BAD Philosophy Videos! (Philosophy Tube on Kant's Philosophy)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 01. 2021
- "The problems with short intro philosophy video."
Professor Moeller is teaching a course on Kant. He was searching things about Kant on CZcams to see what would come up.
And Professor thought he came across a very bad example of a short introductory philosophy video from Philosophy Tube, a very famous CZcamsr, whom I ("the producer") previously actually watched before exams for reviewing purposes, or even as a main source of learning introductory philosophy. I am curious to know how bad can this 5 minute video be.
#philosophy #kant #philosopher
Therefore, we decided to make this video, hope you enjoy it!
A following up video:
Commodification of Philosophy: Professors vs Influencers
• Commodification of Phi...
(video mentioned):
The Problem with Sam Harris' "Morality":
• The Problem with Sam H...
(Beginner's Guide to Kant's Metaphysics & Epistemology | Philosophy Tube):
• Beginner's Guide to Ka...
Kant's Philosophy | Why we Need a New Enlightenment:
• Kant's Philosophy | Wh...
Kant’s Ethics: Homophobia, Child Killing--and Derek Chauvin:
• Kant’s Ethics: Homopho...
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
PS: We understand Philosophy Tube has changed to a new identity and name. This happened a day after this video had been out, we could not foresee it.
And in this video, we are commenting on the content of an old but still very popular video from Philosophy Tube (in which, philosophy tube still identified as a man and OLLY), we are trying to address how a short popular philosophy explainer video can sometimes have many problems.
I think the most important point is made near the end, here: Watching someone else's interpretive gloss on CZcams is no substitute for working through the actual text and studying commentaries by qualified professional scholars. This is true not only for philosophy, but for many other subjects, as well.
This is true for academics to retain their aura as 'authorities'. (And i say this as a college graduate... talking from the inside)
Well, the only problem I see with your commentary is that it is submissive to perceived authority. Working through the text and studying it is way different than swallowing ready to go interpretations. Degrees only serve to ornate, they absolutely do not guarantee knowledge.
Well, that's a very uncharitable way of reading what I said. My point was that there is such a thing as expertise in reading and interpreting philosophical texts (just as there is in other disciplines). You read and study the original text and also read the commentaries, which have to provide arguments supporting their particular interpretation. You are suggesting that it's a passive process of just accepting someone else's reading as Gospel. That isn't how it works.
Having a degree in any subject is, of course, not a guarantee of being right, but that doesn't mean degrees are worthless and that SomerandomguyonCZcams is just as qualified as someone who wrote a PhD dissertation on a topic. By analogy, there are incompetent dentists, but that doesn't generally mean your Uncle Bob arme with a pair of pliers is just as qualified to perform dentistry than someone who went to dental school.
Yes, but I also appreciate that he doesn't walk in the area of elitist skepticism, which only functions to enlarge the chasm between scholars and the public. If you would label all pop philosophy videos as "bad" and say "it shouldn't exist", how will the public create interest in philosophy if they don't have relatives or people in their near environment that introduce them to it? There is value to these videos, but there should always be a voice in your head nagging "at some point, you should start actually reading their stuff".
A degree just gives a baseline of knowledge. I'm fortunate to work in a field which produces something tangible and to work with many graduates. Dunning-Kruger is real
I love that youtube's standards for philosophy videos are so low that I was just shocked to actually hear one from a professor talking about something in his field. Imagine that
This is so true. For other disciplines like economics you can find content that is as good if not even better than what professors teach. But for philosophy actual lecturers/professors in universities are streets ahead of what anyone's putting out on CZcams. (At Lancaster University anyway)
@@leocossham that's not really true at all, in fact you can find a sheer infinite amount of lectures and interviews with "real" philosophers in just a matter of seconds. personally I recommend the channel "critical theory", which is literally just recordings of lectures.
I'm also not a fan of instantly assuming anyone who isn't a professor isn't professional. many of the people making videos are well-read, graduates, and so forth. there simply are a limited number of philosophy related jobs, so not everyone can be a prof, but almost everyone has something worth sharing.
@@JK-we4wh fair enough there is a big amount of good philosophy out there. But the fact is that those videos on Critical theory's channel are still just uploads from lectures at universities. Those lectures weren't made primarily for CZcams so my point still stands. When it comes to philosophy it still seems to me that it's only really academics who know enough about what they're talking about for me to find it valuable
Most CZcamsrs who rate themselves as philosophy channels aren't actually very good at philosophy compared to a academics but still have the confidence about them as though they're super knowledgeable and have lots of great insight when really they don't. For example CosmicSkeptic. And most of the channels with any substantial reach are like this
@@leocossham fair point about CZcams "exclusive" content, with that one I might agree. when it comes to academic/nonacademic philosophy though I strongly disagree. taking a non-western focus here, one has to realize that essentially the philosophy of entire continents, for example Latin America, was an oral philosophy that is inherently non-academic. while vedic and chinese philosophy are now also present in academia, for most of the world's history they haven't, and still today much discourse there is not necessarily in academia. but even for strictly western philosophy, I would argue that a lot of the most important texts were either separate from, or consciously anti-academic. a prime example would be the CCRU, which developed out of academia into something.. weird and new. but also a lot of fringe philosophy which has (often decades after the fact) only been canonized in academia. many marxist, situationist, surrealist, dadaist writers and poets have retroactively been canonized. the interlace of academia and art for philosophy has always been there, and the two aren't neatly separated at all. yet still Beuys' Philosophy of Art, D&Gs Shizoanalysis and De Sade's Writings, to name just a few, are now often quoted in academia, when during their lifetime they were mostly considered stupid degenerates (well, maybe not D&G). many texts that used to only be considered literary canon now play a major role in philosophy, just consider Baudrillard and Borges. anyway, I think I've made my point about philosophy outside of academia, have a good day!
You should do the same with other pop philosophy videos on Kant, e.g. School of Life and such.
school of life is painfully bad
I don't think you should encourage someone to watch School of Life. It's part of the categorical imperative honestly.
@@Pluveus Yup, can't wait to see it roasted!
@@hieronyma_ Sooo painful. New Age 'self-help' meets selective readings of great philosophers. It's indulgent pulp for the vapid pseudo-intellectuals of the middle class who think philosophy is fancy psychology.
