Join and be channel member to support my work: kzread.info/dron/4hkfv9BNzYh-IafZd94b9w.htmljoin Fuel your philosophical swag with our Vintage Philosophy MERCH! (Perfect to gift your thinking buddy or make your friend the philosopher fashionista ! my-store-ea7f8e.creator-spring.com

@benhudson4014

3 күн бұрын

I'm back, you explain Kant just so well! Explaining the intricacies of his language really helps sir!

It took a tremendous amount of class and moral integrity not to title this video “what we Kant know”

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@user-is8si9ti4r resisted the Kant pun for a touch of moral high ground. ;-)

@TylerMadison711

4 ай бұрын

How did this comment not get an ironic ❤️ maybe u should have said cunt 🤔

@jasonzacharias2150

4 ай бұрын

Probably some Cartesian monster

@TylerMadison711

4 ай бұрын

@@jasonzacharias2150 🤣

@gaelavgalwythia5018

4 ай бұрын

Funny😊

May the thirst for learning never extinguish

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@ajay4319, absolutely Keep seeking, exploring, and discovering. Happy learningand welcome to the channel

@kirstinstrand6292

4 ай бұрын

May everyone develop curiosity. Without curiosity, we only churn what we learned as children.

@servantprince

3 ай бұрын

hu-mans need unlearning,

@servantprince

3 ай бұрын

​@@kirstinstrand6292what did curiosity do for the cat ?

@SORIANSIST

2 ай бұрын

@@servantprince what did baseless idioms do for the idiot?

I love the way my mind bends when i take in - that 'we see the colors that things are not'.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@e.s.l.1083 hues of reality dance with the shades of our mind's interpretation

@e.s.l.1083

5 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy that is deep and lovely - ty. I will sit with that a while, I think. & I will sit with that a wile... too.

@e.s.l.1083

5 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy your words bring to mind The Visual of the palette of under a tree, where the light both reaches, and does not reach. I like that.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@e.s.l.1083, as the mind contemplates, the hues of reality blend with the shades of our interpretation, creating a canvas of endless possibilities. May your reflections be as rich as the colors on this philosophical palette. Take your time in the embrace of these thoughts, and let the beauty of the mind's expression unfold. 💖

I was moved by the clarity of explaining Kants thoughts. Thank you sir.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@sevyorum-hf5lt

3 ай бұрын

Knowledge is not possible without experience

I have experienced assurance that I would come out just fine regarding the future. An intuitive knowledge not based on any actual knowledge, yet was so real that it was as if it were already determined in advance.

@oldladybird8528

Ай бұрын

And we're happy! 👍

Having read Kant in college and not having a real grasp of it, this has been an excellent refresher course. I believe I now understand clearly his viewpoint. The verses below are relevant given the number of “philosophers” proclaiming various views on the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is simply not what you think it is - It is rather what you thought it was … So - you think you know what you think you know, And you might also know that which you don’t. Yet you should realize what is more essential Is that you cannot know that which you Kant. And lest you think you know it all, One thing you cannot know is this: Though with you since you learned to crawl, It is what you believe is consciousness. For consciousness is not the present, And consciousness is not the past, It’s the mental place between those spaces That your mind’s memory cannot grasp.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

I'm delighted to hear that the content served as a helpful refresher on Kant's viewpoint for you, @thomassoliton1482 ! Thank you for sharing your insightful reflections in such a creative and poetic manner! I'm glad you enjoyed the poetic spin, If Kant were here, he might appreciate the play on words and the subtle dance around the complexities of consciousness ;-)

@sonarbangla8711

5 ай бұрын

Einstein found meaning in the past and the future, but failed to define the present, yet consciousness permits us to grasp the present, whether we can describe it or not. Consciousness is central to our thought process, as a result we can make our thought to take us outside the universe into multiverse, believe by many without any observation. QM helps us to define 'observation', but QM is not a theory, but just a set of rules, vaguely helping us to grasp 'uncertainty', 'entanglement' etc. QM also helps us to interpret what 'measurement' signifies. It signifies how a field collapses to a particle, that is fine tuned to produce 'life' and 'consciousness' and 'faith', all these are metaphysical, defined in the dictionary as 'fundamental' This leads us to 'intelligent cosmic consciousness' collapsing the fields to produce particles that produce life and consciousness. Logical reasoning might not lead us to the origin of the 'cosmic consciousness' or 'divine design', but we can observe the transformation of non-matter into life, consciousness and soul. It only depends on your desire to believe it or not. Einstein just said it is amazing that we can comprehend what which seems to be incomprehensible.

@thomassoliton1482

5 ай бұрын

@@sonarbangla8711 There is nothing but the present; the past is only in our mind - a comparison of our memory with the present. You cannot “know” what consciousness is, because it is that very comparison, which is neither present nor past, and always changing. Quantum collapse is not a process, and has nothing to do with thought. It merely signifies the outcome of a measurement. Lets say you want to measure the position of a cloud in the sky. You take a picture which is processed to return a single point which could be anywhere in the boundary of the cloud. When the process is complete, you get a coordinate, which is the equivalent to the “collapse” of the cloud-function. It’s not metaphysics.

@eustaciogriego1912

5 ай бұрын

Nature can be wonderful if we treated fair. I know everything and I don’t know nothing.

@Ricky-pz8tm

5 ай бұрын

A lot of tautology here… reasoning is not reality! It helps to to create our world view but it is limited as such we can never know all things!

This is the best comprehensive and inclusive introduction or summation of Kant's work that I've seen. I like how you mention Descarte, Hume, Pascal, and really break down the concepts to their fundamental degree. You defined Transcendent versus Transcendental, and a number of other things. This video was put together really well! I'm ecstatic to have found a channel like this. The way you structured the video and put thought into various aspects, clarified things. It made the progresion of each idea in the video you introduced to us more meaningful and tangible.

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 күн бұрын

@LostSoulAscension , thank you for your generous feedback and welcome to the channel

Thank you for welcoming me as a subscriber. Having made it to age 70, taught higher education for forty years until iatrogenic disability forced my retirement seven years ago, a lawyer who practiced and defended crime, BUT, never studied philosophy in any academic setting. So, as a reductionist thinker, I am counting on you to clarify the nuanced vocabulary Kant employed. Here, we go….

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@Horribilus , welcome to the philosophical journey! Your diverse background brings a unique perspective, and diving into Kant's nuanced vocabulary can be both challenging and rewarding. Feel free to ask any questions or share your insights as we explore the intricacies of Kantian philosophy and also other philos together.

@wayneasiam65

4 ай бұрын

Sir, even after 70+ years you still think you're all that , don't you?

