I'm only at the beginning of the video and noticed again: You really should invest some pence into audio equipment; it's worth it when you express yourself so meticulously. It really doesn't cost much and has a great impact on hearing experience!
This is an amazing lecture Matthew. I love how you spatialized & diagram out these concepts as I think it helps to conceptualize the evolution of ideas & fundamental differences in their concepts. You're a great teacher, and I'm looking forward to part 2!
This is a superb introduction into German Idealism in which some very deep and difficult concepts are explained in a truly excellent way. Incredibly helpful. Thanks Matthew from UK.
Respect! I have never seen a German who was able to give such a simple presentation of these complex correlations. Simple but not simplified, to express myself clearly.
I'm enjoying this so far. One thing I notice, and from other online presentations by Matthew, is that from Fichte onwards, the Idealists were very obviously influenced by ideas found in the Upaniṣads. For example the idea of that philosophy is grounded in "I am" seems very much to take the Upaniṣadic view.
I don't have the background with the texts to speak to the degree of your apprehension of these bodies, but I can't image someone better suited intellectually. I greatly appreciate your work and luminosity, Professor Segal.
So, maybe we could say, for Fichte - because he (over)emphasized or "absolutized" (as Matt put it) a Kantian critique of practical reason, intermixed with his founding idea of the "I-ness" (I-ness because, lack of "substance" or "thing") as the dynamic axiomatic first principle, which has quality as primary as opposed to a Newtonian quantity as primary - that the Cartesian cogito-ergo-sum statement had had it backwards: that "I am (doing) therefore I think" is essential to the shifting I-hood and its foundation of an active, mercurial consciousness which always transcends fixed terminology or systems thinking. This said verbosity of the humanizing will therefore always throws categorical thinking into flux, co-terminus only with its own capacity for positing new ways of (re)positing; Fichte's I-ness is the potential Kantian Newton of the blade of grass as of yet unrealized/untapped, just as Manhattan had once been a swampy bog wetland before it was concretized, gridded and over-humanized. Funny how Fichte's logic is almost like Schopenhauer's idea of the will to life, ever-groping and reaching outward inexorably, never fixed or terminal in its scope by innate moral categories or universal platonic realms; except, this is seen in a pejorative light as a kind of cancer in Schopenhauer's mind, whereas for Fichte it is celebrated honorific. The Manhattanization of nature is a Fichtean success, as its obvious downsides would simply be rationalized or posited as a process, a glass and steel and fiber-optic cocooning of the I-becoming amid landfills and gentrification and over-caffeination, a quality or state that need not be thingized (which technically avoids the pitfall of solipsism, but not by much..), and which is always morphing into new human posits made actual, a sort of electrical I-ed up Newtonian grass blade limited only by its own set limitations, to Kant's dismay were he alive today. Another interesting thing to consider is that the media-centric understanding that "reality is created, crafted," rather than something that is outside the human realm of activity as a subjectivity granted to all living things, also resonates deeply in the halls of Fichtean logic. I wonder if Bernays read a lot of Fichte...? I suppose this is where Shelling will come in as much needed relief from the overactive humanism of Fichte, seeing subjectivity in organismic life as well. Looking forward to Part 2! Edit: Of course, Schopenhauer's Will, while attainable through introspection, was irrational and devoid of aim or intellect - so he differs from Fichte in this sense. But S's Will is like the Fichtean I in the sense that they both are idealist, and they both emphasize dynamic action and flux as opposed to otherworldly static categories or thing-like substances reflecting universals. In a way, both S and F have affinities with Heraclitus, where nothing endures but change, flux.
There is a subtle resonance between the imperative of internally guided freedom sought by Kant and Fichte as it challenges our culture today. The modern machinery imposes its will on the individual with no regard for what is lost in the process, nor its divine consequences. This aspect is as pertinent today as ever.
@@jeffheller642 You are correct! But by these standards Hegel falls outside of the scope as well since his main work dates from 1807, if I am not mistaken. I foremost meant to express that, when discussing German Idealism, Schopenhauer is often overlooked in academic circles. I never understood this. But that could be personal. I find Schopenhauer a more interesting philosopher than Hegel, Fichte and Schelling combined.
