วีดีโอ

Hicks and Pedersen are on a mission. Language makes and defines our reality. And our emotions makes language almost useless.

Kant claimed that the human mind is not capable of comprehending the nature of reality. I hope people will notice that Kant asked us to believe that Kant's mind was the only human exception to this rule of his. The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real. Reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty. Kant said that this proves that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape (except Kant, right?). 'Kant said that reason and science are valid only so long as they deal with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion ... and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective ... and this switch continues to cause immeasurable damage and immeasurable confusion. Kant said that the “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”-which means: things as they are not perceived by man. I hope people will notice that Kant asked us to believe that Kant is somehow uniquely enabled to know such things even though it necessarily violates and invalidates his own proposition. Kant's own behavior & actions self-defeat his own claims and his own rule. It is not necessary for an opponent of Kant to invest any work or energy into defeating him ... because Kant has already defeated himself for all of us. Kant’s argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes-he is deaf, because he has ears-he is deluded, because he has a mind-and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. Of course, any observant person will notice that Kant excuses himself from his own rule because he wants to be free from his own claims and his own limitations as he "teaches" us about these things that we cannot know (but he can somehow know). Kant said that “true” knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition. He then absurdly sold the world his books of "knowledge" after obtaining that knowledge by using his own cognition. Any student who can grasp this simple observation will then be able to see that Kant's entire body of work contains hundreds of contradictions and hypocrisies of the same nature. Kant preaches that a human cannot have a particular faculty or skill ... while he is simultaneously demonstrating that HE does possess that faculty or skill. Reason. Cognition. Perception. Judgment. Etc. Kant said that there is one means of piercing the barrier between man and existence. Since reason, logic, and science are denied access to reality, the door is now open for men to approach reality by a different, non-rational method. The door is now open to faith. Taking their cue from their felt needs, men can properly believe (for instance, in God and in an afterlife), even though they cannot prove the truth of their belief. Kant said: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” This is the opposite of the purpose and the meaning of philosophy. If the mind’s structure is a given which cannot be explained-as Kant had said-then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality. Any student who can grasp the insanity and the inaccuracy of this statement from Kant will then be able to see that Kant's entire body of work contains hundreds of other irrationalities that self-defeat his own framework. The first world movement to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. Kant believed that the dutiful man would be rewarded with happiness after death (and that this is proper). Kant said that the man who is motivated by such a consideration is immoral (since he is still acting from inclination, albeit a supernaturally oriented one). Nor will Kant permit the dutiful man to be motivated even by the desire to feel a sense of moral self-approval. Kant claimed that it is the lot of the moral man to struggle against undutiful feelings inherent in his nature, and the more intensely he feels and the more desperately he struggles for valueless duty, the greater his claim to virtue. It is the lot of the moral man to burn with desire and then, on principle-the principle of duty-to thwart it. According to Kant, the hallmark of the moral man is to suffer. Kant stated that your interests-of whatever kind, including the interest in being moral-are a mark of moral imperfection because they are your interests. Any student who can grasp the insanity and the inaccuracy of this statement from Kant will then be able to see that Kant's entire body of work contains hundreds of other irrationalities that self-defeat his own framework. Kant said that the metaphysical inferiority of this world is a rationalization for the hatred of reality. Kant admitted to hating reality, and he admitted to his own desire to train others to think this way. And he must bizarrely reference reality (continually) during his training activity. Kant said that reason is unable to perceive reality and deals only with “appearances,” and he said that this is a justification for the hatred of reason. Kant admitted to hating reason, and he admitted to his own desire to train others to think this way. And he must bizarrely use his own reason during his training activity. Kant said that the goal of life is the breaking down of man’s spirit, ambition, success, self-esteem, and enjoyment of life on earth. Kant hated life, he hated being a person, and he wrote some books in his attempt to persuade other people to do the same. Kant was not a friend of humanity, he was not a good person, and he was irrational.

Very well done! I had the same reaction to a Hicks video. His views on Kant rely on people having no preexisting knowledge of Kant. Hicks is a mixed bag. I like some of his work but, like many "public intellectuals" in the internet age (eg Peterson Degrasse Tyson, etc.), he's sloppy and you take apart his sloppiness with regard to Kant expertly.

