history of philosophy, i guess (history of all ideas)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2024
- Find a church to attend:
www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
Join the Redeemed Zoomer discord:
/ discord
Music:
Decisions by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Heartbreaking by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
“You could make a philosophy out of this.” - Sun Tzu
life is roblox - sun tzu
many people forget that
Sun tzu is also a philosopher
I think that would be eclecticism, since you’d be using teachings from multiple philosophies rather then one
So if that’s something you’d genuinely want to do then that would probably make you an eclectic, unless if maybe you’d try and form your own philosophy from it
"wait no don't"-sun tzu
THE SUN IS A DEADLY LASER
As a brazilian I can assure you: We do not live in the world of forms.
As a form I can assure you: I do not live in brazil.
As an Ohoian, I can confirm it's not here either
@@Picksle And yes, I don't live in ohio either. I'm actually not where I live. Somewhere in Austria, maybe?
Pois é mlk!
@@gamingjr9038 Mó viagem essa ideia de formas, aqui é mundo da feijoada, do samba e do neymar.
It all comes full circle. Something gets big, we question it, then the question gets big, so we question the question. Time to question Postmodernism.
We've clearly made a mistake along the way, or several. It's time to figure out what they are and build something new and positive.
There is no need to question that one, I think we all can agree there is objective truth, His name is Yahweh and He gave us Himself in the God-Man Christ who then said:
"I am the way, (the truth), and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me."
-JOHN 14:6
@@Godsglory777 No I don't agree
Except you can't question PostModernism because of how they define truth. Your truth is just different from their truth.
I hate that people even entertained PoMo epistemology.
@@idontcare2508 you need to specify it
The ideal title of the video should be 'history of all western philosophy' because you left eastern philosophies untouched.
What are some notable achievements of eastern philosophy in the field of epistemology?
@@DavidJohnsson The Nyāya school of Hinduism ( founded by Aksapada Gautama) developed and refined many treatises on epistemology that widely influenced other schools of Hinduism. Nyāya treated it as theory of knowledge, and its scholars developed it as Pramana-sastras. Pramana, a Sanskrit word, literally is "means of knowledge". It encompasses one or more reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge. The focus of Pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.
@@DavidJohnssonnon duality by adishankaracharya which is famous in western academia too.
Also like all of Abhidarma thought which expounded on the same ideas Kant had but hundreds of years before Kant was even born and in a much more rigorous manner
Even presocratic philosophy was not mentioned, neither ancient Egyptian,Persian .. etc.
philosophers mentioned:
Thales - 0:18
Heraclitus - 0:20
Empedocles - 0:30
Democritus - 0:36
Pythagoras - 0:40
Socrates - 0:44
Plato - 1:28
Aristotle - 2:17
Augustine - 3:43
Aquinas - 3:59
Descartes - 4:30
Hume - 5:20
Kant - 5:27
Hegel - 6:05
Nietzsche - 7:31
Sartre - 7:33
i love how eurocentric this video is
@@petergriffin3194 that's because the chinese can't get rid of Marx and nobody here ever thinks about Confucius
All together now!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmanuel Kant was a real p**sant who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle - Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed
@@matejmoravek4580Zhuangzi:
Philosophy is not at the end, you left the modern philosophy
For anyone wondering why Descartes' logic couldn't also mean God is infinitely evil as well as good - It's pretty straightforward: Evil is not the opposite of goodness so much as it is the total lack OF goodness. Good can exist regardless of evil, but evil by definition presumes the existence of Good - it is dependent on it. Ergo it is not possible for a being of infinite goodness to be any flavor of evil, much less "infinitely so".
Evil doesn’t have metaphysical substance, it’s merely the lack of good therefore God cannot be evil He must be good
if someone argued that God is an infinite lack thereof... How would you respond?
nah the problem isn't there, but the fact that if there is finite, it means that there can be infinite things. But this is only our mind. And even if infinite is possible, then how does this proves the existence of god. Also, evil is not lack of goodness, that is just neutrality, evil is desire to obtain something at other's expence or just a wish for others to suffer
@@AmirSattBut that definition already presumes the opposite of that is good.
Why do you presume that good can exist regardless of evil? If nothing in the world would be considered evil, no person would have any conception of what is "good".
I am really liking this channel. My cousin in law is Presbyterian and involved in Chaplainary services in the military. Having been a prior Roman Catholic and then an Atheist I am again a Christian and just got done with my first Presbyterian church service. It's nice to meet relatable people.
Go back home to the Catholic Church my friend!
What made you leave the Catholic Church?