School of life is absolute crap. It's not even in the same league as other channels, such as philosophy tube, for instance. Which is surprising given that Alain De Botton went to Cambridge. But the difference is he not trying, he's just trying to make popular videos that make a lot of money. His videos have no core thesis. But they do make him a lot of money and are popular on the internet. This is mainly because he creates arguments that seem valid at first glance in the 5 minutes, but when you dive into it and get into it it is just complete hogwash - there is nothing there of substance to analyse at all. Whereas philosophy tube and other channels are actually trying to do philosophy and politics. Even if some of their videos are flawed, the intent is there to do something good. And that's what matters. Even if people on the internet aren't doing the best work ever, if they are being honest about why they are doing it and how, then at least you approach their content their content with some honesty and reliability. This is why so many channels are better than Alain De Botton. I just don't think he is being honest about his work. I think he is just lying and making up hogwash for money. Which is what a lot of people do, but then this makes him no better than the worst.
I feel like a lot of the problems here arise from a trend I've seen in English translations and commentary of Kant to use very imprecise and inconsistant language. Marx translations have the same problem. I feel English is very badly equiped to handle German philosophical language without confusion. I ran into this problem myself when I tried to translate Mainländer a while back. I found distinctions that were really obvious in my very limited German and my native Norwegian to be very hard to make clear in English, especially when it came to things like consciousness.
I agree with the translation issues. Every translator's preface I've seen from German texts in some way talks about this issue. It's not unique to German translations into English, but since German is a popular language in Western philosophy it's a constant issue with Anglo-American philosophers. It seems like most of our understandings of German philosophers are presented as approximations of the original interpretation that would come from a faithful reading of the original German text.
Side note: did you ever finish translating Mainländer? And what text were you translating? Good translations of him in English are very difficult to come by
Thats an interesting observation. English is quite maliable and often uses words from other languages where no suitable english word works.
I was making a Hügelcultre bed as i was listening to this, using my Gerborange, flanged spade and wheelbarrow.
Got German French and Dutch int hat sentence, which is real btw. That is what im doing now.
Would you be able to recommend a good English translation of some of Marx's most popular writing?
I studied Kant in German (in Switzerland) but professors and tutors would often recommend that we read English translations of Kant! Kant uses incredibly long German constructions so the short English sentences help in getting a first grip on just the kind of questions Kant was grappling with in the first place. But yes, in order to gain a deeper understanding, it is necessary to handle translations with care and suspicion. Read Kant in German :)
@@247lethal It was Die Philosophie der Erlösung, but no I never finished it. Once the translators on reddit started their translation I shifted my focus to the political parts of the work, since those seemed to be less prioritized by them, but I lost a good chunck of it in a hard-drive crash. And by that point there were already talk of a professional translation being in the works, so I put the whole project on hold.
Thank you. This should be a series - since there's no shortage of bad philosophy videos.
School of Life's video on Lacan comes to mind
"I cant be bothered to actually read the source material so im just gonna watch a five min youtube vid by some hip cool dude and assume it will be the same content"... damn the current state of people today...
@@berugaslabor What? We're just complaining that some videos are bad, that has nothing to do with us reading the sources
@@rasto62 No it was just a general observation on my part that some people will just hit up a 5 min vid on youtube and assume it will do the source material justice.
@@berugaslabor Ah okay, good point! Also pretty frustrating and goes to show even more how bad videos can be problematic for lazy people
I think the important thing when speaking on Kant is pronouncing the word as "Kunt," and then saying that word as often as possible. Great job, Wanderer
I did this by accident once in a bookshop and the counter girls were horrified
It's how his name is pronounced, after all.
I find it impossible to overstate my appreciation for this video (and others from the channel). Thank you professor!
to many people are looking for ways to export their criticial thinking to others.
critiques like this were needed waaay earlier. im glad they are finally here.
Isn't this video doing exactly that? It's this guy exporting his critical thinking about Abigail's videos to us, and telling us how we should be analysing Kant.
@@andishawjfac no bcs he is not spreading fake news about Kant unlike philosphy tube.
@@Senumunu Well how would we know we're not the experts here.
@@shyguy1845 don't worry. Neither is philosophy tube :)
@@Senumunu That's the point Lol, if you want to learn Kant read him, youtube is entertaining at best if you respect yourself you take everything with a grain of salt.
As a fan of Philosophy Tube, I think these critiques are fair.
You can't excuse the video because it's pop philosophy or just an introduction, or because it was made 5 years ago.
You can introduce a philosopher and his ideas in a fun, entertaining way without misusing language or equivocating between certain ideas which are fundamental to their philosophy.
As for the timing of the video, it makes no difference that it was 5 years ago because when you make a video, you are responsible for accuracy of that video. If PT had waited and done more research or maybe passed the script by some experts on Kant, these errors wouldn't be there. My point is that it is incumbent on the video creator to use the resources they have available to ensure the accuracy of the video, and if they don't have the resources to do that, then they first need to acquire those resources.
Agree and disagree; the video should be criticized, but is this video the best to use when levying specific criticisms against PhiloTube? I don't know. Perhaps criticize her more recent output?
@@DGately82 i disagree, she should take down the video or make a statement yes, but youtubers who are dedicated may drastically improve their content over 5 years.
Unfortunately, there is no way of making Kant relevant and interesting to current people without picking out the "salient" bits and ignoring the rest. This is what Philosophy Tube did, and having an academic philospher nitpick the very technical aspects of Kant's writing and complain how they are misrepresented seems to miss the entire point of Philosophy Tube's project. That said, I agree that Philosophy Tube should make sure not to imply that watching this video will allow you to pass a quiz on Kant in a philosophy course, though that is more of an indictment of Philosophy classroom's teaching of Kant than it is of her.
@@0fof0fo
I realize it might seem nitpicky, but philosophy relies on this very precise use of language in order to clearly delineate between distinct ideas which are commonly conflated. Like I said, it's entirely possible to make a fun, engaging video which uses language carefully.
@@chillin5703 It seems to me like you're more fixated on her character rather than the contents of the video. "Focus on her more recent input", but why? If there are errors that are left unattended, then the time period is irrelevant unless you are more concerned about how she comes across through her content rather than being focused on the specific subject of the video.
I love listening to him talk. His critique is very helpful and guides me in the direction of higher awareness. Thank you! I'm a new subscriber now!!!
