Where is that from?

Thanks!

I already have a video on essentialism in the context of natural kinds: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eL-TmbNy28DOgHk.html

YEARS of waiting…finally

I'm afraid not... I've never found Spinoza that interesting.

have you ever taken heroin?

My brother in Shoppinhower, if you truly believe your first claim have never had a good nut in your life, and I suffer deeply for you.

But then you could ask why do individuals have a predisposition to define themselves in terms of group membership

Not really. I'm not generally into continental philosophy.

For general biology, I used Sadava et al's "Life: The Science of Biology"

Or rather you will

I did a bunch of videos on Max Stirner; I'm pretty sure he's considered a continental.

​@@KaneB How about a video on Edmund Husserl ? Maybe I'm wrong but I've seen you're anti"realistic" in some ways (at least in the moral sense), on the basis of analytical philosophical arguments (?). Yet, Husserl isn't either a "realist" in a "naive" sense, but, of course, he's generally ranked among the continental philosophers, altough he's somewhat been rehabilitated by the analytical "school" more recently. So, maybe, you'll have some thoughts about his ideas ?

I like what Schopenhauer had to say about Hegel: "Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."

no Hegel for the love of all that you think is holy

​@@KaneB yeah its a Great quote, their friendships is the stuff of legends. I still would love to see someone like you tackle Hegel, i can only imagine the suffering, and since you did the best stirner videos on youtube, i would assume it would add another leyer of appriciation and understanding of the ego and its own, as a sort of parody/subversion of Hegel

@@KaneB Based

“In every page of David Hume, there is more to be learned than from Hegel’s, Herbart’s and Schleiermacher’s complete philosophical works.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

That hair speaks of untrammelled striving.

@@JosephFlatt That hair indicates a crap barber

I mean, that's a criticism that plenty of other philosophers have made, so I don't think you're necessarily overlooking anything. Of course, the phenomena/noumena distinction is developed with much more sophistication than what I presented in this video, but the general problem that you're suggesting tends to haunt all the formulations of it. The SEP page "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" provides a detailed discussion of different ways of interpretation the distinction.

kant talks about this in critque of pure reason, and yes you're right for him. For kant concept of noumena is a purely a boundary concept. Or what he might call a purely Intellectual concept of the understanding

@@mustyHead6 But why didn‘t he see the (logical) impossibility of noumena? It looked so trivial to me when I first encountered it. More trivial was only Descartes cogito ergo sum as an answer to the threat of an deceiving genius malignus (because it is obvious that it only works as long as our logic works properly but why shouldn‘t the genius malignus not have been able to deceive us there too?). It just looks to me as if those older thinkers never really got conscious about their a priori tools (today: axioms) and its limitations.

For Schopenhauer the noumena is not complete abstraction but will, IE consciousness itself. (at least that’s what I think he means, and others like Kastrup have interpreted him this way)

In what sense independent? -Ontologically independent, it could exist without us. -Mereologically independent, it is not a part of us. -Causally independent, it has no effect on us.

okay, i correct myself. why is schopenhauer so commonly mistaken to be anti-natalist then? mind boggling! I just found this writing by him: " It would be an error wholly analogous to this to suppose that one can reach the same end as is attained by voluntary chastity by frustrating the aims of nature in fecundation, or even by men, in consideration of the inevitable suffering of life, countenancing the death of the new-born child, instead of rather doing everything to ensure life to every being that is pressing into it. For if the will-to-live exists, it cannot, as that which alone is metaphysical or the thing-in-itself, be broken by any force, but that force can destroy only its phenomenon in such a place and at such a time. The will itself cannot be abolished by anything except knowledge. Therefore the only path to salvation is that the will should appear freely and without hindrance, in order that it can recognize or know its own inner nature in this phenomenon. Only in consequence of this knowledge can the will abolish itself, and thus end the suffering that is inseparable from its phenomenon. This, however, is not possible through physical force, such as the destruction of the seed or germ, the killing of the new-born child, or suicide. Nature leads the will to the light, just because only in the light can it find its salvation. Therefore the purposes of nature are to be promoted in every way, as soon as the will-to-live, that is her inner being, has determined itself."

shu up and push your rock

@@real_pattern rude.

I can’t disagree. I lean toward the pessimistic side, but I do think that what you described is possible if we can give up our desires, or at least understand them for what they are, in sort of a zen or Buddhist fashion. 🙏

@Boulanger Continental philosophers tend to make sweeping statements about human psychology, culture and the 'fundamental nature of the universe'. As far as I am concerned these are first and foremost empirical matters: stuff for the natural and social sciences to figure out. Whilst I have my issues with analytic philosophers also often overstepping their reach as philosophers, the kind of 'arm chair' speculation that I'm talking about, seems to be far more essential to the continental side of things. I say that it is meaningless because the terms continental philosopher use are often so vague, imprecise, poorly defined etc. that they seem to just be constructing flowery sentences rather than anything substantive.

I've become more sympathetic to some of it, especially some of the stuff from the 1800s. With Schopenhauer in particular, it helps that he's able to write in a clear and stylish way.

@@onion4062 I think continental philosophers have just as much chance of getting at "the fundamental nature of the universe" as natural and social scientists do...

​@@KaneB where are the continental philosophers' microscopes

@@yyzzyysszznn Introspectoscopes and intuitoscopes are just as effective at revealing the fundamental nature of reality.

Are you saying that Schopenhauer, who got a PhD at 24 and published his magnum opus at 28, spoke many languages fluently, had a great knowledge of investing/finance, who excelled at music theory and playing the flute, didn't consider "the enjoyment derived from working toward something over long periods of time" ?

I'm with Schopenhauer on this one, actually. My primary long-term project is, of course, philosophy -- but I find working on philosophy to be mostly arduous and frustrating, with a few brief moments of pleasure when I feel like I've achieved something. I don't really know why I'm drawn to philosophy; I just feel a drive to do it, and I feel miserable when I'm unable to spend as much time on it as I want to. The same is true for literally every other long-term project I've engaged in. With that said, I grant that there seem to be plenty of people who are lucky enough to be disposed to enjoy the struggle, and that does undermine Schopenhauer's argument, I think. But I can see where he was coming from.

some people literally get off to lifting heavy weights. the myopic and sweeping self-centeredness of continental philosophers will never cease to amaze me

@@selimgure you'd be surprised how self-centered and/or narrow-minded very smart people can be. But be that as it may I'm not here to speculate on why Schopenhauer cherry picked a particular type of experience when there is plenty of evidence that other, contrary experiences exist. I'm saying that it is a problem for those experiences not to be dealt with anywhere in his work. maybe he does have a way of disproving their force as counter evidence to his sweeping generalization, but to the best of my knowledge he does not.

@@KaneB I find that interesting. I wouldn't say I enjoy struggle, quite the opposite. I enjoy flow states where everything comes easy and I am fully experiencing and enjoying the process of the thought or action I'm engaged in (and I actively seek those processes out). There's actually research to show that I'm not alone in this. Bandura explains it in the context of self-efficacy and Annas in her book Intelligent Virtue also goes into it. I should say though that for me philosophy isn't the thing that makes me the happiest, despite my intellectual enjoyment of it. I find other things more experientially stimulating, like imagination/simulation. Processes without an end-goal attached to them, that I engage in purely because they make me feel good, are the most fulfilling to me.