@@RJH5202 I love Schopenhauer, as have many writers and thinkers (notably Freud). But was he really an idealist in the pure sense. Wasn't his whole thing that he had 'identified' Kant's unknowable noumena as Will-infested reality? Though he recognizes that Kant's categories are the basis of our (represented) concepts and that by denying the will to live we can choose to inhabit the world of ideals (as in Art) , I don't think he is (regarded as) an idealist per se.
@@jeffheller642 That is an interesting question. He certainly took himself to be one. I think on the level of knowledge, he absolutely is. We only know the will insofar it is expresses itself in our own body (outside of our understanding) . On the ontological level he might be considered a realist. But then again, Kant also posited the thing in itself and like Kant Schopenhauer accepted that space, time and causation are mere forms of our representation. So I would consider him to be a part of this philosophical movement.
Can anyone tell me what the California Institute of .... Is? The California Institute of Technology? Or something? I liked the talk. He is a student doing a presentation for a Prof? We hear Prof, he's the guy in the background giving guidance, right?
It's interesting to point that the Hebrew word "davar/dabar" (since you've mentioned Goethe's "In the beginning was the deed/act") which was used in the opening sentence of the Old Testament, has multiple meanings, second most prominent of which is "act/deed". So in some sense, Goethe's opening sentence is just a rereading or reinterpreting of the original one. However, really appreciating these series, thanks for 'em!
@Anders Anderson Thanks for the caps lock, but if you look at what I've actually written, you'll probably notice that I'm talking about the original Hebrew word of the Old Testament, not the greek translation.
I'm having a difficult time understanding how the post-kantian's are moving past the limitations Kant has placed. Could their systems be described as grounded in a sort of poetic conviction?
@@andreaspokorny3089 I will not elaborate on this but Kant is not an idealist. He was a pure empirist, probably more than Hume. I do not count him in the german idealist.
trimasael no,no,no. Kant was in the first place an idealist. He posited the limits of theoretical and empirical cognition from a theoretical pint of view. His philosophy did not emerge from empirical observation but from rational deduction.
Bruni Schling His philosophy followed the method of 'transcendental deduction', not 'rational deduction'; there is a difference. Transcedntal deduction identifies presuppositions of experience and therefore isolate our relation to appearances. This is different from sketching out a rationalist framework for ordering things
Brilliant at explaining the philosophy. I hope that someone can some day explain why Ayn Rand hates Emmanuel Kant. When the Randians explain her reasoning they just read her mis-characterizations of his works.
Roughly, Rand was fiercely committed to the idea the human mind can know reality objectively, while Kant said that a large part of our knowledge is determined by internal-to-the-mind, "a priori" "categories" which are in some sense projected onto reality, thus making our knowledge of the world always and irreducibly mind-dependent (subjective) and therefore not "objective."
@@Robb3348 David Hume seemed to say that there is no such thing at all that qualifies as human knowledge, with humans only having beliefs. So Ayn Rand should have hated Kant's predecessor Davis Hume the most. Emanuel Kant apparently came along later and tweeked the Venn Diagram of knowledge a little bit to at least give us humans a tiny bit of overlap where our "knowledge" intersects with the much larger area that is God's knowledge.
I'm only at the beginning of the video and noticed again: You really should invest some pence into audio equipment; it's worth it when you express yourself so meticulously. It really doesn't cost much and has a great impact on hearing experience!
This is an amazing lecture Matthew. I love how you spatialized & diagram out these concepts as I think it helps to conceptualize the evolution of ideas & fundamental differences in their concepts. You're a great teacher, and I'm looking forward to part 2!
This is a superb introduction into German Idealism in which some very deep and difficult concepts are explained in a truly excellent way. Incredibly helpful.
Thanks Matthew from UK.
Respect! I have never seen a German who was able to give such a simple presentation of these complex correlations. Simple but not simplified, to express myself clearly.
I'm enjoying this so far. One thing I notice, and from other online presentations by Matthew, is that from Fichte onwards, the Idealists were very obviously influenced by ideas found in the Upaniṣads. For example the idea of that philosophy is grounded in "I am" seems very much to take the Upaniṣadic view.
