Видео

Thank you for this 🙏🏻❤️

What are your thoughts on CD broads response to mctaggarts philosophy

Welcome beck, professor.

I love McTaggart's clarity and wide grasp of the history of metaphysics. Do you know if there is a published collection of the lectures he gave during the period you indicated? Thanks.

But, Berkeley noted that, being so detailed and consistent, the world could not exist in our thoughts: therefore, God. What does Bradley do with this objection?

Thanks for uploading this! I have stumbled upon this paper some months before finding your video and since then i have been reading it (i think i have read it five or six times now), and i was going mad trying to decipher what the author says. Now i think i have come closer to his idea but i still am not sure. I am currently spreading this paper to various contemporary philosophers of mind, to see what they think of it. It would be interesting to know also your take on it. It seems to me that H. Wilson Carr, by writing this, had not as his aim that of establishing a dualism in the cartesian sense (i mean, his goal was not to demonstrate that there is a soul), but just that the mind is not produced by the brain.

Good to know this shit is even more backwards than Spinoza's idealism

But can the (any) mind exist without space? I do agree that matter has no meaning without mind, but the reverse seems equally true, that there is no mind without matter (or matter, or extension).

The only time I ever found eliminative materialism even slightly plausible was when I read Dennett's argument for the incoherence of the folk notion of pain, - and I think he really does have a point. You even see mystics, who access this truth more introspectively, that there is something unreal and paradoxical about the supposed determinateness of our everyday phenomenal experience. The buddhist would take this unreality to its radical conclusion in the doctrine of "emptiness," but, to distinguish them from eliminative materialists, would not eliminate all particulate mental phenomena to physical matter. I guess my point being, don't write off eliminativism just yet. I mean, go ahead and wrek eliminative *materialism* all day everyday. But eliminativism more broadly still has a kernel of paradoxical truth to it.

And then realism is back!

metaphysics sucks

When will it be released?

Fuck you RUclips

Who is that?

Nice

Great ❤

Hi PI. Thanks for the response! I really appreciate it. That is really interesting that McTaggart was an atheist. This is because I remember him not just for his denial of the reality of time, but also his belief in the immortality of the soul. I am wondering though was Schopenhauer an actual metaphysical idealist (I have heard some people claim that he was a dual-aspect monist)? I know he was highly critical of materialism, but he was also critical of his affiliated German Idealists. I believe that his philosophy begins with his adoption of Kant’s transcendental idealism. This view is an epistemological idealism because phenomena (such as space and time) can only be made intelligible with our minds, but the world as it is “in-of-itself” (noumena) can never be known, and it is therefore not necessarily mental (mere epistemological idealism does not entail metaphysical idealism). I guess it all comes down to what was the fundamental nature of this Schopenhauerian “Will”, which for Schopenhauer - was eternal, singular, non-spatial, non-temporal and irrational (this would serve as justification for his philosophical pessimism). If I am wrong about Schopenhauer being a real idealist, then I apologize. I am also wondering whether or not we can conclude that F.H. Bradley himself was a non-theistic idealist. Since he was a committed monistic idealist, it was definitely the case that he believed in a singular supreme reality (or ultimate principle) which he referred to as “the Absolute,” however, if I remember from reading online entries about him, he thought this philosophers absolute idea was not the classical omni-God of theism (or associated with certain religions). Essentially, is it not the case that “the Absolute” ground of reality for Bradley is not a supreme personal being associated with theism (he essentially distinguishes the concept of the Absolute from God, thereby showing its not a necessary equivocation). If this is the case, would it therefore be appropriate to label Bradley as a type of non-theistic idealist? I will also make sure to watch all of your videos! 😃

Hi PI. For some reason, RUclips is not showing my most recent reply to you 🤔. I don’t know why that is

Hi Pessimistic Idealism 👋. As far as I currently understand, you are one of the biggest defenders of idealism on YT. I have become very interested recently in both idealism and panpsychism. However, at the moment, I am an atheist, and it appears that most historical idealists (such as Berkeley and Hegel) have been theists of some kind (or belonging to some religious faith or tradition). I was therefore wondering do you think it is possible to affirm both idealism and atheism (or non-theism, in-general) together? Would it be possible to have an ‘atheistic’ or ‘non-theistic’ idealistic metaphysical system for either a stricter all-encompassing 'monistic idealism' or a more ontologically diverse 'pluralistic idealism' (the same could apply to forms of 'objective idealism' and 'subjective idealism')? Essentially, can you have an “atheistic idealism” or “non-theistic idealist metaphysics?” Have there also been any prominent philosophical idealists (either today or in the past) who have affirmed both idealism and atheism/non-theism simultaneously? Thanks.

It's annoying how Europe has been able to duslistically turn the entire topic into idealism vs physicalism where each try to Cram subjective properties into the other and all you end up with is the same debate or dialogue which clearly this isn't the case. Subjective Hamiltonian oscillating waves correlated with idealized time is an objective measure very sensible but not physical. 1st position Newton 2nd Einstein 3rd hiesenberg approach its yoo hoo woo = uncertainty. Clearly nature tells us oreintation and direction matters. Sam's with Mass displacement of space by product of gravity manifolds its not idealism not physicalism. But each will argue till they're blue in the face its one or the other. Even our pragmatic common sense American heritage often gets pushed into the idealism camp when I'd say it's more realized in a ( mri machine ) that yes form ,thru by = reorientation is mandatory. Now you sir bacon or even get platonic about definable matter. But it doesn't exclude vacuum energy, greater system at large emerging energetic actors whatever this subjective properties are its definitely 1st position.