Your explanations are really clear and understandable. Thank you for clarifying some of these concepts. Your focus on the accuracy of language is excellent and much appreciated.
you know when you've found the remotest corners of CZcams when you stumble on a debunking bad Kant videos video.
Makes a change from funny cats eh?😉
@@kenfalloon3186 I want a video where cats explain Kant
I find it rather annoying that Philosophy Tube's obsessive fans are now going after any creator they can find who criticised anything PT ever did prior to coming out. This vid and most others critiquing PT's work or behaviour were made before PT came out. These people honestly did not know and if they had known they could not have correctly gendered PT, because that would have meant outing PT.
And this video on Kant is not the only one of PT's vids that could have been worded better or even researched better. Witchcraft, Gender, & Marxism contains sources that have been debunked by historians. Feel free to check this with actual historians. You may want to discuss PT's Sexwork with actual sex workers and sex worker advocates as well.
PT switched from actual educational content to performance art a few years ago, but even before this switch, you should not take these vids as a substitute for actual university classes. At best, they are introductions that at times could be more accurately worded as this vid explains. At worst, they contain problematic sources and claims. So enjoy PT's vids for what they are - pop education mixed with performance art - but remain critical. Let them inspire you to critically look into certain subjects, but do not uncritically take them for gospel truth.
"I find it rather annoying that Philosophy Tube's obsessive fans". Not really suprising considering the political bent of the content creator and the kind of person that would watch her junk videos.
always was and will be a man
To be clear, I fully support Abigail as a woman. I am merely critical of some of the things she has done and I dislike the aforementioned part of her fanbase. Down with transphobia.
You really think that fans of a philosophy channel are looking at a critique of a philosophy video through the lens of philosophy academia and their only focus is on pronouns? Of course it's jarring but it's obviously unavoidable. No. We're here because we want to learn, and when we're let down by academia, we have something to say about it. The point that the vids are not the same as a university class is literally the point, otherwise we'd take a course. "At best, introductions"... Yeah, almost as if they were intended to be introductory, huh? Asking us to remain critical of her and asking us NOT to remain critical of academics is ridiculous. And I don't see a single person acting like PT's vids are the utmost paragon source of philosophic knowledge. Get off your high horse. Edit: My point is, holding beginner-level content to high-level scrutiny is EXACTLY how you block people from accessing philosophy and make it just another esoteric boy's club.
@@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice I happen to know that a number of people whose vids were critical of PT's person and/or work were bombarded with requests by PT stans to take said vids down just after PT came out. Said requests were not aimed at vids that were positive about PT's person and /or work that also used PT pre-transition pronouns. PT could have asked fans to leave these creators alone and this has not happened.
I am fine with PT making infotainment performance art. I do wish PT had been more thorough and honest in several vids, which would have been perfectly doable. This vid points out for instance that PT at the very least could have been more accurate in describing what Kant is going for.
There is a world of possibilities between being overly simplistic which PT was in this Kant vid and engaging in utter ivory tower jargon babble. Sometimes you do need to take a bit of extra time to explain certain ideas such as Kant's in every day speech. PT is rightly criticised for cutting corners a bit too much in this vid.
Three years ago I was inspired by Philosophy Tube and decided to switch my study to philosophy. Honestly back then I didn’t quite follow Prof. Mueller’s arguments and didn’t see the significance. Now after three years of studying, I do see the problems clearly, and how crucial it is to point out those lazy mistakes, because they could seriously damage Kant’s system of philosophy. It’s a nice feeling to have this growth :) thank you professor.
As someone who studied Kant in English first as a German speaker it was always a trip to go back and forth between the English translation and the original, because a lot of the confusions that happened in class were simply problematic or imprecise translations. Add to that the inherent contradictions in earlier vs later writing and it was frankly just one big mess. If some fairly knowledgable philosophy lecturers of mine couldn't keep their language straight in 10 weeks of classes through almost no fault of their own - it was mainly the translation -, then I think Abigail is forgiven for being about as precise in a 5 minute video? I remember many a sleepless night trying to sort out whether my own understanding or the translation or the lecturer's presentation or the original text was imprecise and coming to no definitive conclusion on the subject. There were just too many possible points of failure and I'm pretty sure all of them were lacking in precision to some extent. The only truly valuable conclusion I took from my Kant class was that I definitely won't become a Kant scholar 😂
The fundamental issue, though, isn't translation, it is, rather, that Kant was objectively wrong. There is no 'pure' reason, philosophy, ethics, meaning etc. . These are all human 'meaning' things.
Plato was wrong about the 'ideal' as was Kant.
This is interesting, because I've heard a flat "no" from many experts when they inevitably encounter a question about whether Kant or Hegel are easier to understand in German. Not once have I heard someone say "see, if we were reading the original here many of the difficulties of Kant's prose would vanish, because of this, that, and so on". In fact, I've often heard the opposite: German-speaking students finding the English translations easier to work with because the translators often break up the clauses in longer sentences into their own self-contained units. Of course, one may argue that the translator is doing violence to the text here, but if even native speakers sometimes agree that this practice is beneficial when it comes to reading comprehension, then perhaps this is a sort of benign violence, or a violence that we should welcome.
Oh Kant is definitely easier to read in English, because his style in German is very lengthy and a tad convoluted at times. Most German philosophers I’ve read just weren’t good writers with the worst offenders probably being Hegel and Heidegger. When translating one has to have understood what the person was trying to say though and any misunderstanding or biased interpretation will leave a trace in the text. So even though Kant is easier to read in English, the translation I’ve read definitely wasn’t precise with the terminology at times. This in turn made things confusing again when going into details. So, a surface level understanding was easier to reach in English, but for the more detailed analysis I had to go back and forth between the translation and the original a lot to figure out certain distinctions. And I’m not sure I ultimately succeeded! I had more luck with Husserl and less with Heidegger. And Hegel remains a mystery to me entirely. I enjoyed Marx a lot, but well, Capital has Vampires and Werewolves, so that’s in itself a lot more entertaining 😂
@@stueyapstuey4235 So what if he was fundamentally wrong? Why does it matter in this context? Why would you want to evaluate a text based on an incorrect representation of it?
@@stueyapstuey4235 Guys, guys we have him! He figured it all out! How lucky we are to live in these times :´-)
Thank you for pointing all of this out, so very helpful for those of us starting to learn philosophy.
