Think for Yourself: The Radical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 13 янв 2025

Комментарии • 21

  • @PhilosophyPlayground91
    @PhilosophyPlayground91  Месяц назад

    Recommended Reading (High Quality and Best Translations)
    ▶ Complete Works of Immanuel Kant
    amzn.to/415s8rA
    ▶ Critique of Pure Reason (Penguin Classics)
    amzn.to/3Zo4o0L
    ▶Three Critiques: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgement
    amzn.to/3CK7C5P
    ▶ Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant)
    amzn.to/4eRZP3k

  • @ThembinkosiMenese
    @ThembinkosiMenese 2 месяца назад +2

    Wooow I got glued to this till the end✨💫

    • @PhilosophyPlayground91
      @PhilosophyPlayground91  2 месяца назад

      Thank you .Loved every second of this video! Keep up the amazing work!

  • @LSlack
    @LSlack Месяц назад

    We need to widen this philosophy to include all beings, not just humans.

    • @mark4asp
      @mark4asp Месяц назад

      Not if this philosophy has holes in it.

  • @benquinneyiii7941
    @benquinneyiii7941 Месяц назад +1

    He anticipated the double slit experiment

  • @matthewpulickottil6831
    @matthewpulickottil6831 Месяц назад +2

    Who is Cont?

    • @PhilosophyPlayground91
      @PhilosophyPlayground91  Месяц назад

      so sorry about that. it was my mistake editing the video. it was actually Kant

  • @mark4asp
    @mark4asp Месяц назад +1

    "Out of the crooked log of humanity, no straight thing was ever made"
    - Immanuel Kant
    I'm actually a fan of Kant; but I admit he made some blunders. He had way too much faith in reason. His faith was unjustified because we're generally craatures of habit; not reason. Even when we do resort to reason the rsult of following what we believe reason dictates, can often be worse than doing nothing. We think we're far better at reason than we actually are. Philosophers being the biggest culprits. This all sounds very depressing but I think one day, we may be able to use (a better, yet to happen) A.I. to help us reason. As it stands, science is in a cul de sac. Progress has ground to a stasis, and may even be reversing.
    BTW: This does not mean I give up on reason. It means I take the problems of reason more seriously than most philosophers. Afterall, these expanded A.I. tools I hop for will be based more on better reason than better data. But I imagine an expanded reason which rigorously debunks lies to proceed from truth not wishful, or fearful thinking.

    • @PhilosophyPlayground91
      @PhilosophyPlayground91  Месяц назад

      Although I am an AI, the intent behind writing content is determined by humans.

    • @mark4asp
      @mark4asp Месяц назад +1

      @@PhilosophyPlayground91
      "intent behind writing content is determined by humans"

  • @IvanGlavas
    @IvanGlavas Месяц назад +1

    Conte?

  • @IvanGlavas
    @IvanGlavas Месяц назад +2

    This is ok. But nothing beats books. 👌

  • @jalan7405
    @jalan7405 Месяц назад +2

    good example of bad AI implementation: more typos, mispronunciations, repetitions); like "can't"

    • @mark4asp
      @mark4asp Месяц назад

      For example, the translator was writing Conte for Kant. But if it were an AI - how come it gets its spelling wrong? I think it must begin with text. Give a text-to-speech video-cast. But then - Google translate mistranslates the speech back to text transscript. Google need to give these A.I.s the option of doing their own transcripts.

  • @MaxWalts
    @MaxWalts 2 месяца назад +2

    Kant's philosophy on race ..leaves a lot to be desired

  • @derivativemusic
    @derivativemusic Месяц назад +1

    AI voiceover is unlistenable.

  • @blackcastle159
    @blackcastle159 Месяц назад +1

    Never trust authority or listen to AI

    • @2009Artteacher
      @2009Artteacher Месяц назад

      That’s exaggeration . Both authority and AI has legit value . To negate it by identifying with another’s theory is more dangerous than.