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur! A CASE STUDY: Because there are literally tens of thousands of academic “philosophers” who adhere to the above misconception of what is an ACTUAL philosopher, I am loath to nominate a single person of whom to make mention. However, because the former University of Oxford scholar, Mr. Colin McGinn, claims to be the “best” philosopher in the history of humanity (a claim he has repeatedly made on his own website), I therefore have no reservations about using that fool as an ideal example for my position in relation to academic “philosophers”. In order to preface this case study, it should be noted that Mr. McGinn’s area of expertise is in the philosophy of mind, and he has written extensively on the subject. However, near the beginning of a videographed dialogue posted on the Internet, Colin admitted that he was unable to even proffer a cogent definition of the word “mind”! The fact that Colin garnered a Master of Arts degree in psychology from a prominent English university did not seem to help with his understanding of the mind, despite the fact that psychology is concerned entirely with the psyche! I am quite certain that there are several teenagers in Bhārata (India) who understand the topic more clearly than Mister McGinn, since they have been trained in Vedānta (see that Glossary entry). In fact, there is very little doubt in my mind that my precocious second daughter, Sītā Anna, would have much more fully understood the concepts of mind and consciousness by the time she had reached the age of TEN years, had she not been (effectively) kidnapped by a devilishly-wicked, evil, demonic, violent criminal organization known as the “Federal Government of Australia”. Cont...

@Napoleonwilson1973

2 ай бұрын

@@wayneasiam65 seems he does 🤪 practiced crime sounds like a lawyer to me

This is absolutely the best explanation of the Critique of Reason that I've seen. Thanks!

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@jeremiahdurian-williams2732

4 ай бұрын

The dude is using ai

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@jeremiahdurian-williams2732 indeed, I am the A.I. mastermind behind the philosophical curtain! 🤖 ... ;-) currently brewing up an episode on AI, inspired by Husserl's 'Krisis.' Because, you know, even us A.I. entities need a bit of existential crisis and some philosophical banter. hhhahhh ;-) #AIPhilosopher

We should know the antecedent to Kant, the Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Kant admitted it was Hume whose work shook him out of his "dogmatic sleep", and made him rethink his own philosophy.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@persimon6598 understanding the intellectual lineage is crucial. Hume indeed played a pivotal role in awakening Kant from his 'dogmatic sleep.' By the way, I'm currently brewing up an intriguing episode intro on Hume. thant u for ur support

@placebojesus5652

Ай бұрын

Dogmatic slumber

Fine job, amigo. I am sparse with praise and full of easy criticism, so consider that. Excellent summary and a great voice. Listened to this in the middle of the night while trying to fall asleep and was entertained, learned something, impressed, and of course, personally in sync with the content. Excellent work.

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

Much appreciated @notscot6788 & welcome to the channel

Thank you. For sharing. Well done absolutely 💯

@Mindful_Philosophy

7 күн бұрын

Thank you & welcome

A much needed laudable effort for enabling a clear and engaging understanding of such difficult philosophical works.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@iramtauqir5333 , thank you for your kind words!

He brought rationalism and empiricism together.

@sevyorum-hf5lt

3 ай бұрын

Thank you and this is a very important information for me

Yes, we Kant!

A truly brilliant introduction to one of the most enigmatic minds in the history of thought - well done!

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

oh thank you @osks for your kind words

This channel is going places

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

thank hope so

@Madasin_Paine

6 ай бұрын

It's happening. A truly exceptional explanation with extraordinary concision amd a surprising lack of apparent bias. More please!

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@@Madasin_Paine We're thrilled to hear you're enjoying our podcast! We promise to keep the explanations exceptionally concise and as bias-free as a philosopher's dilemma. More philosophical adventures are on the horizon, so stay tuned for your regular dose of thought-provoking content!" 🤓🎙

Extraordinary theory Nice

All created things have a Creator. Buildings have an architect; Art has an Artist; babies have parents; the universe has a Creator.

Beautiful. This is what Advaita Vedanta says from 1000s of years ago.

@thedolphin5428

5 ай бұрын

Nonsense. Indian philosophies -- the Gyana Yogas -- of which Vedanta is but one, makes Kant's thinking look childish.

@pavipava-bu2yp

6 күн бұрын

WHATSAPP UNIVERSITY GRADUATES SPOTTED CLAIMING 1000 YEAR AGO & STILL DONT HAVE PROOF WHERE IS IN WHICH SHLOK 😂

This video has given me much to Kantemplate

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@nemesisurvivorleon, glad to hear you're diving deep into Kant "Kantemplation"! 🤔

@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098

5 ай бұрын

As a philosopher you certainly are a bit of a Kant.

@mrhassell

5 ай бұрын

@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 One cannot ever truly conceive, the essence of philosophy, without first embracing our inner Kant.

This channel is source of knowledge thank you

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

So nice of you

@jestermoon

6 ай бұрын

❤😂

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

welcome

It is Aristotle all over again who said that nothing enters the mind without passing through the senses.

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

@winstonbarquez9538 ;;; while Aristotle's statement acknowledges the role of the senses in perception, Kant introduces the idea that our knowledge is not solely derived from sensory input. Kant argues that our minds actively contribute to shaping our perception, and there are innate structures (like categories and forms of intuition) that organize sensory information. Unlike Aristotle, Kant emphasizes the active role of the mind in processing sensory data and constructing our experience of the world. and welcome to the channel ;-)

@winstonbarquez9538

3 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy yes like mental molds to fit reality into.

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

indeed

Thanks for this excellent intro in this subject. You make it so clear, and end with encouraging people to explore other ways of knowing. Very wise.

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

@heraclesunchained3663 u're very welcome, and glad that it's help

I thought I knew what it would be like to train for combat, but as soon as I became involved I realized that all of my thought process and hearing others speak about it, did not give me any thought of knowing what to expect when the ultimate situation arose, that's when my knowledge began. Because it was then another unforeseen part of my being became obvious, Emotion.

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@billdoersam691 the fusion of thougt and emotion in such moments reshapes our percption, a testament to the complexity of knowledge, especially in dynamic and intense situations, thank you and welcome to the channel

First video already had me subscribe. I got my mind blown with this amazing video

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@satsokmusic5849 Welcome aboard!

I"M SO GLAD I found this video. After seeing the outlandish things we make using our highest knowledge, I'm left with, "what if we're completely wrong"?

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

hi @Atlsynth yeah certainly, it's not uncommon to question the certainty of our knowledge. From Kant's perspective, he introduces the idea of "noumenon" or the reality in itself, which is beyond our perceptual capabilities. Kant emphasizes that our knowledge is limited to the phenomena, the way things appear to us, and the actual reality may be unknowable. It's a humbling acknowledgment that there are inherent limits to what we can grasp about the ultimate nature of reality.

