How could you detect an a priori structure with biology when biology already works with that a priori structure. He should have read Kant more in detail.
All things considered Andy, I think he does a pretty good job with Kant considering he’s not a Kantian scholar. And to that end, I don’t know that he’s making the claim that the a priori structure can be “detected,” whatever you mean by that, but simply that it “is” which is ironically self-evident and therefore taken for granted. Similar observations are made by Gadamer about “tradition,” and “horizon,” at least as best as I can tell. Regardless, maybe instead of your “withering” critique of Peterson-I obviously mean that to be taken sarcastically-you might try contributing to the conversation .
@@rjwasser8312 No. He does a piss poor job, and he should've reread a bit of Kant before talking about him in front of this many people in such a setting - he's even done this before where he talks about Kant's notion of the thing-in-itself during a university lecture.
@@tuffkookey6108 He didnt really say much about Kant here and what he said, that Kant believes there exist a transcendental “structure” within us, is right. Kant believes every human is a partial rational being and as such recognizes the laws and possesses “Achtung vorm Gesetz”. How exactly do you think Peterson misrepresented Kant?
The idea of subjectivity as hypostasis of the thinking, sentient or transcendental subject, has become the center of a series of idealistic and spiritualist philosophies, as well as a multiplicity of critical ramifications that preserve the same ontological structures, varying their contents. The presence of this type of ideologies, generated in modern Protestant states, requires adjusting the idea to its peaks as a way to counteract its political implantation in the present. Luis Carlos Martín Jiménez - The man who broke Kant.
His claims about Christianity and it’s telos reveal a very twisted and uneducated view of a few, extremely necessary concepts. Image of God and monotheism. He unfortunately is very uneducated in the “type” of monotheism very present within the Old Testament evidenced in the use of the words Elohim(plural) and El Elyon(Most High God). These 2 terms are essential to catching the monotheism in the Old Testament. Because yes there are “other Elohim” other spiritual beings that have (been given) charge over humans that put forward in the OT, however, these are very clearly clarified in so many places as being lesser than Yahweh… Yahweh(El Elyon Most High of all gods) is “species unique”. If you want thorough scholarly work on this, check out work of the late Dr. Michael Heiser. The image of god is another thing he really messes up, putting forward a gnostic understanding within a real Hegelian philosophical framework. However, I know that from other videos of his I’ve listened through. The image of god is not “divinity within”. No. It’s a role within humanity alone of “imaging” their Creator. If you make the image qualitative, you’ve gone wrong. It’s a role. And Jesus, in respect of His human nature, was the perfect imager of God, while also (in respect of His divine nature) also God (of the same essence as the Father). The lesser Elohim of the OT were lesser in essence than Yahweh. And the Tripersonhood of God is also very evident throughout the OT as well. Dr. Michael Heiser deals with alll of this actually.
also he makes mistakes along the way, the transcendantal subject is not at all due to a cultural development to Kant and it is not a psychological or cognitive structure
he's very good at making himself look smart because all he does is talking basic (and erroneous) philosophy mixed with psychology in front of right-wing people who only have ever read business books
@@Adenoss He never said _Kant_ thought that, although it seems to be something Peterson thinks himself. Peterson, in general, justifies his phenomenological views with his psychological practice, which is hardly unique: there’s an entire branch of psychology devoted to transcendental analysis, in the aptly named “phenomenological psychology”. I don’t understand why you think us right-wingers only read business books. You may be referring to our propensity towards laissez-faire capitalism, but most books on that in and of themselves have only tangential relationship to business; Hayek and Mises come to mind.
It's the synthetic a priori that Kant discovered rather than what Peterson is on about.
Thats essentially what he tried to do with the Critique.
How could you detect an a priori structure with biology when biology already works with that a priori structure. He should have read Kant more in detail.
Say more!!!
Divinity of Number
All things considered Andy, I think he does a pretty good job with Kant considering he’s not a Kantian scholar.