Why not blame Plato and Aristotle, rather than Kant, for pomo? You joke? The Enlightenment was a wrecking ball used against Aristotle - to the extent that he was the foundation for Natural Law and the Academia. Remember: Kant was the ONLY Enlightenment philosopher who was an academic. Post-Enlightenment, most philosophers were academics again; philosophy reverted to the norm. Pomo grew out of continental philosophy by the way of Marxism, Structuralism, and French philosophy. So we clearly need to follow the roots of French philosophy. How its neo-Kantianism, gave way to a kind of back-to-Hegel, semi-existential Marxism, followed that the peculiar combination of Structural Linguistics, French Anthropology and Lacanian Psychoanalysis which became Poststructuralism = the mother of Postmodernism. BTW: French neo-Kantianism rejected both Aristotle and Hegel. (so no Aristotle). Hegel entered the scene in the 1930s via Sartre, Hyppolite, and Kojeve. Kant is key to postmodernism. In that post-Enlightenment philosophy begins with Kant. They're Germans, metaphysicians, and they created 'continental philosophy'. That trend in philosophy is where Hicks aims his big guns (to the extent his has them). Hicks is right: Kant has to fall. But I think psychology and experimental philosophy will have to provide Empiricists with the ammunition to bring down the Dark Tower of Kant. Not Hicks.

Introduction to the 'dispute'. Postmodernist is really just a codeword for Social Contructivist. Pomodernism, pomo, gives Social Constructivism, SC, some kind of "philosophical foundation"; giving SC the appearance of a rigorous discipline. So that academics of "social theory" can pretend to be doing serious work. But there's a problem with that foundation:- it crumbled. How? Philosophy itself is split between 2 main branches today: Analytic and Continental. Pomo was a radically skeptical branch of the continental tree. The crumbling of pomo began 5 decades ago, in the 1970s soon after pomo's birth. Pomo could not defend its own "foundations" from attacks made by both Analytic and some Continental philosophies. So much for pomo and SC. Yet, of course, we remember that - despite being a zombie - pomo somehow lived on. Because SC still needed something it could claim as a 'foundation'. To me - that's the real puzzle here: that pomo Zombie in the academy. But the topic here is Kant, and Kant is a hybrid in that he's one of the few philosophers who's work is still central to both Analytic and Continental philosophy. Attack Kant at your peril. Because all the real philosophers from Hell will be after you. As well as all the fake pomos cheering them on. This will be an exciting ride[*]; as we'll no doubt all be up for a re-reading or, more likely, a first reading of actual Kant - rather than mere 'Kant for Dummies'. I'm definitely book-marking this one. [*] That's me being ironic.

Great video! I find it ironic that Hicks chides postmodernism for being "relativist" and "identitarian" while he himself misrepresents a crucial philosopher and claims "it doesn't matter" because of the "more important [political] issue"

22:59 Clearly it's not tho lol, i mean life is the ultimate right because it encompasses the ability for all other rights. Bodily autonomy is both an aspect of one's life, being the measurement of a thing one owns, their body. But actions pertaining life itself are higher priority thus can bypass the right to one's own body if it is from which life exists and thus out to not be killed. Pro choice have it out of order. Emotism does not determine the difference, the nature of the rights define the status of the rights in the code of morality.

I think you over do your criticism of Hicks on your (I think correct) representation of Kant. One thing is how Kant is correctly understood, another (and the interesting for Hicks's project) is how Kant was 'taken down' by post modernists(and others). As I understand it, the thing is Kant's establisment of the 'Das Ding an sich'. It might be that Kant thought that you could make valid statements of it (as you demonstrate), but remove that, and you are left with, namely, 'Das Ding an sich' - something which is (then) inaccessible to our minds/experiences/reason. Now it can go two ways: Nietzsche (Götzen dämmerung, E.g. 'How the true world became a fabel' in which Kant is central), thinks 'Das Ding an sich' is a re-hash of the old platonic 'True world' (dualism) and that we should get rid of it, so that we are left with the 'Real world'. Post modernists seems to go the other way, and says: "See, even if there is an objective reality, it is inaccessible to us (because 'Das Ding an sich'), and thus don't matter" which, it seems to me, ends up in a practical denial of objective reality, realism, truths, facts (god(s) and all that comes with it- ofcourse!). It's a complete undermining of 'The western thought' and this is what Hicks gets wrong: (The early)Post modernists didn't do it to salvage their marxist beliefs, they did it because they exactly were marxists and wanted to undermine the bourgeois society, in order to make way for the great revolution. In my mind, and what I think Hicks is getting at, Kant introduces a critical weakness by establishing this 'Das Ding an sich' which in reality works to refute realism, objective reality etc. (even though that was not Kant's intention). Simply by denying Kant's, and for many modern thinking people questionable, reliance on reason. Which leaves us with, at the very least, an inaccessible reality etc. Which is then easy to deny, opening up Pandora's box.