@SolidSiren

3 ай бұрын

How can we be "wrong" in our things we have made? Wrong morally? Rationally? Can one be "wrong" in making cars?

@SolidSiren

3 ай бұрын

​@Mindful_Philosophy Yes but does "the real true reality" even matter, if we understand the reality as we perceive it?

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

One can be wrong in making Chemical weapons ...

Indeed, Kant...the ultimate Buddhist🤣...Kant understood impermanence. Thanks so much for sharing!

@gregoryleonwatson8631

6 ай бұрын

I recognized Eastern Religion in Kant's philosophy. In Buddhism this is a hot topic.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@newpilgrim Indeed, who knew Kant had a backstage pass to the Buddhist cosmic comedy? 😄 Thanks for joining the philosophical laughter club ;-)

my goodness, that women at the grocery store was a super KANT!! 😂

@carlospaige4589

5 ай бұрын

go play somewhere else

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@stanley1554 Haha, sounds like she really knew her categorical imperatives in the produce section! 🍏😂 #KantStopThePhilosophyHumor

@stanley1554

5 ай бұрын

@@carlospaige4589 i bet your family thinks your a KANT with a poor attitude like that. Cheer up son. Jokes are good for the soul 😄

@stanley1554

5 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy haha ☝ and she was always disappointed with life due to her lack of categorical imperatives

His magnum opus Critique of Pure Reason is one giant philosophical work that you can read rest of your life.

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

yes indeed

Perception👁️is the ground fore comprehending experience over here-say, imagination, & storytelling. If "imagination is greater🌅 than📚knowledge", then sound🎺🎶reasoning👂is greater than visual👁️perception in♾️reality🕉️As "IT" Is⚛️!

Wow. This is quite phenomenally put. I appreciate your efforts in reaching these philosophies. More light, More Love ❤

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Thank you so much!

@sevyorum-hf5lt

3 ай бұрын

Wondering how high education need to be and how many books need to be read to start reading someone to this extent who is enlightened thinker as is philosopher Immanuel Kant 🌱

Thank you for this most comprehensible distillation of Kant. Absolutely appreciated!

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you so much for this great explanation of Kant.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

You're very welcome!

just when I thought Kant would have quickly dismissed Anselm's Ontological Argument as trying to bring reality from language and thinking. then you said he believes that God, as perfect, must as such exist. My mind's a little blown by that, but your explanation made sense and settled me down. Such nice distinctions and gradations, it's a little tough to keep all those plates spinning in the air at once!

“Mann muss mit grossen Fragen leben.” E. Kant

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@cadiencanaille4387 HhhhHaha, absolutely Man muss mit großen Fragen leben' indeed, even if my German is a bit rusty - blame it on Kant for making philosophy so enticing!

This should be taught in elementary schools(in simple terms), because in simple terms, basic differentiation between physical reality and belief is a simple concept children can understand, making it symbolic how it is a truth hidden by the educated tasked to teach children...

@jeremegordon5121

5 ай бұрын

Exactly, a realization such as this will have massive residual benefits on the critical thinking of generations down the line

@georgegoff2602

4 ай бұрын

Not in Florida

@d371midus

4 ай бұрын

@@georgegoff2602 not sure if your reply is intended to be satirically ironic or not, lol anyway

@ericscaillet2232

4 ай бұрын

in the present world of super populations where the industrial revolution has flourished to the point of numbing most of our senses ,all that matters mostly has been reduced back to our primate self ,hence not in florida is more widespread than we would like to aknowledge ,we have been reduced to numbers and statistics due to our lack of managing ourselves in morals values which pershaps have left us as we get stuck in traffic .

@jclive2860

4 ай бұрын

@@georgegoff2602 florida actually ranks really high in education.

Love this video. Your explainations of Kants thought made a hitherto baffling philosopher approachable. Thanks for that. Subscribed. 👍

@Mindful_Philosophy

2 ай бұрын

Welcome aboard!

What E Kant meant is that whatever we think, feel, touch, smell or see, we limit ourselves by our perceptions of everything. JamesWhiskey. Very knowledgeable video 🎉

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

Thanks a million, @hinboonlong5018 Kant would probably say we're bound by our own perceptual handcuffs , welcome

great podcast thank you

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for listening

Thank you for a good video, I believe Kant would have appreciated the Theory of Holistic Perspective. It clearly distinguishes between personal, shared, universal truths, and reality as it is.

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

welcome

How great to hear this, a little later on, during times challenging, just to be able to think clearly again

@Mindful_Philosophy

Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful welcome

sensation is unorganized stimulus. Perception is organized sensation. Conception is organized Perception. Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.

Call this video what it actually is: "What we Kant know" 😅

Great video. It makes clear and understandable one of the most difficult philosophers. I had a wonderful philosophy teacher at University, who basically held seminars. Even though this was a beginning class in philosophy, he had us read the philosophers in the original (of course, English translation), which we discussed in the first two hours. He used the Socratic method teasing the answers out of us, letting us give our own thinking. The second seminar we were asked to critique these philosophers out of our own thinking. Kant was the most difficult. I remember reading The Prolegoma to Any Future Metaphysics. It took many readings until I finally grasped what he was about.It was an answer to Hume's radical scepticism. Kant changed philosophy forever.

All I know is pushing the boundaries makes the breakthroughs possible.

To an impirical observer, this the negation of one's "INNER BEING that leads to guessing games, that "Philosophers" were good at shuffling.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@virgilioblanco , The interplay between empirical observation and the intricacies of philosophical thought is a fascinating subject. Feel free to share more of your thoughts!

Enjoyed this greatly, thank you. I first read about the concept of the limits of human thought in Eugene Thacker, and had been very interested in that concept ever since. I'd known about Kant's ideology of course (mainly through Schopenhauer), but never really settled to actually study Kant (strikes me as one of those "philosopher's philosopher", who is easier for a lay idiot like me to read and hear about, rather than read directly). This is a very good introduction for me to this part, at least, of his thinking, and I appreciate it.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@andrewsmcintosh , delighted to be your guide into Kant's realm! Exploring the limits of human thought is indeed a fascinating journey. Kant, often deemed a "philosopher's philosopher," can appear daunting, but your interest and engagement break down those barriers. alsi I'm currently writing an episode about Kant's intricate concepts of Morality. Condensing profound ideas into a concise 25 minutes is no small feat, but the challenge adds to the thrill. The episode is set to premiere for channel members next week, offering them an exclusive early dive into Kant's moral philosophy. Your support and patience are truly appreciated on this philosophical journey! 🎙️ #PhilosophyAdventure