@justinking3558 there were just a lot of things that didn't seem to align properly with what was being practiced vs what was being preached and done. Some things just didn't seem to have the right logic flow and it felt more tainted with the traditions of man than that of which was set forth by God. However, I am not God, and there are many Christian Catholics who produce the good fruit. I think the fruit and the faith in, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God are what is most important -- not so much the fine details. I do believe that God appreciates the fruit and faith more than what minor deviations come about. In the end there are 7 churches, and God will forgive us who repent. If God is a just God, and God is a just God, God will forgive our mistakes and our sins through Jesus. We shall not judge, so I will rightfully recognize God as the one who will do so.
@justinking3558 I had wanted to be a priest and join a holy order. In preparation for that things didn't seem right with what was occurring in the church and what the Bible said. Long story short I didn't know what was or wasn't true. I prayed. I studied many religions. I became an atheist. Studying science I became a diest of sorts. Then as the world revealed things to me through struggles I became diest/agnostic Christian. The truths of the Bible starting revealing themselves to me and I eventually became Christian again but with more truth. I am now attending a Presbyterian church and learning about Christianity from a more proper point of view. I am not necessarily Presbyterian, but I am Christian and tend to agree with the reformist church. The Bible, experience, historical and scientific references, and some traditions are what I use to guide me. The Bible being the most important, historical and scientific references second most important, third my own experience, and 4th human traditions that are rooted in history as they apply accordingly.
Thankyou for sharing your testimony brother, God bless you and keep you always
Reedemed philosophy when?
PhilosophicalZoomer
PonderingZoomer
Inspiring Philosophy would be proud lol
Aquinas already did it.
That should be a second channel!!! Redeemed Zoomer a theologian and a philosopher... IM HERE FOR IT
Shouldn’t this video be titled “History of Western Philosophy”?
This would be more accurate. What is interesting though is that there is no way these thinkers were not exposed to, and influenced by, other religious/philosophical ideas. Aldous Huxley's perennial philosophy highlights some of the points of convergence
This is definitely an unfortunate example of Eurocentrism
I understand western philosophy is more relevant to Christianity since Christianity has a longer history in Europe than most of the world, but we certainly shouldn’t be calling a video like this, “the history of all ideas”.
I like the notion that the essence of an object isn't within the object itself but rather is the interaction of the object with one's mind.
The essence of an object exists independently from human mind, otherwise you imply that real world isn't real and is an illusion of our mind
@@AmirSatt Are you defining the real world as the set of objects' essences rather than the set of objects?
@@mesplin3 no I don't
This was brilliant, you do a great job breaking down topics likes this so simple folks (like me!) can understand.
I think one fact you could have included about Alexander the Great was that he was tutored by Aristotle. Imagine, maybe it was Alexander's confidence about the world around him that allowed him to conquer all the way to India? This isn't something the textbooks teach, but the tri-philosophers in Greece, Socrates, Plato and Artistotle, only seem to have their significance because Alexander had paved their academic culture to all of Eurasia. Alexander might owe his sucess to the intellectual labor his tutor might have paved ahead for him.
Also on the subject of postmodernism, one cavet of it is the elimination of grand narratives. Postmodernism is not simply a turn away from God, but away from narratives about humanity at all whatsoever, and this even includes the project of the secular enlightenment. The recent events regarding climate change is a topic to consider. During the enlightenment we sought to conquer nature through industry. Now, nature is poised to conquer us. During modernity, we sought to use the sciences to elevate the species of the homosapien. Now we see that technology had come to chain humanity. Postmodernism is just a general distrust of any project that riles up humanity to a certain cause. This is why perhaps we need to look toward God for a way towards life, rather than any mechanizations or schemes that we conjure up. Not many textbooks can teach us about the ways of the heart, and the Bible and their teachers perhaps has the biggest depository of all human experience known to mankind.
Love how you're bring philosophy to the general public like this!
Alexander's mother also seemed to think she'd been impregnated by Zeus. It makes me wonder if any of the Watchers or Nephilim were still around at that time.
Alexander wasn't especially educated as it goes.
This especially doesn't make sense when you consider that almost everything Aristotle said was wrong or inaccurate.
Alexander barely brought Hellenic culture to all of Eurasia. Hellenic culture persisted in Egypt, Anatolia and Syria for a long time but most of his conquests were reclaimed by the Parthians within a century.
I’m atheist but very interested in theology and may pursue a career in it. Love the simplified format you bring. Thanks dude.
Keep searching for the truth. You might just find Him.
Might I suggest a box set of CS Lewis' theology books?
Same with the atheist thing lol. His format is incredible, though it can be hard to separate the art from the artist with him.
Honestly if you actually like studying and learning about this stuff you’d offer a rare and valuable perspective. There are a lot of atheists in modern academic theology, but for the most part it’s the same deconstructionist views that you see across the board in the humanities. More academics who engage with the field out of a genuine interest and curiosity rather than out of the colonial modernist attitude would be entirely welcome.
@@Mushrooms683All the best in your career brother. I'd recommend reading the Gospel of John from the Bible. A great summary of Christian Theology.
