"I almost started the lecture series with Kant, but if anybody ever read any Kant will know why I didn’t." He's finally done it. Only took Wes 7 years to get to Kant.

Hey, Wes, I hope you see this- I've listened to your lectures for years, since before the Forgotten Thinkers series. You've inspired me to go back to college and become a philosophy and literature professor. You're an intellectual hero of mine, and I wanted to say thanks for doing what you do. I hope to attend many of your talks in the near future.

This madman has gone and done it, he's lecturing on Kant.

Never stop showing!!!! I am always on line waiting!

Immanuel Kant, but at least Immanuel tried. ✋😃

I still remember at the beginning of your Nietzsche lecture, 7 years ago, you saying that you'll get to Kant someday. Well here it is!

I love Kant. It really takes a while to wrap your head around his ideas, and how he worded them, but if you can it's glorious.

So much for World travel having an impact on philosophy

OMG He's doing it! It's the Kant lecture!

Thank you for helping me understand that what cannot be understood

Awesome lecture! Thank you

It's good to break up a Key and Peele binge with a little Wess 👍

Been waiting for this one for a long time, Wes! Was not disappointed :)

Your lectures are amazing!

Great lecture, thank you!!

BRAVO 👏

Fantastic!

35k subs... dude, you deserve so many more

In the John Locke lecture Wes stated that Lock gave a token and specious argument that God must exist. Is Kant's argument of "You can't reason your way to God, but you can't reason your way out of God either" basically the same thing?

This guy is a great teacher

going to be most watched lecture here..

Thank you, Wes Cecil.... I've been negligent with regard to your lectures... Where's your Patreon? You're worth it.

Thanks for the asmr

Perfect timing for my exam in human geography, thanks Wes!

I Kant stop getting Debussy

So in a field of small losses any wins (of 2x or greater?) and large losses are the most memorable, and this could be from hunter gather times rather than because they are unusual outliers. All this may all explain why a 50% chance of winning back twice your stake is (probably) more interesting in a game than a 75% chance of winning 4/3rds of it.

we must recognize within ourselves the tendency to view things with a prejudiced eye and know they are idiosyncrasies. moulds of past thinking are hard to break because they make the barrier of your mind preventing the free expansion of life within. limitations of the mind save you from madness until your mind "hatches"

Mind explosions!!!

Since you have a lecture on Schopenhauer: At 39:19 min you point out, that "if you're a king, this is not a good idea". Schopenhauer pointed out, that Kant could only do his thinking and writing under the Philosophy King Friedrich II. Under any other monarch he wouldn't have had the freedom to spread these kind of thoughts.

Thanks for being good at speaking

So cool

If you’re covering all the Germans - whence forth cometh my arch nemeses?

Let's not forget the famous Göttingen school of mathematics.

Did you skip lecture 16b of History in 16 questions?

Watched all of it 56:49

How in the hell can I know what I can and cannot know?

I followed his quote the whole way through - but I still don’t understand what the hell he’s talking about

Kant be first

Oh Kant 🤣

The pinnacle of impracticality

When you said that he abused grammar.. could it be that a language was not up to his thought processes... language has been evolving and ideas can be way ahead of grammar and languages. I believe it's very difficult for a philosopher to put an idea in words because one has to even think beyond it. if I have to say nobody would understand a real philosopher.

Bro, Leibniz is German.

Is that even possible?? Of course it isn't. Be atheistic if you want, but find out everything because you've got the best approximation for an Oracle right there :) So suppose you're atheistic, you'll say these people are in fact crazy. I'll say their reasoning has been affected, sort of like a person that is unable to see with one of their eyes. And I'm not referring to Slick Rick, because that guy is a genius :) The book of Job is very much like this type of "trials." I do attribute that book to the foundation of the entire Existentialist School. I found out about the structure of the Earth when I was studying in Tamaki, Auckland, taking a course on Karnaugh Maps, and having a coffee with an awesome lady that told me about MC Escher's Ants painting :)

Maybe Kant feared that without religion humanity would fail? He knew what was coming with existentialism, scientistism, and post modernism and nihilism. So I ask everyone do humans NEED to believe in something that is intangible or simply constructed? Maybe?

Interesting, not so into this ones ideas though. Kant - "You are (free to want to)/(free if you want to) do as we (king, god, establishment, etc…) tell you. If you have no agency, then you have complete freedom. Why not give the endless (indescribable yet I'm describing it) everything a nice neutral name, how about 'god'." Apart from anything else, part of that is literally vacuous. If your set is empty then as well as having all of it's members, you also equally have none of it's members (no freedom).

Damn all he had to do was close his eyes 👀

But at least Immanuel tried

Kant is correct that our minds do have built in faculties. Take this for instance, how do we know and experience music? Do dogs know and experience music like we do? Can someone answer me?

Philosophy is about everything!

The attack on this man is unnecessary.

Good talk tho Wes!

Kant was mostly interested in epistemology (creating a foundation of what we can and cannot know) that is why he wanted to be rigorous. Not sure though if we have limits to what we can and cannot know. That is an odd way of thinking.

Isn't that what really matters for a person, his/her actions and not his/her thoughts?

Hey Wes I hope you see this- I did some fact checking and no king of Prussia ever responded to Kant in the way you said, or said the things about Kant you attributed to them. Listening to your "lecture" I am not surprised that you stretch the truth 'cause it just seems like a stream of consciousness rant that acknowledges Kant chiefly through weak attempts at denigration (its amusing that YOU would comment on "academic standards" as you do in your fantasy about how the world responded to Kant). I'd suggest you listen to this lecture yourself and you would probably retire in shame unless you are in it just for the money and ego stroking.

Yikes, the most important philosopher since Aristotle is not worth studying? C'mon Dr. C., maybe you should give it a go. Clearly you haven't.

Well Wes in the end either we are FREE or we are NOT...right? How can we NOT know if we are FREE? The answer is so simple...IF YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION THEN YOU ARE.

All Kant wanted was to save God and the religious morality of altruism from reality. A dishonest, evil yet a genius philosopher.

From exactly where are we gonna dicuss Kant's racism?

No wonder Western Civilization is so fucked up.

Wes, how come you didn't mention Kant's racist views and writings?

Your bullying Newton. So stop. He was a very unique person and we should respect that. His accomplishments speak for themselves.

Kant admitted that he wanted to save the church so he is basically doing what the church itself does..namely... you simply CAN'T know Truth. And this is a BIG mistake!