Post-Kantian continental philosophy overview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- In this video, professor Ellie Anderson reviews some key themes from Immanuel Kant's philosophy and shares some of the directions that European philosophy coming after Kant takes. Professor Anderson mentions how G.W.F. Hegel and post-World War II philosophy question Kant's views of progress, reason, and appearances vs. things in themselves.
This video was created for Professor Anderson's Spring 2021 "Continental Thought" course at Pomona College.
For more from Ellie, check out Overthink podcast!
Overthinkpodcast.com
Enjoy our work? Support Overthink via tax-deductible donation: www.givecampus...
Join our Patreon for exclusive episode segments, monthly Zooms, and more: / overthinkpodcast
Website: overthinkpodcast.com
Facebook: / overthink-podcast-1054...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzspro...
Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod
Apropos the note @0:50, perhaps the toddler upstairs has issues with Kant, wanting to "radically explode" those ideas.
Keep the great work going ❤
This would have help me so much in my Kant class. But is Kant last of the enlightenment philosopher and the first of the Modern?
Joel, he is the Bridge between the two :)
@@kashanhasan4746 hahah I love honest answers the bun you did their sir.
Even if I grant that reason is historical, upon what basis does it progress and develop into a more efficient tool of truth acquisition? Whether reason is a singular or collective enterprise is immaterial. If this methodology can be improved, that means there is a static perfection being approached. A collective effort should not be confused for a democratic one. If twenty mathematicians cooperate to solve a difficult theorem, that does not suggest an improvisation any more than if one mathematician slaves over it. Now if one believes that reason is simply a story we tell ourselves to find comfort in prevailing thoughts and behaviors, that can hardly be called dialectical. My cause for rejecting historical reason is somewhat anecdotal. Though I acknowledge the real impact of an observer bias, it can not be totalizing. Paradigm shifts could never come to fruition through a lone maverick if we needed to walk in lock step. He would not know how to evade the clutch of his situatedness. Yet from Einstein to Tesla we see models being blown up at the hands of individuals. Further more, I reject this notion on the basis of convenient hand waiving. If someone affirms orthodoxy in any respect, he is somehow captive to an outdated template ready to be replaced. The new and surging always takes priority of the accepted. Why give the exotic a presumption of infallibility? I certainly do not.
Good vid 👍
Thanks for this :)
Great video but I think philosophers need to stop relying on a bookshelf in the background 😅
Both doges are right.