This is great stuff. Thank you! You should absolutely do more of these.
This was one of PT's first videos. It's very rough. I'd love to see a critique of one of their later, more polished videos.
Great presentation, by the way.
*her ❤️
@@Anna-xh6fk to be fair a lot of people still don’t know. I didn’t until like 3 days ago and I watch almost all her videos lol
@@Anna-xh6fk surely "their" is fine too? even if PT doesn't have a team working on it altogether.
@@Anna-xh6fk they can be used to refer to anyone, the word is not specific to non-binary folks such as myself
@@Anna-xh6fk "Their" is perfectly grammatically appropriate in this context. The person is writing talking about the channel PhilosophyTube, not a specific individual. The channel is owned by a specific person, but other people routinely get involved in making the videos (and some of them on a recurring basis), so even if someone sees "they" as not a suitable default for singular, it's not unreasonable to treat this as a plural situation.
I explicitly warn my students about trying to Google or CZcams explanations of philosophical concepts or arguments. In today's internet culture where short, entertaining, and aesthetically pleasing videos are the ones that tend to blow up, there will inevitably be many ill-explained or ill-researched explanations out there. I actually found that plagiarism happened much less when I told them all this (as opposed to merely reminding them not to plagiarize) lol.
Thank you so much for your in depth analysis of this video. I will share this with my students.
But this is a video and a CZcams explanation of philosophical concepts. Maybe point them in the right direction, or like any sourcing get them to see multiple different sources -in this case videos to help your students, it's hard to steer away from pop anything maybe it's a good lesson in critical thinking in and of itself! :)
I think this phenomenon is most evident in cooking videos. For example, channels likes 5 minute crafts put out videos with a certain rhythm set up to be very ascetically pleasing, but its obvious to those who have even the slightest bit of cooking knowledge just how bad their stuff is.
I always wonder how many videos I watch in unfamiliar fields that are the same way yet I just don't notice.
I started this video expecting to be blown away by very specific hidden Kant-knowledge but was positively surprised by how much stuff I already knew. Cool video keep it up.
This is so interesting. Thank you for taking the time to do this video.
transcendent vs transcendental was always taught to me by my professors to be interchangeable, that some scholars argue there's a fundamental difference, but the first edition of the critique has passages where he seems to use one to reference the other
My philosophy professor told us that Kant himself made a few mistakes in his first edition of CPR because it took him over ten years to write it. Every mistake he made was printed, and editing such a book was not easy. There is a clear distinction but it is hard to discern because of the time it took to produce the text. He came up with all of those "concepts" and terminology himself in a way.
If there is a fundamental disagreement on such a crucial theoretical point, it is a due diligence task to inform the audience of the nature of disagreement, regardless of what the presenter's personal opinion is
Here the professor is handing one: transcendent, to the forms; transcendental belongs to the irrational branch he indicates. These then correspond similarly to Chuanghsu versus Confucius across the spectrum of the Tao. Polar opposites. What do you say to my synthesis of his interpretation?
@@z3ro5um No they arent opposites, they are just different concepts.One describes the process of generalizing experiences into principles and the other describes a method of reasoning and a mode of universal knowledge.
I think this is much more helpful than watching just a scholarly video or just a lay video on Kant, that's the power of dialectic.
The funniest thing about this video is that it came out a day before philosophy tube came out.
As a long time fan of Philosophy Tube I appreciate this exploration of their misconceptions and misrepresentations, it's a reminder that talking heads on CZcams are never a replacement for reading the books and doing the work yourself.
Right! Concepts ( e.g. substance/attribute, causality) are the province of the understanding, time and space concern the way sensory intuitions are "packaged": successively and extendedly.
She quoted an article I wrote. I informed her that she misrepresented my position (not in a way to vilify me, but to use my writing to support her position). She didn’t even take the time to understand what I said.
Wow, I'm sorry, was this the newspaper article in the latest video?
Which article?
Can i get more context on this ??
Did she respond though? And yeah, which article?
Why does this register as typical rather than atypical.... fr this almost seems expected but I’m someone who doesn’t like PT or their ideology so I’m of course drenched in bias. It just seems easy to believe considering everything else, like hiding those Patreon dollars.
At first year in uni I got a big fat 1 ( or F ) because i mixed up transcendental and trascendent. That is how important it is in light of Kant's work.
"Time and space are hardwired into our brains" ? If Kant said that, he must have been trying to get grant funding for his brand new neuroscience lab.
That statement is a huge part of his magnum opus Critique of Pure Reason: what we can know without experience. We cannot have experience at all without understanding change, and we cannot understand change without the internal understanding of time and the ability to mentally separate objects.
@@CmdrShepard1001 🤦♂️
@@CmdrShepard1001 just watch the video and he explains in 3 minutes what's wrong wtih that statement.
@@CmdrShepard1001 for Kant the mind is not the brain you dipshit
@@wngbjngwwgk its a bunch of neurotic bullshit to make the distinction, can be fun I suppose, and valuable at the higher levels, but to not acknowledge that while pointing it out is to also boast an overconfidence. Though there might be semantic errors, perhaps from a historical perspective, I would say that the 5 minute video is still thought provoking enough to serve as a basic introduction. For example this guy used the words sense perception to describe an appreciation of time and space, and distinguishes that as Kant's understanding of these, as separate from being hardwired into the brain. However these words are basically synonymous with functions of neurons and their associated organs as we comprehend them today. Basically philisophy tube merely uses Kant as a vehicle for provocation of thought and introduction of new conceptual understanding and semantic tools, which is what I think a 5 minute video is really expected to do at its best, its not false advertising at all.
Thanks for the video sir
Wonderful video man thank you!
Thank you, this is very helpful.
Having the Stroszek DVD on display is a pimp move
an absolute power move, this man is untamed
Great idea!
Very well said! Thanks so much
A very welcome addition to the Philosophical landscape - Will be on list of resources - Thanks!
When I was studying Kant I found that the best way to explain 'forms of intuition' in English was with the word 'format'. Analogies with computers can only go so far but are valid.
I've always tried to imagine if Kant time traveled to our time, like, would he find part of artificial intelligence technology analogous to his philosophy?
I always compared them to "whatever it is in your TV that turns radio waves into tv shows"
There's another youtube professor, Daniel Bonevac, who uses the TV analogy quite well to explain the same.
