Plato v. Aristotle: The Ideas That Shaped Rand, Kant and the World
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2022
- In this video, Jon Hersey, managing editor of The Objective Standard, argues that four thinkers, Aristotle, Rand, Plato, and Kant, are the key to understanding some of history’s most brilliant eras - and its darkest - as well as the modern-day culture war that seemingly divides us so profoundly.
Whose ideas, for example, dominated during the Middle Ages, when humanity advanced very little? What about during the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution? And what might that tell us about whose philosophy is more likely to lead to human prosperity moving forward?
Hersey answers those questions and more by summarizing Plato’s and Aristotle’s worldviews and that of their most essential exponents: Kant and Rand.
Comment below if you agree or disagree with his analysis, and be sure to tell us why!
#Objectivism #Rand #Aristotle #Renaissance #Enlightenment
Chapters:
0:00: Plato’s and Aristotle’s Most Important Exponents
0:24: Plato’s World of Forms and the Basis for Dictatorships
1:41: Aristotle’s Obsession with the Real World
2:08: History’s Brightest and Darkest Eras
5:12: Kant’s “Moral Duty” to Accept Rulers - and Rand’s Takedown of It
7:24: Rand’s Precondition of Values
8:20: Rand on Reason
9:15: Rand’s Revival of the Enlightenment
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.
Plato's favorite words of wisdom are
"We become what we contemplate"
but that's not true
@SDsc0rch why not?
Reminds me of Napolean Hill's Think and Grow Rich.
Think of how broke and helpless you are, and you'll remain broke.
Think of all that you could acquire, and you'll move toward it.
That's not a quote from the book, but that's my summary of his philosophy
every american should watch this video
three times- minimum
This is how you shoehorn Kant into a box he doesn't actually fit into. And how you make useful idiots by telling them "useful lies". How Platonic. Kant is a synthesizer, like Aristotle. Yet, where Aristotle claims knowledge, Kant stops short and says, "I don't know, maybe." He sets the stage for pragmatism. But Kant doesn't do what Plato does either. The third man argument would not apply to Kant. And that is significant. That is the subtlety. Remember, Aristotle gave us the celestial spheres theory. Kant would say, "Hey Ari, do you think that maybe you are imposing categories onto the world that are not actually there? Just a thought."
All this ignores that While Francis Bacon would fall into the Aristotelian camp, Aristotle, unlike Bacon, nonetheless clings to the idea of general principles or hylomorphism which, as I understand it, he inherits and adapts/exapts from his mentor, Plato.
So, while the Austrians are clearly Aristotelian given their adherence to general principles, Mises is nonetheless a Kantian because he is willing to entertain the idea that, in the end, humans may not actually "act" at all. That "action" may itself be an imposition of the mind. I call it the "Misesian Proviso." However, until such time as action is proven/demonstrated as false, Mises uses the Aristotelian framework.
not only that but most don't realize that Kant was a physical scientist before he became a philosopher and one of the few in his day who took Hume seriously. Kant thought Hume broke science and Kant was trying to make a system that would acknowledge Hume's criticisms but still allowed science to say real things about the world. The exact _opposite_ of what Rand and Objectivists claim.
If anyone wants to know anything about Kant don't go to Rand or the Objectivists. They get him completely wrong, ascribe to him all modern evils that have nothing whatsoever to do with his philosophy, and to add insult to injury constantly plagiarize his, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." without ever giving him any credit.
@@sethtipps7093 I am with you. My reading of Kant is that at his core he is a skeptical empiricist in the tradition of Hume. In so far as he is called an "idealist", it is in no way the same as Berkley or Hegel or Plato for that matter. It is a unique kind of idealism that doesn't deserve the same baggage or treatment as the others, in my opinion.
@@sethtipps7093 "but still allowed science to say real things about the world. " You mean say real things about the world-of-appearences (phenomenal world)? That's playing on words. What it really means is that reason is disconnected from reality.
@@YashArya01
No, reality, because our phenomenology is part of reality. But we can only know in part, never perfectly the whole.
Again, Kant believes that Hume did exactly what Objectivists accuse Kant of having done, split the world in two. Kant the physicist is using philosophy to bridge the gap Hume created. But Objectivists will applaud Hume and butcher Kant. Objectivists know neither.
