Came across your lectures last year and I'm surprised at how your subs haven't boosted, criminally low for how talented you are at speaking and giving insight into historical figures, cultures, beliefs
Ikr. Such an underappreciated channel. Kind of nice though, like a quiet little restaurant in some backstreet that nobody knows about, so you can sit down all cosy and peaceful with the rain outside pattering on the window. No reservation necessary, just wander in, sit down, take your time, and enjoy your meal in a welcoming atmosphere. Mmmmmm.....
❤ Religious tolerance: Do we have this today in 2023? Education? Our elite colleges have been led astray by powers of greed. Wisdom comes when one thinks outside the box. Which God? Lol I always loved this lecture on John Locke., as all the others with Professor Cecil. One may agree to disagree and still debate without hating one another. That for me is sanity. An open mind that is a possibility when one comes upon it with reverence.
John Locke FRS was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "father of liberalism". ❤
I have spent years trying to find a good summary overview of/intro to Locke which wasn't either way too vague, extraordinarily boring, or even sometimes slightly offensive (people love to cherry pick his quotes in an ironic practice of cognitive bias). Thank you for this oral "serif" which was interesting enough to have FINALLY motivated me to dive deeper.
He just wasn't sure it was written down correctly..... ... thanks for the great lecture. Reminded me of my dad and unitarian sunday school. Forgiveness is a miracle. Everyone of us is a miracle.
Just recently, I once again read Husserl's "Erste Philosphie", in which he most exquisitely rips him apart on solely philosophical grounds. I like that book very much (a collection of lectures from 1924/25, so exactly one hundred years ago).
Thanks for your thoughts. After Hobbes Leviathan I am reading Locke at the moment (treaties on government). First I thought, that his logical thinking is weaker compared to Hobbes (of course Hobbes also has his weaknesses), but as more I read his book (in german translation) as more I like him. For example the chapter about prärogative is very interesting or his view on monarchy. I think it's good to understand more about the state etc. to be able to think for example about property in times of bitcoin and VR - or where the state is allowed to intervene. What property means in times of globalization. Tolga
I just came out of rewatching your lecture on Karl Jaspers, and I'm feeling a fair bit of resonance between these two. Especially the bit towards the end of this one about how Locke felt that disagreement and argument weren't intrinsically bad, Jaspers seems to have had a bit more of a measured approach to the idea, but there is a certain similarity.
But how is it possible to understand experience itself ? If all our knowledge and understanding arises from experience, then experience can only be understood by means of experience. But surely we do not come to understand our experiences by merely having them, we need something else -- something called 'reflection'. Of course, it can be argued that reflection is just a particular kind of experience, but this misses the point. This is because in reflecting upon our experiences, we are attempting to understand them, not in terms of themselves, but in terms of the general concepts and fundamental ideas that are basis of all our thinking and experience. Why, for example, does time seem to pass more quickly when our minds are engaged and interested, then when we are bored and listless ? In order to understand this psychological phenomenon (an experience), requires us to understand the nature of mind, time, and experience itself -- not simply as elements of a particular experience, nor even as parts of our common experience, but as fundamental concepts apart from subjective experiences altogether. When we ask, for example, 'What is time ?', the answer cannot simply be that time is something subjectively experienced. This is because an hour that I experience as passing quickly might pass rather slowly for someone else who is feeling boredom -- for example, in listening to a professor lecturing on a topic, such as the history of philosophy, that the bored person feels is altogether irrelevant and in which he has no real interest. No, in order for us to understand the nature of time, we must abstract it from our subjective experiences altogether, and instead seek to understand it in terms that are objective and ontological -- not merely as something experienced -- but as something that contributes to the shaping our experiences, and without which our subjective experiences would not be possible in the first place. Suffice to say, mere experience can never reveal the nature of time, and since the concept of time is fundamental to the nature of experience itself, a true understanding of experience can never arise from mere experience itself. Knowledge is not derived by means of merely having experiences. The experiences must themselves be understood in terms of the general concepts and fundamental ideas which shape them, and which give these experiences their meaning and their value for us. These ideas are not the product of mere experience -- which, of course, explains, for example, why Hume loses the concept of 'causality' altogether in trying to understand it in terms of mere experience.
Elevating WHY YOU ARE HERE to a metaphysical argument is how progress has always been made...but it's also how religious people get to give no credit to the toil of humanity while taking advantage of antibiotics and indoor plumbing...
If all you have is your experience, how could possibly 'refer it back' to something called 'the world' ? Your only knowledge, according to empiricism, is experience itself, so you cannot gain access to the world apart from your experience. In fact, you can only refer one experience with other experiences, but what more could you say then that one experience is different from another. You can't say that one experience is more real (or factual) than another -- for example, in comparing an experience that occurs while you are awake, and another that occurs when you are in bed asleep and dreaming. They are both equally experiences, and therefore, according to the logical consequences of starting from an empiricist epistemology, you cannot say that the experience you have while awake is more real than the one you have while dreaming. What would be the basis for such a claim ? Experience is knowledge, and knowledge is experience, and you have no access to the world except by means of your experiences, so how do you know that some of your experiences actually reveal the world as it is, whereas others do not ? Empiricism traps itself in experience, yet pretends to escape the trap it sets for itself by implying that we can still refer our experiences back to something objectively real called 'the world'. The empiricist fails to realize that 'the world' is something he gave-up by pretending all his knowledge is necessarily derived by means of experience. The world is no more, my empiricist friend, all you have, according to yourself, are your own thoughts and experiences.
