i struggle getting my head around a lot of kant, always grateful for clear and engaging explanations

This reflects a interview l recently heard with Bob Dylan … he said when speaking of his works in the sixties … well l don’t know where they came from … he than recited a few lines from different songs … saying now who can come up with something like that … he said l can’t now … they just jumped on my page in a special time . Thanks .

I make a distinction between being talented and being gifted. Talent is a form of easy mastery; it makes life easier. A gift can be just the opposite, something that makes life much more difficult because of its complexity. Of course, the dictionary definition is the same, but you see what I mean.

I have to say, although students can learn Einstein's theory, but probably no one can learn how Einstein managed to create his general theory of relativity, which is definitely a work of art.

@anthonyw2931

7 ай бұрын

Very well said.

@IntoDeathandTheBuddahMatrix

7 ай бұрын

Yòu don’t need “but probably.” What you are saying is a fact. No one will ever learn how he learned the theory. You also don’t need “I have to say” it is without substance.

@anthonyw2931

7 ай бұрын

@@IntoDeathandTheBuddahMatrix this doesn't make any sense

@IntoDeathandTheBuddahMatrix

7 ай бұрын

@@anthonyw2931 explain

@Karamazov9

7 ай бұрын

@@IntoDeathandTheBuddahMatrixYou don’t need to police others’ grammar and syntax, it’s correct if it can be understood

the beauty of mathematics is its application

Wonderful video! Thank you Ellie for doing this with Continental philosophy. As a graduate student who is largely interested in continental thinkers, I am thrilled to see your videos, honestly!

I'm so obsessed with this channel omg

Great explanation!!! Thank you💘

never stop these

I'm pretty sure there's an Ellie who never leaves this room while the other one travels Europe. Great video, thank you

@samsicles_jr

7 ай бұрын

😆

Einstein was an excellent violinist. He was an artist as well.

I have prepared this topic just today for CSS ( competitive exams for civil services in Pakistan ) . 😍 You explain so nicely Ma'am. Appreciated... ❤

@aneesurrehman2095

7 ай бұрын

Are you going for CSS next year????

@_blaze_22

7 ай бұрын

@@aneesurrehman2095 yeah ,, in 2024.... And philosophy is one of my optional subjects..

@aneesurrehman2095

7 ай бұрын

@@_blaze_22 can you drop your Instagram or Facebook where i can contact you and discuss things regarding exam as i am willing to appear in 2025 so i need guidance

Another great video...

Thanks, a topic close to my heart. I had previously commented using Dylan's example. Now one from my own experience. As a retired art teacher l immediately identified with the Charles Bargue ( back pose) that is academically used in teaching classic art. I have used them many times with excellent results. Let the student know it's to learn the skill of drawing that will later help when you conceptualize your own work ( using Picasso as an example. In fact, he like Van Gogh) learned from the book) When l was a student l was drawing from the same backplate you used in your talk. The teacher came up and rubbed out a section than said Wayne you're a big person so l don't want to be hit by you. So l will tell you why l did that. You have a gift that looks and sees and then draws it intuitively. You are like a comedian who is in a room and suddenly says something that causes the whole room to laugh. Everybody else saw the same thing but you find something else in it and the others say “Where did that come from? He added that is called a gift of creativity and you have it! I thought I wanted you to learn the technical ways of doing the drawing than you can apply your natural gift. Cheers.

As a 20 year vet professional artist, I would say one is not born with it or not. You might have some inclination to something, but it can all be learned and with practice mastered. The hardest working student will always outpace the lazy one that was "born with it".

Interesting. I’m intrigued by the idea that good art is an expression of freedom. And the idea that an artistic genius can transform something ugly into a beautiful work of art. And the idea that taste forms rules for judging the beauty of art

Very good précis

Amazing. ❤

Very interesting

I love this channel, has been very helpful since I'm a beginner at philosophy. I would really like to see postcolonial and feminist theory.