Hicks derives his view of Kant from Ayn Rand. Curiously, it is unlikely that Rand ever read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" all the way through. So where did she get *her* view of Kant. According to Rand biographer Jennifer Burns, Rand derived her view of Kant from libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Where then did Paterson pick up *her" view of Kant? The most likely source would be George Santayana. In Santayna's "Reason in Common Sense" (considered a classic in the early decades of the 20th century), Santayana argued as follows: "Side by side with this reinstatement of reason, however, which was not absent from Kant’s system in its critical phase and in its application to science, there lurked in his substitution of faith for knowledge another and sinister intention. He wished to blast as insignificant, because “subjective,” the whole structure of human intelligence, with all the lessons of experience and all the triumphs of human skill, and to attach absolute validity instead to certain echoes of his rigoristic religious education."

I'm trying to follow this interesting exposition. Why this utterly stupid music?

Modern conservatism is post modern

Well there is no noumenal world- it doesn't exist. There's only the one world of nature and you're part of it, entangled with it. To the best of our understanding it's quantum fields all the way up and all the way down.

Can you NOT see the fallacy in that ridiculous opening statement about the rejection of universal application? That entire rejection is a well-couched, somewhat disguised UNIVERSAL statement. Therefore you have a situation in which you believe as a universal principle, that there are no universal principles. Incredulity towards meta-narratives = ABSOLUTE sketicism = ABSOLUTE belief that there are NO ABSOLUTES = self exclusive statment = Contradiction = shut up and go away as a philosophy. Aristotle wiped the floor with such idiotic bullshit many moons ago. It is not that Derrida is difficult to understand. He is willfully IMPOSSIBLE to understand, because CONMEN require obfuscation. Ecology is a postmodern science, meaning it is like Astrology completely fallacious = postmodern sciences Astronomy and economy are classic sciences. Your entire philosophy is fallacious. Just because your clock is spinning backwards, as is the case with Karl Popper et al, does not mean that you are telling truths several times per day. IAristotle, the father of science, and Newton, the father of the scientific method, would puke at what you call Postmodern science.

I think I am a communitarianist (+everything else) so when ever someone mentions or explains it I leap. Thanks for the content. Subbed. Ps. Another thanks to my 11 grade English teacher who though libertarian(at least I think he was) accidentally helped me realize that I am a communitarianist.

Amazing

😂 wonderful postmodern creative deconstruction you just re arrange meaning until it supports the political sub group you want to win in the Darwinian dystopian competition of the world as you see it.

Very interesting

youtube.com/@NoRace?si=0mN3vPJLGApgpRzy youtube.com/@mindofdante2658?si=70ZmZCcNzQya2hrl

The connection between Kant and Postmodernism that Hicks drew involves little more than the "fallacy of the single cause."

"is there a sociology painting?" lol

I don't get Rawls. To me, he just plucked justice as fairness out the air, because I can't find his underlying thought process to get there. I've read a quote where he says something like, the natural endowments of nature are not a question of justice. Which is a weird thing to say once you've gone to great lengths to devise an economic and political system to balance out the natural endowments of nature because it's unfair. His thought experiment is so irrelevant to the actual real world that it just comes off as a justification for his own moral presumptions. I found the Hegel quotes interesting. Is deontology actually just consequentialism? Seems like it. And then on McIntyre, I liked the quote of his on the enlightenment, but as I've been delving into Ellul and Kaczynski of late (blowing my mind NGL) I wonder what role technique plays. Take abortion, this is a question that only exists because of tech, and for this tech to exist, traditions must be nessecarily compromised. Because of the speed of tech, we're going to be left in alot of quandaries that provoke emotivism, because you can't formulate traditions fast enough, and or, thet lose their social utility. And as to telos, I think this is a modern issue TBH. What was the scope of telos and ethics to pre-agricultural and feudal humans? Not that great. The scope of action, the reasons to act, and the possible temptations, obligations, all of it was pretty well-defined, narrow, almost static. According to Kascinsky, the sickness of people is that we feel compelled to action (or power) but our actions are abstractions, he calls them surrogate activities we have to discover to try satiate our will to power (telos). And for most people they're unsatisfying. Anyway, really great vid. Provoked a lot in me.

Very cool

YES GLASS ELEVATOR

good job colin this is so good

THE FIRST PICTURUEUEHEJHWH

This is your best video yet!! Keep it up :)

I love this content. Keep it coming.