I hereby nominate this video for a Really Good Video award.
I second this nomination.
I veto this suggestion.
It’s hilariously incomplete to the point of silliness.
@@Justanotherconsumer I veto you.
@@Justanotherconsumervetoed L
@@Justanotherconsumerits not meant to be exhaustive.
I love how simple and yet so informative this video is, amazing work!
Bro got his philosophy degree from the university of wikipedia
Even that's being generous
I can't even with these videos. People, go pick up a History of Philosophy by Copleston instead of watching youtube summaries from a guy who thinks all Nietzsche said was "nothing means anything". The more I see of this stuff the more I feel like this merging of internet meme culture with Christian tradition is a disaster in formation waiting to happen.
Like the thesis antithesis synthesis dynamics is not even really what Hegel theorized in his dialectic. If you just even read Hegel's freaking Wikipedia page you'd see that. If you don't know anything about philosophy you should NOT be educating others, man. Seriously. I'm being harsh because these days, with the Internet and tiktok and youtube, there is an engorgement of blind guides and talking heads leading people in circles or into holes, sometimes with honey. Everyone wants to say something and feel important. And sometimes these guides expose others to Christ--good for them. When in reality we'd be better if people stuck to their wheelhouses and focused on sanctity IRL in their own lives instead of trying to become internet Justin Martyr autodidacts or whatever. Stick to talking about reformed tradition or your personal encounter with Christ or something idk
You can't learn Christianity from the internet. Christianity is a way of life and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and fellowship in his church. Christianity is not apologetics or history and it's certainly not TH-cam videos. When you participate in this, you're basically making the Internet your spiritual director, and that is extremely dangerous. So log off and go learn how to be a Christian by doing it. I only speak harshly because I'm speaking from personal experience and my own temptations to these things. Trust me, you do not want to let your formation be given to you by algorithms and junk food pop apologetics. That is building your faith on sand. So go log off and pick up a real book (preferably the Bible)
The problem with Nietzche, is that he has so many cool sounding quotes that is very easy to take him out of context.
Bro,
1) you don't need to watch this video
2) however learns something from the Web rather from books is ignorant of the argument still, and this is known. If you have short explanation to correct it, say it. If you don't, say that there is much more and one shall focus on a book (like your suggestion that I saved) but stop whining about people speaking to people things they know less than you or less than the standard you want. I don't think who want to understand Hegel and modern philosophy will only watch this video to make themselves a culture, and if they do, poor for them and that should be said in few words, because if they learn philosophy from the tube, they won't read a comment long like yourself. Have a nice day, and let's live the Gospel above our intellectual differences.
@@jackolytetell me you’re the problem without telling me you’re the problem.
this was a really good crash course for some of the figure heads in western philosophy. however, the title of the video is a bit misleading as a lot of western philosophers aren’t mentioned here, and also eastern philosophers aren’t accounted for at all. this is kind of understandable given that you’re a christian youtuber and you probably want to keep things germane to your faith, but the “history of all ideas” part just makes it seem a little disingenuous. like i said, you explained things very well and in a digestible way for anyone that’s wanting a surface level introduction to some of the big names, so you should be proud of that.
Definitely needs a more accurate title.
It need a big "WESTERN" in the title. Within 10 seconds he already assumes that the "most important philosophy started in Greece".
@@Marcoslee which is true, the West has a wider distribution of power and culture than the East, making it more important. While the East has their philosophers and their own lines of thinking, simply those philosophers have less impact on an objective scale.
@@Marcoslee that is true though, because chinese philosophy never seriously confirmed objective truth, and muslim philosophy believe it or not also was heavily influenced by greeks
@@AmirSatt Speaking of being influenced by the greeks, so is everything else in the video already so why not just add in the Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc... philosophers anyways. It takes a lot of work but should at least be acknowledged given the broad title. As far as impact goes, would we really want to dismiss a philosophical framework for not sharing concepts core of another, more influential one and for the most part because it happened to be spread from the birthplace of some powerful empire? There are beautiful ideas in every corner of the world, not just the west.
Christian theology, itself borrowing concepts from the greeks as briefly mentioned in this video was at one time far less mainstream, it's practioners at it's conception subject to suppresion but none of this notably doing anything to make it's ideas more or less valuable. It is the theology itself that matters.
This video has turned put to be a long needed concrete puzzle piece to formulating in my own head and to others how himan rationalizing has evolved and led us to exactly where we are today. Thank you so much!
Philosophy was ideas that occurred in every culture.
