With every video i choose to watch..i m getting more addicted to listening to one full video at the end of each day...just love how much i relate to any of it!
I am listening because I am trying to understand my nature. Having sunk into "the spectacle" for quite long, while I was sick, I started feeling disgusted by my lack of action in a sense. When my body is at rest, I listen to your podcast while I am also trying to get some of the books that you refer to in your episodes. Not for collection purposes but for deeper understanding. And all that to define the nobody that I am. Eh, better late than never.... Right?
I very much enjoy this channel but let be so bold as to offer a critique in regard to your thoughts on St. Anselm, et al.. Anselm and whomever else for that matter, weren't necessarily trying to convince others of their beliefs. They may have wanted to convince themselves and published those ideas in the hope that others would validate those arguments. Kant does not necessarily refute Anselm's ontological argument. According to Wiki, Kant's argument (briefly) was "based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate. He argued that 'existing' adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being, and thus a 'supremely perfect' being can be conceived not to exist." However this critique has been subjected to modern criticism itself. Alvin Plantinga writes that "...is it [Kant’s dictum] relevant to the ontological argument? Couldn’t Anselm thank Kant for this interesting point and proceed merrily on his way? Where did he try to define God into being by adding existence to a list of properties that defined some concept? … . If this were Anselm’s procedure - if he had simply added existence to a concept that has application contingently if at all - then indeed his argument would be subject to the Kantian criticism. But he didn’t, and it isn’t." This criticism of Kant's critique is echoed by others as well. Indeed, Anselm's own argument is strengthened by reformulation of the original term "God" in exchange for "maximal being" and fortified by Godel and Planting's own model logic arguments. In my opinion, Anselm's argument is probably still one of the most powerful arguments ever constructed in ontology/philosophy and cannot be dispatched so easily. I will certainly keep listening and I very much enjoy the program. I hope to donate soon. Thank you!
Interesting theory, however just because we can't see microwaves doesn't mean we have a soul or god exists. Maybe we do have all the tools minus a few to experience everything in this universe.
With every video i choose to watch..i m getting more addicted to listening to one full video at the end of each day...just love how much i relate to any of it!
I'm listening because most content bores me. Yours inspires me. Thank you.
Brought it full circle. Great episode.
I am listening because I am trying to understand my nature. Having sunk into "the spectacle" for quite long, while I was sick, I started feeling disgusted by my lack of action in a sense. When my body is at rest, I listen to your podcast while I am also trying to get some of the books that you refer to in your episodes. Not for collection purposes but for deeper understanding. And all that to define the nobody that I am. Eh, better late than never.... Right?
You're the man! Keep it up Please
In order to know the limits of knowledge, we have to test them.
Greatest podcast on the internet
BRILLIANT!
Thanks
really insightful
I very much enjoy this channel but let be so bold as to offer a critique in regard to your thoughts on St. Anselm, et al.. Anselm and whomever else for that matter, weren't necessarily trying to convince others of their beliefs. They may have wanted to convince themselves and published those ideas in the hope that others would validate those arguments.
Kant does not necessarily refute Anselm's ontological argument. According to Wiki, Kant's argument (briefly) was "based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate. He argued that 'existing' adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being, and thus a 'supremely perfect' being can be conceived not to exist."
However this critique has been subjected to modern criticism itself. Alvin Plantinga writes that "...is it [Kant’s dictum] relevant to the ontological argument? Couldn’t Anselm thank Kant for this interesting point and proceed merrily on his way? Where did he try to define God into being by adding existence to a list of properties that defined some concept? … . If this were Anselm’s procedure - if he had simply added existence to a concept that has application contingently if at all - then indeed his argument would be subject to the Kantian criticism. But he didn’t, and it isn’t." This criticism of Kant's critique is echoed by others as well. Indeed, Anselm's own argument is strengthened by reformulation of the original term "God" in exchange for "maximal being" and fortified by Godel and Planting's own model logic arguments.
In my opinion, Anselm's argument is probably still one of the most powerful arguments ever constructed in ontology/philosophy and cannot be dispatched so easily.
I will certainly keep listening and I very much enjoy the program. I hope to donate soon. Thank you!
Wow soo many episodes about Kant, why don't you just write an Emmanuel?
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Interesting theory, however just because we can't see microwaves doesn't mean we have a soul or god exists. Maybe we do have all the tools minus a few to experience everything in this universe.
George C. Electricalbox roflmfao
Kantrary 😉😉😅🤣
god maybe doesnt have a youtube channel but he has twitter