And to that end, I don’t know that he’s making the claim that the a priori structure can be “detected,” whatever you mean by that, but simply that it “is” which is ironically self-evident and therefore taken for granted. Similar observations are made by Gadamer about “tradition,” and “horizon,” at least as best as I can tell.
Regardless, maybe instead of your “withering” critique of Peterson-I obviously mean that to be taken sarcastically-you might try contributing to the conversation .
@@rjwasser8312 No. He does a piss poor job, and he should've reread a bit of Kant before talking about him in front of this many people in such a setting - he's even done this before where he talks about Kant's notion of the thing-in-itself during a university lecture.
@@tuffkookey6108 He didnt really say much about Kant here and what he said, that Kant believes there exist a transcendental “structure” within us, is right. Kant believes every human is a partial rational being and as such recognizes the laws and possesses “Achtung vorm Gesetz”.
How exactly do you think Peterson misrepresented Kant?
I’m not sure if I’ve seen this talk, surprisingly
The idea of subjectivity as hypostasis of the thinking, sentient or transcendental subject, has become the center of a series of idealistic and spiritualist philosophies, as well as a multiplicity of critical ramifications that preserve the same ontological structures, varying their contents.
The presence of this type of ideologies, generated in modern Protestant states, requires adjusting the idea to its peaks as a way to counteract its political implantation in the present.
Luis Carlos Martín Jiménez - The man who broke Kant.
Does Jiménez write with pretentious predictive text? Or is it translated and no competent person has tried yet?
Si.
What's the name of the image at 0:35?
Sefirot tree
Where can I find the full video?
ruclips.net/video/hdrLQ7DpiWs/видео.html
@@UnicornLaunching Thank you.
@@edwardelvic5886 Happy to help! Or hurt depending on which side of JBP you're on lmao.
@@UnicornLaunching love em
His claims about Christianity and it’s telos reveal a very twisted and uneducated view of a few, extremely necessary concepts. Image of God and monotheism. He unfortunately is very uneducated in the “type” of monotheism very present within the Old Testament evidenced in the use of the words Elohim(plural) and El Elyon(Most High God). These 2 terms are essential to catching the monotheism in the Old Testament. Because yes there are “other Elohim” other spiritual beings that have (been given) charge over humans that put forward in the OT, however, these are very clearly clarified in so many places as being lesser than Yahweh… Yahweh(El Elyon Most High of all gods) is “species unique”. If you want thorough scholarly work on this, check out work of the late Dr. Michael Heiser. The image of god is another thing he really messes up, putting forward a gnostic understanding within a real Hegelian philosophical framework. However, I know that from other videos of his I’ve listened through. The image of god is not “divinity within”. No. It’s a role within humanity alone of “imaging” their Creator. If you make the image qualitative, you’ve gone wrong. It’s a role. And Jesus, in respect of His human nature, was the perfect imager of God, while also (in respect of His divine nature) also God (of the same essence as the Father). The lesser Elohim of the OT were lesser in essence than Yahweh. And the Tripersonhood of God is also very evident throughout the OT as well. Dr. Michael Heiser deals with alll of this actually.
Genesis doesn’t display a stable unified theology, much less the entire Old Testament.
@@gg3675 WRONG lol
He’s using worlds like phenomenology, and talking about the trinity…
It’s bad.
He's SOOOO smart!!
actually that's first philosophy year in college-level
also he makes mistakes along the way, the transcendantal subject is not at all due to a cultural development to Kant and it is not a psychological or cognitive structure
he's very good at making himself look smart because all he does is talking basic (and erroneous) philosophy mixed with psychology in front of right-wing people who only have ever read business books
@@Adenoss
He never said _Kant_ thought that, although it seems to be something Peterson thinks himself.
Peterson, in general, justifies his phenomenological views with his psychological practice, which is hardly unique: there’s an entire branch of psychology devoted to transcendental analysis, in the aptly named “phenomenological psychology”.
I don’t understand why you think us right-wingers only read business books.
You may be referring to our propensity towards laissez-faire capitalism, but most books on that in and of themselves have only tangential relationship to business; Hayek and Mises come to mind.
WRONG................... - Donald Trump.
What a mess.
ok