Thanks for uploading your lecture, man. It's much appreciated.
Thank you so much, this is fantastic explanation into terms the laymen can understand.
I lost it when the tree grew its roots literally outside Kants senses
I don't have the background with the texts to speak to the degree of your apprehension of these bodies, but I can't image someone better suited intellectually. I greatly appreciate your work and luminosity, Professor Segal.
This guy is superb
So, maybe we could say, for Fichte - because he (over)emphasized or "absolutized" (as Matt put it) a Kantian critique of practical reason, intermixed with his founding idea of the "I-ness" (I-ness because, lack of "substance" or "thing") as the dynamic axiomatic first principle, which has quality as primary as opposed to a Newtonian quantity as primary - that the Cartesian cogito-ergo-sum statement had had it backwards: that "I am (doing) therefore I think" is essential to the shifting I-hood and its foundation of an active, mercurial consciousness which always transcends fixed terminology or systems thinking.
This said verbosity of the humanizing will therefore always throws categorical thinking into flux, co-terminus only with its own capacity for positing new ways of (re)positing; Fichte's I-ness is the potential Kantian Newton of the blade of grass as of yet unrealized/untapped, just as Manhattan had once been a swampy bog wetland before it was concretized, gridded and over-humanized.
Funny how Fichte's logic is almost like Schopenhauer's idea of the will to life, ever-groping and reaching outward inexorably, never fixed or terminal in its scope by innate moral categories or universal platonic realms; except, this is seen in a pejorative light as a kind of cancer in Schopenhauer's mind, whereas for Fichte it is celebrated honorific. The Manhattanization of nature is a Fichtean success, as its obvious downsides would simply be rationalized or posited as a process, a glass and steel and fiber-optic cocooning of the I-becoming amid landfills and gentrification and over-caffeination, a quality or state that need not be thingized (which technically avoids the pitfall of solipsism, but not by much..), and which is always morphing into new human posits made actual, a sort of electrical I-ed up Newtonian grass blade limited only by its own set limitations, to Kant's dismay were he alive today.
Another interesting thing to consider is that the media-centric understanding that "reality is created, crafted," rather than something that is outside the human realm of activity as a subjectivity granted to all living things, also resonates deeply in the halls of Fichtean logic. I wonder if Bernays read a lot of Fichte...?
I suppose this is where Shelling will come in as much needed relief from the overactive humanism of Fichte, seeing subjectivity in organismic life as well. Looking forward to Part 2!
Edit:
Of course, Schopenhauer's Will, while attainable through introspection, was irrational and devoid of aim or intellect - so he differs from Fichte in this sense. But S's Will is like the Fichtean I in the sense that they both are idealist, and they both emphasize dynamic action and flux as opposed to otherworldly static categories or thing-like substances reflecting universals. In a way, both S and F have affinities with Heraclitus, where nothing endures but change, flux.
Wow, thanks for the history lesson!
Great job, easy to understand, will watch part 2
Are you a professor now? I just came back to your channel again from a video I watched back in 2008 about primary vs. secondary qualities.
There is a subtle resonance between the imperative of internally guided freedom sought by Kant and Fichte as it challenges our culture today. The modern machinery imposes its will on the individual with no regard for what is lost in the process, nor its divine consequences. This aspect is as pertinent today as ever.
Truly thanks you for this lecture
Great lecture, Schopenhauer should be part of this though
Schopenhauer published "the world as will" in 1818, 12 years after the lecturer's time frame.
@@jeffheller642 You are correct! But by these standards Hegel falls outside of the scope as well since his main work dates from 1807, if I am not mistaken. I foremost meant to express that, when discussing German Idealism, Schopenhauer is often overlooked in academic circles. I never understood this. But that could be personal. I find Schopenhauer a more interesting philosopher than Hegel, Fichte and Schelling combined.
