Philosophy is Dead Putin says "Believe in me, Support me & be rewarded or else!" Everyone agrees that he is pure evil and his supporters are scum But change the name Putin to God & repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!" And not one modern day philosopher or student can see this Just blind book readers of ancient white men

..

.. .o.o o

Typical case of guy who read but didn't understand the book.

​@@RodolfoAlcazarPortillowhat did he get wrong?

"that's a real fat kant right there" - Australian

If you're out at night - it's because they Kant find cheap speed in Essex anymore since the '90s. Also i guess the ones running it for the firm today are real Kants, which is also a real philosophy..

Guys like this are going crazzzy on the UKposts grind

A "complete guide...." to Kant is a misnomer in this presentation. IT is FULL of 'new-age' buzz without much on the real ideas behind Kantian idealism.

ditto brothers in arms ;)

@@hplooi I'd be very interested to learn, honestly. Could you point out some of the problematic parts? Thanks!

I've been telling people that for about 2 years, paying for education is only needed for a job. We now have the biggest library in the palm of our hands and people don't even realize.

Wow. The collaboration I never knew I needed.

A nice surprise

As long as it's not Jordan Peterson-level kermit then I'm sure it will be tolerated by the audience.

Oy, oy! (Agree!)

ive come to think of a flaw in his categorial imperative, which is scope (of the action in question). Idk if this is discussed in Kant's work, since i didnt read it all, but for every action, for which one is asking if it is moral, one could just narrow down the scope so much, that the categorial imperative can be uphold. Lets take a benign and trivial example: stopping at a red traffic light. It is clear that if there is no general rule to stop at red traffic lights, there would be chaos, accidents happen and people would have problems. But if u take ur specific situation into account, lets say stopping at a red traffic light when no other traffic member is around, no vehicle is seen, no pedestrian is there, even a general law to not stop in this particular situation wouldnt do any harm. My point is that one could narrow the scope of the action in almost any case, adding exeptions to exeptions, and basically declare any action moral, given the particular circumstances.... of course one had a huge amount of non-applicable general laws that are only applicable in very specific circumstances, but Kant's moral imperative can be uphold. Or take another example: someone broke into ice on a lake and intuitively one is obliged to help. But take the risk for the rescuer into account, since he could end up breaking the ice, too, or lets say (which is very constructed, i admit) he is a serial killer and ends up destroying the lives of others, and suddenly a general law to help this person is very much in question. What im saying is, that there are loopholes to this categorial imperative that are practically as big as one wants and can reason with.

yes absolutely! I want to somewhat understand this madlad without reading him

No lie, he would be a real one if could. Hegel, especially with today’s revival of him, is in some ways even harder to grasp than Kant especially since all the popular things known about him are categorically false.

I would be great, but the video would be 10 hours long lol

@@MemaK124 I don't understand the problem

Zizek agrees and so on

⁹⁹yy66666

Next time break the blue pill in half!

Philosophy is dead! Putin says "Believe in me, support me & be rewarded or else!" Everyone agrees that Putin is pure evil, his supporters are scum But change the name Putin to God and repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!" And not one philosopher can see this blindness! Amazing! Just blind book readers of ancient old white men

I've been thinking of this on my own, before i even got into philosophy, from atoms and before atoms, time. To 1. To 2. And 3.However I'm lost when it comes to ideas. There has to be something deeper. 1 single thought can change it all.

@@AhhsvsvHhehe Well said.

was kant a m-gtow?

Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.

I'm in the same boat - I don't absorb all of it at once, so I come back to many videos and always pick up more and more of them.

Reading books should also give you a deeper understanding

Which videos you have watched about Spinoza ? Send me link if u

@@samreenkhawar8031 i assume theyre talking about this channel's video on spinoza. looks like one of his biggest hits so far

@@youtubeisawebsite7484 got it thank you

Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, -*-you are correct.-*- So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks."According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press."Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," states "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000.Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested.- 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested.Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers at a protest during the Ferguson protests in AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?**2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.

Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops? 2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks." According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press." Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000. Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested. - 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested. Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?* *2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.

Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops? 2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks." According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press." Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000. Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested. - 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested. Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?* *2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.

