Important note: I bring up Sartre’s definition near the beginning of this. This went into a whole separate thing that I had to take out (as Sartre departs from Descartes thereafter). I left in this one quote as it is relevant to what Descartes states in Meditation six which is mentioned later on. And though I say this in the video, just to make clear, Sartre is NOT in agreement with where Descartes leaves things, and I will be putting something out on this soon. Though there is a lot of set up here, if one wants to skip to 10:40 there onward is the main discussion on what is meant by “clear and distinct ideas are true.”
Have you ever encountered hypochondriacs of the psyche while teaching folks stuff? Like, if we're studying stoicism this semester, that one fella's gonna think he's a stoic, then next semester, he'll think he's an epicurean?
@@SelfWriteousness I have never thought of it as "hypochondriacs of the psyche" before, but now that has gotten me thinking hahaha. The move from stoic to Epicureanism I do hear often, and more or less it is someone refining their understanding of the subject--but now I am stuck on hypochondria of the psyche hahah😅😅
This series of Descartes is definitive and masterful. The point you made regarding the apple and triangle were well put, and I appreciate how you compared his thinking with Russell and Sartre. All your videos simply rock.
Hello, my friend! This morning, while hoping my computer would work properly and download this video (was trying since Friday) I was actually catching up on what I have been missing over on your channel! And half way through listening to Metamentality and the Dismodern, I had to pause to write something (you do mention Descartes, after all haha), so if you get a lot of messages over night, I swear, I am not spamming you--your discussions just usually have me pause to write essays 😅 And thank you so much! I was a bit hesitant to keep that Sartre quote, considering how much he departs from Descartes, but I figured, that just leaves a good opportunity to do a video on Sartre Vs Descartes, which will lead perfectly into the response to "Was Heidegger an Existentialist," 😎
@@attention5638 The quality of my day increases in proportion to the number of times I hear from you, so send all the messages you like! And yes! That essay did open with a slight play on Descartes, which I appreciate you listening to, and I don’t know if there is a higher compliment then having a work inspire essays, so thank you for sharing that (the response you’ve worked on regarding “Was Heidegger an Existentialist” means the world). And it would be fascinated to hear you talk on Sartre vs Descartes-I really do need to write a paper on “Being and Nothingness,” which I’ve never done yet think on Sartre often. And here’s the part where I give you..A BIG HUG!
@@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel I just saw that Belonging Again is released on the 13th of this month (not the 30th as I had originally written down, for some reason haha) So I will switch it around and do the response before Sartre and Descartes so I can time it with the release a day or two after. Which actually helps with timing, as I already have most of what I want to say there written down. 😎
@@attention5638 You are a gentleman and a scholar, my friend. We are indeed going to release it on Friday the 12th, which means I have 9 days to make a rabbit appear out of a hat. Oh editing is so much fun...(cries blood)...You are always very very very kind to be so supportive and awesome.
I am curious to know who your favorite philosopher is. I am trying to learn more. You are quite knowledgeable and your intellect sometimes is a bit over my head. I am a grandma, and your ideas and thoughts on literary things astound me. I am trying to learn some of these histories and expand my knowledge on these subjects that you speak of. Most times at the end of your videos, I am left in awe. Thank you for being articulate in your discussions. I appreciate you and your channel. Thank you. I laughed out loud when you said that some of these philosophers are having a nervous breakdowns! Keep up the awesome content!
Oh! Thank you so much! And so great to see you! It does take some time to grasp a lot of these ideas, but it does come eventually! And it is always so much more rewarding when it does. I don't know if I have a favorite philosopher overall, but depending on a given subject, I will agree with one over another--but that is always subject to change--though, i do always end up with the phenomenologists at the end of the day😅
I’ve been taking a long break from things and have only just finished Discourse of the Method, but wanted to ask, What about feeling(or would intuition be better). I’m not talking about the feeling of acknowledging the idea of being cold because to me being cold may vary from someone else’s idea of being cold. Or maybe an apple. I may think of a McIntosh while another thinks of gala. It’s technically an apple. It’s technically cold, but it is not pinpointed, the idea is not exactly captured, maybe only a portion of it. Maybe this makes no sense, but we each have particular feelings on an object that are observable in a sort of noneverydayness….hm how am I trying to explain this. Even a triangle. My kid didn’t know a triangle having three angles was true until I helped her put together the components that make up that triangle. She just knew that there were parts to it that needed to be constructed in a certain way. We practiced this until that noneveryday observation became a sort of everydayness that wasn’t observed with the sense but was now known. An intuitive feeling, a movement before an idea is even constructed, that seems to continuously move without us even sensing it, like breathing or a heartbeat, something that is and always with us in our everydayness. Could that be true? It’s hard to explain. It is felt, but only on a sort of metaphysical level. Ahhhhh I’ll have to put some notes together when I’m feeling better.
