Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What is American Transcendentalism? (Philosophical Definition)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2020
- A video on New England Transcendentalism also known as American Transcendentalism, including their approach to epistemology, religion, and politics.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more! (#Transcendentalism #Emerson)
The misconception is that we all have to agree, when in fact, we don't, each of us can have a different view, and as long as we aren't kicking or punching one another to prove who is "right", there's nothing wrong with us all seeing things differently.
I feel a lot of things that can't be rationally explained. All of us do and that's a good thing. I think finding out the "truth" about anything that isn't rationally explainable through logic or science is entirely subjective and therefore futile to be argued about in terms of who is right and wrong. When I go out into the woods and just feel nature, the trees the grass the sounds etc. That experience creates a feeling inside of ME that no one can entirely understand, not even me. But a lot if people have a similar feeling/experience that resonates with something we all can feel. I say cast the truth, the thought of absolute truth aside when talking about such things as the sublime, beauty and so on and just FEEL it, feel what it means to you. That's how I understand transcendental ism. Great video, thank you
Thanks for this video. I'm trudging through Henry David Thoreau's book, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods (lots of big words... lol), which was eagerly recommended to me by a friend. I needed this video to help me get an overall grip on Transcendentalism, which I needed to better understand the book. To my defense, I'm reading the book in Swedish, which provides me with more than the average challenges of reading Thoreau. The book, together with this video, has helped me realize that my friend seems to be a follower of Transcendentalism, given his behavior and interest in deep thinking and a simple life.
Violence is not the only option when dealing with disagreements of intuition. The two parties can go there separate ways and live in separate societies or subcultures. Also, one can use media to make their intuitions more intuitive for everyone, such as art, literature, and various forms of systematization. When there is a difference in intuition there is the possibility of respect for opposing parties and valuing the other's freedom. Reason can't save us from disagreements of intuition because it can't decide basic beliefs that are used as premises; those are established intuitively.
Emerson even said something like that, I believe in self-reliance. I can’t remember exactly so paraphrasing: “if your truth is different from my truth then you should find your people and I will find mine”
I completely agree with your last sentence.
My problem with intuition is that I don't see how you can get intuition without empirical experience. So you can't say that you rely on intuition but not on empirical experience.
All animals (including humans) have plenty of in-built intuitions.
A simple one is the suckling reflex that all humans are born with. It allows us to latch onto the breast and feed straight away. Its a cognitive module that comes preinstalled (for lack of a better phrase).
Other, more complicated things like language, morality/ethics and transcendent experience may emerge from a set of base intuitions (cognitive modules). Have a look at: Chomsky- Language Aquistion Device and Haidt - Moral Foundations Theory.
@@tarynkoba3141 these things are called reflexes as far as I know.
@@sasilik Ye, thats fair. I think I explained it badly. People do make a distinction between reflex/instinct/intuition. I guess I put a simple form as example of behaviour prior to experience. Other more complex behaviours/experiences may also be a combination of environmental input and innate cognitive modules. So an intuitive response like, say, the "disgust" response to food or immoral acts may be something that exists innately and is merely shaped by empirical experience over time.
@@tarynkoba3141 if it exists innately but is shaped by empirical evidence to be either something or opposite of that something or anything between them then... what it was I wonder. Ahh.. its blank state.
Woooah! I was not expecting a strawman! Transcendentalism isn't a matter of dismissing debate, it's a matter of understanding what the starting point is. EVERYONE is starting from an irrational non-reasoned presuppositional background and then reasoning from there. What is with this insinuation that this school of thought leads to "might makes right"??!
I am not starting from a presupposed position, because I am a philosophical skeptic. I doubt everything. Those presupposed starting points are the problem which lead inevitably to violence between those who disagree about them (ruclips.net/video/FmqYwV-N_IM/видео.html). The more emphasis placed on intuition, the more likely irrational disagreements are to arise. I'm not saying that this problem is unique to American Transcendentalism, I'm saying that focusing on the part of the argument which cannot be rationally or empirically tested leads to irrational disagreements, which can only be settled through irrational means.
Do you see the glorious irony in his reply to you? Bahahaha!
I disagree. I don't think people are reasonable at all. They just think they are. And the ones who think of themselves as having the highest facility with reason and the best evidence will be the most likely to impose there will on others which can easily lead to violence. Who makes the final call on which person or group is the most reasonable? The majority? The consensus? You seem to have an unreasonable FAITH in your so called reason. @@CarneadesOfCyrene
I like a combination of observation, reasoning, and intuition. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "Where a marked man is sent into the world, [nature] overloads him with bias, sacrificing his symmetry to his working power. It is said [this] man can only write one book."