I always wondered why Philosophy Tube didn't just talk about them (time and space) as the 'conditions of possibility' for experience at all.
Really good explanation here by the way! And a very apt analysis of the common mistakes that anglophone philosophers make concerning Kant.
Precisely! Looking at Kant's epistemology primarily as a project for grounding what the 'conditions of possibility' are for knowledge: that was what was drilled into my bachelor-level study of his transcendental philosophy.
This is a great video, and I hope it inspires people to sit down and try reading Kant.
I think it was bc the creator was like 20 years old when they made the Kant video. They're much better now, imo.
I very much enjoyed this video as a fan of Abigail Thorn. Seeing more like this would be interesting, no matter if you are looking more into the works of Philosophy or something else entirely.
CZcamsr like PhilosophyTube and Contrapoints have for a time been creating longer more theatrical videos that are also presented as informative. If you would be interested to look into and say something about longer videos like that, it would mean the world.
who the fuck is abigail thorn
Contrapoints doesn’t blatantly spread lies like philosophy tube
@@TheNicolombiano77 Which lies?
@@Queer_Nerd_For_Human_Justice the subject of this video. Anytime she speaks on economics, misrepresentation of her wealth, etc
@@TheNicolombiano77 how does she misrepresent her wealth?
You are right to call out such sloppy use of concepts. Just because something is made to be popular doesn't mean it has to be inaccurate.
Awesome stuff. Ironic that Sam Harris is talking about the marriage of ignorance and confidence though…
This was a very interesting video. I think something that should be noted though is this professor seems to be German (although if he’s not then ignore me) so has been able to read Kant’s works in German whereas the Presenter of PhilosophyTube hasn’t. I’m a native English speaker and I speak some German and even from what little I know I can see that English translations of German tend not to grasp the nuances of the language. Especially subtle things like transcendent and transcendental; it’s possible PhilosophyTube read translations that conflated the two words
I do most of my philosophy in English and while I do not specialize in Kant at all and you could say that I am overall very confused when it comes to Kant, I haven't even read him properly except for The Third Critique ... the fact that "transcendental" and "transcendent" are not the same thing is almost common knowledge. I would even say that they are rather the opposites than synonyms.
What would you consider a excellent philosophy you tube channel? And what are your thoughts on lectures ? Author Holmes , Will Durant ect. Thanks
"Philosophy should not be commodified...I say this as a professional philosopher." I find what you're saying so true. I was horrified even in graduate school at how many of my fellow students were skipping a lot of the readings of many major works. However, I am struggling to see how you writing a book on philosophy is any less a commodification of ideas. You are literally selling your ideas, no?
Imo the difference is intent. You can sell philosophy with the primary intent of making money, or with the prinary intent of educating people about philosophy.
Making money is essential for life, so it's hard to live without doing so in some way.
Issue arises when people try to act educated for making money, and haven't done their reasongs as thoroughly.
A professional philosopher who by definition gets paid to do philosophy. The pot calling the kettle black. He doesn't even seem to get the irony...
@@legendarylunatic4738 I think this is a pretty gray area where intention is concerned. Regardless, one's "primary" intention isn't really the point. If one wanted only to teach, one could give away the knowledge for free. Plenty of academic publications offer you a platform to publish your ideas without compensation. My issue was that selling a book means that one's intention is to turn their ideas into a product. How is this not commodification? I'm not even against the commodification of ideas, as I think it is the only way intellectuals can make a living outside of teaching (which is itself, often, partaking in the commodification of education), but I just don't see how one's level of education makes them more or less engaged in commodifying their ideas.
Writing a book is not always a money-makjng scheme, many books have been written as a labor of love, as a cathartic endeavor, or BELIEVE OR NOT, for many other noble reasons.
@@Cantbuyathrill How does this negate the fact that a book is a commodification of one's ideas? Something doesn't have to be a "scheme" for it to be a commodity.
‘An ugly marriage of confidence and ignorance’ - lol. That really sums up how PT comes across sometimes. I’m not really knowledgeable enough to comment who is right on the philosophy, but I enjoyed this, helped me get my head around some difficult concepts (and a couple of weaknesses of both the English language and UK education system). Thanks for posting it.
@@lowblowchloe8859 I guess, but it inadvertently creates a new problem: sensorial spectacle as filler when I would be better off just reading a book lol
PT isn't too bothered by facts and reality.
A lot of the philosophy videos are quite uninformed.
The housing crisis video is entirely devoid of facts.
A recent video on work was self contradicting.
You'll get perls on "I've never talked to Javier, but [insert detailed back story of Javier]"
A few years ago the salem witch trials were blamed on capitalism.
etc...
If you scratch under the surface you notice that most of PT's videos are all flash no substance
Bill Baileys song is good though on Kants categorical imperative
Good content, subscribed
Rich drama school kids.
Prerequisite for becoming a leftube star.
TRUE
I think Thorn's garbling of space as a concept inherent(?) innate(?) in mankind is a common mistake which is not necessarily deadly to an understanding of Kant but very often is. The problem is if we think of space as a concept that can be improved what can improve it? The common answer would be experience. Which might suggest that experience with the things in themselves can lead to an understanding of things in themselves. And there lies the rub.
Anyone who has study philosophy and those that majored in it will agreed that every argument, idea or statement that is being said by anyone needs to be put under critical evaluation and shouldn't be accepted on first impression.
I feel the Profesor didn't do anything wrong by clearing the misconception that Abigail has said in her video about Kant. I think it's good for the viewer to be aware of this misconception or the details that she missed to address because it would help us understand more about the idea that is being presented about Kant.
It's important to make a distiction about the idea that has been said and detached it from the person that has said it. In the topic of Kant and Abigail videos addressing it, she may have said things that came out incorrect, that has been pointed by the profesor, now it's us as the audience to do our research about the subject to know more. Because at the end it's what it is about, knowing more and making sure that the information you have about, in this case, Kant is valid.
One last thing, I want to say that I am a fan of PT, Abigail has done some interesting videos on topics that had gave me a new perpective. But I don't think her argument and ideas are perfect, because you can point at flaws, flaws that leads to interesting conversation and explore interesanting ideas.