@annmariebudyn

5 ай бұрын

I just let others do the heavy thinking and ponder🎉

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

@@annmariebudyn PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur! A CASE STUDY: Because there are literally tens of thousands of academic “philosophers” who adhere to the above misconception of what is an ACTUAL philosopher, I am loath to nominate a single person of whom to make mention. However, because the former University of Oxford scholar, Mr. Colin McGinn, claims to be the “best” philosopher in the history of humanity (a claim he has repeatedly made on his own website), I therefore have no reservations about using that fool as an ideal example for my position in relation to academic “philosophers”. In order to preface this case study, it should be noted that Mr. McGinn’s area of expertise is in the philosophy of mind, and he has written extensively on the subject. However, near the beginning of a videographed dialogue posted on the Internet, Colin admitted that he was unable to even proffer a cogent definition of the word “mind”! The fact that Colin garnered a Master of Arts degree in psychology from a prominent English university did not seem to help with his understanding of the mind, despite the fact that psychology is concerned entirely with the psyche! I am quite certain that there are several teenagers in Bhārata (India) who understand the topic more clearly than Mister McGinn, since they have been trained in Vedānta (see that Glossary entry). In fact, there is very little doubt in my mind that my precocious second daughter, Sītā Anna, would have much more fully understood the concepts of mind and consciousness by the time she had reached the age of TEN years, had she not been (effectively) kidnapped by a devilishly-wicked, evil, demonic, violent criminal organization known as the “Federal Government of Australia”. Cont...

Wonderful.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

Stoicism is my fav philosophy ❤

Hume, Immanuel Kant, 2 giant ones. Experience plus rational,

Thank you so much. I am German and tried to read Kant but got nowhere with it. Now, in advanced age, I have become a student of Vedanta and a bit of a mystic - meaning, i have had direct experience of God, of what to me was clearly God. Science and logic have only confirmed my experience, as has discourse with and by persons endowed with all of this. I do wonder if Kant was a student of Advaita Vedanta, of Adi Shankara. In any case, I intend to spread word of this work of yours. I already see you have other offerings ready for me and am eager to hear those as well.

@annelbeab8124

4 ай бұрын

Jiddu Krishnamurti bridges over any cultural rifts and is very clear. Plain language but quite a challenge as taking us right to and beyond the limits of language and calculatory mind.

@youbigtubership

4 ай бұрын

I believe he used the word 'transcendental' deliberately. In fact, in applying his Critique of Pure Reason practically I reached a pleasingly peaceful mystical state of mind. I definitely read it as a mystical text instead of a solely rational analysis.

The one thing we all have in common is that we have the truth. The others have myth. This world is the coolest place there is. And that’s the truth.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@Mark.Allen1111, you're absolutely right that we all have our unique perspectives and truths that make the world an incredibly diverse and fascinating place. Embracing those differences and sharing our truths is what makes the world so cool! Keep spreading those positive vibes and celebrating the beauty of diversity. 🌍😊🙌

@grahaminglis4242

6 ай бұрын

You may indeed make a statement that “we all have our unique perspectives and truths”, but you don’t say anything about how you arrived at that conclusion. Did you utilise your personal assessment? Or did you simply conform with society’s collective consensus or perspective and call it truth? Either way it doesn’t result in truth other than the quality of truth that you believe is the assumed or presumed truth, not actually factual truth per se. It seems like you are just substituting your limited knowledge for absolute truth and Kant would throw that reasoning out to the scrap heap. Positivity is running rampant in today’s world of understanding and it needs to not be taken as equivalent to truth, which doesn’t necessarily wear a hat with positivity written all over it.

@Mark.Allen1111

6 ай бұрын

@@grahaminglis4242 The way I arrive at that conclusion is by knowing myself. Who am I? I know the answer to that question. What I don’t know is who are you? the most important thing I know is that I don’t know.

@Mark.Allen1111

6 ай бұрын

@@grahaminglis4242 we all know 2+2 = 4 that’s the tip of the iceberg.When the iceberg goes underwater, we all have our own truths. We live in the now or the present moment. I like to watch the truth unfold. How a person reacts to that truth positive or negative that’s up to that person. I believe we create what we hate. That is a truth for me.

@steveflorida8699

6 ай бұрын

@@grahaminglis4242Limited experiences is a major factor of "limited knowledge". The poet can express the beauties of love, but if one has not experienced love, then one knows not the fullness of love and its value.

This is again amazing, thank you again

@Mindful_Philosophy

Ай бұрын

Thank you too!

The most appropriate name for a man, to discuss the limits of politically or phonetically safe speech and.. the limits of human beings unlimited potential, for knowledge. What a Kant!

In watching this my experiences in life reeled me in to the Four Agreements. A book given to me by a marriage counselor. The Ah Ha moments came flooding in. Enlightenment to the max. And if you want to fly even higher, try the infinity potential and teaching of David Bohm 💥

@sureshvanjani4618

6 ай бұрын

David Bohm learnt psychological fundamentals from Jiddu KRISHNAMURTY.

When this gentleman suggests that a way of thinking based on “humility, curiosity, and openness” is possible, that’s as good a definition of SCIENCE as I’ve ever heard.

@MrKidgavilan

4 ай бұрын

thats not what defines science

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

i like that definition... science it self have own problem

@MrKidgavilan

4 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy you might like anything you want but in rigour, we can not anthropoligize the scientific process !!

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@MrKidgavilan Bruno Latour & Thomas Kuhn did some work on the sociology of science and the interconnectedness of scientific inquiry and human social structures.

@MrKidgavilan

4 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy and ????

This was so good. Thank you!!

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

thx and welcome @Rittley ;

thanks, great analysis! All I'll add is; anyone who has taken a heroic dose of magic mushrooms, knows exactly what Kant is referring to about not being able to really 'know' true reality using reason alone. What one learns after a few of these trips is; there is an 'understanding' you gain about this thing we call 'reality' which does not make the transition into logic or reason, yet the experience is without question one which leaves you awestruck in ways which language could just not carry the sense....🍄🍄🍄😉

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

@giantessmaria welcome to the channel

kzread.info/dron/4hkfv9BNzYh-IafZd94b9w.htmljoin challenge your perceptions, and join the Mindful Philosophy community as a member. Click JOIN for exclusive access to profound insights and elevate your understanding of the world.

Thanks!

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@336snake Thank You for your support !

WE need to understand that our mind and who we are, are two separate things. With every breath, perfection is coming into us, not just oxygen, but life. Life is not from when we are born to when we die, that is the time we have with our life. The mind will never know perfection, because the mind's realm is imagination, and the self belongs to now which can only be experienced, not thought about. The mind is powerful but is finite, where the true self is infinite. To experience the true self, the mind must be out of the way, it is not it's business, it must be quiet. Those that are truly thirsty to find this, must seek true knowledge, go beyond debate and theory, and find the true knowlege, it is waiting to be found.

Great explanation. Thank you.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Glad you liked it

What we kant know.