It’s important to know that Kant was, in part, inspired to write the Critique of Pure Reason because of the pantheism controversy in which Spinoza’s pantheist philosophy was convincing people that the transcendent God could not exist. Kant’s first critique was written to rationally defend faith itself, instead of taking the irrational “Leap of Faith” as Jacobi proposed in response to Mendelsson (a Spinozist). Christians should definitely educate themselves on Kant so that they can defend themselves from Spinozist attacks, which I predict will happen more in the future given that current forms of “new” atheist arguments aren’t really refuting Christianity at all.
Correct, though Kant has issues himself, he effectively did away with natural law in place of "culture", a now ubiquitous term he invented to describe Rousseau's "general will". Where rational consensus takes the place of truth in ethics and political philosophy.
This has become one of my favorite channels. I love Biblicle knowledge. It's so beautiful and blows my mind every time.
Awesome summary!
Thank you kindly, Mr. Zoomed
Many blessings and gratitude to you, Redeemed Zoomer! Thank you for providing this incredible education.
Thank you for this summary! I always wanted to have something like this from a christian perspective. I find it amazing (and sometimes also horrifying , to be honest) how much impacted they had on the long run on you society.
"The culture of Europe arose from the encounter between the monotheism of Israel, the philosophical reasoning of the greeks and roman law. Pope Benedict XVI
Also what beautiful chorus do you always use when talking about christianity?
GREGORIAN CHANT | ANGELIC CHOIR
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist THX😊
This is fantastic, thank you for creating
Love this, might just be my favourite video of yours
As a resident of Wyoming I can confirm it does not indeed exist.
maybe Wyoming is just an illusion and lie. How can I know that it exists?
I can't believe what just happened. I was stressing about simulation theory and never could I have found better reason to turn back to my faith. May God bless you and you church
It is awesome if you are at peace, but can you elaborate?
Wow! I have been reading a low about philosophy the last few months, and this video perfectly sums up the movements of thought throughout history.
Excellent summary, great job
this explanation was amazing, thank you!
Insane how you put this knowledge into such a small vid
Thank you for this amazing video
Thanks bhai you bring out things that I really needed
4:43 Wait a heavenly second, you're telling me Descartes didn't stop there? And he was catholic?! I wasn't teached about any of those things about him, I was LIED TO
Well, a lot of the ideas of Descartes came from the mindset of his age...and the biggest idea created by him, the cartesian dualism, is now considered a huge mistake, so that's maybe why it wasn't brought up.
@@giantotter319 It's not that it's considered a huge mistake as much as other theories have proved more convincing: the essence of consciousness is still the greatest question for the philosophy of mind.
@@DaDa-ui3sw Depends who you ask, but for example in ecology the dualism is often treated as a mistake due to the fact it justified climate changing actions by humanity and was a cause of many of them - this is due to human exceptionalism
when i learn that french people in the 17th century were catholic: 🙀
It's doubtful that he was catholic, he was quite critical of its theology, though he did believe in the God of philosophy. Descartes and Pascal are often contrasted as opposites.
Very good. I would suggest making one with Spinoza, Lao Tzu and Confucius.
Spinoza in many ways is a radicalization of Descartes, where Descartes said that we cannot know whether there are natural ends or purposes in nature, Spinoza flat out denied it. Where Descartes subjects God's transcendence to something useful for the mind, Spinoza's God/nature is entirely immanent with no transcendence.
another excelent video, well done mate
One of the most brilliantly written philosophy breakdown I’ve ever seen.
The counter to postmodernism is called metamodernism. It entails treating your subjective experiences and beliefs, for example religious experiences and convictions, with equal or greater importance than you treat things that are deemed to be "objectively" true. It's like applying skepticism to what is commonly held to be objective (e.x. questioning institutions that publish scientific research) while also following the existentialist imperative to forge your own meaning.
Kinda misrepresented a lot of things. Hegelian dialectics is a bit diffrent, Nietzsche wasn t proposing nihilism, he was trying to work around it, existentialism can be boiled down more to the ideea that essence isn t intristrically existing to an object rather created, and post modernism is way too varried between authors to define it as only deconstruction. Look at Foucault, Deleuze, Althusser, Derrida, etc... and they while all considered post moderniste have quite diffrent topics they cover and ideeas they create. I reccomend " What is philosophy?" By Deleuze as a good intro to a post modern author. Also you kinda skipped over the analytic tradition, but I get it, it s boring as hell
Whoever claims to understand the Hegelian dialectic is lying.
@@alfredosaint-jean9660 the example in the video is dialectics as explained by another philosopher, Fichte, that had an influence on Hegel, but it s not the same thing.
I was expecting like a deep dive in philosophical questions of Christanity like free will or aesthetics but this video was great!
A laudable effort, and a good video. Even if not every detail is completely correct.
Dude said "history of philosophy" and had Nietzsche as a footnote.
Hi I do videos about religion
He was merely a footnote and is criminally overrated
@@suppiluiiuma5769
Mad over the whole "God is dead" thing?
