Immanuel Kant and the Rise of Postmodern Thought

// LINKS //

// COURSES //

// BOOKS //

#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[cyrils.]

WHO DID THIS THUMBNAIL!!!? THIS IS NOT KANT BUT FRIEDRICH JACOBI, A PHILOSOPHER SUPER OPPOSED TO KANT!
Edit: thanks for changing the thumbnail

[martinmuller]

Maybe I'm missing something.
Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" does exactly what the title purports, and criticises the Platonic approach, as used by the likes of Descates. He points out that there are concepts that are purely logical (numbers, addition multiplication etc) analytic concepts, but there are also concepts that have physical characteristics, such as space and time, which point potentially to the structure of the mind (viz synthetic). He uses an approach that is mostly analogous, to the modern approach. These days one would perhaps divide the world into concepts that are purely logical, and concepts that have at least one physical characteristic, such as room with a volume of 3 m^3. So you cannot have a green number one, but you can have a green room.
So the world sepereates into classes of things. The class of things with characteristics are related to each other via logical relationships (laws of physics). The universal of characteristics is existance. Yust because this class of things exists does not mean we can understand it or have a suitable naritive that describes it exhaustively.

The class of existing things are the things you can have a particular type of knowledge of, essentially encapsulated in the scientific method. Questions of ontology have mostly become questions epistemology, at least as far as the class of existance is concerned.
To me what is so brilliant in his "Metaphysics of Morals" is the centering of morality to the soverign individual. Thus we are fundamentally moral creatures, and he gives a mechanism by which the collective morality can be discerned from the individual. He is fully aware that this work is not complete. In the end this work is the starting point of understanding how we are moral beeings.
Hegel makes an Ansatz that morality is centered around the logos. So morality is the public debate around the Truth.
That these ideas have a grain of Truth to them is testified by the power of Marxism to captivate the public discourse over all these years. That they so powerfully amplify the destructive emotions a deep mystery
The complete story of how morality emerges from the sovereign individual is likely more subtle, and not confined to a single grand narritive, but a set of stories that contain in different domains.
It does seem to me peculiar that we seem to do fine in constructing functioning communities of about ten thousand people, but struggle beyond that. So constraining stories of various ilks around the individual scale to a degree, but how we manage the larger entities and their corruption seems bejond us. I would search for them in a set of principles like Kant uses, but it does seem to be out of reach. This is not the same as saying a grand narritive cannot form in this age, or that there is not something real that exists in a constraing set of stories and priciples as in Christianity

[Lolux]

You better not blame Postmodernism on my boy Kant 😡

[sugarmiesje]

One word, "gravity". Postmodernists can believe what they want about objective reality. Gravity is real and always does it's thing. It always has as far as humans are concerned. And it's super easy to verify 🤣

[Verbalaesthet]

Kant's Categoric Imparative was just a over-complicatedly phrased varient of the golden rule from the Bible.

[alvbjo]

I think many blame Kant needlessly and forget that he was followed by a mystical sharlatan, Hegel, who almost completely idealised the realistic parts of Kant, who ofc inspired ”scientific” marxism, which we ofc by history know was anything but scientific…

[nupraptorthementalist]

That's not Kant in the painting, but Jacobi.

[thanksfernuthin]

I'm sure I watched this video when it first came out 6 years ago. I've learned so much about these philosophies since then from Peterson, Hicks and Lindsey. I bet I'll understand and enjoy it so much more now. I'm off to watch it again!

[dieterkief]

Immanuel Kant is your classical modernist - - - not your post-modernist. He is about limitations of our knowledge, not against objectivity .a.t. .a.l.l. - this is a grotesque misreading of Kant.

[DeadEndFrog]

They should talk about ideas, rather then attempt to "understand" kant, when they clearly kant

[TILDEPSYCHOLOGY]

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. - Kant

[antoniopioavallone]

This is why Dr. Peterson isn't able to actually believe in God's existence, he shares the subjectivist and relativistic philosophy of post-modernists. I hope someday a good philosopher will dismantle this false belief he has because none, religious or not, ever dared to do that.

[AM_o]

"What do you mean by what? What do you mean by do? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by mean?" Peterson the postmodernist.

[ejw]

Good teachers not telling you how to think, but framing the arguments, steel manning, and leaving it up to the listening audience to have a break through or not.

[villevanttinen]

Nietzsches one of the main targets was Kant (categorical imperative mostly), so you can" t in the same sentence praise them both, and Nietzsche is the grandfather of postmodern.Nietzsche questioned all knowing via synthetic apriori "stucture", for postmidernist knowing is difference, that needs history, which was deeply underestimated in philosophy before Nietzche.

[AdrianHackman]

I am looking at Stephen Hicks book now and I Kant see a chapter about Descartes "I think therefor I am" that seems to be the father of post-modernism. Why blame Kant?

[jeffdege]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

[a.cameron]

I read a bit into the basics and construction of critical theory, since it seems to be turning up everywhere these days, and came away with the notion that they somewhat dialed Kant's critique of objectivism up to 11. Critical theory started with the notion that since everything you observe is filtered through your perceptions, no created work of humanity ("the text") can be considered as having an absolute claim to the truth, but somewhere along the way critical theory seems to start treating the things it is deconstructing as having no claim to the truth at all. There is a world of difference between these two positions, and I could not see where (if at all) this was acknowledged.

[CarliMichelle]

Two of my favorite men alive discussing one of my favorite dead men

[Oliver_without_a_twist]

This discussion is completely outdated by state of the art Kant scholarship