🇯🇲👍🔥

WOOO GLASS ELEVATOR

I know this video is old but please keep making more philosophy videos I need more good philosophy TH-cam channels to watch there’s not a lot

Always good

Immanuel Kant‘s ideas are foundational to understanding Carl Jung‘s psychology. Jung considered a Basic understanding of Kant as prerequisite for his own theory and referenced Kant in almost every book I have read. Jung‘s archetypal theory makes the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. It is central idea. Hick‘s understanding is beyond idiotic. But Peterson’s advocacy for Hick‘s revealed to me why his understanding of Jung was so flawed. But I don’t think Peterson cares. Peterson and Hick‘s are not interested in truth or a descriptive theory they are interested in clothing right wing propaganda in a type of sophistry that convinces people that their politics are reasonable. But it is rather striking who some of the most famous anti-Kantian materialist philosophers are: Marx, Lenin, Foucault, most of postmodernism except Deleuze and Ayn Rand. It seems to me that a better premise for his book would be to establish what ideas he actually shares with post-modernism and Marxism namely materialism vs idealism. And then proceed to show how his materialist Philosophy is a more useful theory. And here is why: Lenin’s anti-Kantian essay actually reminds me of Hick‘s writing. It is filled with ad hominem attacks against Kant and why the working class should reject Kant. Lenin never goes very deeply into what Kant‘s arguments are, it is more like idealism is obscurantism and materialism is our only concern. Being that Ayn Rand was from Russia as well, I couldn’t help to think that this was a popular Russian position. And upon further research I found it was. Both Lenin and Ayn Rand were inspired by the now obscure Russian philosopher Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Hick‘s ideas have a direct lineage to Vladimir Lenin. This of course shouldn’t be some indictment but it does reveal that Hick‘s doesn’t explore the very ideas he is espousing. Lenin‘s influence is clear, in this regard. He even titled an essay with the Same title as Nikolai Chernyshevsky. But what about Rand‘s influence? Chernyshevsky endorsed egoism as the proper source for individual behavior and for harmonious social relations. I think that both Materialism and self interest egoism is a clear similarity even if the political philosophies are different.

Hey, similar to your video criticising Hick’s view of Kant, maybe you can cover the TH-cam channel King Crocoduck’s content on the science wars? Or perhaps the science wars as a whole? Edit: Spelling error

"Postmodern" and "Science" is an oxymoron.

Giordano Bruno figured out the universe a couple of hundreds before Copernicus and Newton without a telescope; purely upon compilation and observations! Scince today has become a palor game drowning in dogma and financed results.

absurd

I wrote Peterson 6 months ago telling him Hicks is all wrong about Kant and his response to me was to say "You ungrateful little shit! How many books have you written?" I wrote back saying I'd written and had published 3 books in philosophical theology. He never responded after that.... I think that his most recent difficulties have more to do with alleged unprofessional behavior than it does criticism of the government per se, doesn't it? I mean, "Poor people eat too much food" or "climate doesn't exist" aren't direct critiques of any government, are they? I lost interest in what he is saying when I checked out his assertion that "lack of serotonin is the cause of depression"; it turns out there is no scientific basis for that whatsoever. Then I looked into him further only to discover his claims, "I am an evolutionary biologist," and "I am a neuroscientist" to both be false: he's always only had a doctorate in cognitive psychology. I've always intensely disliked and mistrusted paucity of intellectual integrity... (..."There is a false saying: 'How can someone who cannot save himself save others?' Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche)

Why is Peterson made synonymous with "chaos theory and math"???

This is a really, really good video. Thanks so much, I'm currently reading Chalmers and this helped a lot. I'm curious, what kind of vids are you thinking of making in the future? (Since your vids are numbered)

Very high quality explanation. Keep up the excellent work.

Straight fire!

Excellent video! The scientism that pervades our cultures in the West especially is very obnoxious at best and stifling at worst. This video cleared some things up for me. I will be watching this channel with great interest!

Subscribed, I am looking forward to your content! :D

Great work, thanks so much. Great to have these complex thinkers ideas bought down from the clouds and explained clearly. Cheers.

Based New TH-cam Account.

What music is that in the background?

Everyone seems to have a different definition of postmodernism, which varies depending on whether one considers oneself for or against. mod, pomo, pre-modern or re-modern, ... Very few call themselves pomo but many more seem eager to apply the label to others. But - if barely anyone is actually standing up to fight for the pomo standard then isn't it a somewhat fake label - applicable to history - not to the now?

I swear to god u had 550k subs. 121? You need more exposure, this is the thing the internet was made for. Instead of an introdutory book, i can watch your videos as an introduction to better understand it, for example. thx a lot.

Amazing work!

Luhmann!