It's always interesting getting back in touch with old profs. I've always found that they turned out to know a lot more than I had credited them with! Fortunately, there's no strong union for college professors -- not one that anyone would give any real power. I remember when they tried to unionize the profs at my grad school -- they had about 30% of the profs in favor, I think, and most of the rest saying: "are you kidding? Look at these other profs! You want them negotiating for us?"
I'm glad to hear you're reading it and enjoying it. It was indeed a 6 or so year project, but a good bit of that was tracking down articles, and then the translation work. As to a book about writing the book, I'm not so sure. . . .
That's an interesting analogy -- the discovery phase. I've thought about, down the line, writing an intellectual history of the debates themselves, but not about the "discovery process". I have talked about it in a few lectures, though
Hello Gregory, I am truly thankful for your online videos because they have helped me get through some tough chapters in my Philosophy class. For myself it was hard to understand the text in the chapters, but when I first watched your video on Utilitarianism I understood every thing you said perfectly. Kant is now my second video and I just want to say thank you for taking the time out to make these videos because they are very useful.
Yes, I do allow my own views on the matters to intrude occasionally. As to the "is it right to value truth" - a whole different line of discussion there! One which leads in many different directions -- but not one to which Kant, in my view, contributes much
Well, if you go through the literature -- and there's a ton of it out there -- on the first Critique, you'll find discussion of it, since that's where Kant introduces and discusses the Transcendental Logic at considerable length. I'd say that what was new in Kant's Logic did get used by the German Idealists -- but you find them using Kant more as a point of departure than as a template for their philosophy
Hahaha! Yes, I think there's two kinds of dogmatic self-importance philosophers can be particularly tempted by. The one kind is the "I'm the expert -- and the right kind -- so I'll tell you precisely how it is. And, if you see things different, you're just wrong" The other actually appears to be respectful and "tolerant', but that's just a kind of mask, the "well, as we all know, nobody really knows. . . if you hold to anything substantive, well, then you're wrong. . . "
The last of the Core Concept videos devoted to Kant's moral theory -- at least for the present. The Core Concept videos to come in January and February will be mainly Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and perhaps Nietzsche
I guess that's a good way to put something that I do feel, but didn't really articulate: "how generally intellectually fragile young adults are" -- at least some of them. That wasn't always the case for me. I used to be very harsh and dismissive of students. Fortunately -- not just for my students, but perhaps even more for me -- the prison teaching wore off a lot of my sharp and rough edges
I deal with this often with students and educators alike. Students who refuse to be "problem solvers" or "free thinkers" and educators who believe that their way is the only way to do something... forgetting that kids are leaving for college or a career where their boss's/college professor's way is the right way :-).
You're good. The fact that it's an actual class and you take questions is positive. But I think that, for the Internet, you move a little too slow. Not saying you should necessarily chance (some people might prefer it slower).. but if you wanna grow getting it a little cleaner and the examples a bit more objective might be the way.
Yes, we have our share of them -- but several different "establishments". The worst, in my view, are the self-proclaimed education "experts", who are usually the education faculty. Some of the people in that field are quite good, of course. But many are simply awful
Hi Gregory, thank you very much for this video. I live in the UK and am just about to sit my Philosophy & Ethics A Level on Wednesday. Any advice? Haha. Even though this is more university style teaching, it has defiantly given me more of an understanding of the theory of Deontology. You are a very good lecturer! :) Nico
I'm actually working on a research paper comparing Kantian ethics to utilitarianism, and I feel that I have a relatively strong grasp of each system of ideas, however I'm having trouble developing possible issues that would occur in Kantian ethics, particularly the categorical imperative (just the two basic parts: 1.) act so that you would will your maxim to become universal law and 2.) treat other rational beings as ends in themselves rather than means). The only thing I can really come up with is that Kant possibly doesn't consider animals and small children "rational beings" and therefore wouldn't disapprove of things like animal abuse. Would you have any suggestions or ideas about this?
***** While Kant doesn't consider animals rational beings, human children are (potentially) rational beings. Kant has other grounds within his philosophy by which he would disapprove of animal abuse, that have to do more with what such abuse would mean for the one carrying out the abuse than for the animal abused. If you're interested in scheduling a tutorial session with me, you can go here to read about them: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Yes -- that's exactly it. They're either been taught that their job is to find the right answer, or to keep their mouths shut -- or that every one of them is a "precious snowflake", whose task is to explore and express themselves, in a world without any objective truths or values, just niceness (and wickedness, of course, on the part of the Nazis and. . . )
It's always interesting getting back in touch with old profs. I've always found that they turned out to know a lot more than I had credited them with!
Fortunately, there's no strong union for college professors -- not one that anyone would give any real power. I remember when they tried to unionize the profs at my grad school -- they had about 30% of the profs in favor, I think, and most of the rest saying: "are you kidding? Look at these other profs! You want them negotiating for us?"