In other words, if we have more than one tool, why not use all of them?
As a Scientific Rationalist, this is basically my position as well: Empiricism and Phenomenology are just as important as Reason and Logic, and we should seek a balance wherever it is available. Reason can be like a machete, cutting through the snarls and vines of opinion and prejudice; Meanwhile, the Senses are like the scouts of the Mind, seeking data for it to understand it's best course of action in pursuit of its goals.
The Intuition is something quite special and inherently unintelligible as far as our human languages are concerned; However, I think that one could certainly use analogies to mathematics to express difficult concepts (Such as how Something/Everything can come from and remain equivalent to Nothing/Infinity).
@@nightmare_automata Agreed, well said. From my experience, intuition can be expressed through human languages, but cannot necessarily be interpreted literally or directly... in other words, when intuition is expressed linguistically, it is more like poetry, and interpretations must read between the lines in order to be accurate
The pursuit of happiness and transcendentalist ideals can coexist, you can depend on personal revelation and intuition to push you towards your desired path
This caused me to think about the importance of imagination and boredom. Just based on the basic definition of transcendentalism, it's grounded in intuition. Obviously we need intuition AND yes, it does lead to knowledge. Let's think of all of the advancements humans have made in this world. Intuition precedes knowledge and even effort.
I think intuition is important because life experiences can very valuable resources for predicting and interpreting lived circumstances but intuition is not a sure way to find knowledge. I find the reliance on intuition from Transcendentalism to be alive and well in post modern society where feelings are often more valued than empirical facts.
It has to be noted that neither Emerson or Thoreau participated in Brook's Farm and were doubtful and critical of it.
I would argue that the ‘knowledge’ usually referred to esoteric knowledge, such as the religious ‘do unto others’ doctrine, instead of mundane ‘reasoning’ topics. Kant had recently used logic to define the same. (1800ish)
My understanding is this.
It represents a society built on the belief that people are of a common thread that we are one with God and or nature that is within and around everyone ( oversoul). We are individuals that have value and obligations to our society and to the nation, and each individual understanding that self will and self determination is freedom, And that Gov and different institutions ( Monopolies, big business, Religious institutions) may not think about or care about you or your individual rights and beliefs, and can even present a danger to you .You have a right as a citizen to disagree or even fight back in some way. ( Not pay a fee, Withold your taxes ect.) You have an obligation as a citizen to hold the Government to certain moral convictions and truths for the betterment of your community, state and country. The Gov should be guided by the will and conscience of the population. Not the other way around. And to create a self sufficient autarky with limits on trade. and. a non interventionist approach to world affairs. Also a limited approach to Gov interference in state and individual rights in the country and a minimalistic approach to banking and the financial system. Gov is an artificial phenomenon and you being part of nature and the oversoul and being an inherently good, just and moral human, is its antithesis. And that you shouldn't be forced to believe and adhere to "other peoples" reasoning and logic. As rational human beings we know what's best for us and its up to each individual to decide what best for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions and have their own beliefs in affairs that affect them personally based on their own knowledge, experience, belief system, and circumstance. For instance If the Gov says " We can end this war by dropping a nuclear bomb and it will save so many lives" Maybe it's true but you have some moral or spiritual resignations to the Idea, you believe the truth is something different. You have a right to disagree and believe that its wrong and petition the Gov or resist on that basis. Much like Kant's categorical imperative being a way of exposing truth and in the forefront of a persons thinking .Things like morality and ethics being the driving force in finding out what's right and making good decisions based on that and not just on theories and statistics. I hope that my interpretation helps and doesn't screw anybody up. These are my own understandings of American transcendentalism. Perhaps you see it differently? ✌
Thanks so much for the video! Very helpful!
Of course. Glad to help. Thanks for watching!
I think that the reason they decided to rely on intuition over the common rationality is that it is taught that God is personal, and the relationship between one person and God is personal. The bible says that God is within us. By them saying to rely on personal intuition they are relying on faith that God will guide them. In the bible, it's said time and time again to be apart from the world, relying on intuition alone was their way of having faith in God.