After comprehending Kant... I was immediately thrown down to earth as one that reflects. I can no longer take anyone seriously whom does not blend experience & intellect. The amount of bullshit out there that proposes the external existence of beings, places & ideal things... that cannot be shown to exist outside of the mind of the one that proposes the external existence of these things is astounding! I think that I am coming to the conclusion that everything that we label Metaphysical or Transcendent... are nothing but what I call... Inverted Transpositions... of the synthetic understanding of earthly experience (external objects. ) That is to say... there is no such thing as the Metaphysical or Transcendent as understood in the west, and we are actually taking the intellect that works on the representations of perception (external objects ), and, to paraphrase Kant, giving it a separate unbounded room that forgets that its conceptions are based on the synthetic understanding of earthly representations (external objects,) which cause it to conclude that its conceptions aren't derived from its understanding of earthly representations ( external objects, ) and that its conceptions are actually windows into external objects beyond the synthetic earthly representations ( external objects ) that gave rise to these metaphysical conceptions in the first place... Precisely... it takes the physically derived synthetic understanding of earthly representations (external objects ) & inverts them into their opposite... " metaphysical " objects SOMEHOW accessed, which, of course, gives them hierarchical superiority - an Inverted Transposition of the understanding & meaning given to the representations of external objects. Yes... we conceive that which transcends sense representations, but these conceptions are derived from synthetic understanding, not from access to another realm of existence. Derived from experience & applied to experience give us the intuitions of knowledge that are for the purpose of surviving in the world of time, space & contingency. Simply... a screen doesn't pop up in our vision & give us calculations when we, for instance, see things in motion, the intellect is applied to the representation. I don't need to know the Law of Motion, however, to play pool, do I? Nor do I need to know the Law of Gravity to know that I shouldn't walk under a bricklayer's scaffolding! By my nature as a human... I intuitively understand & thus KNOW & thus do not need to explicate the math to actually KNOW... So, it seems that this kind of knowledge ... is only beneficial for the scientist & is dangerous in the hands of the " metaphysician, " whom is likely to turn such into a dogmatic & nonsensical politico - religious ideology ( Platonism, Christianity, Islam, Hegelianism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism etc., etc. ) meant to harm people! I am extremely hesitant to use the words transcendent & metaphysical given their connotations in our Platonic & Christian based culture of thought. In the end... seems to me that Kant is ignored so that rank speculation & twaddle ( Platonic & Christian thought etc. ...) can continue to deceive the masses. PS: I can forgive Kant's Thing Itself which undermines his entire project, due to the strength of his focus on our experience being a product of synthetic understanding.

Late to the party, but I must say: the beauty of this leaves me convinced that philosophy is its own kind of art.

2:10 Gentile henceforth seems to be appraising actualization and actuality.

mctaggart's nature of existence is written in pure analytic style but is every bit as spiritual as his contemporaries in the movement.

❤❤

Thank you so much ❤❤

Great video

Great video

Well done. Your patient, meticulous, and clear analysis is a fine example of philosophy at work. Thanks.

Great, great work.

enough detail to invoke a striking personal rootedness in the space without enough context to provide a meaningful sense of Dasein. Do all "liminal spaces", sharing in their disconnected nature, thus exist in the same shared liminal space?

Interesting. I feel like this issue is resolved by a communal ontology of participation. No "Now" exists in and by itself, because being is communion. What do you think about this? Anyway, I feel motivated to read Bradley myself now. Thanks! ^^

Chapter XXXVIII at minute 2.02 titled "Idealism" from which work comes from?

Great to see a youthful idealist movement in Anglophone philosophy, I hope to soon contribute. Looking forward to your essay.

Eagerly waiting for the text!

I'm interested to see if there is any generational aspect to your analysis. I think this aesthetic phenomenon captures something special for millenials in particular. Maybe individuals right on the millennial/zoomer line most specifically.

don’t mind me i’m just leaving a comment for the algorithm

man, 4 seconds shorter and you could have uploaded this as a short, I'm willing to bet it would have at least 4/5 times more engagement at this point! I'm not a huge fan of short form content but it's definitely the way to go when promoting future projects

hear me out green carpets are fucking weird to me, they give a feeling, Not nostalgia or fear. but maybe smth else

From the second this started I knew it was The Caretaker

Is this the shining

Getting David Lynch vibes from #2 and #3

🎷🐈

Was studying the origins of fascism and landed on Giovanni Gentile.....he'd be very popular today, especially in the field of gender ideology!

I don't think there's a single sentence in this that made sense to me

Thank you for these videos. I'm a Roman Catholic and have been interested in learning about fascist philosophy for some time. I have some questions, if you could answer. 1) What is meant by "subjectivity"? 2) Is there a unity of minds that exist within the mind of God? 3) Does this unity form the basis for the idea of the State in fascism?

Hello great channel and website! I'm Pedro and I'm Portuguese, I study history and philosophy at the university of Coimbra. I discovered the channel recently and I really like the posts and videos. I would like to ask a question, I sympathize a lot with idealism but in my university many professors refer that "Russell and Moore refuted idealism", could someone recommend me some article of response to the criticism of these authors to the British idealism? Or to Moore's critique that all idealism is based on the idea that "to be is to be perceived"? Thank you very much and great work!

Thanks, this is brilliant