of God, while also (in respect of His divine nature) also God (of the same essence as the Father). The lesser Elohim of the OT were lesser in essence than Yahweh. And the Tripersonhood of God is also very evident throughout the OT as well. Dr. Michael Heiser deals with alll of this actually.
Genesis doesn’t display a stable unified theology, much less the entire Old Testament.
What a mess.
ok