@@WhaleManMan Well, more like how he fetishized his own mum.
because nietzsche was literally a no one compared to plato, aristotle, descartes, kant and hegel
Correction history of western philosophy
I took a course on modern philosophy (review on the Greeks, mostly Descartes through Kant), and Hume may have ended up being my favorite philosopher despite his very apparent atheism. He blew my mind with his arguments against causation knowledge and delivered some good points on empiricism, as well. I feel like I would have liked Kant the most if we did not rush through him; I still struggle to understand his work.
bro your videos are gold!
Wow! I did NOT know that the Biblical authors were philosophically based! But, that's not surprising. Great video, brother!
Kant and Hegel are extremely misrepresented here and everyone should read up again on the subject of German Idealism, because it is worthwhile. Nobody explains the Trinity better than Hegel did. His dialectic goes as follows (to try to explain in my words): Being or a determination is without content, since it is identical with itself in itself. In that this being now externalizes itself, i.e. sets itself outside itself, through the reference to itself as something separate from itself, this determination is now determined and a movement, a form, emerges from being. This being is the living substance from which everything exists and emerges, and this is spirit, for it is the differenceless being that is self-differentiated as a difference to itself, thereby contradicting itself and dissolving the contradiction to itself in it, and is contained in a new determination with the previous moments in it, which as a result is what it was in the beginning without movement contained and closed in itself. For the determination cannot be determined, that is, set in motion, if it does not enter into a relationship with itself, as we do in our consciousness through the objectification of our I in thinking, in which we elevate our thinking as the object of our thinking and therefore recognize the object of our thinking as the object of thinking in our thinking and thus dialectically dissolve consciousness into self-consciousness. We only abolish it when we negate ourselves in thinking, since the subject has become an object through the view in thinking, since thoughts have content, but views have no concept of themselves. As a result, the ego is forgotten in the fog of the external self-development of the ego, but it is not dissolved in it, but is "aufgehoben", i.e. preserved as part of the objects of our perception. In that we have now found this I in thinking, in that we have "aufgehoben" thinking itself, i.e. transcended it and recognized it as a self-determined determination, the I has become a concept with a concrete content. The I is "aufgehoben"(preserved) in thinking "aufgehoben" (abolished) and found again and "aufgehoben" (transcended) through thinking as the knowledge of the knowledge of itself, whereby conceptual thinking is first called possible because we can now give our knowledge itself a name and are not trapped in it as an object like an animal. This is essentially the movement of self-realization or the mediation of self-realization with oneself, which takes place in the Trinity with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and thus leads to externalization or, as the Bible says in Greek, "kenosis".
Hi I make videos about religion
Good, it always annoys me when people say Hegel talked about "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" when he never once mentioned it or anything like it.
Philosophy has taken us on a fascinating journey from ancient Greece to modern times, exploring questions about reality, existence, and truth. As we navigate through centuries of thought, from Plato's forms to postmodern deconstruction, we're reminded that the quest for understanding is a never-ending adventure.
Nice AI comment
You have helped me so much with theology and growing closer to God and now you are helping me with my philosophy exam as well, God bless
I'm quiet impressed by how much information you've fitted in a 7 minute video .. Obviously It's a bit superficial and reductive but damn you've covered ALOT of ground on western philosophy in such a short video, Great job man !
You think we NEED videos on “Superficial, & REDUCTIVE” pseudo-explanations??? No.
@@dustinhellstern7728 Well, This sort of acts a headline to tip the interest of those willing to further study the topics mentioned. I don't think you clicked on the video actually expecting to him fully and exhaustively explain the history of philosophy.
My questions to postmodernists, if there is no meaning, why do I enjoy having a home? Why do I feel fulfilled by my family? Why do I like what society has produced? Why does society exist? Why do we have social norms? Who gave us these social norms that allowed progress? Why do we view this as progress? I believe in the end, it all points to God.
I am not postmodernist, but I think that there is no objective meaning for all humans, imho the whole point is the real joy, happiness and pleasure in life (not hedonism)
@@AmirSatt if hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure, what distinction is there between hedonism and what you describe, other than an execution that is less reckless and more in line with what westerners might consider traditional values?
@@auggieeasteregg2150 well it is a question of semantics, what you mean is false short term pleasure, I meant true long term happiness. For example, if you do drugs, that will be short term pleasure, but in a long term it will be suffering, hard work in your field of speciality on the other hand requires effort, but in a long term will bring more joy, happiness and pleasure. So in my philosophy the whole purpose is to maximize happiness, but that is just in my opinion, everyone can think independently, but even then subconsciously that is all what people want.
