The Ideas of Immanuel Kant (Makers of the Modern World)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is part of our ongoing Makers of the Modern World series. In this lecture, I discuss the ideas of Immanuel Kant, including the noumenal/phenomenal distinction, synthetic a priori judgments, and the categorical imperative.
This series is great. Between your series and Vervaeke’s “Awakening from the meaning Crisis” series, I finally feel like im starting to get a general grasp on western philosophy.
It is interesting that whether its political theory or metaphysics, theology or whatever else, there is a discernable movement in modernity from patterns of "top-down"ness to "bottom-up";
• Emanating essentialism --> emerging nominalism...
• Traditional forms of Christian-monarchy --> democratic Egalitarianism...
• Inerrant depositist revelation --> higher critical development, etc.
Gotta give you a lot of credit. This is a very concise, consumable lecture on a very challenging topic well done. It’s a shame your video about a social media need has 7x as many views as this
TH-cam academia - this is the future ❤
I'm more confused than I was before. My biggest takeaway is that it seems to me that no matter what worldview a person holds, he *must* exercise faith to some degree.
Yes faith is inevitable.
@@aimhigh3701 That is true in some sense, although does mean radically different things depending on context. Kierkegaardian thought has stressed "faith" as a key principle of secular/civil epistemology and thus radically redefined it from its Christian context wherein it relates to a Spirit-wrought disposition of trust toward and in Jesus.
This is one of Dr. Cooper's criticisms of modern philosophy; the secularizing of Christian principles and language such that natural theology is displaced and revealed theology is diluted.
The question is: what or who do you have faith in? Too many people think that "faith" is equivalent to magic; you simply must have "faith". Faith must have an object. For Christianity, you are expected to read and believe the Scriptures, accept them as accurate history, and have faith in God's promises.
Fascinating stuff! I was transported backwards in time to my college days when I was a philosophy student. I remember most of this, but it does make my head spin a bit, hearing all that packed into an hour +.👍🏼
The limits of reason. Kant was super logical but saw the boundaries of reason and mapped it.
This series is excellent. Just curious Dr. Cooper, have you ever taught/do you teach history of philosophy? If not, you should consider it - your grasp of the Western tradition is amazing.
My teaching has been exclusively in the area of theology, though the two have quite a bit of overlap.
A take on Hamann and his relationship to Kant and then to Husserlian phenomenology and Lutheran theology would be interesting.
Yes, Descartes ! 🙂
Do you have anything connecting these thoughts to present day issues or worldviews? Thanks
You're definitely going to have to do a Foucault breakdown.
It's coming. Next is Hegel, and then Structuralism.
Dr. Cooper, have you encountered the theory that Kant was influenced by Emmanuel Swedenborg? What do you make of it?
Dr. Pastor Cooper.. I would like for you to teach thru Mark..
On lying: something can be wrong, but you are not responsible for it. An example would be if you are coerced into doing something wrong. It's not that the thing is right, but that you are not responsible for it because you were coerced. This is analogous to the example you gave about lying. The man at your door coerced you into doing something intrinsically wrong (lying) by not giving you any alternative (or, rather, an alternative that required you to do something worse). So you are not responsible for lying, but it is still morally wrong.
...still hoping for a video on C.S. Peirce, William James, and American Pragmatism.... 🤞
Will you be discussing Hegel's thought?
Yes, it's already recorded.
@@DrJordanBCooper Great!
Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without conceptions blind
Great video. It seems to me that Kant reaches the same place as Bishop Berkeley’s Empiricism with respect to the Subject/Object order. Bishop Berkeley would say that Kant’s order is right, ie the subject comes before the object, but I think he would argue that God, as the Supreme subject, makes the world ultimately objective to us… bringing the emphasis back to revelation. Sure, the world as we know it is filtered through our subjective mind, and this might lead to skepticism, except we have God (the Supreme subject) to reveal to us the way the world is. We cannot know the “ding an sich”, but God does and He can reveal it to us. We depend on that revelation.
Kant thought Berkeleyan idealism was a "scandal in philosophy". Somewhat roughly, his main (theoretical) project was to salvage parts of rationalism and scientific knowledge against Humean skepticism and Berkeley's idealism. It's a tightrope walk with dubious success and the next generation mostly "fell" into idealism (albeit a different kind). This was not only because of general philosophical predilections but because he took as "given" that maths and some parts of Newtonian theoretical physics were examples of synthetic a priori. He wanted to show how this was possible and the strategy is via the formal presuppositions of the most general structure of experience (and thought), i.e. the "forms of intuition", space and time, and a bunch of logical forms of judgment corresponding to categories.
There is at least one anti-dualist school of Kant interpretation who claims that the "Ding an sich" is not a mysterious "additional" thing "behind" the experience but actually an abstraction, disregarding both the formal preconditions (analysed by Kant) for and the material content of a particular experience.
@@bartolo498 - I wonder at Kant’s rejection of idealism since he comes from a Lutheran tradition and I believe Luther was a proponent of idealism, as were most Protestant theologians.
Do you plan to cover liberal theology? An episode on Schleiermacher would be fantastic
Yep. That's on the schedule.
11:13
Schelling 🗿
I think I’m too stupid for this.
Can you talk about the mainline Churches and Protestant liberalism? Or Neo-Orthodoxy?
Yes. That is coming.
Oh hi zoomer.
@@memeboi6017 update: Jordan Cooper has since made videos about that!
Lutheran Orthodoxy .yah..a.....m....e...n
It's always awkward to mention this guy's name correctly when you'rea German living in an English speaking country...cause I refuse to anglicize names and call people and places "Lootha" or "wittnberg"
But you "Kant" say "Kant"!
Michel Foucault is a bit naughty too, especially if you hail from Northern Britain
You seem to misunderstand Kant's ethics. The categorical imperative he talks about is to act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time **will** that it should become a **universal law**. He is not at all saying that you should never lie. In your nazi scenario you can neither universalize nor will to give the jew up to the hunter because that would lead to a contradiction in the world you would create. Remember that universalizing your maxim means that it is now a moral law, and if it were moral to give up the jew hiding in your basement no jews would hide there, and to a greater extent you've violated the concept of trust because you have assumingly assured the jew he could hide there. You can't will that either to be universal because if you were in the jew's position you certainly wouldn't want to be ratted out, and you wouldn't want to live in a world without trust. But if that didn't make sense then just simply look at his second formulation of the categorical imperative, which is treating people as ends in themselves. Giving up the jew violates significantly this sanctity of human life.
Kant was smart enough to think through these sorts of things and I'm surprised you would mischaracterize him so. Perhaps you should revisit his Groundwork and then remake this video so you don't confuse anyone.
Lutheran Pietist.