And if we can take something from his video, is that we should be skeptical with each vídeo we watched, in this case about philosophy, and we should do our research on the topic. So that way we don't limit our selves to someone's interpretation about the text, but also we get to directly engage and know what about it makes the text amazing.
this is a good comment well said
But he is saying that philosophy tube naively made that video as someone who wanted to talk about Kant. When studying I will admit that Abigail did what she could to make the best video but we should take everything with a grain of salt.
It would be like me, someone uneducated in the subject reading all I can find on Wikipedia and online sources, maybe even some of the source material to make a polished video recapping a few surface level facts and some opinions on the subject, while holding no true authority on the subject. I am also a long time viewer of Philosophy Tube but unfortunately I believe that the product has gotten in the way of the actual education and information. The costumes are just an example of this, the jokes and sarcasm has gotten to the levels of just copying contrapoints for views and it overshadows the philosophy. I believe it has corrupted Abigail’s credibility. I see it as nothing more than flashy surface level exposure to information that has become too Woke for healthy consumption. No longer do they make you question, they employ sarcasm to influence to feel a certain way on a topic.
@@lol22332 philosophy tube is a narcissistic person with deep obsession with Contrapoints (i think they had some sort of relationship as well) and other mental issues, i'm surprised many find PT likeable
I guess I find myself wondering about the distinction between 'analysis' and 'judgement.' Does the difference have something to do with objective vs. moral? Are synthetic judgements necessary to move from simple apprehension of objective facts to something that has moral valence or meaning?
Would it make sense as an analogy to make sense of Kant’s thought (not saying it’s the same thing!) to compare the brain to computer hardware and consciousness to a particular software running on that hardware, processing data input in a particular way that is determined by the characteristics of the software rather than the hardware (while, of course, still relying on the hardware to operate)?
Robert paul wolff said that Kant using transcendental and transcendent as you described, but he mentioned also that Kant is using transcendental when he mean transcendent and vise versa, he said that Kant forgot sometimes,
But people who are read and study Kant knew what he meant by his use of each of the two words.
The problem is that people take the misunderstanding very easy , and in an era of information liquidity, you can't ever correct all these misunderstanding,
This is something awful, I am thinking how to this could affect everything, and how to control this . By a global program of corrections of misunderstanding.
transcendental-God told me to hate life
transcendent -I feel like hating life
If he feels like this about Philosophy Tube then I would love to see the reaction to Carl of Swindon's introduction to Hegel.
Carl ov Swindon. Terrific Honorific, that.
Could you link me it?
Personally, I like Sargon of Applebee's better. I just do.
@@thomaswest4033 If I remember it was just Carl saying he read all of Hegel and understood it perfectly, but it was just a load of old rubbish and nobody else should bother reading it.
@@thomaswest4033 Carlof Swindon is a joke name, long story. Search for Sargon of Akkad on youtube.
I think the transcendental/transcendent distinction is important, as they’re kind of opposites.
The brain/mind thing is a good point in general, but I don’t think the intention was to assert that that consciousness and the physical brain are one and the same substance. It isn’t clear, of course, but it’s more a general habit we have in common parlance.
I like philosophytube, but I do think saying space and time are "hard wired into the brain" does definitely create a wrong impression. So, I don't think the fact that because people commonly conflate the brain and mind is really a good excuse to do it when you are talking about the ideas of someone who argued for the separation
I'm really thankful for your videos, professor.
Please consider reviewing Contrapoints, I think she's better than PT, but I would like to hear your opinion. Greetings from Mexico.
There are many people hating on pop philosophy channels. Which is very anti-philosophical imho.
If you are hating on a person, then also tell what EXACTLY the person is saying wrong. Instead of saying "this person is garbage that no-one should listen too".
Remember Socrates? You'd be the person voting for his death, not be the person engaging in a dialectic.
A review by a guy who can philosophy, of a guy who Kant.
Both Kant but only one can.
It's hard for us to have access to Franco/German philosophy those of us in the Anglo/American world.
You have a point. You either have to get a translation which means you sacrifice accuracy and clarity, or you have to learn a second language which requires a lot of effort and is time consuming. Either way it is difficult to access these materials.
Is there any one-to-many relationship that isn't a posteriori commodification? How else to get returns to scale besides compromise for gains in quantitative dimensions
Doesn't take a genius to see that philosophy tube is style over substance.
This. Philosophy Tube has a lot of stuff swept under the rug, by the way. You might wanna read the mega topic on kiwifarms. Not agreeing with the purpose of that site, but it has a lot of valuable information. It reveals what the person behind Philosophy Tube has done in the past and how that person is copying Contrapoints in many instances. It's just cringe at this point.
@@Kaje_ I always had a feeling PhilTube was just ripping off Contrapoints but had no idea it was so deliberate and forceful. Thanks for the heads up.
He's got scrolls on the shelf :) how cool
Please, please keep up with these critic-videos! They are very helpful! Consider doing a critique to other pop-philosophy best-sellers mumble jumble like Pinker's "Enlightment now".
Man of culture. Spot the Stroszek dvd in the background. Beautiful film.
@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? A Werner Herzog movie, I really recommend it.
i dont know wtf either one is saying, but I love how he's roasting the british guy
17:10 dunning-kruger effect
Perhaps to make philosophy is to take the content from the video and create symbols to interpret that what he refered to as "mind" mixed with the concept of reason, and thus language, brings up the questions presented to other philosophers. Perhaps philosophy is to keep up with the studying as well as to contribute with the best you can aford, while you question the reasons which drive yourself towards sharing such knowledge and keeeping up with the task of never stopping.
GO OFF, KING!!! GO OFF!!!
Awesome channel, thanks for being! Anyone constructively criticizing people (and calling Sam Harris wrong) is alright in my book
Wrong is an understatement lmao
I was grinding my teeth when I watched those Kant videos. Glad you posted this.
Dude takes Kant and makes him say what he wants to say.
I see a "Stroszek" book in the background, which if you know anything about Joy Division, can only be a bad omen!
Good philosophy vid thanks
Professor Heisenberg here straightening the facts like a boss
But there are no 'facts' in 'idealism' - that's a large part of its charm (for philosophers)...
@@stueyapstuey4235 wrong
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 Insightful, perhaps - but you have no facts to back up your claim.
@@stueyapstuey4235 German idealism for Kant is completely based upon the fabric and structure of logic, both formal and transcendental, do you deny this?
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 fabric & structure? So, logic is made of... denim? Is the structure of... bricks?
