Michel de Montaigne is such a fascinating figure. Ahead of his time, we might say, preceding by a few centuries people like Rousseau who would go on to shake up the deeply ingrained ideas Europeans had about education. Especially in his time, it's incredibly rare to see someone advocate for the curiosity and autonomy of young people instead of blind deference to teachers. And many still need to truly internalize that message.
By the time Spinoza wrote the Ethics (and arguably by the time of his excommunication) he was no longer a practicing Jew, and likely would not have considered himself one. His metaphysics are strongly influenced by Jewish thought (particularly Maimonides) but the God he bases his system off of in the Ethics is emphatically not the Abrahamic one. He'd be better described as a pantheist or an atheist, though both of those labels would also be inadequate to some degree.
The school system still works in abstract ways and discourages questions, not as much, but definitely sounded all too familiar from my experience and others
Dear Professor Dave, I really enjoy your video's, thank you for taking the time to make them. Your notion of Spinoza's philsophy, however, is incorrect as mentioned earlier in the comment section. Could you please change it? Not only is his philsophy nothing like the jewish belief system (undoubtly inspired), but you fail to mention that his work was censored by the church for a long time (not just by jews). He also can be considered as one of the first philosophers who actively wrote against the idea of a personafied God and advocated for democracy in his tractatus theologico-politicus.
I'm not sure what is meant by "physics" at 4:26 but if it means what we currently regard as physics in 2023, I don't see how it can be more foundational than mathematics.
Thank you for this very informative introductory video on modern philosophy. The only one of the philosophers mentioned in your video that I know in some depth is Benedict de Spinoza and I feel compelled to point out a few inaccuracies you maintain about his work that you could easily correct, thereby further improving the quality of your introduction. 1. “[Spinoza had] a religious agenda in his Judaism, an aspect permeating most of his theory.” I find this a very problematic statement. Edwin Curley, the eminent translator of Spinoza’s complete works, writes in his editorial preface to Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: “[It] is a complex work, with multiple agendas, one of which was probably to make the case for rejecting Judaism, as it was understood in the synagogue from which he was expelled.” He does go on to write that that is not to say that Spinoza rejected Judaism in its entirety, but sentences from Spinoza’s own preface to the Theological-Political Treatise such as “I was easily able to determine that the authority of the Prophets has weight only in those matters which bear on the practice of life and on true virtue, but that their opinions are of little concern to us” and “the Laws God revealed to Moses were nothing but the legislation of the particular state of the Hebrews, and […] no one else was obliged to accept them” in my opinion don’t point towards the “religious agenda in his Judaism” you mention. 2. “He argued that everything was an emanation of […] a divine substance he associated with the Jewish God.” The first part of this sentence is true enough, but that Spinoza associated that substance with the Jewish God is manifestly incorrect, and I really think you should change at least this part in your video, especially as this misapprehension is not only verbally stated, but also visually depicted in your graphic. Spinoza’s own definition of God right at the outside of his Ethics is “a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” And in the preface to the fourth part of the Ethics, there is the famous phrase “that eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature." Spinoza thus identifies God with Nature and, as commenter @wabberjockey7667 also pointed out below, in doing so is a long way off from the traditional conception of the Judeo-Christian God, who is seen as a transcendent, but often still anthropomorphic being that is ontologically distinct from and thus outside the world he/it has created. In stark contrast to this conception, Spinoza’s God, as he will attempt to prove throughout the Ethics, is immanent: "God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of things." (Ethics, IP18) 3. “Everything happens necessarily as the divine will directs.” This statement is also inaccurate at best. While Spinoza certrainly believes that everything happens necessarily by God’s/Nature’s laws, he emphatically denies that there is a divine will directing anything: “God does not produce any effect by freedom of the will.” (Ethics, IP32C1) He even calls the will of God “the sanctuary of ignorance” in the appendix of the first part of the Ethics.
@@donchristie420 Funny, considering physicists were basically doing philosophy when it came to talking about quantum mechanics during the early 20th century.
His ideas were not relevant to future philosophy ? To the contrary, the skepticism of Montaigne, while going too far, was an important step in breaking free of the scholastic authoritarianism of the schools. It awakened in philosophers the need to establish a real foundation for knowledge -- other than mere authority. Hence, it directly leads to Descartes -- the so-called 'Father of Modern Philosophy', who attempted to supply a rational foundation for knowledge. Moreover, his rejection of abstract ideas gave new vigor to the empirical search for knowledge in such figures as Francis Bacon and John Locke. No, you were right to start with Montaigne.
I can truly appreciate the various topics you discuss. Thank you Prof Dave ❤ I wish I was more educationally inquisitive when I was younger like I am now... but better later than never. 😊
I always find religious people demanding perfection from science, that facts in 1200 ad, should be the same as facts in 2100 ad, after all it's science, its fixed and dosnt change, well no science isnt fixed, what we seak is fixed, and the better we make our instruments the closer we get to the real fact, hahahahahaa, not like we read a book, dosnt give much detail, we never update it, but it tells us everything we need to know, and we will die and kill for it?????????