Because you learn to associate all these aspects of your life with survivability. Subconsciously of course, but we inherently value things that improve our chances of survival. Not to say that we evolved to think an iPhone improves our survivability or whatever other example, but our subconscious forms multiple layers of associations between various stimuli. Which all boils down to whether a stimulus is beneficial or harmful to our livelihood. We evolved to learn from our environment in order to benefit our chances of survival. It just so happened that forming societies, families, social norms, luxury items, etc. was beneficial to the survivability of our species.
I ain't no philosopher or psychologist, I just wrote this for fun, so I am probably wrong about some of this stuff.
@@paulcashew5795 nah you are right, it is quite simple, those who wanted to survive survived and passed their genes on, those who questioned their point of existence and didn't know why to live didn't make it long time ago, lol.
Okay, that was actually really good.
Thank you for including us kiwis on the map :)
Thanks for including us New Zealanders!
This kinda broke down with Kant.
He does not think that all we can know are experiences. Its a subtle but crucial distinction: Kant argued that all knowledge is *founded* in or refers to experience.
What he calls ‘pure reason’ is problematic for him. But this *not* in any way that he can be read as a prefiguration if Nihilism, relativism etc. Against this suggestion, his aim was to make *all knowledge rigorous and scientific*. The problem with pure reason is that is that it makes claims beyond the bounds of *possible experience.* We can’t have metaphysical knowledge of that which cannot enter into experience.
And if theres one thing I desperately want to get across is this: I like your channel, but if you want a growing audience, and you want to make Christianity a *serious* alternative today , you cannot achieve this by making Kant, Hegel, etc. the bad guys. If you identify modernity as a problem (which you are right to do!) then we cannot be serious except by giving the idealists (Kant and Hegel) the respect theyre due: BECAUSE THEYRE
IN EXACTLY OUR BOAT; they’re the first ones (ESPECIALLY Hegel) to take modernity as a problem and not a promise.
And that their thinking lends itself to theological reading is simply undoubtable. Read Barth’s Romans; its just a theological rendition of the Critique if pure reason! Kant and Barth together criticize the idea that we can establish a *continuity* between man and God. Whether via religion/human achievemnt in Barth or pure reason in Kant.
And as for Hegel? Read Moltmann, Pannenberg, or Tillich.
Yeah I agree wholeheartedly. Kant and Hegel were two of the last modern philosophers to understand human motivation as transcending the individual will, which of course lines up with the Christian perspective.
I think it’s key to juxtapose Kant with his primary critic in Nietzsche and when you examine the areas in which they diverge Kant is of course the defender of orthodoxy. Unfortunately Kant lost this battle historically and the Nietzschian view won out and continues to be dominant today. Kant has just not been a major influence on the western societal worldview since I would say the early 20th century? And it’s a shame because we’d be in a better place now if he was.
@@harrygarris6921 Neither Kant nor Hegel were modern philosophers mate. And not sure why you think Kant was such a great dude, guy was a virgin whose ideas on ethics are still laughed at today.
Also Nietzsche didn't have a "view", he criticized even his earlier works, assuming he is some kind of major key part of today's thought is kind of unhinged.
@@giantotter319they were absolutely modern philosophers and the only way to deny that is to have a stupidly idiosyncratic understanding of “modern”.
Kant’s moral philosophy was a massive innovation which is not “laughed at” by any serious student of philosophy today. By taking modernity as a *problem* he was the first to realize that the moral law cannot be outside the moral subject (a view which has not left us since). Nor did he think that the subject can *decide* what the moral law is; because he walked the fine line between these two opposing views, and understood this ‘antinomy’ as urgently needing examination, we cannot think seriously about ethics today without reading Kant imo.
@@edwardbackman744 Right, Kant made a whole journey to establish an ethical principle that could be applied in any situation - but isn't applied in any situation because it's incredibly clunky or just doesn't work with actual personal or social ethics. It's a fun footnote, after all not many people establish a new system of morality, but nobody seriously thinks about it as a system that could work. Even Bentham, as much of a clown he was, has some people who agree to his points. With Kant, everyone just goes "interesting, but no". The whole idea of moral duty sinks it and really the only people who could actually follow it understand how shit it is.
If you desperately want to fight modernity, you should find better allies. Probably would be useful to realize we have passed modernity by now, though.
Kant and Hegel should be taken seriously for sure, but I also think they're part of the problem. The correctly identified many shortcomings in the early modernists, but ultimately did away with natural law, and set the groundwork for postmodern relativism, even if it wasn't their intention. As Leo Strauss observed, the errors of Marx are already present in Kant and Hegel.
Tell me you don't understand postmodern philosophy without telling me you don't understand postmodern philosophy.
You are smart dude and i loved that
Please make videos in which you show each philosopher only
More educational videos like this pls
LMAO the Socrates bit killed me
As a fellow Christian into philosophy, I think you did a good job
man I truly loved this video
What are your thoughts on Kierkegaard’s individualist leap of faith approach to Christianity?