thank u for reading the slides, i didn’t think i could of done it without u :///
Obviously, intuition to the exclusion of observation and rationality is a non-starter, but as with a lot of zen-styled schools of thought, I think it's an overcorrection of an innate societal tendency. To put ritual, or tradition on a pedestal or to venerate and become obsessed with empiricism as the sole method of reaching truth, vs becoming completely unstructured, inactive, and intuitive. And the reason advocating for those other extremes is useful is because the more you try to achieve them, the more you understand how impossible they actually are- for example, all your intuitions begin at some point with sensory input which you reason and extrapolate out. So ultimately you lapse to a middle ground where you try to pick the correct tool for the correct job. The example you cited of people ultimately being forced to resolve a disagreement with violence is valid, but here is my hypothetical critique:
If you, a member of a tribe, encounter a situation with finite resources, where you must compete with another tribe for that resource which is essential for your continued existence, would you expect of yourself and the other members of your tribe to examine the evidence and decide via hedonistic calculus which of your two tribes is the more rationally worthy of survival, or would you intuitively prioritize the survival of yourself and friends and family over that of strangers, regardless of any empirical facts to the contrary?
I wouldn't say that it is superior to reason, however I don't think you can really discount it.
I think that they were starting to listen to themselves. It was a different way of thinking and they had the freedom to do it. It was glorious for them to have the freedom to express. Now, we do have to look at their work from that time and....
It is a kind of datum. Idk if it's knowledge, but at least in ethics, intuition is sort of needed for grounding a lot of arguments from the perpetual issue of infinite regression.
The strong advantage of intuition is that you can be circular.
How do you know you Intuit X?
I intuit knowing I Intuit X.
I do wonder what's the difference between intuitions and proclivities? Proclivities seem to be the minimum propositional attitude to perform a deliberate decision.
Haven't many scientific breakthroughs initially started out as intuition, a hunch? Did the trancendentalists altogether reject the rational? Or did they more see intuition as a starting point?
If your intuition leads you to believe in the rational then you're good.
Much Appreciated 🙏🙏🙏
Most people who think themselves reasonable are actually just following the consensus because they don't have all the necessary information to actually use reason. This often leads to very bad outcomes.
If we feel differently about a matter, and cannot reach accord, we must resolve our differences violently? Or, perhaps, we can agree to disagree in how we feel, while participating in the miracle of observable facts?
Agreeing to disagree may be a peaceful option but it does not actually resolve your disagreement, it merely solidifies it as unresolvable. To actually settle a disagreement you must either share a set of basic assumptions or force another to accept your assumptions. If you disagree on your basic assumptions (and they are sufficiently different) there is no way to settle your disagreement.
“Now way to resolve such disagreements beyond violence”
Or you could just mind your own damn business and not impose your intuitions on others.
“I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue _his own way_ and not his father’s or mother’s or his neighbor’s instead.” Thoreau, Walden
Why can't reason and observation be applied to reconcile differences of intuitive opinions (as opposed to violence)?
this is how i live my life, lol not all of it but a lot of this is just good lol... how do you feel about yourself when you're alone in your room?
i still don’t understand. is there a way to dumb it down? 😅
As long as you grant others their intuition, then there's nothing to settle, as long as no rights are violated, and a consent to law made by the governed is respected. Inalienable rights as defined in the Constitution were not arrived at subject to reason; they are pure intuition. The constitution further allows for other potential rights not therein enumerated, which implies that they are also to be intuited as inalienable.
Transcendentalism can largely be seen very similar to Egoism, but where as Egoism rejects all immaterial, Transcendentalists would still keep immaterial in consideration when deciding what they do.
I think you are confusing Trascendentalism (explored here ruclips.net/video/k6f4hpIy06k/видео.html) and American Transcendentalism. And perhaps confusing egoism (ruclips.net/video/jpHggd-3_rM/видео.html) with materialism.
The ad before this be so strange
Logic and empirical evidence should be the catalyst to an intuitive change of mind.
hi i want to ask a question , does the law of logic works in all possible worlds , or does the laws of logic exist outside space time pls i want to find an answer
No one really knows. It is an ongoing debate.
Regular car reviews
as if facts, reason and logic didnt lead to violence. also, intuition is not feelings. most transcendentalist were pascifists or non-violence, right? why would you mix them up with violence?
CC thx.
Thanks for watching!
reason and intuition access different TYPES of knowledge. if you pay attention to real intuition, this will be very evident.
other people do not need to agree with the types of knowledge i derive from my own intuition.
this is a fundamental idea of the transcendental movement: you are your own person ... people do not need to agree with you! lol
🙏 nice
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
American Transcendentalism is the best USA number 1!!!!!!
👍👍❤
It is a foolish and self-contradictory movement. They have to use some form of reason to argue their position. Further they have formed a dogma which by definition is not intuitive. They attempted to right some obvious wrongs (slavery etc) but was that purely based on intuition or previously held beliefs ? Most of the time that which is taken for 'intuition' is simply preconditioning. This is why my 'intuition' may be at odds with yours.
