Introduction and Descartes' "Radical Methodological Doubt"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- The first meeting of our History of Modern Philosophy course, in which some historical context of the beginning of "Modernity" is sketched out. Additionally, we sketch out what's going on in Descartes' first Meditation.
You are enlightenment.......Please never stop teaching (or posting these instructional vids)!
I've watched a lot of philosophy lectures on youtube and without doubt I find your presentations the best. Thanks for all the effort you put into filming, editing & uploading your work.
I followed a STEM path in my education, so it's great to have access to your lectures outside of school which makes learning this new material enjoyable
Agreed, im self educated and I owe this guy a lot
@@frederick3467 same he is really good engaging and not only gives history but provides insight aswell, hard to find this kind of professors
Sorry I don't feel the same enthusiasm. He is plain, inaccurate and I am not sure he understands Descartes.
Agree 100%
You are an exceptional teacher.
I second that -
Always a shame how the length of class is just about long enough for some seriously good questions and interesting points to start showing up. As a student I know that I get itchy to leave past an hour, and my focus wanes, but in philosophy classes the opposite often happens and it's pretty frustrating.
One thing about philosophy that always kinda bugged me was that they seem to re-define 'modern'. Descartes starts modernity... And then there's 'post'-modern -- what the heck is that, if not the future? Pre-Socratic makes sense as a delimiter name. Medieval makes sense. It just seems like we've been calling it 'modern' for so long that we have lost sight of how long it's been. And when we do finally bud off into a new era, will that one become the new 'modern'? Or will it be a post-post-modern? How far into the past can we keep pushing 'modern'?
It's not just philosophy - lots of disciplines use "modern" to refer to something other than "contemporary" but instead a specific (recent, but not contemporary) time period. The issue arises not from *re-defining* the term, but actually from allowing the initial use to hold its referent steady. Modernity isn't being "pushed into the past," it's standing still as we keep moving into the future.
It's a funny thing about historical periods - they're difficult to identify in the moment. During the "Ancient" and "Medieval" periods, no one referred to those times as "Ancient" or "Medieval." Those labels and the conceptual unity that they bring to temporal epochs only got applied retrospectively.
"Modernity" however, was an attempt to apply a term in the moment, referring literally to what was going on "just now." Perhaps the initial users of this term thought that history was over, and there would be nothing new after modernity. Perhaps they just weren't thinking about the way the referent for an indexical like "just now" shifts as time passes, because they didn't realize they were coining a word for a new historical epoch that would eventually end. Perhaps what's important about "Modernity" is the broad realization amongst humans in various cultures and contexts that "just now" is remarkably different from the past in a way that needs labelling, or that human history can even be told in terms of sweeping master narratives and big epochs.
Whatever the case, the issue here isn't a *re-definition* of "modern," but the opposite - a freezing and nailing down of what "modern" means rather than letting its meaning slide around whenever it's used like other indexicals like "here' and "now" and "me."
That still leaves the question of what to call what comes next, or how we will even figure out that we have left the "modern" epoch and entered into something new and different. Relatively recently we've seen "post-modernity" arise as something literally after, but perhaps more accurately *opposed* to "modernity" in some significant ways. But that's a shortsighted solution, as you've noted - what's next after that? Post-post-modernism? And isn't that just "modernism" again if "post-" means not just "after" but "opposed to?"
But this isn't really our problem . It's something that future historians will deal with looking backward, when they try to figure out where the epochal joints between historical periods lie and what the flavor of each epoch is.
@@adamrosenfeld9384 I am humbled by the response.
Etymology 'modern':
``c. 1500, "now existing;" 1580s, "of or pertaining to present or recent times;" from French moderne (15c.) and directly from Late Latin modernus "modern" (Priscian, Cassiodorus), from Latin modo "just now, in a (certain) manner," from modo (adv.) "to the measure," ablative of modus "manner, measure" (from PIE root *med- "take appropriate measures"). Extended form modern-day attested from 1872.``
I, of course, understand that historians want to nail that referent down. Which is why using a term like 'modern' to do so is/was incredibly silly, especially when doing so causes the term to end up referring to something 400 years ago! I dare say most people wouldn't NATURALLY associate that word, which etymologically ties to 'now', with anything that far away in time -- nor should they.
As to whether or not it is 'really our problem' -- I disagree. I don't think this necessarily concerns some future historian or set of historians MORE than us here today. If we already think we know what we mean by 'post-modern', then surely that period of time referenced by 'modern' has moved too far behind us in time to retain that name, IMHO.
I think 'postmodernism' references the 1890s-1960s -- given a quick google search. Even THAT is over 60 years ago! You are certainly correct that 'post' can also mean 'against', but I think that just muddies. 'Contra' also means 'against', and would make the better use if that is what was intended in the term 'post-modern' -- perhaps it should be called 'contra-modern'...except that it's not really modern at all, it's 400 years in the past! And that would then free up the term 'post-contramodern' to be temporally 'after' the 'contramodern'.
It's just a mess, IMHO. And in my opinion, it's unnecessary. If we'd stick to naming the period of time on people, instead of bastardizing the word 'modern', we wouldn't have this problem -- eg: pre and post-Cartesian. One does not mark one's spot on a long road by pulling over one's car and putting a marker on the fender of the car -- and then drive away in that same car! You mark the road, NOT the vehicle!
And to be perfectly clear I've nothing against you specifically. And even though I have never spoken to you in person, I get the feeling that you already understand that. You seem to enjoy the class participation. My dual degree is in philosophy and computer science, and I had to take the same kind of 'modern philosophy' class. I did so in the early 90s, and that was when I first thought that the term 'modern' was being bastardized by the discipline. I'd have surely enjoyed you as an instructor.
Watched all of it 43:44
ditto , I only meant to watch a little bit, but 45 min later, I'm rewinding this vid, to check the notes that I took, that I never intended on taking. lol
Well I haven't seen a brown chalkboard since Elementary School