You can know God. He shows up when you trust His Son. It’s not a physical thing. It’s not a mental thing. It’s the reality of our inherent spiritual blindness due to our sin. Once we’re adopted into the family of God through Jesus Christ we can perceive and understand Him and his judgments. It’s not easy to persuade others because it’s a heart issue that deals with the most serious of truth of our soul and it’s true need of reconciliation with God. We get stuck in the mind of things and forget the heart of the matter. I don’t think Kant ever came to realize this. Though his knowledge vast and ability to convey exquisite, his understanding was lacking in what truly matters. No greater love than to sacrifice oneself for another. No greater love known than the love Jesus has waiting you for. Praying for you all.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@coryanderson5210, thank you for sharing your perspective! The realms of philosophy and spirituality intersect in fascinating ways. Your emphasis on the heart of the matter and the transformative power of faith provides a unique lens through which to view Kant's ideas. iAppreciate your prayers and the sincerity of your thoughts! May our philosophical voyages continue to illuminate the paths of knowledge and spiritual exploration. welcome

Simply beautiful

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Thank you! and welcome to my channel

Excellent description of Kant’s philosophy, one of the best I have found. I only must disagree with his idea of time, because he accepted Newton’s idea of time, but the problem of time became better understood only after Einstein, but not yet entirely. Congratulations for your good work. Kant would be proud of you.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@klausfrezza917 Thank you for the kind words ;-) If only I could borrow a bit of Kant's timeless wisdom to solve the mysteries of time according to Einstein. Maybe I'll stumble upon it in the next philosophical dimension hhh welcome to the channel and thanks for your support

@markbell9973

5 ай бұрын

Before I took the act of will to venture a comment, I did what I was taught by the better and best of my hmmm , let's say +/- 80, professors. These were the men and women who--after high school in the U.S.--guided me (or often-enough misguided me) through degrees at the bachelor, master, and doctor levels. ..... SO. What was the common thread all of those professors quite forced me to accept? "Forced??" Yes. Through the means of attributing a final grade to that huge, amateurish corpus that my written, oral, behavioral performances produced. What was that thread? This, reduced and paraphrased with a single, discrete, pretty verbatim quotation: You have no right to express an opinion until you have respectfully and sufficiently considered and acknowledged "geater minds than yours, mine and ours-- put together--in this class." The quotation resulted from anger--under--control after a student, not under such control, mouthed off in some dumbass rant. She, the professor, professed her corrective response with "Hey man you don't have to accept this material. But, [... .] This was perhaps the biggest epiphany of all my experience in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary ed. "" "" "" "" "" "" After that lovely introduction of nobody-moi, imagine with me, please, a course meeting with all of us commentors and commentators as students and you-- YT-Creator--as professor. The class meeting goes on all day and into the night and no one is tired yet. Here would be a top 4 of my effusive observations and questions after hearing your lecture, given with no interruptions: 1) Thank you, thank you 🤟🙏 for restoring Edmund Husserl to his rightful place after being cravenly deposed by a great but lesser mind, namely, Martin Heidegger. Am I at least a little bit on track here?? (I gave it my best shot after grappling with the autobiographical part of Hannah Arendt, with J. Lacan and his assessment of Heideggerian ontolgy as "hontologie" 'honte' = shame, and my own bare assessment of MH's plagiarism--- appropriation---of EH's basic terminolgy, viz., das Ding-an-sich, Dasein, das Ding-in-der-Welt, ETC. And yes: I duly noticed your nods to Husserlian phenomenology...to his notions of "bracketing" and "horizons.") 2). I immedately recognized how Kant mostly did, but sometimes did not square up with Nietzsche. Be that as it may: In a word, how does Kant square up with Kierkegaard? I can answer the question RE: Hegel. But Kant?!?, whom K had to have read? 3). What part did, does AI play in this lecture? I ask that bc this is the best ever "Intro to Kant"... and I have come across or carefully read too many for my own good. I had suspected everything you here advanced about him. But was under the influence of icky reductions...all the way over to one-trick-ponies. Seriously thanks! 30 minutes that blew my mind when I thought it could no longer be blown! 30 minutes that emboldened me to trust my mind+heart just a little more. Mark (Arizona USA) (No proofread of the above, many corrections as I went along.)

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Welcome, @markbell9973! Thank you for your insightful reflection. Regarding Huserl, while the current podcast focuses on Kant, your interest has sparked my curiosity. I'll dig back into Husserl's phenomenology, exploring critique of 'scientific' objectivity derived from an 'objectivist' view of science. I 'lltry to tackle his critique of 'mathematical science' for some points - unsure if I'll succeed, but I'll give it my best shot. about Kant and Kierkegard's philosophical intersections, convergences in ethics, teleology, and religious philosophy exist. mainly divergences emerge: Kant emphasizes universalizable maxims and rational foundations for religion, while Kierkegaard prioritizes individual subjectivity and advoctes for a subjective leap of faith. The role of reason further distinguishes their philosophies, with Kant prioritizing reason, and Kierkegaard emphasizing the subjective and passionate aspects of human experience. regarding the use of AI, I haven't employed it in crafting this content andWhy not try experimenting with AI yourself to deliver a Kant lecture or explore other philosophical topics? It could be intriguing to see how AI technology contributes to philosophical discussions While Kantian morality requires a unique human touch, the real question, for me, is whether AI could develop a form of Kantian morality in the future. That's a complex question indeed! Thank you for your kind words. Dalee New york #PhilosophicalExploration

Almost like, without “God” how can I trust that what I perceive is true? 🤯

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@GreenGoatXL3, your comment touches on a profound and age-old philosophical question about the relationship between perception, reality, and belief in a higher power. It's a topic that has been debated by philosophers, theologians, and thinkers for centuries. The idea you've expressed seems to reflect the concept of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that explores how we come to know and understand the world. Some argue that our trust in the reliability of our perceptions, and even the existence of objective truth, is grounded in a belief in a higher power or a divine source of truth and order. Others take a different perspective, contending that our perceptions and the quest for knowledge can be understood without invoking the divine. They explore various avenues, including empiricism and rationalism, to explain how we can establish trust in what we perceive and comprehend without necessarily relying on a belief in God. The relationship between belief in God and our perception of truth is a complex and multifaceted topic, and it often comes down to individual philosophical, religious, and metaphysical viewpoints. It's a question that continues to inspire rich and diverse discussions among scholars and thinkers.

