Late Modern Philosophy Part 1: The Roots of Continental Philosophy
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 02. 2024
- Modern philosophy began to approach its final stages in the early 19th century as two important groups began to form. These are the continental and analytic traditions, and these two groups will guide our investigation for the next significant portion of the series. Let's start out by examining the roots of continental philosophy, by focusing on figures like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Emerson, and Nietzsche.
Script by Luca Igansi
Watch the whole Philosophy/Logic playlist: bit.ly/ProfDavePhilo
Psychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePsych
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMath
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology/Genetics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
Geology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGeo
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Three things to note about Kierkegaard:
- He didn’t himself adopt the label of ‘existentialist,’ I believe it was Sartre who first labeled him a such due to his focus on existentialist themes in his writing.
-While Kierkegaard did strongly criticize Hegel at times, he himself had a deep respect for him, and many of his philosophical concepts were building off Hegel instead of rejecting them. For example, his ‘stages on life’s way,’ the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage, and the religious stage, pretty clearly take the form of a Hegelian dialectic. Kierkegaard can be compared to Marx, in that they both built off Hegel’s framework in order to criticize his ideas.
- Kierkegaard believed that we should engage in Agape love, not romantic love specifically. He wasn’t against romance persay, but saw it as legitimate when it was a form of Agape love (consider reading Works of Love of you want to learn more about his views on love)
Other than this, great video! I love when you talk about philosophy :)
Fun fact: Schopenhauer pushed an old lady down the stairs because she was cleaning too loudly
Now that's what I call "Studies in Pessimism" 😅..too soon?
I’ve been waiting for this one patinetly 😇
Alright.
Im not going to beg for likes but this has been on my mind for ages.
Miniminuteman (Milo Rossi) and Professor Dave Explains (Dave Farina I think) NEED to collab.
I mean, I know you do some different science, But the debunking stuff you two do is kind of similar and i hope you do indeed collab.
This is day 1.
You two need to collab.
Also I absolutely love your videos and really hope you do collab.
I think a video about ethical theories like utilitarianism would be cool
I can actually keep up with this lecture❤🎉🎉😅
Is it at all worth the time to learn philosophy? I am getting a Uni education in biochemistry and prof Daves videos were always of immense help. There is no such subject offered to me as philosophy or history of it, so does it make sense to learn this obscure matter just out of interest?
As always, a big fan of your work.
Always
I would by no means call philosophy "obscure", since it is what every other science originally grew out of. Your university has no philosophy classes at all? It doesn't have any immediate practical use but a lot of fields and jobs can benefit from you spending time on topics like logic, ethics and philosophy of science. And of course, you can annoy people in any social setting by problematizing anything under discussion, which of course is the greatest benefit of philosophy!
I firmly believe that philosophy should be taught at every primary school. Most notably how to spot a fallacy. Also, you don't need to know every philosopher out there, but by watching stuff from prof. Dave or Stephen West @ Philosophise This podcast you'll get a basic understanding of some very interesting concepts. Those concepts in turn will improve your way of thought and will benefit you in other fields as well.
My friend you can earn an honest good living earning your degrees in biochemistry. The same cannot be said for studying philosophy. If you want to drlve into philosophy you can checkout books from your library or buy them. You spend alot of money on college. Your education is an investment of time and money. For your investment to be good your education should lead to gainful employment. Biochem has great potential for good financial returns. Philosophy doesn't.
@@tw2800 sort of agreed, it is hugely important for society, even though societynitself probably thinks less of it. Equally important for your own development, even though one only knows that after studying up on it. Biochemistry will no doubt make more money, but as an interest it is worth to spend time on! We spend time on netflix as well, so if you want something more fullfilling, go formit
Professor Dave,
Please please please do videos on Dr.Berg and Bobby Parish. I’m rewatching your series on debunking the conspiracies surrounding water and you mentioned dedicating a video to Dr.Berg. These two men are the most prevalent in CZcams and internet nutrition advice and unfortunately I find myself almost believing some of their claims due to the abundance and complexity of nutritional science that exists. I’m aware that both are most likely grifters but it would be awesome if you did a video exposing both of them. Grazie e spero che tu possa farlo.