It's not so much a matter of intelligence for how someone pronounces a word more so a particular dialect or way of saying it that makes it so different, it doesn't mean he's wrong unless he said it like Aristogopiant or something then it would probably raise more questions.
"As his own sensory and memory are faulty, so are everyone's." Even supposing the conclusion here is true, the argument on which it is based is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because one is fallible, all are fallible. Experience teaches us that people are fallible, that even the most intelligent people sometimes get it wrong. However, it is never logically justifiable to use our own fallibility as the sole basis upon which to judge the fallibility of others. To go onto he skeptical conclusion that knowledge is not possible due to the observance of the fallibility of one's own mind is no less fallacious an argument. No, if I am aware of my own fallibility, then this is itself an instance of knowledge, and, indeed, it is certain that knowledge is not only possible, but actually exists.
Hey maaan. You need to debunk sadhguru bro.. I just came upon this dudes video sayin mercury aint poisonous. And they can be solidified in room temperature type shiit. I did some research and found codys lab video that debunks it. But my friends are falling hard for sadhgurus tactics.. debunk that old man my guy..
ah, descartes. 'i think, therefore i am. therefore god exists.' i skipped a few steps. one was about melted wax existing in shapes that we cannot imagine. they are weak arguments. then again, a lot of philosophers have tried to prove God exists. says a lot about philosophy that they try to prove something using logic instead of using data/fact, or experimentation.
Insulting Descartes’ intellect for being religious is some naive Reddit behavior. You don’t even understand propositional logic; it’s the basis for mathematical proofs, physics, and computer science.
@@AYVYN silly person. i'm not insulting him for being religious, i'm saying his propositional logic sucked. it does NOT follow that because there are more shapes than you can imagine that god exists.
Pascal's wager is a shit argument for god as it doesn't account for the other gods in other religions. What if you believe in the christian god but the Islamic god actually exists and because you believe in the wrong god, you go to the Islamic hell? For pascals wage to be better, it would have to include every single god concept. It would also have to include any god concept that no one has even thought of. Because what if there is a god, but no one believes in that one? There are also other reasons why Pascals wage is an absolute shit argument for the existence of a god but that's one the main reasons.
It's often hard to tell with so many of the past scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers. The Church had no compunction about jailing, or even killing, anyone who floated theories that did not conform to the Church's teachings. I often wonder whether some of the great minds of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries professed religion if only to keep the Church from persecuting them. The truth is, we'll never know for certain.
@@glennpearson9348that would be the Catholic Church. It was a political movement disguised as religion dedicated to world domination led by single man The considered himself a God.
@@glennpearson9348 I know there was one prominent Muslim scholar (I'm not sure if it was Omar Khayyam or someone else though) who seemed to have the opinion that basically all of the Qu'ran was allegorical, at least.
Yes, because he had to be. Heresy was executable. Newton was also religious because even during his time just simply being a Deist was enough for excommunication. Lets not act like there was a choice in the matter.
@@Gruso57 you are aware that Copernicus was threatened with death by the Roman Catholic Church if he went public with his views on science and faith, and news flash, he went public.
He's answered different variations of this question in the past. He has a background in mathematics, chemistry and a few other sciences. He's made a number of videos based on his own knowledge. However, these days, he has acknowledged that he collaborates with other specialists in different fields to make other videos.
Michel de Montaigne is such a fascinating figure. Ahead of his time, we might say, preceding by a few centuries people like Rousseau who would go on to shake up the deeply ingrained ideas Europeans had about education.
Especially in his time, it's incredibly rare to see someone advocate for the curiosity and autonomy of young people instead of blind deference to teachers. And many still need to truly internalize that message.
By the time Spinoza wrote the Ethics (and arguably by the time of his excommunication) he was no longer a practicing Jew, and likely would not have considered himself one. His metaphysics are strongly influenced by Jewish thought (particularly Maimonides) but the God he bases his system off of in the Ethics is emphatically not the Abrahamic one. He'd be better described as a pantheist or an atheist, though both of those labels would also be inadequate to some degree.
Thank you for pointing out this critical nuance! I had the same thought.
Philosophically speaking, this has been a very enlightening series thus far. Thank you, Dave!
Leibniz's optimism was the basis of Voltaires "Candide, ou l'Optimisme", poking fun at this worldview.