Sorry, but a classical education was anything BUT narrow. It's a shame to say it, but the propaganda that passes for 'higher education' today is much more so. I know, because I've experienced elements of both.
Yes, but it was never a part of rationalist epistemology to insist upon our having conscious awareness of particular truths upon birth -- such as the best religion or form of government, etc. From Plato to subsequent rationalist, such as Descartes, rationalist epistemology implicitly posits a subconscious reservoir of knowledge of the most general ideas and fundamental truths -- such as those of mathematics and logic (see Plato's 'Meno', for example.). According to this rationalist epistemology, only philosophical reflection and logical reasoning on the general concepts and fundamental ideas that form the basis of our thinking and experience can stimulate our innate understanding of the true nature of these concepts and ideas, bringing our knowledge of them from the realm of the subconscious mind into the realm of our conscious awareness. If you are going to criticize a position, then at least take the time to make sure you understand it first. Otherwise, you are simply engaged in attacking a straw-man.
I don't think it has ever been a serious position that we consciously know particular truths at the time of our birth. This position is not rationalism, nor is it what Locke was arguing against. Your lecture is misleading in this respect.
Yes, but what can else can experience give you, at best, but a compilation of dry 'facts' ? It alone cannot provide you with any kind of standard or criterion for judging the facts in order to produce the understanding and wisdom that you are seeking in a system of higher education.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Came across your lectures last year and I'm surprised at how your subs haven't boosted, criminally low for how talented you are at speaking and giving insight into historical figures, cultures, beliefs
Ikr. Such an underappreciated channel. Kind of nice though, like a quiet little restaurant in some backstreet that nobody knows about, so you can sit down all cosy and peaceful with the rain outside pattering on the window. No reservation necessary, just wander in, sit down, take your time, and enjoy your meal in a welcoming atmosphere. Mmmmmm.....
❤ Religious tolerance: Do we have this today in 2023? Education? Our elite colleges have been led astray by powers of greed. Wisdom comes when one thinks outside the box. Which God? Lol I always loved this lecture on John Locke., as all the others with Professor Cecil.
One may agree to disagree and still debate without hating one another. That for me is sanity. An open mind that is a possibility when one comes upon it with reverence.
The lecture has given me much to think about as always! Thank you for posting
John Locke FRS was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "father of liberalism". ❤
I love this video! It is the most interesting one i have found. I am studying a level politics and this was very helpful thank you ❤️
I have spent years trying to find a good summary overview of/intro to Locke which wasn't either way too vague, extraordinarily boring, or even sometimes slightly offensive (people love to cherry pick his quotes in an ironic practice of cognitive bias). Thank you for this oral "serif" which was interesting enough to have FINALLY motivated me to dive deeper.
He just wasn't sure it was written down correctly..... ... thanks for the great lecture. Reminded me of my dad and unitarian sunday school. Forgiveness is a miracle. Everyone of us is a miracle.
A new one, what a treat!
Just recently, I once again read Husserl's "Erste Philosphie", in which he most exquisitely rips him apart on solely philosophical grounds. I like that book very much (a collection of lectures from 1924/25, so exactly one hundred years ago).
Thanks for your thoughts. After Hobbes Leviathan I am reading Locke at the moment (treaties on government). First I thought, that his logical thinking is weaker compared to Hobbes (of course Hobbes also has his weaknesses), but as more I read his book (in german translation) as more I like him. For example the chapter about prärogative is very interesting or his view on monarchy. I think it's good to understand more about the state etc. to be able to think for example about property in times of bitcoin and VR - or where the state is allowed to intervene. What property means in times of globalization. Tolga
Two excellent thinkers, Wes Cecil and John Locke
The problem with the enlightenment, many forgot to turn on their lights 💡😀
Awesome video
Great lecture, thank you sir!
Thank you! Could please anytime speak about Francis Galton! Please!!
Talk about a thinker we need to rediscover.
I just came out of rewatching your lecture on Karl Jaspers, and I'm feeling a fair bit of resonance between these two. Especially the bit towards the end of this one about how Locke felt that disagreement and argument weren't intrinsically bad, Jaspers seems to have had a bit more of a measured approach to the idea, but there is a certain similarity.
Q
I'm honestly surprised you skipped Hobbes....
... Who was probably the first proponent of Social Contract Theory.
Hearing this his influence on the American founders is obvious.
Watched all of it 32:50
Good piece
have u always been a liberal wes? or was it something u accorded to?