@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy

7 ай бұрын

Thanks, happy to hear it! You can find numerous videos on these topics in our channel, including our postcolonial interview/video essay series and video lectures on Beauvoir, Irigaray, and Butler :)

Principle #4 is very interesting.

Dr. Ellie! 🧠🧠🧠

So glad I came across this video. I wouldn't say I am a genius but I am an avid student of art. I saw the directions AI Art was going where people were only making comedy videos and not taking the AI seriously. Rather than making a tutorial video on how you can arrange AI in other ways. I decided to make a series of videos to show what else could be done. I went as deep as I could to generate examples of what could work with what it can so. I also relate to your later part, about taking pain and suffering and repackaging it as art. In my opinion, this is another job of the artist, to relate and express in ways the receiver is unable. If you see everything as nature, then any definition of influence applies. BUt I do feel and sense the 'flow' of thoughts that I seldom have control over. If I try to force an idea, it rarely works well. But if I work when the inspiration and energy hits and go with it, the work is easy and interesting. Most of my energy comes form Bipolar Type 2 'disorder' though under this light the disorder seems to have included the gift of creative energy. My father is also bipolar but he says his highs never even get to a normal level, always low. When he saw my work he said at least we got something good out of this.

@thomascromwell6840

7 ай бұрын

I believe those are called focused and diffused states. In the diffused state the brain is free to make its own connection in the background and often it's random until something closes the circuit. Brilliant ideas and solutions strike in the midst of mundane tasks. Many artists and thinkers attempt get the most out of this state of mind.

wow you're my new favorite

You should do "The Artworld" from Danto soon!

1. I suppose that geniuses have know how but lack know why, that´s why they cannot transmit what they do 2. Geniuses enter into a sense of Flow when they create, this is now called optimal experience 3. Yes, genius poets have the gift to describe tragedy with beauty.

For an alternative discussion and interpretation of Kant's Critique of Judgment, check out what Odd Nerdrum (the great Norweigian painter) has to say about it: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d5eeuLp7iNGdkpc.html

Is this true that the difference between genius and madness is just a hairline like what was true about Vincent van Gogh?

@CalliAMusic

7 ай бұрын

Good question.

I would like a video about Islamic philosophy and Muslim philosophers, please

One physics theory of whole universe is artistic i think. Einstein is an artistic figure in his own way.

This was interesting-I think that Kant was right on most of his criteria for genius, except for his restriction to the artistic realm (though one could argue that there is at least a little bit of art in all domains of knowledge) and the fact that he thought women couldn't be geniuses, which is clearly not true. I also think that genius is rare, but there is a little bit of subjective wiggle room in terms of who we would recognize as a genius-IQ score alone would only be a rough indicator since it only measures certain kinds of intelligence and there are probably numerous people who would not make the cut given their IQ score but who would be considered geniuses by many. Obviously, Kant himself was a profound genius but, aside from the fact that he didn't meet his own criteria as an artist, I actually think he would have been too humble and modest to have agreed with that assessment of him by anyone.

I just Kant agree

Is a beautiful work of art a "thing-in-itself"?

In the 18th century, genius was generally understood to be the talent for producing art, not science. In fact, you can find that as far back as critics like John Dennis in the late 17th century, so Kant's views weren't particularly unusual in that regard for his time. Even after Kant, Schopenhauer's view was that the genius is someone with a talent for producing art. I don't think that this should be seen as Kant saying there is nothing creative about science. Kant considered aesthetic judgment as a kind of reflective judgment, which moves from the particular to find the rule that covers it. (As opposed to determinative judgment, which takes a rule or concept and applies it to the particular.) He saw reflective judgment as being at work not just in aesthetic judgment but in science as well.

Genius is always given to you by the fairy's with a little sprinkle of fairy dust.🧚‍♂🧚‍♀

...Goethe : " Das Talent zum Talent ist das Genie! ( und : Das Denken ist der Feind des Handelns...