Completely off topic but I'm asking anyway since you are my favorite debunker, my wife asked me if I think those "Red Light Therapy" masks are bullshit or not. I am deferring the question to you (in terms of keeping skin healthy)
a kind of shitty paper, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297510/. but really its alternative medicine at the end of the day. make sure your wife doesn't attribute it to being a cure to everything or anything, and most probably is just placebo.
red light isn't good or bad for the eyes, but our body and brains are adapted to synchronize with the sun, so red light during night hours is far better for your eyes (also maintains good night vision) your skin does nothing with red light, its energy level can't activate any system in our body as far as I'm aware, and we often use IR, red and green lights in Pulse Oximetry, so really if it activated something in the human body even mildly, it would mess up (non-evasive) measurements that doctors try and make.
If MIR machines were cheap as LED masks, many woo peddles would peddle that "magnetic resonance" cures a huge list of things. Remember that when radium was discovered we started putting it in everything before we really understood it killed.
A little note for you and your wife. a theory I have about all people (especially if have an IQ south of 100) we dropped religion (good riddance) but it doesn't mean we are smart, and won't just gravitate to another idol (which the bible warns about)
google innit
I tried, a lot of vague posts and uncertainty, and even though I read the abstracts on a handful of studies, I'm definitely not qualified to interpret how well they were performed and if they should be taken to heart. So far my research just results in, "Yeah, maybe they work? We don't know in the long term"@@yugimotobutjacked3231
Bro make a Video on Historiography in the West
As a few other commenters have explained, I think your explanation of philosophy misrepresents some philosophers. For example, you stated it as fact that Nietzsche was a nihilist, but he is quoted as developing his entire philosophy around avoiding nihilism which he considers the poison to culture
I don’t get the difference between continental and analytic. The continental ideas you’ve mentioned seem pretty logical to me. Also, if analytic philosophy is empiricist, is continental philosophy rationalist or idealist?
Analytic methodology vs synthesis methodology innit
Could be worth nothing that Nietzsche’s hammer was more accurate described as a tuning hammer with which he would hit false idols to see if they are hollow.
Nietzsche 🤩
Nietzche 😊
Uh-oh, Dave! You mentioned Darwin!
[grabs popcorn]
LMFAO
expert in every subject
Not really
yep not even close
@@stilljaywalking4957
Especially on the topic "what is a woman?" Hahaha
Please make a video about english phonics rule. It would be helpful for non english speak
rules? yea there are no rules. at best there is 101 accents (not dialects) and written English almost never matches spoken English in any accents. I might learn how to write phonetically soon as it better represents speech.
@@busterdafydd3096 long vowel ,short vowel, alternative consonant sound.
@@whatsup3519What you seem to be asking could be achieved by going on the Wikipedia page about English phonology.
@@kakahass8845 I don't get the pronunciation .
@@whatsup3519All the IPA symbols on Wikipedia have specific pages telling you exactly how to pronounce them.
Hope you do a video on Stoic philosophy in Rome dating 141 to 159 . Very useful in modern times ,thanks Pro . Dave !
Check earlier in the series
Irrelevant
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Greek Cynicism?
What the fuck are you morons talking about?
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsI just want a series on all we known about Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, and Zeno. About whether or not that is an actual line starting at Socrates, The Three Cynics, and Zeno. Is that a fabrication by later Stoics to connect their philosophy to pedigree?
Random fun speculation: Spinoza was probably a panentheist, sorry I don’t remember exactly what that entailed xD :’)
Professor Dave would be the unhappy one in Kierkegaard s world.
what happen to "to he know a lot of about science stuff" i like it better with squker voice
Nietzsche wasn’t merely a reader of Schopenhauer-he was his student!
Check the video "How Einstein proved Islam is truth" I understand if you don't want to debunk it, I don't want to generalize every people in a group but you know what I mean...
Most influencial humans according to me:
Jesus for obvious reasons
Socrates for his philosophical genius
Newton for his physics genius.
I also like Søren very much.
Jesus did nothing original, in fact it is commonly accepted that at minimum Jesus had knowledge of Cynic/Stoic philosophies, at maximum he may have attended one of many such schools as they were common, most notably the one Galilee. As for supernatural powers and myths that vast majority including Dying and Resurrection are repurposed versions of other older eastern mythology. Jesus may have been a schizophrenic carpenter who sat in a few cynic classes, but he wasn't divinity.
@@sonic-templeos Show me relative historical accounts not from Jews/Christians
@@sonic-templeosYou can't generalize all of rome as a brutal mistreatment of people. That's Jewish and christian propaganda. Nero also likely had no chips in the pot regarding the prosecution of church fathers. He'd have done it to anyone threatening imperial power.
First