Introduction to Modern Philosophy: The Emergence of Rationalism

preview_player
Показать описание
With medieval philosophy covered, it's time to dive into modern philosophy, which started with the Renaissance, and lasted until the turn of the 20th century. The beginning of this era is market by the onset of rationalism and empiricism, two contrasting schools of thought, each with many influential adherents. Let's start out by discussing rationalism, through figures like Descartes, Spinoza, Pascal, and Leibniz.

Script by Luca Igansi

Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Michel de Montaigne is such a fascinating figure. Ahead of his time, we might say, preceding by a few centuries people like Rousseau who would go on to shake up the deeply ingrained ideas Europeans had about education.

Especially in his time, it's incredibly rare to see someone advocate for the curiosity and autonomy of young people instead of blind deference to teachers. And many still need to truly internalize that message.

antonioscendrategattico
Автор

By the time Spinoza wrote the Ethics (and arguably by the time of his excommunication) he was no longer a practicing Jew, and likely would not have considered himself one. His metaphysics are strongly influenced by Jewish thought (particularly Maimonides) but the God he bases his system off of in the Ethics is emphatically not the Abrahamic one. He'd be better described as a pantheist or an atheist, though both of those labels would also be inadequate to some degree.

wabberjockey
Автор

Philosophically speaking, this has been a very enlightening series thus far. Thank you, Dave!

glennpearson
Автор

Leibniz's optimism was the basis of Voltaires "Candide, ou l'Optimisme", poking fun at this worldview.

RenateMeijer-zuxy
Автор

Thank you for this very informative introductory video on modern philosophy. The only one of the philosophers mentioned in your video that I know in some depth is Benedict de Spinoza and I feel compelled to point out a few inaccuracies you maintain about his work that you could easily correct, thereby further improving the quality of your introduction.

1. “[Spinoza had] a religious agenda in his Judaism, an aspect permeating most of his theory.” I find this a very problematic statement. Edwin Curley, the eminent translator of Spinoza’s complete works, writes in his editorial preface to Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: “[It] is a complex work, with multiple agendas, one of which was probably to make the case for rejecting Judaism, as it was understood in the synagogue from which he was expelled.” He does go on to write that that is not to say that Spinoza rejected Judaism in its entirety, but sentences from Spinoza’s own preface to the Theological-Political Treatise such as “I was easily able to determine that the authority of the Prophets has weight only in those matters which bear on the practice of life and on true virtue, but that their opinions are of little concern to us” and “the Laws God revealed to Moses were nothing but the legislation of the particular state of the Hebrews, and […] no one else was obliged to accept them” in my opinion don’t point towards the “religious agenda in his Judaism” you mention.

2. “He argued that everything was an emanation of […] a divine substance he associated with the Jewish God.” The first part of this sentence is true enough, but that Spinoza associated that substance with the Jewish God is manifestly incorrect, and I really think you should change at least this part in your video, especially as this misapprehension is not only verbally stated, but also visually depicted in your graphic. Spinoza’s own definition of God right at the outside of his Ethics is “a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” And in the preface to the fourth part of the Ethics, there is the famous phrase “that eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature." Spinoza thus identifies God with Nature and, as commenter @wabberjockey7667 also pointed out below, in doing so is a long way off from the traditional conception of the Judeo-Christian God, who is seen as a transcendent, but often still anthropomorphic being that is ontologically distinct from and thus outside the world he/it has created. In stark contrast to this conception, Spinoza’s God, as he will attempt to prove throughout the Ethics, is immanent: "God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of things." (Ethics, IP18)

3. “Everything happens necessarily as the divine will directs.” This statement is also inaccurate at best. While Spinoza certrainly believes that everything happens necessarily by God’s/Nature’s laws, he emphatically denies that there is a divine will directing anything: “God does not produce any effect by freedom of the will.” (Ethics, IP32C1) He even calls the will of God “the sanctuary of ignorance” in the appendix of the first part of the Ethics.

MicrosoftMozart
Автор

I always find religious people demanding perfection from science, that facts in 1200 ad, should be the same as facts in 2100 ad, after all it's science, its fixed and dosnt change, well no science isnt fixed, what we seak is fixed, and the better we make our instruments the closer we get to the real fact, hahahahahaa, not like we read a book, dosnt give much detail, we never update it, but it tells us everything we need to know, and we will die and kill for

tersse
Автор

The school system still works in abstract ways and discourages questions, not as much, but definitely sounded all too familiar from my experience and others

niconova
Автор

Dave's interesting pronunciation of 'Aristotelian' was that first time I ever felt smarter than him.

Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic
Автор

I can truly appreciate the various topics you discuss.

Thank you Prof Dave ❤



I wish I was more educationally inquisitive when I was younger like I am now... but better later than never. 😊

Jin
Автор

Great work! Philosophy is really interesting. Thank you for introducing me to it

johncalvin
Автор

I'm not sure what is meant by "physics" at 4:26 but if it means what we currently regard as physics in 2023, I don't see how it can be more foundational than mathematics.

chaz
Автор

Dave you completely skipped over Neoplatonism, a sweetest fruit of antiquity and still very relevant.

Breakfast_of_Champions
Автор

how do you manage to put out one of these every 2 days? it’s eels like it would take a lot more work provided how in-depth these are

dogeatburrito
Автор

Hey maaan. You need to debunk sadhguru bro.. I just came upon this dudes video sayin mercury aint poisonous. And they can be solidified in room temperature type shiit. I did some research and found codys lab video that debunks it. But my friends are falling hard for sadhgurus tactics.. debunk that old man my guy..

rosesnakehole
Автор

"As his own sensory and memory are faulty, so are everyone's." Even supposing the conclusion here is true, the argument on which it is based is fallacious. It does not logically follow that because one is fallible, all are fallible. Experience teaches us that people are fallible, that even the most intelligent people sometimes get it wrong. However, it is never logically justifiable to use our own fallibility as the sole basis upon which to judge the fallibility of others. To go onto he skeptical conclusion that knowledge is not possible due to the observance of the fallibility of one's own mind is no less fallacious an argument. No, if I am aware of my own fallibility, then this is itself an instance of knowledge, and, indeed, it is certain that knowledge is not only possible, but actually exists.

alwaysgreatusa
Автор

I’m very surprised to hear that Spinoza associated the one unified reality with the Jewish God. I don’t think that’s true.

geoycs
Автор

Modern philosophy arose when scholasticism began to lose sway.

CesarClouds
Автор

Love the fact that prof. Dave still keeps updating the philosophy category

mnation
Автор

His ideas were not relevant to future philosophy ? To the contrary, the skepticism of Montaigne, while going too far, was an important step in breaking free of the scholastic authoritarianism of the schools. It awakened in philosophers the need to establish a real foundation for knowledge -- other than mere authority. Hence, it directly leads to Descartes -- the so-called 'Father of Modern Philosophy', who attempted to supply a rational foundation for knowledge. Moreover, his rejection of abstract ideas gave new vigor to the empirical search for knowledge in such figures as Francis Bacon and John Locke. No, you were right to start with Montaigne.

alwaysgreatusa
Автор

can you make a video of your point of view and explaining the israelo-palestine conflict .a

iAmACheater-ns