What is the Categorical Imperative? | Kant | Keyword

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
  • Note During editing, I noticed that I too hastily labeled the imperative a law without first unpacking it as a command before becoming a law.
    In this episode, I explain Kant's notion of the categorical imperative.
    If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
    Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
    paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
    Twitter: @DavidGuignion
    IG: @theory_and_philosophy
    Podbean: theoretician.p...

ความคิดเห็น • 26

  • @connorspears7050
    @connorspears7050 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    One of the clearest explanations of the categorical imperative Ive ever heard. Thank you

  • @butchnighthawk1673
    @butchnighthawk1673 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    how is a platonic ideal different from the numinal world? is it like the same concept. ig it is since its not like, perfection but more mysterious and about existence or something

  • @aakshisrivastava4291
    @aakshisrivastava4291 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Hi, I really enjoy your teaching style. Could you please do one video on Ferdinand De Saussure's Course on Linguistics?

  • @xaviercrain7336
    @xaviercrain7336 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    But Kant believes in natural law not biblical law…

  • @Zing_art
    @Zing_art 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Also, it's funny that the same man who talks about categorical imperatives turns out to be a racist and a sexist. Kind of makes me believe philosophers may not practice what they have so ardently professed.

  • @Zing_art
    @Zing_art 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Imperatives are commands first

  • @VioletDeliriums
    @VioletDeliriums ปีที่แล้ว +4

    What about the Scatalogical Imperative?

    • @fenzelian
      @fenzelian ปีที่แล้ว +1

      When you gotta go, you gotta go

  • @timothywise9731
    @timothywise9731 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It would be helpful to the know the spelling of the terms some of us may never have heard of. This video was poorly constructed preventing some of us from understanding what you’re babbling about.

  • @srirj44
    @srirj44 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Very nice explanation. Please keep at it.

  • @aldonzoba-jf4tj
    @aldonzoba-jf4tj ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Like your lecture so inspiring

  • @kalimullah3282
    @kalimullah3282 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Hey! I am always indebted to you for your efforts. Could you please give us a talk on the concept of natural rights, especially liberty, from postmodernist perspective?

  • @gvancakupreishvili7220
    @gvancakupreishvili7220 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank U! 💙
    Could you record a new video, about Hume and his solipsism? 💙

  • @coolpix807
    @coolpix807 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Your explanation was very clear and the best I have heard. I am using Kant in considering business situations where they raise ethical concerns. This video helped my understanding. Thank you!

    • @adaptercrash
      @adaptercrash ปีที่แล้ว

      Simple it's a posterior categorical protocal since they bypass universal law as autistic minds. This is his moral philosophy on ethics, not his transcdental idealism. You know that 4 point protocol shit, the proper and he just knows everything. Explained in an abstraction that was like a paragraph from his practical critique on the very bottom of the work oh we don't want to read that nonsense and the critique of pure reason is like a nonsensical, comedic joke.

  • @aymannissa21
    @aymannissa21 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Do you upload these on SoundCloud?

  • @mohabyounis3348
    @mohabyounis3348 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You said that noumena were things as they appear to themselves. Seems like a typo or something but you cannot use the word appear with noumena. Insofar as we appear to ourselves we are not noumena but an empirical "me", but insofar as we are in ourselves we are noumena, insofar as we are a transcendental "I".

    • @mohabyounis3348
      @mohabyounis3348 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      5:88

    • @mohabyounis3348
      @mohabyounis3348 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I just realized you say what I said here a minute later. Must have been just a little typo then.

  • @hyacinthoides
    @hyacinthoides 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    🥰

  • @pipersolanas3322
    @pipersolanas3322 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I love your videos!

  • @RpgGamer3
    @RpgGamer3 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I am literally going to cry. I just spent the last 15 minutes critiquing your presentation of the categorical imperative, but it didn’t save. I’ll have to just make a video response; however, your biggest error is the two worlds interpretation. Henry sidgewick presented a damning critique of the two worlds interpretation

    • @RpgGamer3
      @RpgGamer3 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Oh and FUNDAMENTALLY the categorical imperative is a negative test to determine when duties do not apply, not a positive test for finding duties

    • @RpgGamer3
      @RpgGamer3 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Judgement is very similar to Aristotle’s notion of phronesis. ‘Lie’ is a technical term for Kant. You misunderstand declaration. A lie is an untrue declaration. Upon further reflection, we should converse one to one, not over a youtube comment section.

    • @himathsiriniwasa7646
      @himathsiriniwasa7646 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Do you have any recommendations on papers re the interpretation of the CI as a negative test

    • @RpgGamer3
      @RpgGamer3 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@himathsiriniwasa7646 Cambridge Elements: Formulas of the Moral Law by Allen Wood