Kierkegaard was not a Christian. His irrationalist philosophy entirely contradict everything the Bible teaches and leads to total skepticism and nihilism.
@@Paganblood Faith is a gift from God, not some spontaneous decision we make. And nothing about your statement takes away from the fact that Kierkegaards irrationalist philosophy is thoroughly anti-Christian.
@@PaganbloodWelcome to the family! 😊
@@Paganblood It sounds like Calvinism because it's what God's word says. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". But again, this matter does not take away from the fact of Kierkegaards anti-Christian philosophy. How could you possibly defend Kierkegaards idea that an emotional Hindu is close to God while an unemotional but otherwise entirely good and orthodox Christian is not? How could you defend his rejection of basic logic? His ideas are literally absurd and thoroughly anti-Christian.
@@Paganblood If you think it is Christian to believe that passionate Hindus get saved while faithful but unemotional Christians with their full trust in Christ and the Gospel go to hell you sir are insane. And clearly do not understand the first thing about Christianity.
This kind help me understand the progression I had with philosophy - I really thought I had the best and most advanced philosophy when I studied Marx's Dialectical Materialism....
Until I read the Bible. ❤ ☺️☺️
Reading the bible with a dialectic view is extremely common, not just among marxists. Many proto-protestants were attributed with being early kinds of communists, though at this point it was usually called communalism. Really interesting stuff there i suggest looking into it.
I'm subscribed.
Like Marx and are Christian? Read Alasdair MacIntyre
@@bookishbrendan8875 This guys is awesome, thanks for the recommendation!
colossal downgrade
Would love to see a Part 2
Philosophy in my opinion is the questioning of not just what is around us, but why should it be around.
Like not simply saying "This is an apple that we need to eat, to remain alive." But rather " This is an apple that we need to eat, to remain alive. Because we value life and find purpose in it. That purpose and value comes from enjoying life."
You explain everything so well!
Because he ignores plenty of important parts of it. If you care about this stuff, find an actual channel that focuses on this.
@jjkigtu With that in mind, perhaps. But there are better videos for this topic and better ways to learn about it. I suppose if someone becomes interested in philosophy through this video, good, but something tells me this isn't going to happen.
@@giantotter319 He's not primarily interested in directing people toward philosophy
@@auggieeasteregg2150 I know, he's primarily interesting in getting views, sounding smart and dismissing philosophy as the suboptimal choice. Still, when presenting a topic, even simplified, one should be more thorough then this.
@@giantotter319 bro he's only talking about specific points of philosophy and drawing the connections he draws because he's trying to make a point
You built that up so well and then just.... Land the plane dude!
Interesting summary of thought. Bruce Gore has a good set of classes on philosophy and Christian thought.
glazed over a lot there towards the end especially but you made the most out of ur 8 minutes i cant complain hahah
1:22 "ok you need to be executed"
This escalted quickly
Hegel never said anything about synthesis, is called Aufhebung
++ you right 😊
@@JustTriangle So why are u giving false information about a philosopher?
Love the vids
Excellent video! Did you follow John Frame's book?
I think Hegel is always presented to be this radically optimistic philosopher because of his historical juxtaposition with Schopenhaur. Dialectics was more to prove that nothing happens in a vacuum. One can’t know oneself unless someone else is there to observe, and therefore pretty much validate oneself’s existence. Utopianism isn’t about getting there, it’s about HOW we get there.
Objective truth exists independently, it doesn't need observation to be true, that is why Hegel is meh
@@AmirSatt “Objective truth” according to Hegel is a loaded phrase. There are different kinds of Truths, but Truth in Hegelian dialectics is more of a property than a proper noun. More along the lines of what is a “true friend” than what is “actually true”. I know this is all explained terribly but im just a guy not a philosopher lmao im sure books will do it a lot clearer than me.
Potential to be one of my favourite videos pending
Thanks for including NZ on the map
thank you for including me on the map uwu
Reedemed zoomer is about to become a philosopher!!!!!
This was good, but it needs a part two.
Its important to note that philosophy as a whole is likely to have independantly evolved in different human cultures, one could even argue its how all if not most religions started as
I assure you, with that map, I, a Kiwi, are truly glad we are on it
That's why all these pagan Greek Calvinists are always whining that the finite cannot contain the infinite. Then these pagan Greek Romanists are all like, "nuh uh, see... the substance changes but not the accidents".
Lutherans are over in their weird little corner saying "God says it, so I say Amen!"
I might miss this because I’m going to the church an hour earlier before the afternoon, but it’s fine (not gonna say a church’s name tho for privacy reasons)
Love this video hopefully it goes viral
Brilliant video
I love that you labled Neitzche as a nihilist. He claimed to hate nihilists, but we all know in our hearts he was one.
More so an immoralist and a really bad moustache.