Thanks for your explanation and clarification. I began to learn, on my own, about Kant's philosophy recently, and I felt a little confused with this video. 'Intuitively' -I don't know if that is exactly the right word 😂- I felt that something was wrong on this video, compared to what I have learned from other sources. Now I know that I wasn't wrong: your ideas were more adjusted to what I was understanding about this subject. I appreciate it.

@@carlosmh11If you're looking for an accurate overview of Kant's work in a video format, I'd recommend the lectures on Kant by Daniel Bonevac that he has self-published here on UKposts.

@@TheGemsbok Thank you for the recommendation! I'll definitely watch it.

He makes space and time A rioting but matter as not so. This is pure prejudice , Doxa to justify All kinds of. Nonsense , without due diligence.

Typo I meant space and time are A-Priori

It’s not for the TicTok generation.

​@@rosebudadkins6803 that's exactly who Its for, this is timeless wisdom for every generation

Scrambled eggs, not that great.

Would you mind sharing your reasoning?

@@michaelwu7678 Sure. I was a Christian at the time but never really accepted the Bible's authority by itself. I thought that if the "Christian morality" were true, the Bible was just guidlines that were derived from the world. I accepted that all humans are worth the same and because I accepted that morality existed to limit your rights to act on your desires, in principle, I reasoned that everyone should possess equal constraints and liberties based on their equal value. From there I just evaluated different scenarios where I was unclear how to judge. (I evaluated cliche situations about stealing or murdering but a big one I remember liking was justifying my ideologically pre-determined judgment on homosexuality. I reasoned that if everyone had the right to be homosexual it should be true that we could, everyone, at once, be homosexual and for it to be "good" the result of everyone exercising one's right to homosexuality should produce a "good" outcome. With this tool and some added pieces of reasoning, I made my views into, what I thought was a very good reason to believe in moral realism and that homosexuality is "wrong" of course. ) and ended up thinking it was a good moral compass to follow. Even though I was never very religious nor inclined to philosophy until very much later on my life, I do believe my ideological background made me prone to think like so. Ps: I don't hold most of those lines of reasoning as valid any longer, just if you were wondering.

@@andresdubon2608 Thanks for sharing. That was very interesting to read. Kant actually used his principles to argue against homosexuality and any kind of non-procreative sex in general. It's interesting though that we can also use the Categorical Imperative to argue for sexual freedom as well, depending on how you formulate it.

@@michaelwu7678 intresting. Can you share that formulation?

this is philosophy

I agree; the Spinoza video brought me to tears.

Like space as an a priori precondition for experience. Kant's proposition that we cannot derive space empirically because it's a precondition for experience. And Hegel comes along and is like, "Sure. We don't derive space through INDIVIDUAL experience. But it WAS derived through a dialectical experience across the evolutionary development of consciousness." My brain-meat firmware may have come preloaded with space as a precondition to knowledge, but my nematode ancestors had to be shaped by experience of a spatial world. Their forms literally twisting through the generations in response to the outside world. Their descendants' central nervous systems forged by trial and error. A forgotten collective experience for the whole animal kingdom, passed down in our very shapes. The shape of human consciousness CONTAINS that whole development. Kant, and his whole era were so stuck in the individual mind as though it were it's own island of consciousness. They couldn't consider the experiences of our forebears as, in a very literal and physical way, a part of our experience before we even become conscious of it, even if we NEVER become conscious of it. It's a deep, collective knowledge that we have. This shit just clicked for me. I need to go back and reread "Sense Certainty", "Consciousness", and "Force and the Understanding" from Hegel's phenomenology.

@@QuintessentialQs Hegel is the GOAT

Can you read this iceberg abstraction of transcdental space-time that makes no sense, yeah I can but it makes no sense. And they have bots. There's 3 critiques, the only one that made sense oa his critique of the categorical Imperative and judgement. Oh it's a posterior.

You made a mistake wasting your time with Hegel. Don't make that mistake again. Hegel is a dead end.

You're getting nothing by tackling a bunch of ambiguous sentences which could be interpreted in 100 different ways. They are just food for thought. You'll think about those random connotationless words, connect them with your pre-existing thoughts, come up with a clearer understanding of concepts and form new knowledge. As Nietzsche said and I paraphrase "you only dig what you bury yourself." I'd rather spend time with wittgenstein. Knowing what Hegel or Wittgenstein said is useless to me, having a deep understanding of the topic is better than knowing what they actually said but with a superficial understanding.