@@RJH5202 I love Schopenhauer, as have many writers and thinkers (notably Freud). But was he really an idealist in the pure sense. Wasn't his whole thing that he had 'identified' Kant's unknowable noumena as Will-infested reality? Though he recognizes that Kant's categories are the basis of our (represented) concepts and that by denying the will to live we can choose to inhabit the world of ideals (as in Art) , I don't think he is (regarded as) an idealist per se.
@@jeffheller642 That is an interesting question. He certainly took himself to be one. I think on the level of knowledge, he absolutely is. We only know the will insofar it is expresses itself in our own body (outside of our understanding) . On the ontological level he might be considered a realist. But then again, Kant also posited the thing in itself and like Kant Schopenhauer accepted that space, time and causation are mere forms of our representation. So I would consider him to be a part of this philosophical movement.
really brilliantly explained :)
Thanks for the video
What is the relation of this with vitalism?
Can anyone tell me what the California Institute of .... Is? The California Institute of Technology? Or something? I liked the talk. He is a student doing a presentation for a Prof? We hear Prof, he's the guy in the background giving guidance, right?
This is Matt’s class, I’m curious who is taking off camera, too.
Excellent!
interesting video, but, was it filmed in a car park?
It's interesting to point that the Hebrew word "davar/dabar" (since you've mentioned Goethe's "In the beginning was the deed/act") which was used in the opening sentence of the Old Testament, has multiple meanings, second most prominent of which is "act/deed".
So in some sense, Goethe's opening sentence is just a rereading or reinterpreting of the original one.
However, really appreciating these series, thanks for 'em!
sure Goethe had a critical view on this translation of his hero Faust, cursing patience in the same scene
@Anders Anderson Thanks for the caps lock, but if you look at what I've actually written, you'll probably notice that I'm talking about the original Hebrew word of the Old Testament, not the greek translation.
I'm having a difficult time understanding how the post-kantian's are moving past the limitations Kant has placed. Could their systems be described as grounded in a sort of poetic conviction?
Maybe you stumbled over the term nature because of translation issues - try to read it more as borders of your essence or limitations of your being
I always include Schopenhauer inside the german idealism school of thought. He definitely belongs to that movement.
Especially when Goethe is part of the mix
@@andreaspokorny3089 I will not elaborate on this but Kant is not an idealist. He was a pure empirist, probably more than Hume.
I do not count him in the german idealist.
trimasael no,no,no. Kant was in the first place an idealist. He posited the limits of theoretical and empirical cognition from a theoretical pint of view. His philosophy did not emerge from empirical observation but from rational deduction.
Bruni Schling
His philosophy followed the method of 'transcendental deduction', not 'rational deduction'; there is a difference. Transcedntal deduction identifies presuppositions of experience and therefore isolate our relation to appearances. This is different from sketching out a rationalist framework for ordering things
"Something about being really cold." Yep. "Abstract mental exercises." Indeed. "In what furnace was thy brain?" - "Warming his hands by the fire."
Brilliant at explaining the philosophy. I hope that someone can some day explain why Ayn Rand hates Emmanuel Kant. When the Randians explain her reasoning they just read her mis-characterizations of his works.
Probably because Ayn Rand isn’t a philosopher
Roughly, Rand was fiercely committed to the idea the human mind can know reality objectively, while Kant said that a large part of our knowledge is determined by internal-to-the-mind, "a priori" "categories" which are in some sense projected onto reality, thus making our knowledge of the world always and irreducibly mind-dependent (subjective) and therefore not "objective."
@@Robb3348 David Hume seemed to say that there is no such thing at all that qualifies as human knowledge, with humans only having beliefs. So Ayn Rand should have hated Kant's predecessor Davis Hume the most. Emanuel Kant apparently came along later and tweeked the Venn Diagram of knowledge a little bit to at least give us humans a tiny bit of overlap where our "knowledge" intersects with the much larger area that is God's knowledge.
@@stugrant01 Hume is generally a hero to thinkers of a materialistic, empiricist, non-supernatural, generally a-theistic bent (such as Rand).
M
Sir
I am from india. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🇮🇳🇮🇳
Can you please 🙏🏼provide mein notes of this lecture
"Our freedom isn't facilitated by the industrial system"... oh shut up
Those girls irk me