I was told at school there's no such word as can't 😕

I have to also add that I love how your bookshelf stands somewhere between booktube influencer and a signaler of erudition. Like, how do you keep it looking so fucking fleek? Oh my days.

Kant equated genius with creativity, and he couldn't conceive of science as anything other than discovery. However, the imagination of an Einstein is not only fertile in terms of speculation, but also intuitively accurate. Genius in art is not arbitrary either, has to adhere to certain rules while at the same time bending them. That being said, I've actually noticed how our Western culture has in recent decades reserved the term "genius" for exceptional abilities associated with STEM subjects and cognitive abilities. One rarely hears someone referred to as an "artistic genius" nowadays. I think that there's been a big cultural shift away from that notion, despite all the museums, art schools, academic infrastructure. My interpretation is that Humanism replaced religion with culture as the transcendent space, and that this reverence for the cultural has now ceded to the "societal". Just take a look at Freud, steeped not only in philosophy, but also Greek mythology. Nobody would take such a "cultural" view of the psyche seriously, were it to be presented today. When I was at art school in the early 90s, nobody talked about "artistic geniuses" any more, nor was there ever any mention of the intuition. It was all about being clever. In any case, I find a certain validity in this distinction between a "cultural" and a "societal" view of the world, though it is difficult to articulate. What has changed, I guess, is the quasi-mystical approach to the arts.

@anthonyw2931

7 ай бұрын

Dry well put together with an earlier comment in the same vain. Could it also be how we have come perceive art and value in terms of its utility, especially as society becomes less spiritually-centric (not necessarily religious). And it also seems what art is also differs over time and cultures.

@KravMagoo

7 ай бұрын

I hear people refer to certain musicians as geniuses fairly regularly.

@robertalenrichter

7 ай бұрын

@@anthonyw2931 Utility -- yes, instrumental reason.

@robertalenrichter

7 ай бұрын

@@KravMagoo Musicians as composers, or in terms of virtuosity?

@KravMagoo

7 ай бұрын

@@robertalenrichter Both. When it comes to a broad categorization of an individual as "a genius", you typically look for extremely high levels of skill and creativity over time, but you can also refer to a particular work as a "work of genius". Because music is a field of endeavor that draws more numbers and which is more accessible to audiences (compared to physical arts), it stands to reason that more people would show extraordinary aplomb in that domain. Also, music is a much more visceral art than most others--people can actually tangibly feel reactions in their bodies.

art is also the interpreter of lide

I kinda disagree of this view that genius is given but not through learning. Although, it's true that genius cant teach someone to become genius, but it's possible to become a genius ( great artist in this case) through learning and apprehending the nature. Picasso was a genius, but you can also see his work derived from the nature and cultures ( repetition of shapes, lines, symmetry, geometry, and African art). So, there really hasn't been any genius (artist) who hasn't got his / her ideas through the nature (surroundings, cultures, and banality). You can say someone is more sensitive than others, but also anyone who is willing to put enough effort learning the art history and observing nature can also be come a genius at some point.

I encourage everyone to read, as a critique on the idea of "innate" talent, "Mindset" by Dr. Carol Dweck. The idea of art being like nature flowing through you is beautiful, but this can be developed by embracing practice. Even Mozart copied others, and Einstein didn't just come up with emc2 while sitting on the toilet. Innate talent is a pretty false idea

Und now Ze Grreat Reset?