These 'ideas' are made of bits of language... things you say. Nothing transcendental (I guess you can have formal denim in a square dance!).
The 'idea' of 'idealism' is immaterial. No 'real' stuff attached. That's kind of why it is so fundamentally stupid.
The question the Greek philosophers were trying to out think each other with. was: is the fundamental basis of experience - X or Y or T minus potatoes.
They went - water, nah air, nah fire, nah .... Plato said (via Socrates) - it must be the righteous eternal... which never changes - 'concept', pure in the mind of God...
Dumb solution to a dumb argument.
Kant is merely another, slightly better educated, one of Plato's schoolboys!
This is very helpful! i really enjoy Philosophy tube's content so finding criticism and people refuting what she said in the past is really helpful!!
She?
@@highbaws yes she
@@pyral514 what
Is this a joke?
@@highbaws Look it up yourself. She published a video to answer your question.
I think there is a lack of critical thinking in the way people use technology today. You make a good point in how Philosophy Tube's explanation of brain vs consciousness is filtered through their Anglo perspective, thereby reducing concepts of the brain and consciousness into one. I think when people watch CZcams videos for education, they take it as an "end all, be all" - rather than taking it as a perspective that is filtered through a mind that has a certain set of experiences that has influenced their perception of Kant.
There may be a term for this. I haven't studied philosophy in school, so this may be elementary...
What is the best English translation of Kant's "Critique" ?
I'm curious what you think of the Philosophize this! podcast. I really like it, but I'm curious if there are major flaws there as well.
I’d also like to hear an opinion on philosophize this. One thing I find very refreshing about philosophize this is that it’s very difficult to draw any idea of Stephen West’s personal beliefs from the videos. He presents and argues opposing trains of thought much more so than philosophy tube. That’s not to say it’s necessarily correct or better but I’ve come to see that philosophy tube consistently smuggles in a lot of “oughts” in his videos derived from his interpretations where philosophize this tends to just present the ideas.
@@Hreodrich quite good. But if you’ve already read the material, he doesn’t teach anything you wouldn’t know.
@@rauldjvp3053 yeah he's a good intro but only an intro, I enjoy Philosophize this but I'm routinely disappointed when I listen to episodes on philosophers I've read or taken classes on
THIS!! It would be great to hear if Steven West makes a better job in avoiding such major flaws.
@@Hreodrich I also enjoy this aspect of it. The only drawback is that he uploads sooo sporadicly.
I'd like to report a murder
This is why Wikipedia and CZcams are not used as sources.
What I love the most about this video is how the professor gets frustrated with the video 😂
I wish I could focus on anything else
This is the same with videos on Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche he comes across as a rambling megalomaniac. But that never comes across like that with short profound snippets of his quotes and introductory videos on his theories on youtube. Its more entertaining and exciting, spooky music and artistic backgrounds, and the video author’s commentary on modernity, rather than Nietzache’s actual words itself. Nietzsche appears as a beacon for heroism, against group think, and individualism in these short snippet videos. But he’s actually not this simplistic figure at all. Even Thus Spake Zarathustra is limited to the stories of the serpent and the eagle, the tightrope, and the last man, which is only like 0.1 percent of the whole book.
His videos on Kant, Nietzsche, Schmitt are all riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and often outright lies about the philosophers. It's disheartening to see the amount of reach he gets.
This video (and channel) sparked enough interest in me to do a degree in philosophy! I think that it's important to make the distinction between an introductory summary and an access point. The problem with taking the former for the latter is that, while the ultimate goal is to have more people more educated in philosophy, to simply not produce these videos, or to present it in an inaccessible vocabulary, would lead to less people interested in philosophy in the first place. People will either grow out of small misconceptions, or would have never gone further in the first place. Nobody is going to pick up the critique of pure reason, without any background in philosophy, and just read it start to finish. It's just too difficult, unless you are already really interested and motivated.
By this argument, you could also simply lie about what a philosopher believes in order to advertise his writings to newcomers.
The most frequent mistake people make is searching for a quote that supports their claim, and think it’s ok to just interpret or use the quote any way they like. Because “everyone is entitled to an opinion.” and Nietzsche agrees “insert random Nietzsche quote that has nothing to do with this.”
I see videos by channels like Philosophy Tube and The School of Life as being like the shadows on the cave wall in Plato’s analogy. They give a very vague and watered down depiction of the truth of the ideas they are trying to describe. When you break away and leave the cave (ditch CZcams videos for seriously scholarly research and primary sources) you realise the shadows depicted were not adequate at all and actually quite wrong, but were still perhaps a good starting point to get you interested and make you want to search for the truth.
By the way, the professor in this video has a very good command of English considering it isn’t his mother tongue.
Philosophy is insane. I was never taught any of this, it's as complex as mathematics, trying to keep up because I'm curious tho 💖
It isn't really that complex. Philosophy is the art of concocting ingenious answers to badly conceptualized questions.
@@stueyapstuey4235 Wish it was this easy! Being able to understand these "ingenious answers" requires a lot of familiarity with the canon and with specialized language that are lots of work to develop if you're uneducated. Don't take it for granted.
@@mimief7969 That is true - every specialization has its own vocabulary and genre of discussion, but in philosophy as in 'cultural/literary theory' some of the nomenclature isn't helpful, especially so when a word which exists in common usage is applied in a technically rigorous way. That in itself is not so problematic when you are familiar with how the discipline functions. What is problematic is when the 'technical term' is accepted without being properly elucidated, or challenged. This is essentially the issue in this discussion about Kant. To that extent philosophy (and lit/cultural theory, for that matter) is its own worst enemy by failing to ground its claims with sufficient clarity.
The 'ingenious answers' claim is actually fair when you address the claims philosophers like Plato and Kant are trying to make. Plato's idealism is just plain wrong, but Kant buys it and tries to extend its scope. So, y'know...!
@@stueyapstuey4235 Yeah, "...when you're familiar with how the discipline functions," was my point. It's a struggle to build that, as an adult with only basic and vocational education, that's all I'm commenting on.
If you can demonstrate with certainty that Plato's idealism is "wrong", then I invite you to do so and make public your findings and your argumentation: there's a lot of fame and money waiting for you.
Until then, a counter-argument by Nobel prize winning physicist Werner Heisenberg:
*I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.*
(Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34)
Mind you, I am not a Platonist.
