Видео

Music to my ears

34:13

I cannot express enough how much this man introduced so much to me in terms of philosophy and the general outlook of life. I just started rewatching his stuff a couple days ago but found out via comments he recently passed. R.I.P. professor, you mean so much to your subscribers and I hope your videos are kept preserved, for both your words and your life will live on and continue to inspire younglings.l

amazing lecture!! he spoke as if from script read from third eye!

I know I sound like a groupie. I'm not. I love this guy.

! To see the awesome muslims contrasted with the benign British go to 39:40

it's a nice lecture but i have to disagree when he said that 'Philosophy is Rigourous science has failed'. i think it is probably the most truthful statement about philosophy. just read the history of philosophy. even in the pre-socratic eras, philosophers are already doing rigorous thinking that the word science has not yet existed. philosophy is the foundation of all scientific thinking and all branches of science stemmed from it. and it is not an understatement. just give it time and continue observing what Phenomenology is really saying.

I think he missed the point. He argues that we cannot be sure what that person has experienced is "correct" knowledge. But this is a general epistemological problem. How can I know that what is written on wikipedia is correct? By checking the sources. But how can I know that the sources are right? This leads us to Meno's paradox and it is not just a problem of phenomenology. Let's say that you want to research whether people with dementia have the ability to understand emotions. The typical, scientific way to approach zhis is to do an experiment. E.g. we show people with dementia a range of photos and let them sort the photos based on the emotion. Now it turns out that people with dementia do not seem to be able to understand emotions - at least based on this research. But if you ask caregivers they will tell you that this does not at all reflect their expierience. They will tell you that people with dementia seem to be often well tuned to your emotions. They will tell you they see it in their eye contact, how they touch you, how they embrace you. Nurses will also tell you that they can sense with whom that person has a good feeling with and with whom don't. Now you might question the professional nurse: how do I know that your phenomenological experience is "correct"? Perhaps you see the danger. We tend to believe the "scientific evidence" and treat people based on that evidence. So when the speaker says why do I need phenomenonology to tell me those self evident things, then perhaps you remember that science brought forth ideas like behaviorism that recommended to teach kids like dogs though behavioral conditioning. Then perhaps things like empathy are not as self-evident as the speaker beliefs. Or, said differently, they are often so self-evident that they are simply ignored from the philosophical scientific discourse and we research things that are totally detached from reality. The point is that there is knowledge that is hard to understand and to proof through traditional scientific methodologies and it is dangerous to act upon scientific "discoveries" that neglect this fact. If you study horses, your presence alone will alter how that horse behaves based on how you appear to that horse. An expert "horse whisperer" may tell you that you messed up the experiment because your presence appeared aggressive and that has made the horse anxious. As a result, it acted differently from how it would act if you were not present. Now what kind of messy, hard to describe knowledge is it, that the "horse whisperer" has? Its certainly something that we have difficulties with formalizing in the traditional scientific domain that Husserl argued against. So, I would argue that this circularity he accuses Husserl of is not just a problem of Husserl, but a general philosophical problem and we see it right in the the critique of the speaker. We justify and build rationalist theories and methods based on rationalist theories and methods and end up with ideas how we treat each other and our environment in ways that do not make sense. The implications are obvious. This changes how we treat patients, how we raise kids, how we treat and see workers, in what buildings we live and work in, how we treat and socialize prison inmates, how we try to prevent that people become prison inmates in the first place, etc.

It pains me to see you in your current health state. Your popular lecture changed my perception of how I exist in the world. Please see a functional medicine physician and take care of yourself. You are a treasure sir!

Is this lecture happening inside a refurbished garage? Cause I'm down with that.

This is from his lecture on Marcus Aurelius. What a great teacher Dr. Sugrue was/is. RIP

Anyone know the approximate date of this or this lecture series.

The generation gap is showing in this dialogue, just like the proverbial slip. (I did enjoy it though 😉.)

What good is the YT algorithm if I'm just now finding these videos?

A brilliant exposition of Praise of Folly but he left out the final part of the book where Erasmus very beautifully and movingly discusses the folly of the Gospel and the mystical contemplation of union with Christ.

22:47 very important

🏴⛪🏴

Thanks for posting - very effective presenter 🙏

🩴🩴

You have taught me the value of the mind, and how much I've squandered my own potential in looking down on myself. Your lessons, free to all has brought together a great number of people who have been lost, yet looking to find themselves inwardly and learn more about the wonders of the world and how we navigate it in our own way through the study of critical thinking and coming together to discuss the myriad of ways one can come towards similar conclusions. You are the greatest spokesperson of free thought I have listened to. I am but a humble man. I know very little, yet I aim to learn more, not out of vanity, but to better myself for the duties I uphold to those who I greatly care for. Though these words would be lost in the wind, I would hope that they reach you somehow, some way. You are my greatest teacher. I will forever hold your words to heart. Thank you. Rest in peace.

🌥🍷 🌦

Absolutely brilliant

This dude is clearly trying to undermine Aquinas. I see right through you. Get behind me, Satan

💎🪞

Well I’m here to say that he was wrong to leave the creator for the creature.

💍

Fun to listen to!

🏛🏦🏛

Maybe love and reason equal instinct so it's actually the senses that are above all else

Anyone know what selections from Kant they read for this class? Or simply have recommendations for some choice bits to read in Kant? Taking on the entirety of one of his works is intimidating.

Rest in peace, Dr. Sugrue.

LOL, way to put lipstick on that pig. But good overview.

💷🏦💵

thank you, professor ♥

The forethought to upload Dr. Sugrue's words is genius, although he may be gone, his thoughts are appreciated by contemporary audiences. Thank you Dr. Sugrue.

i completely agree about hegel being hard to read. its like the words dont make sense even though i understand them individually.

Descartes was dissociating big time🤣🤣🤣

I could cry....I could just cry.... I am a senior now, not too distant from Prof. Sugrue's age upon his passing, and watching his lectures it is very clear to me that never once in my entire life did I have even ONE teacher as good as Prof. Sugrue. I really wish I could have been his student. Well, I guess I am his student now. R.I.P. dear Prof Sugrue.

27:50

Oh fuck… took me 6 months to learn you died. Rest in peace

I know hes far from doing movie reviews lol, but It wouldve been so interesting to pick his brain about the movie "Jacobs Ladder".

Interesting, they had fire but not pottery. Basic pottery is way easier to figure out than making a fire.

Brilliant. I still don't get why people don't realize that Adolf and Mussolini were Socialists, complete with Hegelian Dialectics and the gnosticism, the chiliastic eschatology. 15:40

Secular humanism in modernity is the worst outcome out of nietzsche's philosophy worse than both Christian dogma and racism combined

21:45 thank you good sir! Top Philosophy Boss. We are so lucky to have these tapes, thank you for sharing them. I now understand the goal of 'Progressives', I've asked them for two decades and never get a straight and coherent answer. I now understand that they seek to 'complete' the process of praxis of Hegelian Dialectics with eternal revolution until all the contradictions are dealt with, they find synthesis from the thesis and antithesis. The end of the game is to reach mass Transcendence of/for all of humanity, Nirvana of The Geist. It is a type of gnosticism.

✨🌠✨

When I started watching this channel, I was at first skeptical of the videos I saw of this professor, given how good Dr. Sugrue's lectures were. But now that I've watched several of Dr. Staloff's talks, I must say it's impressive how good both lecturers are. I'm deeply grateful for being able to access such a high-quality education thanks to this channel.

It seems to me that he doesn´t have one single clear thing to say about this famous "being"

☁🌥☁

✍