Love this series 🙏
The school system still works in abstract ways and discourages questions, not as much, but definitely sounded all too familiar from my experience and others
Dear Professor Dave, I really enjoy your video's, thank you for taking the time to make them. Your notion of Spinoza's philsophy, however, is incorrect as mentioned earlier in the comment section. Could you please change it? Not only is his philsophy nothing like the jewish belief system (undoubtly inspired), but you fail to mention that his work was censored by the church for a long time (not just by jews). He also can be considered as one of the first philosophers who actively wrote against the idea of a personafied God and advocated for democracy in his tractatus theologico-politicus.
I'm not sure what is meant by "physics" at 4:26 but if it means what we currently regard as physics in 2023, I don't see how it can be more foundational than mathematics.
This is a superb primer for everyone.
Great work! Philosophy is really interesting. Thank you for introducing me to it
Hey prof!
Thank you for this very informative introductory video on modern philosophy. The only one of the philosophers mentioned in your video that I know in some depth is Benedict de Spinoza and I feel compelled to point out a few inaccuracies you maintain about his work that you could easily correct, thereby further improving the quality of your introduction.
1. “[Spinoza had] a religious agenda in his Judaism, an aspect permeating most of his theory.” I find this a very problematic statement. Edwin Curley, the eminent translator of Spinoza’s complete works, writes in his editorial preface to Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: “[It] is a complex work, with multiple agendas, one of which was probably to make the case for rejecting Judaism, as it was understood in the synagogue from which he was expelled.” He does go on to write that that is not to say that Spinoza rejected Judaism in its entirety, but sentences from Spinoza’s own preface to the Theological-Political Treatise such as “I was easily able to determine that the authority of the Prophets has weight only in those matters which bear on the practice of life and on true virtue, but that their opinions are of little concern to us” and “the Laws God revealed to Moses were nothing but the legislation of the particular state of the Hebrews, and […] no one else was obliged to accept them” in my opinion don’t point towards the “religious agenda in his Judaism” you mention.
2. “He argued that everything was an emanation of […] a divine substance he associated with the Jewish God.” The first part of this sentence is true enough, but that Spinoza associated that substance with the Jewish God is manifestly incorrect, and I really think you should change at least this part in your video, especially as this misapprehension is not only verbally stated, but also visually depicted in your graphic. Spinoza’s own definition of God right at the outside of his Ethics is “a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” And in the preface to the fourth part of the Ethics, there is the famous phrase “that eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature." Spinoza thus identifies God with Nature and, as commenter @wabberjockey7667 also pointed out below, in doing so is a long way off from the traditional conception of the Judeo-Christian God, who is seen as a transcendent, but often still anthropomorphic being that is ontologically distinct from and thus outside the world he/it has created. In stark contrast to this conception, Spinoza’s God, as he will attempt to prove throughout the Ethics, is immanent: "God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of things." (Ethics, IP18)
3. “Everything happens necessarily as the divine will directs.” This statement is also inaccurate at best. While Spinoza certrainly believes that everything happens necessarily by God’s/Nature’s laws, he emphatically denies that there is a divine will directing anything: “God does not produce any effect by freedom of the will.” (Ethics, IP32C1) He even calls the will of God “the sanctuary of ignorance” in the appendix of the first part of the Ethics.
Nice way of putting it! Could you elaborate further??🙃
I love philosophy
My physics beat your measly philosophy 🥴
@@donchristie420 philosophy isn’t related to physics at all
@@nicholas2640 your being to philosophical on my response,try again
@@nicholas2640i wouldn’t say that. Physicists tend to be philosophical.
@@donchristie420 Funny, considering physicists were basically doing philosophy when it came to talking about quantum mechanics during the early 20th century.
how do you manage to put out one of these every 2 days? it’s eels like it would take a lot more work provided how in-depth these are
i'm a workaholic
It is very impressive.
His ideas were not relevant to future philosophy ? To the contrary, the skepticism of Montaigne, while going too far, was an important step in breaking free of the scholastic authoritarianism of the schools. It awakened in philosophers the need to establish a real foundation for knowledge -- other than mere authority. Hence, it directly leads to Descartes -- the so-called 'Father of Modern Philosophy', who attempted to supply a rational foundation for knowledge. Moreover, his rejection of abstract ideas gave new vigor to the empirical search for knowledge in such figures as Francis Bacon and John Locke. No, you were right to start with Montaigne.
I can truly appreciate the various topics you discuss.
Thank you Prof Dave ❤
I wish I was more educationally inquisitive when I was younger like I am now... but better later than never. 😊
Finally
Another great presentation.
I always find religious people demanding perfection from science, that facts in 1200 ad, should be the same as facts in 2100 ad, after all it's science, its fixed and dosnt change, well no science isnt fixed, what we seak is fixed, and the better we make our instruments the closer we get to the real fact, hahahahahaa, not like we read a book, dosnt give much detail, we never update it, but it tells us everything we need to know, and we will die and kill for it?????????
Dave's interesting pronunciation of 'Aristotelian' was that first time I ever felt smarter than him.