The consideration here is that influential philosophical ideas aren't generally judged to be right or wrong, but rather they lead to a reframing and refinement of the questions they set out to address in the first place, and in doing so, lay the groundwork for new approaches.
The greater value of philosophy does not lie in making claims or judgments (although that is a prominent and important part of discourse), but in questioning and exploring the frameworks that such claims are made within, the implicit claims or assumptions that underlie explicit claims (what you might call the 'grounds' or 'grounding').
Approaches can be shown to be inadequate or insufficient for a particular problem, but seldom outright wrong: when judgments are made regarding them, those judgments tend to address the applicability or utility of an approach within a certain context, rather than its truth value in an absolute sense.
You accuse philosophy of "failing to ground its claims with sufficient clarity", but that appears to be a very broad stroke. All disciplines are based on some methodology, which in turn is grounded in a certain epistemological position. Science itself is a subset of philosophy.
I would also like to know what your criteria are for "grounding claims with sufficient clarity".
You have brought up philosophy in conjunction with literary and cultural theory, so it appears your criticisms have in mind primarily those parts of philosophy which have a lot in common with those disciplines, and that is very understandable.
This is so good to see. I'm glad people like "Philosophy Tube" etc. exist and are doing their thing, but it's so good to hear what are likely to be valid, knowledgeable criticisms.
She'd probably be ok w this video too, knowing her content and reactions online. She seems like someone willing to be taught
Could someone tell me what specific German words correspond to “transcendent” and “transcendental” here?
It‘s actually the same: „transzendent“ and „transzendental“ (probably not too helpful, sorry!)
@@_ku_lia_5444 haha, I thought it might be a clearer difference in German
Some people argue Kant is a Transcendental Rationalist, not a Transcendental Idealist at all.
Uhh. The narcissist was taken apart.
Does he know russian? :) The books on the shelves behind him are in russian
Moeller is right. Thanks. He really is a philosopher.
I suggest that one also read The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. It clarifies numerous statements made in the Critique of Pure Reason. I read the CPR for the first time 50 years ago when I was acquiring my BA in Philosophy. I have read it in its entirety 7 times since. I find the Paralogisms particularly interesting for several reasons most notably that this is the only chapter of the Critique Kant rewrote for the second edition. The Antinomies deserve extra attention as well IMHO.
@Neo Winter Scott I apologize if my comment was not clear. I was not suggesting that one read the Prolegomena prior to reading the CPR but the opposite. I read and studied the CPR long before the Prolegomena. The Prolegomena was published in 1783 and CPR in 1781 so reading the CPR first is a natural point of departure before reading the Prolegomena. Kant spent 10 years writing the CPR and therein perhaps lines some of its contradictions. IMHO, the Prolegomena is almost like an "ah ha" moment in which I take Kant's meaning as if to say "if I was not clear the first time, this is what I meant". I also had the good fortune of an a single semester long class dedicated to the CPR when I was in graduate school. Perhaps that is why I have read the book so many times throughout my life and still enjoy it today.
@Neo Winter Scott Excellent. I appreciate your reply. I don't know if you have any interest in cognitive neuroscience but many cognitive scientist today, especially those who study predictive processing, consider Immanuel Kant to be the "grandfather of cognitive science". I am more involved with Bayesian Cognitive Modeling but have been invited to become involved in a predictive processing study group so I am looking forward to learning more about this. Thank you for your interest in Philosophy. It is wonderful to hear of others continued involvement in this intellectual pursuit.
I don't see what's the big crime here. I presume any philosophy student should know better than to rely on a 5 minute intro to Kant. For anyone wanting to merely consume some thinky thoughty content, this "crucial rift" doesn't even begin to be important.
My point is, Peter Singer has been out there misleading people about Hegel for far longer and nobody seems to care lmao.
'Any'? 'ANY'?!
@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? First, you didn't offend me in any way, and I hope I don't rift you. I like to optimize the odds my comment get read by someone, otherwise iT's almost certainly just going to be graffiti.
Crime is sort of a keyword with me, but I'll stay away from iT, mostly, just to say iT's a crime for 'for profit' philosophers to collect customers on youtube. That's the nature of the whole reading empire, building writing careers, getting a brand name out there and then swimming in the gravy of past success. That's oHH K if making writers were a man-wide goal, and maybe iT should be.
In closing, I think time, space, GOD and infinity are all man-made fallacies. People talk about time and space as iF they belong on the periodic table. That non-stuff simply isn't there except as a handful of words. Then there's the claptrap about dimension. A bridge has been made from 3D as width, depth and height, which are all one manner of length depending on your point of view, to there being three and four and ten and counting dimensions that are other worldly. iT's borderline illiteracy where iT isn't blatant irresponsibility as math and science toy with words. Length and timing measure dimensions and we're stuck in one dimension in escalating decay, and even that might be a good thing iF one's head isn't screwed up one's ass a priori.
can you elaborate a bit on the Peter Singer part, am not familiar
Peter Singer needs to put in jail for his crimes against Hegel. the amount of bullshit singer is responsible for is nuts
The timing of this video is nothing short of iconic
@Radical Larry Philosophy Tube came out as trans like 3 hours after this was uploaded
Abigail came out in the new year...
@@negatronnortagen8037 I mean technically she came out ages ago. But publicly she came out in a video that was released very shortly after this one
You better check again. I saw her coming out video weeks ago
And I better check again cuz I thought this video was "days" old nvm!
Also down with transphobia, btw while I'm here
Here is where I start with my students and myself in engaging with Kant - "He he who wants to learn to philosophise ( not philosophy) MUST regard ALL systems of philosophy as the history of the use of REASON and as OBJECTS for exercising his philosophical talent" -----SAYS WHO ? - Kant post CPR 1900.
Professor Moeller has great taste in German Cinema, "Stroszek" hanging out in the background
I enjoy philosophy tubes videos, they have given me an interest in philosophy and i want to explore more because of it. I appreciate your counter to the channel, very interesting.
Philosophy Tube these days is just left-wing trash
be aware of the heavy one sided political bias Philosophiy Tube has
“An interest in philosophy” didn’t watch, huh?
Anyone else get recommended and then feel inclined to click on this video because they saw it referenced in previous videos? Is this a common thing that the CZcams algorithm does?
Because it was effective
Is it "legit" to equate reason to consciousness?
PLEASE do School of Life Descartes.