“The taking away of God, even in thought, dissolves all.” - Locke
But how is it possible to understand experience itself ? If all our knowledge and understanding arises from experience, then experience can only be understood by means of experience. But surely we do not come to understand our experiences by merely having them, we need something else -- something called 'reflection'. Of course, it can be argued that reflection is just a particular kind of experience, but this misses the point. This is because in reflecting upon our experiences, we are attempting to understand them, not in terms of themselves, but in terms of the general concepts and fundamental ideas that are basis of all our thinking and experience. Why, for example, does time seem to pass more quickly when our minds are engaged and interested, then when we are bored and listless ? In order to understand this psychological phenomenon (an experience), requires us to understand the nature of mind, time, and experience itself -- not simply as elements of a particular experience, nor even as parts of our common experience, but as fundamental concepts apart from subjective experiences altogether. When we ask, for example, 'What is time ?', the answer cannot simply be that time is something subjectively experienced. This is because an hour that I experience as passing quickly might pass rather slowly for someone else who is feeling boredom -- for example, in listening to a professor lecturing on a topic, such as the history of philosophy, that the bored person feels is altogether irrelevant and in which he has no real interest. No, in order for us to understand the nature of time, we must abstract it from our subjective experiences altogether, and instead seek to understand it in terms that are objective and ontological -- not merely as something experienced -- but as something that contributes to the shaping our experiences, and without which our subjective experiences would not be possible in the first place. Suffice to say, mere experience can never reveal the nature of time, and since the concept of time is fundamental to the nature of experience itself, a true understanding of experience can never arise from mere experience itself.
Knowledge is not derived by means of merely having experiences. The experiences must themselves be understood in terms of the general concepts and fundamental ideas which shape them, and which give these experiences their meaning and their value for us. These ideas are not the product of mere experience -- which, of course, explains, for example, why Hume loses the concept of 'causality' altogether in trying to understand it in terms of mere experience.
Elevating WHY YOU ARE HERE to a metaphysical argument is how progress has always been made...but it's also how religious people get to give no credit to the toil of humanity while taking advantage of antibiotics and indoor plumbing...
nice !
Good job five stars
He looks identical to Adrien brody wow!!!!!
If all you have is your experience, how could possibly 'refer it back' to something called 'the world' ? Your only knowledge, according to empiricism, is experience itself, so you cannot gain access to the world apart from your experience. In fact, you can only refer one experience with other experiences, but what more could you say then that one experience is different from another. You can't say that one experience is more real (or factual) than another -- for example, in comparing an experience that occurs while you are awake, and another that occurs when you are in bed asleep and dreaming. They are both equally experiences, and therefore, according to the logical consequences of starting from an empiricist epistemology, you cannot say that the experience you have while awake is more real than the one you have while dreaming. What would be the basis for such a claim ? Experience is knowledge, and knowledge is experience, and you have no access to the world except by means of your experiences, so how do you know that some of your experiences actually reveal the world as it is, whereas others do not ?
Empiricism traps itself in experience, yet pretends to escape the trap it sets for itself by implying that we can still refer our experiences back to something objectively real called 'the world'. The empiricist fails to realize that 'the world' is something he gave-up by pretending all his knowledge is necessarily derived by means of experience. The world is no more, my empiricist friend, all you have, according to yourself, are your own thoughts and experiences.
Sorry, but a classical education was anything BUT narrow. It's a shame to say it, but the propaganda that passes for 'higher education' today is much more so. I know, because I've experienced elements of both.
Yes, but it was never a part of rationalist epistemology to insist upon our having conscious awareness of particular truths upon birth -- such as the best religion or form of government, etc. From Plato to subsequent rationalist, such as Descartes, rationalist epistemology implicitly posits a subconscious reservoir of knowledge of the most general ideas and fundamental truths -- such as those of mathematics and logic (see Plato's 'Meno', for example.). According to this rationalist epistemology, only philosophical reflection and logical reasoning on the general concepts and fundamental ideas that form the basis of our thinking and experience can stimulate our innate understanding of the true nature of these concepts and ideas, bringing our knowledge of them from the realm of the subconscious mind into the realm of our conscious awareness.
If you are going to criticize a position, then at least take the time to make sure you understand it first. Otherwise, you are simply engaged in attacking a straw-man.
Locke
🤐
Jones Thomas Jackson Barbara Lewis Brian
I don't think it has ever been a serious position that we consciously know particular truths at the time of our birth. This position is not rationalism, nor is it what Locke was arguing against. Your lecture is misleading in this respect.
Walker Susan Perez Scott Jones Jessica
Yes, but what can else can experience give you, at best, but a compilation of dry 'facts' ? It alone cannot provide you with any kind of standard or criterion for judging the facts in order to produce the understanding and wisdom that you are seeking in a system of higher education.
V vvv.
Disagreeing with Locke's thoughts right after the Intro. I'm going to listen when I have more patience.
i ate john locke
Talk louder