Beautiful case in point. What do Objectivists claim Kant meant when he said he "had to limit knowledge to make room for faith" and what did he actually mean when read in context?
Objectivists hate Kant because they literally can't get a single sentence he said correct.
@@sethtipps7093 Kant never did a science experiment in his life: You calling him a physicist of any kind shows how completely inured with his philosophy you are considering his philosophy makes science of any kind, or even the recognition of its practitioners, impossible.
I am not convinced that Kant's philosophy is adequately represented here - one of the formulations of his categorical imperative says: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". This doesn't match with simply accepting the dictates of political rulers. In "Perpetual peace" he argues in favour of a representative republican government, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. The three principles of this republican government are: freedom, subordination to the law (not to the political leaders!), and equality under the law.
What is the standard for universal laws? What is the standard for judging a maxim? Is any maxim good enough?
What type of equality? What is the standard? And what does freedom actually mean under a republican form of government?
A thinkers political ideas need not (and thankfully often don't) match their philosophy. Kants duty ethics do not a free society make.
Yep. This is highly normative. Almost attempting to convince people of who is more right. Instead of laying out each perspectives arguments in an unbiased way. And i'm aristotelian and agree more with Rand here.
@@SammyAgonsounds like you're more a hegelian
Wow, this was really good! I was a Philosophy major at Cornell in the late '80's and have been interested in this very thing for decades. You did a great job of accurately representing these views in a very short time! Thanks! :)
No wonder I hold academia with such abhorrent contempt.
I misread. I thought you said philosophy teacher. 😂
Thanks, it helped!
Ayn Rand advocated for an objectivism without an absolute cause. That dissolves Aristotelian thought. I’m sure you’ll find a true Aristotelian development (and beyond) with Thomas Aquinas. I trust you don’t miss that out.
Aquinas? Lol no.
Why do private colleges encourage quality? Please explore that topic in economical manner comparing with private and public college.
I mean it is the same as with most other things, you have private universities that have to compete for your dollars, so they want the best professors that teach the best things if there are no harming influences like for example government backed student loans. You can see this trend in education well I would say in Japanese and Korean cram schools, where the top teachers get payed a lot and their lectures are streamed all over the country as far as I know.
very nice
This is actually not true, Kant has nothing to do with Plato. For Kant, BOTH Platonic Forms and Atomic Content are "Phenomenal", while the "Noumenal" is simply what is not yet within human experience. Nothing wrong with positing an unknown realm, being humble about how little you know is a mark of a good scientist.
Also riddle me this, who persecuted Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus? (surely it couldn't have been the Aristotelians right??)
Seems like we need both concepts. Also we must also remember to ask questions like Socrates.
It’s disappointing to see you forging criticism by comparison.
I’d rather see you critique each philosopher’s arguments as they are.
I agree with Aristotle, and therefore with Ayn Rand. Idealism may seem beautiful: but only in appearance, which is quite ironic, idealism asserting that we have to go beyond appearances. Nietzsche, when talking about Plato, said that he made a transvaluation of values. The same observation can be made for Kant and Hegel. And also for Marx. Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt says that, for our time, we have the choice between Marx and Nietzsche. Let us hope we will choose Nietzsche.
Sounds logical
I have never been so confused as to hear that Plato was in some way not an objectivist. The entire idea behind what Plato was saying was speaking of eternal objective truths upon which everything we witness are flawed versions of. I don’t know many people who historically believed more firmly in objective eternal truths and principles than Plato
As well as to hear Plato and Marx mentioned in the same breath as if they were in anyway fighting for the same goal. This whole presentation seems very confused.
Plato believed in objective truth via mystic revelation, but man's actual experiences were no guide to objective reality
Agreed
@@anonymousAJwho said objective reality exists? This drove Descartes to write a whole book about it only for you to discredit his life's work with a RUclips comment. 😂
@5:15. This is a gross misrepresentation of not only Kant's intention, but his philosophy as well. Kant DOES NOT claim that all knowledge is inherently subjective. As the video shows, those that came after (Hegel, Marx, Sartre, etc.) will make this claim instead. Kant does believe that the human mind can grasp some true (noumenal) facts. His entire project of the critique of pure reason was exactly to push back on the works of empiricists such as Hume, who claimed that human beings cannot have true knowledge of any (observable) facts. Kant is saying the opposite.