Sadly I have to agree with Kant about genius. I went to a good school in my country. My teachers always said 'if I just applied myself, then I could change the world'. From my perspective: If the greats of the past 5000 years of written history couldn't (and the greats of the million of years before that couldn't), then the chances that I could were extremely slim. It's simple math. Sometimes homo sapiens appear to do better, but more often than not we take a frightening nose dive. Having encountered people who are actually genius (from my and other countries), I know I am not one. You can see it when you see it. It is what it is. I am able to see, but I am not able to create in the same way. I'm a broke ass Morpheus. That's ok with me because the life of a true genius is very difficult and I'm glad I don't have to live with those difficulties on a daily basis. If you are a genius and you are reading this, be your weird ass self, we need you to be abnormal. {damn it, future me here, commented too soon, do not agree with Kant's binary perception of gender. I have met people who are genius of many genders. Thanks for that thought, it helps isolate a portion of Kant's context, that can be separated from his allure.

@fordrivingandothers

7 ай бұрын

In what way do geniuses see? Or create?

when does art become science.......and science becomes art...does philosophy become the root of both

aii art is immatation,the object is being drawn or painted is being immatated...the interpretation is in the eye of the artist,...yet we all interpret it differently

Everything Kant is saying, or anyone ever, only makes sense in a world where things make sense, that is, a world with a real metaphysical basis(correspondence). Now Kant himself will disregard metaphysics, reducing all philosophical work to epistemology, which is absurd, for how can we seek to know how to know things if we do not even know what knowing is? It is certain that immaterial things like knowledge can only be the object of a metaphysical research, and that it touches the fundamental topics that would concern philosophy, namely, ontology and teleology. But Kant will only contemplate dynamic hypothetical objects with an unassumed instrumental perspective, as "genius". Now the ancient without difficulty will very clearly expose the true nature of "genius", which is excellence in the expression of virtue by an oriented will. What is not very teachable is the will, because there is freedom. Now you can't explain freedom without killing it, again, freedom is a metaphysical fact(cry), and as Socrates puts it, its goal is Judgement. A philosophy without goal is irrational by itself, that is why it ended with the Catholic Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, after which it just prepared authoritarian modern ideologies, merely hightech-paganism of exploding proud and animal passions. Now people are trying to use science even to forbid the existence of freedom, that is responsibility. The gods of our hands will kill us all, for our will is corrupted by Original Sin, and an unlimited freedom will only lead us to a Free Fall. But, of course, there is God, Christ, so we shall be ok if we seek Him.

Einstein would not be considered a genius for his contributions to physics alone, but a physicist might be considered a genius for a different reason than publishing scientific papers and winning prizes.

I realize that Kant is "Kant", but honestly, I don't find his ruminations on this topic to really be worthy of anyone's time. His opinions don't seem particularly insightful or accurate any more than what any rando might say who has enough intelligence to have an opinion about art and its creation.

Hi Ellie 🧡🧡🧡🧡 uwu 💘🍇

All reasons to not trust Kant. Rather stick to Art As Experience.

Kral boş iş anlatma bize kitap öner kitap Kant'ı on dakkalık videodan mı öğrencem kitap öner

@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy

7 ай бұрын

The Critique of Judgment Ofc a video is not a replacement for reading the book! This is an introduction to one idea from the above book, as stated in the video

@cemkahya9218

7 ай бұрын

@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Kant okumaya critique of judgment'tan mı başlıyalım allahınızı severseniz okuma yazma biliyorum başlıkta eşek kadar critique of judgment yazdığınıda görebiliyorum, böyle videolar çekeceksen şayet( işlevsiz olduğunu düşünsemde) sonuna başına bı yerine okuma listesi de koy öncül olarak şunu okumanız lazım bu kitabı için sonrasında kitabın argümanlarını geliştirmek için şunu okuman lazım sonrasında tarzı yoksa 10 dakikalık video derinliğinde Kant öğreneceğime hiç öğrenmeyeyim daha iyi sizin bu shorts videoları mesela çok iyi kitap önerdiğiniz sizleri seviyorum ama temelsiz anlatımlara senin anlattığın kadar bilmeli bir senaryoya karşıyım

@federkleid0

7 ай бұрын

@@cemkahya9218evet.ben de sinir oldum.ne okumalıyım ilk??