Oh! You moving to intuition is exactly where this is going! And you are saying something very similar to what Descartes is saying--if we take your example of your child not knowing that a triangle consist of three angles, it does not change the fact that it does. Descartes would argue that the icon of an apple is technically not an apple (though arguably a technological apple haha). But! You recognizing this icon of an apple is a great example of what Descartes is getting at. For you to know that icon represents an apple shows his point--you only know that icon represents an apple because you have an idea of an apple. It is the idea alone. The intrinsic quality (the shape) of an apple is what leads you to connect the icon with an apple. If you had no idea whatsoever of what an apple is, you could not make that connection--it would be a random shape on your computer. Having an idea of cold does not mean that you have an objective idea of cold that is universally shared. Other people may have separate ideas of what degree is considered "cold" but, nonetheless, you have an idea of it, otherwise you could never know if you are cold or not. If you tell someone you are cold, the other person cannot say "no you are not." In the same way, if you feel pain, no one can say "no you don't." Your idea of this is true. One may disagree, and may not feel cold when you do, but their idea is also true, if they feel cold. It is the distinct idea alone that is true, it does not necessarily represent an external reality, but we know it to be true. This is why I mention the correspondence theory near the beginning--though a triangle having three angles may correspond with a triangle in reality, it is not necessary for it to correspond with anything in the extended world for it to be true. This leads right into how he is using intuition, which I will definitely be covering.😎
I wonder which philosopher covered cognitive decline, warped consciousness (Alzheimer's disease) etc of the elderly. We're all on our way and we'll get there, eventually. Is it something we should be educated on or does it distract from the quality of life in our younger years. Excellent video.
Great comment! There is a lot out there in regard to moral status and cognitive decline. Though the "what" is more science, particularly neuroscience, there is a lot of philosophical discussion around this, such as ethics, and the role of ethics in cognitive psychology. 😎
Now I want to go around my home giving all the inanimate objects names, LOL. I think Peter is the lamp. The only Apple I have here with me now is the computer I'm using to watch this, and I don't really want to consider what it tastes like. Looking forward to the next video.
Do you find yourself agreeing with most of the philosophers you cover in making the internet a smarter place, or do you find yourself compelled to relay messages from philosophers you disagree with from time to time?
Oh, I have missed your great questions, and this was actually something I wanted to discuss in a video. There is a very long answer to this question, but I will try and make it short haha. It has never really been about agreeing or disagreeing when studying this stuff, and it should always be somewhat difficult to answer the question "which philosopher(s) do you agree with?" I don't agree or disagree with any philosopher as a philosopher, but specific ideas. A lot of what Descartes presents I would say I disagree with, but I completely agree with a lot it opened the door to-but, by “agree” I mean more or less “accept.” If someone hears me say “I disagree with stoicism,” what I really mean is the very broad reaction and few core tenants. But overall, I would agree that there is a lot of value in the study and agree that it can produce a lot of positive thinking. Nietzsche is a good example of how this works. He criticizes stoicism and is known to be very much against it-however, if one reads part ten of Ecce Homo, one will think he is in agreement, or contradicting himself. But he is not-one’s philosophy is never condensed to isolated ideas, and overall philosophies like stoicism cannot be condensed to one of its core tenets. I may not be in agreement with Cartesian dualism, but as Husserl notes, it gave rise to transcendental philosophy, and plays a huge role in phenomenology. I hope that makes sense! And thank you for bringing that up! 😎
So, let's say you're wondering if unicorns exist. Apply the Truth Rule! Doubt those majestic creatures until you have undeniable proof, like a selfie with a unicorn wearing sunglasses and sipping a coconut cocktail on a beach.
Important note: I bring up Sartre’s definition near the beginning of this. This went into a whole separate thing that I had to take out (as Sartre departs from Descartes thereafter). I left in this one quote as it is relevant to what Descartes states in Meditation six which is mentioned later on. And though I say this in the video, just to make clear, Sartre is NOT in agreement with where Descartes leaves things, and I will be putting something out on this soon. Though there is a lot of set up here, if one wants to skip to 10:40 there onward is the main discussion on what is meant by “clear and distinct ideas are true.”