You need intuition to decide which beliefs will be basic beliefs, upon which everything else is built. You have to start somewhere, and intuitions keep premises from being completely arbitrary.
@@jacob_massengale How do you distinguish intuition from preconditioning ? If you have ever lived in very different cultures you can see for yourself that what people commonly take for intuition is always culturally informed.
Maybe not the best example but one I came up with straight away : You see a dog coming towards you. Your intuition about it will depend on your cultural relationship to dogs in general and your previous personal experience with them. Depending also on where you come from and your situation you will see a potential friend , threat, omen or food source . All intuitively. I don't dismiss intuition entirely but it is highly prone to error. This is why we find many verifiable truths to be 'counter-intuitive'.
Lucky Dave theoretically, you can precondition using anything. Intuitions can be practical preconditions; yes, its fallible but you can't escape intuitive preconditions if you wish to use philosophy for your own life. Logic mostly serves as a conduit to organize the relationship between your intuitions and experienced phenomena. There are several ways to do this.
Two common ways that come to mind are coherentism and foundationalism. Foundationalism establishes preconditions for judgement in any given situation (or in a localized set of situations depending on how universal the pre-conditions are). No one knows how to choose your preconditions because you can't precondition preconditions without falling into infinite regress. Intuition is a way to keep the preconditions from being arbitrary and to keep them personally relevant. In this case the foundationalist will need to rank their intuitions. I think the best way to rank them is by starting the one's that are most obvious to the self, which is the closest one can get to being honest with the self. For a more sophisticated criteria for discriminating, you can look up William James's live and dead beliefs. However, I'm sure there are other ways to rank them
The other way to organize them is by using coherentism. Coherentism has only one, very specific precondition: the law of non contradiction. Basically, all beliefs are valid as long as they do not contradic eachother.
If you ask me, coherentism is the most philosophically tenable epistemology because there is an inherent disconnect between the logical relationships between premises and the truth of premises, the later of which is impossible to prove; the skeptical herdles are too high.
However, the human psyche is set up to believe specific things, which ultimately makes foundationalism more practical. If you want wisdom, you have to start with what seams true to you. Even then you can't afford to be a scientist about everything because you don't have enough time. You have to make intuitive leaps and tentatively speculate in order to explain things.
Hehe yes socialism. Mmmmmmm community of the working classss.
I like your videos, but this one was very poor. I can tell that you don't understand transcendentalism at all, and you've limited yourself to reading Wikipedia entry. You haven't even unfolded what it means to intuitively apprehend the world for a transcendentalist, instead you've restricted yourself to rejecting the assumption by confronting it with what you know from the philosophical tradition. That video was lazy.
Did you watch the video. I cover the American Transcendentalists' epistemology which focused on the ability of intuition to provide knowledge in the place of sense experience or logic at 1:09. The video is a basic 4 minute introduction to their position, not an exhaustive treatment. Brevity is not sloth.
If you think you can defend the position against my objections feel free to do so. If you think that transcendentalist intuitions are really rational, feel free to offer an argument to support your claim. But without one, my case that irrational sources of knowledge lead to violence still stands.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Turns out your objections are anachronistic, you built a Transcendental Strawman and started hitting it, thinking you're hitting the real thing. Transcendentalism, like any philosophical view, has a way of proceeding and a hermeneutics to access its meaning. Your interpretation is totally arbitrary in this sense; that's what I want you to understand and admit! Well, I'm not going to teach a class on Transcendentalism here in the comments. But I'll give you a key to studying Transcendentalism, that starts with Emerson's naturalism: it has more to do with Goethe and his phenomenological approach to natural aspects and the emergence that forms between man and nature, and philosophy of process, than with the Kantian approach of Transcendental aspects of the world as representation. What is problematized in Transcendentalism is not a classical problem in the philosophy of representation, by the way, that of the correspondence between mental states and states of affairs.
If you try to approach a philosophy for what it does not purport to be or problematize, you impoverish its interpretation and even philosophical exegesis. That's just a fish thrashing around outside the aquarium, by the way.
The question of rationality is somewhat arbitrary because it is limited to the philosophy of representation. The Transcendentalists never claimed such a thing:
"If you think that transcendentalist intuitions are really rational"
This is not what is at stake in Transcendentalism, that is, unveiling the true knowledge of things, even because Emerson does not believe in such a thing, since he is adept of the idea that the cosmos is a processual entity. Emerson never defended such a position.