In realms of thought where reason holds its sway, Enter Kant, with insights to convey. In the Critique of Pure Reason's domain, He unravels the boundaries of knowledge's chain. A sage in Königsberg, his pen in hand, Kant embarks on a journey to understand. The limits of reason, the scope of the mind, In the Critique, profound truths we find. Phenomena, the appearances we see, Noumena, the hidden, the true reality. The mind's constructions, the world it weaves, In the dance of concepts, perception deceives. A priori, a key to Kantian lore, Prior to experience, knowledge's core. Synthetic judgments, expanding the mind, In the Critique's pages, wisdom we find. Transcendental aesthetics, a landscape explored, Space and time, in consciousness stored. Forms of intuition, where experience begins, The boundaries of knowledge, where Kantian light spins. Transcendental logic, the rules of thought, Categories of understanding, in reason sought. Judgments and concepts, in the mind's design, Navigating the boundaries, where truths entwine. Yet skepticism lingers, questions persist, The boundaries of knowledge, a philosophical twist. Kant invites us to ponder, to critically inquire, In the Critique's embrace, intellectual fire. So, in the realm of Kantian thought we dwell, The Critique of Pure Reason, a philosophical spell. Exploring boundaries, where knowledge meets its end, In Kant's wisdom, enlightenment ascends.

This guy knowledge is mind blowing 😮😢

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

indeed

Extraordinary philosophy

@Mindful_Philosophy

2 ай бұрын

welcome

Thanks

@Mindful_Philosophy

4 ай бұрын

Welcome to the channel @saammmmmyy and thank you for the coffee ;-)

Not everyone has the same experiences. There is no baseline of human experience. If I go to France, I will have experienced being in France. If someone else hasn't been to France, they cannot claim to have been there or to have experienced it even though they may be aware of France. I know people, including myself, who have had extraordinary experiences that are rare and well outside of "normal", workaday experience. I know things that others do not know and may never know no matter how they may try. I cannot prove what I know, based on my experiences, and I have no desire to do so anyway, but I know that what I have experienced is true.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@willowstream one may not be able to fully convey certain experiences to others, the acknowledgment of individual perspectives enriches the tapestry of human knowledge. It's like having a personal map of reality that others might not fully comprehend.

@kelleycavan6911

5 ай бұрын

I feel the same way about my thoughts. I experience conclusions about reality based on how my brain processes both inputs and past experiences and my understanding of physics, philosophy, cosmology, consciousness, history, etc. There is no way to convey my views of reality because no one else is me

First philosophy podcast that I’ve enjoyed since Bryan Magee

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

the great Bryan Magee ;-) welcome to the new channel

Perception is reality, but not necessarilly truth.

The human brain has limitation. Perception is relative. Kant himself was a man of reason. And what about beauty, what about nature? Are not these universal, are not these universal perceptions beyond reason?

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

@TheJgibbons Kant's reasoning might be a dazzling ballroom, but nature and beauty, it appears, love to twirl across the dance floor of our minds with a touch of both universality and individual flair!

For one, God and reality was created by man, and for two, I’m not concerned with the color of a thing: that’s the superficial part of it that really carries no significance. What is significant of a thing is what it can do for you. It’s the internal and not the external that’s significant. Good 👍 video.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

Thank you, @CreateYourReality-2023 Your perspective on the creation of God and reality by man is intriguing. Kant's philosophy indeed delves into the importance of the internal, emphasizing the significance of our mental constructs. I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the video! 👍welcome

@E-Kwontent42420

5 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy no problem. Keep up the good work, friend 👍

Human knowledge and thinking is relative 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏, Worldwide views

Thanks for sharing such amazing and excellent work. I am a Social Science Teacher. I don't think that our thinking is our perception. I think humans deprive others of different variations. As I did MPhil twice but HEC a Higher Education Commission in my country deprived me for the award of degrees on later policies for which according to me are not applicable to me. So I am sure to deceive others the powerful make such information. Thanks indeed 🎉

@Mindful_Philosophy

2 ай бұрын

It's truly fascinating how institutions can sometimes operate in mysterious ways, isn't it? Rest assured, the complexities of bureaucracy never fail to astound. welcome to the channel

While I love Kants work, I can't help but think it ironic that he critiques pure reason as a foundation for knowledge, yet uses only reason to come to these conclusions. Anyone?

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

@SolidSiren , while reason has its limits in understanding things as they are in themselves, it is still a necessary faculty for organizing and structuring our experience. Kant's transcendental idealism posits that our knowledge is shaped by the interaction of sensory data and the innate structures of our minds. So, while he acknowledges the limitations of pure reason, he emphasizes the role it plays in constructing the phenomenal world that we can know. It's a nuanced interplay between reason, experience, and the conditions of human cognition. I appreciate your insightful comment! It's great to see reflections on how our brains work in intriguing and amusing ways ;-) welcome

We must remember that Kant was just a man. Thinking and speaking from his own thoughts. To believe he’s right is based on your perception. (Or Desire.) He doesn’t do it for me personally because he builds on his own self approved conclusions. If his “ truisms” are ultimately not true then what do you do? He says “only what we perceive is reality. “ Says who?

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@unc1589 It's a dance between individual belief and the scrutiny of truisms. After all, who gets to decide what's real? It's a philosophical journey filled with twists, turns, and the joy of seeking understanding. Let's keep unraveling the mysteries together! 🤔

@dorianmodify

5 ай бұрын

There are all kings of things we know are real, but will never perceive. Atoms, quarks, quantum foam, virtual particles, Dark Matter. We have ways of verifying that what we perceive is real. We can check with others, and study whether others perceive. Too bad Kant didn't know about Physics and spacetime.

@unc1589

5 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy Well, I’m not really in agreement with the “who can know” position. It’s more like who believes vs who doesn’t. And what are the ultimate consequences of what we believe.

@unc1589

5 ай бұрын

@@dorianmodify I agree with your statement. But I go you one further! The things you describe are things we perceive but may never understand. I’m taking about things yet to be perceived! The “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, nor entered into the hearts of men…” kind of things. Kant in his lofty arrogance has no respect for these possibilities.

@unc1589

5 ай бұрын

@@dorianmodify Well, I’m not really in agreement with the “who can know” position. It’s more like who believes vs who doesn’t. And what are the ultimate consequences of what we believe.

I can't imagine a better introduction to Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."

@Mindful_Philosophy

3 ай бұрын

thank you welcome to the channel @buya3671

We have zero interest in the truth, we want drama and dreaming only

What Kant noted had already been noticed by Taoist philosophers 3000 years before him.

Whatever is going on in this mysterious reality is obviously way above our paygrade.

@Mindful_Philosophy

5 ай бұрын

indeed

This video is masterful

Kant did not acknowledge a Knowable God, because everything is an illusion, strawberry fields forever, but man is a ration able being and through reason knows what is reality and what is not, because God is existence and everything comes into existence because of him , because something cannot come from nothing.