Kant is a titan of outstanding ethical, and metaphysical philosophy that champions western values, and to see his name dragged through the mud here is disheartening.
Thank you!
I'm not even a Kantian but how Rand and her followers malign him, misquote him, and plagiarize him is beyond my tolerance!
In addition to blaming him for splitting the world into two when, as you point out, he was trying to bridge the split Hume made, they misinterpret his quote, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith," and to add insult to injury, after blaming him for all modern ills they constantly steal his "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end" without ever giving him credit!
His claims AMOUNT to saying that because he splits reality into two separate places. He says there is reality as it appears to us and reality as it really is.
Rothbard over rand
Rothbard has better politics and economics. Rand makes metaphysical and epistemological claims while Rothbard mostly does not
Oh, so that's why Mises and Rand hated each other...
The Austrians are far more influenced by Aristotle. If you read Menger, Aristotle practically leaps off the page. Mises' distinction of Theory and History is, in my opinion, Aristotelian hylomorphism applied to the social world at large. Why did Mises and Rand hate each other? I don't know, let alone if it is even true. But I doubt, if it is true, that it had anything to do with the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato.
It's more complicated than hate. It's more like Mises and Kant were partly misunderstood by Rand.
Even Friedrich Nietzsche opposed Kant.
Nietzsche opposed almost everyone. What are you trying to say?
Nietzsche's perspectivism was very Kantian actually.
I've always rejected the ideas of Karl Marx, almost instinctively. Now I know why. The ideas behind Plato are that of essentially slavery, as with Karl Marx and thus Hagel. It's also probably why every time their ideas are tried not only do they fail miserably, but always ends up in a collectivist dictatorship. Aryn Rand might not have been the greatest writter, but I think she was on to something.
Almost instinctively? More like programming and brainwashing.
@_PanchoVilla Oh? Do explain what you mean by "programming and brainwashing" Karl Marx's ideas go against human nature and man's fallen state. There's nothing complicated about it. If your told to work for the betterment of yourself, your far more likely to work hard but if your told to work hard for the betterment of everyone else, your probably not going to work that hard. That's just human nature. So instinctively I knew comminism as understood by Karl Marx would never work. Who knew it would also be a really efficient killing machine to boot? There's no "programming or brainwashing" to draw such conclusions I've came to, so do explain. I'll be waiting.
To be completely fair, Karl Marx didnt really put forth any idea of government... he simply critiqued capitalism (which is fair)
Long story short he was a critic, not a problem solver.
Marx only pointed out the failings of capitalism and saught to observe how the world functions, he did not explain how to make capitalism function better, and even less did he put forth any ideas as to how government SHOULD work.
Many marxists hold him up as a great communist, however I sincerely believe that if Marx actually observed communism he would roll over in his grave. Likewise the average person like you who haven't actually read Marx's work by itself vastly overestimate his scope and vision.
@n8zog584 True but no system under man is ever going to be perfect. Capitalism isn't perfect. Never has been and never will be. But it's also obvious it's a system that has lifted countless billions out of poverty while communism created povery conditions for 100's of millions and brought death to millions more. That's because communism as envisioned by communists works against our human nature and that's really my true critique of such a system. Capitalism works pretty well because it works with the best and worst traits of our nature to help everyone around us. Karl Marx was a bum who didn't want to work thus short circuiting the value he would get by doing so. It's easy to critique systems we don't benefit from. It's much tougher to actually fix it. It's a lesson that many don't seem to understand. Sure Capitalism isn't perfect. But it works quite well for people who participate.
@@n8zog584 wrong. Marx built upon Hegel.
1:25 "..until they become enlightened."
Yo! My bro ancient India pulled that shit off!
And haven't recovered since.
@@cas343 Says a non-mystic philosopher.
@@ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack Yes.
@@cas343 Non-dual gitas are cryptic meditation instruction manuals mistaken as philosophy books.
@@ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack if you say so.
ayn rand does not belong in the same breath as aristotle 😭😭 kant is not even close to plato’s chief proponent either
AI generated thumbnail lol
Team Plato
👇
Let's gooo. This world is a simulation so Plato was right with his allegory of the cave.
Really? You are putting Ayn Rand at the same level as Aristotle, Plato and Kant? Haha what?!
Pretty bad interpretation of Marx but whatever