Have you ever encountered hypochondriacs of the psyche while teaching folks stuff?
Like, if we're studying stoicism this semester, that one fella's gonna think he's a stoic, then next semester, he'll think he's an epicurean?
@@SelfWriteousness I have never thought of it as "hypochondriacs of the psyche" before, but now that has gotten me thinking hahaha. The move from stoic to Epicureanism I do hear often, and more or less it is someone refining their understanding of the subject--but now I am stuck on hypochondria of the psyche hahah😅😅
This series of Descartes is definitive and masterful. The point you made regarding the apple and triangle were well put, and I appreciate how you compared his thinking with Russell and Sartre. All your videos simply rock.
Hello, my friend! This morning, while hoping my computer would work properly and download this video (was trying since Friday) I was actually catching up on what I have been missing over on your channel! And half way through listening to Metamentality and the Dismodern, I had to pause to write something (you do mention Descartes, after all haha), so if you get a lot of messages over night, I swear, I am not spamming you--your discussions just usually have me pause to write essays 😅 And thank you so much! I was a bit hesitant to keep that Sartre quote, considering how much he departs from Descartes, but I figured, that just leaves a good opportunity to do a video on Sartre Vs Descartes, which will lead perfectly into the response to "Was Heidegger an Existentialist," 😎
@@attention5638 The quality of my day increases in proportion to the number of times I hear from you, so send all the messages you like! And yes! That essay did open with a slight play on Descartes, which I appreciate you listening to, and I don’t know if there is a higher compliment then having a work inspire essays, so thank you for sharing that (the response you’ve worked on regarding “Was Heidegger an Existentialist” means the world). And it would be fascinated to hear you talk on Sartre vs Descartes-I really do need to write a paper on “Being and Nothingness,” which I’ve never done yet think on Sartre often. And here’s the part where I give you..A BIG HUG!
@@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel I just saw that Belonging Again is released on the 13th of this month (not the 30th as I had originally written down, for some reason haha) So I will switch it around and do the response before Sartre and Descartes so I can time it with the release a day or two after. Which actually helps with timing, as I already have most of what I want to say there written down. 😎
@@attention5638 You are a gentleman and a scholar, my friend. We are indeed going to release it on Friday the 12th, which means I have 9 days to make a rabbit appear out of a hat. Oh editing is so much fun...(cries blood)...You are always very very very kind to be so supportive and awesome.
Always love watching these videos from you Pae 🤗
When you said, "That sentence... I hate it"... I felt that.
I say that often when reading haha😅
I am curious to know who your favorite philosopher is. I am trying to learn more. You are quite knowledgeable and your intellect sometimes is a bit over my head. I am a grandma, and your ideas and thoughts on literary things astound me. I am trying to learn some of these histories and expand my knowledge on these subjects that you speak of. Most times at the end of your videos, I am left in awe. Thank you for being articulate in your discussions. I appreciate you and your channel. Thank you. I laughed out loud when you said that some of these philosophers are having a nervous breakdowns! Keep up the awesome content!
Oh! Thank you so much! And so great to see you! It does take some time to grasp a lot of these ideas, but it does come eventually! And it is always so much more rewarding when it does. I don't know if I have a favorite philosopher overall, but depending on a given subject, I will agree with one over another--but that is always subject to change--though, i do always end up with the phenomenologists at the end of the day😅
I’ve been taking a long break from things and have only just finished Discourse of the Method, but wanted to ask, What about feeling(or would intuition be better). I’m not talking about the feeling of acknowledging the idea of being cold because to me being cold may vary from someone else’s idea of being cold. Or maybe an apple. I may think of a McIntosh while another thinks of gala. It’s technically an apple. It’s technically cold, but it is not pinpointed, the idea is not exactly captured, maybe only a portion of it. Maybe this makes no sense, but we each have particular feelings on an object that are observable in a sort of noneverydayness….hm how am I trying to explain this. Even a triangle. My kid didn’t know a triangle having three angles was true until I helped her put together the components that make up that triangle. She just knew that there were parts to it that needed to be constructed in a certain way. We practiced this until that noneveryday observation became a sort of everydayness that wasn’t observed with the sense but was now known. An intuitive feeling, a movement before an idea is even constructed, that seems to continuously move without us even sensing it, like breathing or a heartbeat, something that is and always with us in our everydayness. Could that be true? It’s hard to explain. It is felt, but only on a sort of metaphysical level. Ahhhhh I’ll have to put some notes together when I’m feeling better.