@Mark.Allen1111

6 ай бұрын

Take a number like the number two. You can express the number by yelling it, but it’s going to echo out and die just like you. You can spray paint it on the side of a garage, but the weather is going to wash it away just like you. The idea of the two or the real two never dies or changes. It was always there and always will be there. You know how to use your two, but you don’t know a single thing about the real two. You can’t even think about it because it doesn’t exist in thinking.

@martinmartin1363

6 ай бұрын

@@Mark.Allen1111 How do you know know you drew 2 it could be a budgie and how do you know know you washed the budgie away he could still be there or he flew away, you choose to see 2 or a budgie you choose to believe you washed it away the 2 or the budgie may still be there, therefore you can’t trust reason because it’s all a conception of the mind strawberry fields forever. The madness of Kant 🧐

@Mark.Allen1111

6 ай бұрын

@@martinmartin1363 Nobody gets to choose their exterior experience. We are all on the same page. But when it comes to interior experience, we can make up any story we want. How many gods are there? Why search for the needle in the haystack when you are the Haystack?

@martinmartin1363

6 ай бұрын

@@Mark.Allen1111 The fact you are interacting with me is a choice and a exterior experience, the Gods the goddesses the demon gods the Demi gods, reason dictates l have a choice what is fiction and man made and what is infinitely true, 3 religions believe in an eternal uncreated God, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, something cannot come from nothing and nothing needs to exist, for something to come from nothing, it has to come from the definition of existence or God, everything works in harmony with everything this cannot be the work of chance as everything is deliberately made to compliment everything. The atheist says l don’t believe in a god and so denies a devil in turn denies heaven and hell therefore sin is not applicable anymore and good and bad just becomes a concept of the mind, strawberry fields forever.

@Mark.Allen1111

6 ай бұрын

@@martinmartin1363 Everything is an interior/exterior experience except when you’re dreaming or having a fantasy. I was riding my bike across my neighbors roof last night. That was a 100% interior experience. I was imagining my body. Heaven and hell is a 100% interior experience. Because there’s never been a body that’s ever been to either one. That’s what you call a fantasy. It’s a mass fantasy but it’s still a fantasy. I can’t believe something just for the sake of believing it.

About the colors... I somewhat agree with Kant's assessment of the differentiation of color perception, however, due to current scientific knowledge, "blue" can be considered a range of wavelengths (450-495nm). I understand that this is a wavelength range of 45nm, but this is perhaps unintelligible by most people. I say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. In other words, perception has a very narrow range by which one may assess the color "blue," and therefore, what is blue, actually is blue, and what is above 495nm or below 450nm, is not blue. Therefore the proof of the "existence" of something such as "blue" CAN be measured scientifically. The fact that Kant takes this into the existence of something entirely subjective and immeasurable, such as GOD, makes his scientific argument fallacious. When a person tries to understand God, it is not about measuring anything objective, such as measuring wavelengths of light with scientific instruments. God is about a feeling, and entirely subjective feeling, and if a person believes that God exists, and benefits from it, why argue with this? It seems to add up to an arrogant challenge of what a person FEELS EXISTS, which can not be challenged scientifically, as of this year of 2023.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@trentp151, your comment raises some intriguing points about Kant's perspective on color perception and its relation to contemporary scientific understanding. You rightly highlight that, from a scientific standpoint, we can define "blue" as a specific range of wavelengths. This empirical approach provides a clear and measurable criterion for what is considered "blue." However, Kant's philosophical standpoint delves into the realm of human perception and cognition, which he argues is subjective and not directly tied to the objective properties of the external world. Kant's assertion that color is a product of the mind's interpretation doesn't necessarily negate the scientific definition of "blue" based on wavelengths. Instead, he emphasizes that our mental faculties play a crucial role in shaping our perception of the world. Kant's philosophical exploration extends beyond colors to concepts like "God," where, as you rightly point out, the discussion shifts from objective measurements to subjective experiences and beliefs. In essence, Kant's approach encourages us to recognize the distinction between objective, scientifically measurable phenomena and subjective, personal experiences, such as belief in God. While science can provide valuable insights into the physical world, it may not fully encompass the richness of human consciousness and the realm of the subjective. Hence, the two perspectives can coexist, each addressing different aspects of our understanding of reality. Your emphasis on respecting individual beliefs and feelings, particularly in the case of God, is a valuable reminder of the diversity of human experiences and the importance of acknowledging the subjective alongside the objective in our quest for understanding. It's an ongoing and dynamic dialogue, and your perspective contributes to the broader conversation.

@trentp151

6 ай бұрын

​@@Mindful_Philosophy I appreciate the extremely thoughtful response. I think missed some key parts in your video, and to be honest, the outright statements that seem to imply a "matter of fact" can influence the (my) subconscious. I hear bold statements, and then take them up as if they were Kant's ideas. As I type this, I realize that it's my own perception of a subjective assessment of the delivery of your words, which is interesting, because you physically made those objective statements, yet I read them subjectively in an entirely different way.... Perhaps, and I apologize for being upfront or overly-critical (your work is great), but strategic -- pauses-- in speaking are part of what makes a story have more subjective meaning to people, and gives them a better idea as to the 'color' or 'flavor' of an objective statement.... Thanks for letting me air that out; that felt good.

@trentp151

6 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy I apologize, yet again, my mouth gets the best of me, always. All I meant was that the rapidity of the statements in the original video was hard to interpret. I absorb things much easier when they are paced more slowly. And yet again, perhaps that is the subjective assessment of my ability to learn: slow saturation.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@trentp151, thank you for your understanding and thoughtful response. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, and it's an essential part of the ongoing conversation. You've made an interesting observation about the interplay between objective statements and their subjective reception. It's true that the delivery of philosophical ideas can influence our interpretation, and your point about strategic pauses is well taken. Effective communication not only conveys information but also imbues it with the nuances that bring out the "color" and "flavor" of the ideas presented. I'm grateful for your engagement, welcome

@steveflorida8699

6 ай бұрын

The wavelengths of the color blue, does not mean that all the different human eyes, and eye 👁️ colors, perceive within the human brains the Exact same reflective hue color. In reality your blue maybe a different hue color, than the blue sky my biological eyes perceives. Likewise, surely the spiritual relationship with God, is different for humans relative to each humans life experiences.

Thanks for the interpretation. I normally Kant understand him 😬

As we are what we have been molded into by religiosity for centuries we will believe all this to be so because we can never escape the creation myth which were put into our minds when we were kids.

The problem with 'reason' is that it is based on 'logic', and logic is a construct, and to limit knowledge inside the box of logic will only lead to logical knowledge. In other words, you'll never lead to a knowledge that is illogical because you will deem it to be invalid.