I'm glad to hear you're reading it and enjoying it. It was indeed a 6 or so year project, but a good bit of that was tracking down articles, and then the translation work. As to a book about writing the book, I'm not so sure. . . .
That's an interesting analogy -- the discovery phase. I've thought about, down the line, writing an intellectual history of the debates themselves, but not about the "discovery process". I have talked about it in a few lectures, though
Hello Gregory,
I am truly thankful for your online videos because they have helped me get through some tough chapters in my Philosophy class. For myself it was hard to understand the text in the chapters, but when I first watched your video on Utilitarianism I understood every thing you said perfectly. Kant is now my second video and I just want to say thank you for taking the time out to make these videos because they are very useful.
+Jenia Mchenry Glad you're finding the videos useful
Yes, I do allow my own views on the matters to intrude occasionally.
As to the "is it right to value truth" - a whole different line of discussion there! One which leads in many different directions -- but not one to which Kant, in my view, contributes much
Well, if you go through the literature -- and there's a ton of it out there -- on the first Critique, you'll find discussion of it, since that's where Kant introduces and discusses the Transcendental Logic at considerable length.
I'd say that what was new in Kant's Logic did get used by the German Idealists -- but you find them using Kant more as a point of departure than as a template for their philosophy
I'm glad its useful for you!
Hahaha! Yes, I think there's two kinds of dogmatic self-importance philosophers can be particularly tempted by.
The one kind is the "I'm the expert -- and the right kind -- so I'll tell you precisely how it is. And, if you see things different, you're just wrong"
The other actually appears to be respectful and "tolerant', but that's just a kind of mask, the "well, as we all know, nobody really knows. . . if you hold to anything substantive, well, then you're wrong. . . "
very succinctly put. loved it!
Thanks!
The last of the Core Concept videos devoted to Kant's moral theory -- at least for the present. The Core Concept videos to come in January and February will be mainly Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and perhaps Nietzsche
I guess that's a good way to put something that I do feel, but didn't really articulate: "how generally intellectually fragile young adults are" -- at least some of them.
That wasn't always the case for me. I used to be very harsh and dismissive of students. Fortunately -- not just for my students, but perhaps even more for me -- the prison teaching wore off a lot of my sharp and rough edges
I deal with this often with students and educators alike. Students who refuse to be "problem solvers" or "free thinkers" and educators who believe that their way is the only way to do something... forgetting that kids are leaving for college or a career where their boss's/college professor's way is the right way :-).
This whole discussion might well be worth a (likely controversial) video talk.
Thank you.
You're good. The fact that it's an actual class and you take questions is positive. But I think that, for the Internet, you move a little too slow.
Not saying you should necessarily chance (some people might prefer it slower).. but if you wanna grow getting it a little cleaner and the examples a bit more objective might be the way.
+Ramon Gomide Well, sounds like these videos aren't for you. Fortunately, you'll find plenty of faster-moving ones, if you do some searches.
Yes, we have our share of them -- but several different "establishments". The worst, in my view, are the self-proclaimed education "experts", who are usually the education faculty. Some of the people in that field are quite good, of course. But many are simply awful
Hi Gregory, thank you very much for this video. I live in the UK and am just about to sit my Philosophy & Ethics A Level on Wednesday. Any advice? Haha. Even though this is more university style teaching, it has defiantly given me more of an understanding of the theory of Deontology. You are a very good lecturer! :) Nico
Nico Upton Glad the video was useful for you!
Alasdair MacIntyre
I'm actually working on a research paper comparing Kantian ethics to utilitarianism, and I feel that I have a relatively strong grasp of each system of ideas, however I'm having trouble developing possible issues that would occur in Kantian ethics, particularly the categorical imperative (just the two basic parts: 1.) act so that you would will your maxim to become universal law and 2.) treat other rational beings as ends in themselves rather than means). The only thing I can really come up with is that Kant possibly doesn't consider animals and small children "rational beings" and therefore wouldn't disapprove of things like animal abuse. Would you have any suggestions or ideas about this?
***** While Kant doesn't consider animals rational beings, human children are (potentially) rational beings. Kant has other grounds within his philosophy by which he would disapprove of animal abuse, that have to do more with what such abuse would mean for the one carrying out the abuse than for the animal abused.
If you're interested in scheduling a tutorial session with me, you can go here to read about them: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Yes -- that's exactly it. They're either been taught that their job is to find the right answer, or to keep their mouths shut -- or that every one of them is a "precious snowflake", whose task is to explore and express themselves, in a world without any objective truths or values, just niceness (and wickedness, of course, on the part of the Nazis and. . . )
How are they similar?
Who?