For me, it's easy...WE MISS YOU, SAMANTHA!😁🤩😁
Oh! You moving to intuition is exactly where this is going! And you are saying something very similar to what Descartes is saying--if we take your example of your child not knowing that a triangle consist of three angles, it does not change the fact that it does. Descartes would argue that the icon of an apple is technically not an apple (though arguably a technological apple haha). But! You recognizing this icon of an apple is a great example of what Descartes is getting at. For you to know that icon represents an apple shows his point--you only know that icon represents an apple because you have an idea of an apple. It is the idea alone. The intrinsic quality (the shape) of an apple is what leads you to connect the icon with an apple. If you had no idea whatsoever of what an apple is, you could not make that connection--it would be a random shape on your computer. Having an idea of cold does not mean that you have an objective idea of cold that is universally shared. Other people may have separate ideas of what degree is considered "cold" but, nonetheless, you have an idea of it, otherwise you could never know if you are cold or not. If you tell someone you are cold, the other person cannot say "no you are not." In the same way, if you feel pain, no one can say "no you don't." Your idea of this is true. One may disagree, and may not feel cold when you do, but their idea is also true, if they feel cold. It is the distinct idea alone that is true, it does not necessarily represent an external reality, but we know it to be true. This is why I mention the correspondence theory near the beginning--though a triangle having three angles may correspond with a triangle in reality, it is not necessary for it to correspond with anything in the extended world for it to be true. This leads right into how he is using intuition, which I will definitely be covering.😎
Lol. I often forget what I am talking about...mid-sentence. sometimes.
Hahah, that is certainly a thing I am known to do. But! That can be a good thing, as it means you have a lot to say! 😊
I wonder which philosopher covered cognitive decline, warped consciousness (Alzheimer's disease) etc of the elderly. We're all on our way and we'll get there, eventually. Is it something we should be educated on or does it distract from the quality of life in our younger years. Excellent video.
Great comment! There is a lot out there in regard to moral status and cognitive decline. Though the "what" is more science, particularly neuroscience, there is a lot of philosophical discussion around this, such as ethics, and the role of ethics in cognitive psychology. 😎
Now I want to go around my home giving all the inanimate objects names, LOL. I think Peter is the lamp. The only Apple I have here with me now is the computer I'm using to watch this, and I don't really want to consider what it tastes like. Looking forward to the next video.
Haha naive realists would very much like that idea. Everything has an individual name! I😅
Do you find yourself agreeing with most of the philosophers you cover in making the internet a smarter place, or do you find yourself compelled to relay messages from philosophers you disagree with from time to time?
Oh, I have missed your great questions, and this was actually something I wanted to discuss in a video. There is a very long answer to this question, but I will try and make it short haha. It has never really been about agreeing or disagreeing when studying this stuff, and it should always be somewhat difficult to answer the question "which philosopher(s) do you agree with?" I don't agree or disagree with any philosopher as a philosopher, but specific ideas. A lot of what Descartes presents I would say I disagree with, but I completely agree with a lot it opened the door to-but, by “agree” I mean more or less “accept.” If someone hears me say “I disagree with stoicism,” what I really mean is the very broad reaction and few core tenants. But overall, I would agree that there is a lot of value in the study and agree that it can produce a lot of positive thinking. Nietzsche is a good example of how this works. He criticizes stoicism and is known to be very much against it-however, if one reads part ten of Ecce Homo, one will think he is in agreement, or contradicting himself. But he is not-one’s philosophy is never condensed to isolated ideas, and overall philosophies like stoicism cannot be condensed to one of its core tenets. I may not be in agreement with Cartesian dualism, but as Husserl notes, it gave rise to transcendental philosophy, and plays a huge role in phenomenology. I hope that makes sense! And thank you for bringing that up! 😎
6:56 I hate it too 😂😂😂
So, let's say you're wondering if unicorns exist. Apply the Truth Rule! Doubt those majestic creatures until you have undeniable proof, like a selfie with a unicorn wearing sunglasses and sipping a coconut cocktail on a beach.
If only all my ideas could correlate with reality😂
awful accident