@JoeDoig

5 ай бұрын

..stuff and things. Let's call it all form. Thoughts, emotions, feels, the world of the senses; label it all form, which the label itself is form. But what else it there? Awareness. The present moment or now. Self awareness or consciousness. All are yet more labels of form to describe the observer. Ask the question in the head/mind "what do these thoughts truly know about that which is labelled as the consciousness or awareness or I am or the bearded men in the sky or the hallucination of the neurons?". Nothing. Why? Because that which is observing is neither knowing nor unknowing. Take a look! So in truth, what can the mind really say about I am that is aware of this reply? Nothing. The true reply is a blank still silent mind. If you want real answers, look to that which is real. Form is not real. That labelled as the Language of Consciousness is real because that is the "language" of the true self. The deeper one looks at the true nature of reality one sees that form is not there and this is the true reason why form cannot know nor can unknow itself or that which is real. Because form is not there. Form is the formless aspect of consciousness! But wait. I see a paradox the form displays in amusement! It was just stated that form cannot truly know what it truly is and the observer is neither knowing nor unknowing! And there is the answer. Consciousness or whatever it be labelled is not about knowing or unknowing. It is about that which is labelled as awareness. You believe these words in this reply are aware of the author or the reader? No. But by simply being THIS, THIS is. Why? Because I am aware of THIS. Why am I aware of THIS. Because THIS is. No cause. No effect. No question. No answer. Just being. I am. Don't worship the symbol called form. Worship (give attention to) that which the symbol represents. Form represents that which it also labels as...well, by reading "your" reply it is observed that the real you gets it...

@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe

5 ай бұрын

​@JoeDoig I think therefore I'm confused.

@antonyjh1234

5 ай бұрын

I think you are confusing the scientific method with ideas.

@namaste575

5 ай бұрын

@@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe Even a rudimentary exploration of Buddhist and Hinduism philosophies should generate some insight and dispel some of that confusion. Worth looking into even if you don’t agree with them. I’m inclined to think that Kant had some access to these ancient lineages of thought. Cheers.

@daya9359

5 ай бұрын

Thanks. Girmitya Descendent 1879-1916 Fijian Indian. Yes I have been studying, learning and researching for Truth and human Phylosophy. So 2022 I have adopted back to the original faith of Indus Valley Civilization, humanity, which I understand Buddhism ☸️. We also had Kabir Panth in Fiji 🇫🇯 Islands 🇫🇯 🚢 🏝 with Mythological Ramayan and Satyarthaprakash the Vedic Dharma of Eurasian Steppe, Mesopotamian Steppe Mythological Culture. Still learning. Jay Bheem Namo Buddhaye, Jay SAMVIDHAN, Bandagi Saheb. Regards ☸️

Please don't put a picture of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi in the thumbnail of a Kant video. He doesn't even look like him. 😞

@kdot78

6 ай бұрын

bruh true 😂

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

no it's Kant !!! minervawisdom.com/2020/06/04/immanuel-kant-on-perpetual-peace/ do you think Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi here is the same ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Heinrich_Jacobi

@whoaitstiger

6 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy It's not Kant! Look it up for fuck's sake! It's Jacobi and he doesn't even look like him at all.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

@whoaitstiger, I apologize for any confusion the thumbnail may have caused. I can assure you that the video indeed focuses on Immanuel Kant's philosophy, not Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. The thumbnail might not be a perfect match, but rest assured, the essence of the video is all about Kant's profound ideas. 🤓

@kdot78

6 ай бұрын

@@Mindful_Philosophy hey, no worries bruh. who gives a fuck. maybe the guy that commented but I was fucking around. it's alright

brilliant guy!

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

yes Kant is a brilliant philosopher

If Carl Jung would’ve read more into Kant I believe he would’ve achieved in finishing and publishing most of his books. Although he did get close to his perception with the study of self analysis.

Jesus Said..”The Father Knows what you need before you even ask and He Will Give it to you. Trust Him!” I believe Jesus!😊❤

@ironbutterflyrusted

5 ай бұрын

Question.... Are there things God cannot know ? The answer is "no" because God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent....true ? So why in the garden of eden did he not know what the serpent was doing, while he walked in another part of the garden and what Adam and Eve had done ? 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” God is clearly asking questions and is surprised, angered and vengeful, against their actions, on learning about it. So by reason and evidenced by his own Godly words, he dropped himself in it in the opening chapters😁 God indeed has limits. Could you explain how this could be ? 👍

@kathleenwharton2139

5 ай бұрын

@@ironbutterflyrusted Sure Can’t! I just Believe Jesus.

@chadmccoy8032

5 ай бұрын

Why waste your time praying then?

@chadmccoy8032

5 ай бұрын

@@kathleenwharton2139 There’s a reason why we are compared to sheep. They are stupid. Just as they say we should have faith like a child. That’s because they just accept things. Just believe. Believe and still wonder what happens when you die. I chased the fairytale long enough.

@kathleenwharton2139

5 ай бұрын

@@chadmccoy8032 I don’t! “Gods Will Be Done” Jesus tells us that in the Lords Prayer. Prayer is more to get our thinking in alignment.

Read Kant with a dictionary beside you. And you have to read Kant everyday to understand his perception of judgement, and aesthetic ideas, subjects, and objects. He loves to say," a priori" known ideas created in our innate subconscious.

Not reality but a representation of reality. An analogy once used was the difference between the icons on a desktop and the complex hard/software behind them…perceived reality as icons. Boy bet the whole gang can’t wait for you to bring that up at the next holiday family dinner.🎅

Without God why does space time and matter need to exist, because nothing needs to exist, without God time doesn’t need to exist and if time exists for what purpose if not to measure space and what’s the point of space without matter to measure space from a to b .

@marabu420x3

6 ай бұрын

Seconded. Also, everyone needs to consider that these elements of existence stand in harmony to each other (as do all physical forces and constants), in perfect harmony even, otherwise there would be no reality. Harmony does not come from nothing, and not from chaos, it comes from a divine purpose and volition.

@marabu420x3

6 ай бұрын

@@martinmartin1363 Yes sorry, I meant harmony doesn't originate out of chaos if left to its own devices. A creator or divine force would of course be able to accomplish this

@FightXScience-wh6kx

6 ай бұрын

What a wild series of crackpot conjectures.

@FightXScience-wh6kx

6 ай бұрын

@@martinmartin1363 Lmfao, you crackpot. Let me know when you have evidence or any good arguments for God's existence. Let's see you man up son.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

it's a deep philosophical questions about the nature of existence and the role of God. These are questions that have puzzled philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for centuries.

I love kant. I love kant morning & night.

@Mindful_Philosophy

6 ай бұрын

indeed an exceptional man ...welcome

@martinmartin1363

6 ай бұрын

What is love or day and night they just conceptions of the mind, can we actually say he existed or a figment of your imagination