It's not so much a matter of intelligence for how someone pronounces a word more so a particular dialect or way of saying it that makes it so different, it doesn't mean he's wrong unless he said it like Aristogopiant or something then it would probably raise more questions.
@@DaveSpacemanit was a joke you regard
@@harry-matakios1344 Well it wasn't funny.
@@DaveSpaceman you are acoustic
@@harry-matakios1344Doesn't sound like a joke to me. More like a strange occurence for him probably.
Modern philosophy arose when scholasticism began to lose sway.
Dave you completely skipped over Neoplatonism, a sweetest fruit of antiquity and still very relevant.
Not my dumbass reading this as "neapolitanism" 😭
Neoplatonism should be skipped since it's not part of modern philosophy.
This video is for lay people
I think Neo had sex.
@spitfire3311 Not only that but neoplatonism should not be included as part of modern philosophy.
おはようございます
Will you be covering Wittgenstein?
yes
Immunology?
"As his own sensory and memory are faulty, so are everyone's." Even supposing the conclusion here is true, the argument on which it is based is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because one is fallible, all are fallible. Experience teaches us that people are fallible, that even the most intelligent people sometimes get it wrong. However, it is never logically justifiable to use our own fallibility as the sole basis upon which to judge the fallibility of others. To go onto he skeptical conclusion that knowledge is not possible due to the observance of the fallibility of one's own mind is no less fallacious an argument. No, if I am aware of my own fallibility, then this is itself an instance of knowledge, and, indeed, it is certain that knowledge is not only possible, but actually exists.
I’m very surprised to hear that Spinoza associated the one unified reality with the Jewish God. I don’t think that’s true.
To the contrary, Pascal is in many ways the forerunner of the romantics and, later, the existentialists.
Love the fact that prof. Dave still keeps updating the philosophy category
is that thumbnail ai generated?
can you make a video of your point of view and explaining the israelo-palestine conflict .a
do you think theocracy is a favourable form of government
no
First
Hey maaan. You need to debunk sadhguru bro.. I just came upon this dudes video sayin mercury aint poisonous. And they can be solidified in room temperature type shiit. I did some research and found codys lab video that debunks it. But my friends are falling hard for sadhgurus tactics.. debunk that old man my guy..
My parents freakin worship that guy 💀
Bro ?
Dude
@@donchristie420 excellent 👌
ah, descartes.
'i think, therefore i am.
therefore god exists.'
i skipped a few steps.
one was about melted wax existing in shapes that we cannot imagine.
they are weak arguments.
then again, a lot of philosophers have tried to prove God exists.
says a lot about philosophy that they try to prove something using logic instead of using data/fact, or experimentation.
Insulting Descartes’ intellect for being religious is some naive Reddit behavior. You don’t even understand propositional logic; it’s the basis for mathematical proofs, physics, and computer science.
@@AYVYN silly person.
i'm not insulting him for being religious, i'm saying his propositional logic sucked.
it does NOT follow that because there are more shapes than you can imagine that god exists.
260 m vwz chann
Pascal's wager is a shit argument for god as it doesn't account for the other gods in other religions. What if you believe in the christian god but the Islamic god actually exists and because you believe in the wrong god, you go to the Islamic hell? For pascals wage to be better, it would have to include every single god concept. It would also have to include any god concept that no one has even thought of. Because what if there is a god, but no one believes in that one? There are also other reasons why Pascals wage is an absolute shit argument for the existence of a god but that's one the main reasons.
Copernicus was a devout follower of Christ, just FYI
It's often hard to tell with so many of the past scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers. The Church had no compunction about jailing, or even killing, anyone who floated theories that did not conform to the Church's teachings. I often wonder whether some of the great minds of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries professed religion if only to keep the Church from persecuting them. The truth is, we'll never know for certain.
@@glennpearson9348that would be the Catholic Church. It was a political movement disguised as religion dedicated to world domination led by single man The considered himself a God.
@@glennpearson9348 I know there was one prominent Muslim scholar (I'm not sure if it was Omar Khayyam or someone else though) who seemed to have the opinion that basically all of the Qu'ran was allegorical, at least.
Yes, because he had to be. Heresy was executable. Newton was also religious because even during his time just simply being a Deist was enough for excommunication. Lets not act like there was a choice in the matter.
@@Gruso57 you are aware that Copernicus was threatened with death by the Roman Catholic Church if he went public with his views on science and faith, and news flash, he went public.
Do you teach things in videos by randomly selecting a subject and quickly acessing the topic beforehand or do you have such broad knowledge?
He's answered different variations of this question in the past. He has a background in mathematics, chemistry and a few other sciences. He's made a number of videos based on his own knowledge. However, these days, he has acknowledged that he collaborates with other specialists in different fields to make other videos.
Okay@@glennpearson9348
In the description it states author of😊