@@unknowninfinium4353 He wasn't an immoralist, he was a moral subjectivist
@@gwgwgwgwgwgwgwgwgw He calls himself that. Mentioned it in AntiChrist and in geneaology of morals.
Also here immoralist doesnt mean choosing the bad morals but here it means rejecting the accepted Christian morality.
@@unknowninfinium4353 Fair enough, I didn't realize this. Though, without proper context, I feel like just calling him an "immoralist" gives people a connotation that isn't in line with what Nietzsche meant by the word
@@gwgwgwgwgwgwgwgwgw Haha dont sweat. It's alright. Not everyone can understand him. I am included in that.
But even if you have a general understanding of him, you are not so far off. Nothing changes if you do understand him or his philosophy. So dont waste your time. No sweat.
Aristotle is so based
Well done!
The ideal form of a thing is not inside the thing, or outside the thing. It is the web of connections the thing has with all its constituent parts, and everything it interacts with.
I love most of this but the attribution of Nihilism to Neitzche is a load of bull. In his works he was describing the world as it was turning away from God as taking away the foundation of society and how that would lead to Nihilism. His famous quote (roughly paraphrased) "We have killed God and who are we to have done so? God is dead and we have killed him." is reflection of the society turning from God, acting as if he never existed, and lacking a way to replace him. He was an athiest but left room for the reader to believe in the transcendent, but he was unconvinced that one should do so without justification for any beliefs we hold including God. Most of his works was pointing out Nihilism as the result of our actions towards a growing lack of belief in God and his works were more of tearing down what people think they know and making sure that those that hold beliefs do not go unchallenged. I do believe that his works belong in the modernist family tree of philosophy but do not think that any attribution of his works towards nihilism is productive.
My aunt bought and sent me Aristotles Metaphysics today 😮
Best philosophy video on the internet no cap.
If you don’t mind me asking, which platform do you use to create your whiteboard type videos?
This guy has oversimplified over 2500 years of history in a video quicker than Oversimplified who simplifies historic moment.
Yeah but he oversimlified it too much without giving any counter arguemnt and prsented opinion as fact
For example
5:03
Premise 1: "I think therefore I am"
I have no problem with that, go on
Premise 2: "I am finite/limited"
Depending on the definition of finite, if finite means "There is something logically possible that I can't do", then we can't be sure I am finite, since maybe I can do them but forget that I do them right after, or erase my memory because I like not knowing once I do know the truth. If you define finite as "I can't do logically impossible things", yes, you are finite.
Premise 3: "The finite implies the existence of the infinite"
This is an assumption, an axiom, there is no proof for that. There is no logical necessity for the infinite to exist if the finite exists. Just look at a set of natural numbers 1 to 10, with addition and subtraction that can't go beyond 1 or above 10. It is a logical system with rules and consistency, but no infinity. Premise debunked
Premise 4: "That which is infinite in every way is God"
Even if I grant for the sake of argument premise 3, being an infinite line (D1) doesn't make the line infinite in two dimensions. Being infinite in one way doesn't make you infinite in other ways. So the existence of one infinity doesn't necessitate a thing that is infinite in every way.
Premise 5: "If God is infinitely good he wouldn't deceive me"
- problem 1: You don't have a proof for premises 3 and 4.
- problem 2: Even if I grant you the stake of argument premises 3 and 4. you have still a lot of problems.
- problem 2.1: You assume that good is an objective property and is not a subjective property that you imagine (Like the value of dollar bills, after all, it's only paper). Another Axiom
- problem 2.2: Even if good is objective and not a made-up quality, and thus can be infinite. What if evil is the opposite of Good and not the absence of good (for example evil would be killing a child, absence would be not helping a child, good would be helping a child). If that is the case (which you can't know since there is no logical proof for any option) - then God is infinitely good and infinitely evil, either that makes him infinitely neutral, or that good and evil don't exist as objective truths, or that only one exists as an objective truth, or that something can't be both infinite in every way. There are so many options that your whole argument falls apart, you have to add another axiom
Premise 6:
problem - based on premises 3,4,5 (and potentially 2 depending on the definition of finite) which are flawed, leading to a false proof that doesn't prove what you wanted to prove (it still does not prove the opposite, that would be a fallacy to think that, but it does not prove what you set to prove - we still don't know for 100% certainty anything beyond I think therefore I am and maybe I am limited depending on the meaning of the word. Not the axiomless perfect proof Descartes wanted
I expected a bit of over simplification, my issue is a few glaring inaccuracies. Ex) Hegel never once talked about "thesis, antithesis, synthesis"
This is a subject which Zoomer was bound to tackle sooner or later
“Baptising ideas” interesting i like this
What's the background music you use at 3:23 and on, for Christianity? I can't seem to find that chant since I don't know what to search on youtube, but I know I've found it before. It's positively lovely.