great video! I spent four hours yesterday studying a few chapters approaching Kant's metaphysics and this brought it all to a point of clarity. Thanks.
Read three books on Kant for the past few months, among them the very good book by Paul Guyer simply named "Kant." This video was what really enlightened me. Thank you Adrian Moore!
I just wanna throw this little thought process out into the interwebz. I was imagining a hypothetical conversation between John Searle and Kant, and wanted to see what y'all think: for kant, there are bits of knowledge which are not of direct access (though they do exist, we are unable to know them) and therefore cannot be known in totality. namely god & origins of universe (deity based existentialism, free will & spatiotemporal knowledge) however we can come to know metaphysical knowledge (synthetic a priori knowledge) via an investigation of our on rational capacity (turn rationality on itself so as to come to epistemically objective claims about a domain which is ontologically subjective). kant essentially believes that, due to the nature of our cognitive capacities, certain knowledge claims about a domain which is ontologically objective are impossible. for searle, we have direct access to knowledge of and about the world, and because of this direct access we are able to make epistemically objective claims regarding that which is directly accessible, even if it is within a domain that is ontologically subjective (observer dependent) these two views directly contrast each other in one sense, but conform with each other in another. for kant we are able to perceive things as they appear, rather than as they actually are. objects of knowledge are those things which we have perceptual access to, but in terms of our perceptual understanding we still only come to know them as they appear rather than as they actually are. for searle, we are able to perceive things as they actually are because they exist within space and time, and our cognitive capacities are such that they are able to intelligibly understand them directly (build upon basic features in such a way that complex features are intelligible). so on searle and kant's view, questions about god and our origins are not answerable due to the problem of proof. the main difference however is that kant doesn’t believe we can come to know anything objective about the world due to our cognitive capacities. for kant it isn’t until we turn reason on itself that we are able to know metaphysical knowledge (universal and necessary truths) searle however makes the claim that we can in fact make epistemically objective claims about a domain that is ontologically subjective with regard to those things which do not transcend space and time, searle wants to make the claim that we can really come to know things as they are via direct access, whereas kant wants to make the claim that we can only come to know things as they appear rather than as they actually are. nonetheless, kant and searle both agree that questions which transcend space and time (god, and our origins) are questions which are beyond the nature of our cognitive capacities. searle’s move is to show how there is no good reason to believe that anything other than monism (still maintaining that consciousness is a natural phenomena which is part of the world, and is irreducibly subjective) is the case kant’s move is to show the utility of religion in terms of moral behavior as a good thing for humans. both agree that there is a limit to our cognitive capacities when it comes to understanding the ontology of that which is beyond space and time. both agree that knowledge claims about a domain which is ontologically objective are not possible by necessity. but also, they both are careful to not negate the fact that ontologically objective facts exist, but are not of direct access. from this it follows that a knowledge (epistemically objective) claims about such a transcendent domain are not possible.
The concept is a universal truth.The impression conveyed is there can be any combination of knowledge. But the statement 'all females are sisters', is to be taken synthetic a priori. Female does not imply partiality and is therefore empirical, sisters does, but, Kant had no sisters, except the lady who sets her clock to his passing by; makes this statement a priori causal. The statement: 'All sisters are ladies' is empirically correct but Kant never knew this lady, still empirical the mind of Immanuel Kant is aware of her-a priori. The identifying is with self; the term female and can be a fixation with a priori when clearly there are two types of knowledge without opposition. Effectively, knowledge here is 'causal a priori' Kant refers to the argument in his 'Practical Reasoning'.
bao s Objective reality is nothingness. Death is experiencing objective reality. Our spectacles do not reduce the "actual" reality to a "perceived" reality, our spectacles create a reality. Without spectacles we cannot see anything. They only create, they do not destroy.
The definition of knowledge does not necessarily mean one needs what others consider as fact but allows for experience as knowledge. Ok, I experienced God and I experience God from time to time in seemingly insignificant moments, insignificant if I had not paid attention and then asked what would that mean. I am describing God as a psychological synchronicity.
Im admire ancient Philosophers,like Aristotle,Isocrates,Aristophanes and Zeno from Elea,who said;The goal of life is living in agreement with nature! contrary to common Philosophers who only analyse those Great ancient Philosophers!
No one can know anything because things must be perceived and perception is an agent of distortion. Since reality cannot be objectively know, no knowledge or truth is possible.
"So his solution to the puzzle is to say the synthetic a priori knowledge he's talking about, isn't knowledge of what's out there independent of us, that's the key to the solution if you like."
Math IS our spectacles (it is part of the categories that we perceive the world with, and it can never be beyond). Why isn't it beyond, well, because math is always spatio-temporal, which is the way we must perceive the world. Outside spatio-temporality there is nothing for us.
Kant was unquestionably a man of genius and an enormously significant thinker but somehow his conclusions - that we can have synthetic knowledge a priori and that we can never know reality as it is in itself but only as it appears to us - seem like mere common sense to me. Did it really take a man of genius to point out that our ideas about the world cannot transcend the limitations imposed by our own senses and mental conditions? Kant seems to me to the first sensible great thinker in the history of western philosophy. Or at least since Aristotle.
@@MartinLopez-mo7tm I tried wading through the Critique of Pure Reason some years ago but gave up after a hundred pages or so. I shall read up on Kant a bit before trying the Critique again.
Whether there is a god or not, whether there is free will or not, should be viewed as a matter of a PROGRAM, that decides the process, that seems to be evolving (along with the program), and pervades the entire process. Socrates was the genius who realized the truth, when he discovered how god shared his divine knowledge with Meno's slave.-!!!
This is a very pretty portrait of immanuel. The one I have is pretty ugly. The mind though is sharp, stark and critical...refreshing like a good beer after a hard day and equally as disinfecting. He has taken much from his pietist parents.
If space and time are part of our way of understanding and have no reality independent of our minds, how do you explain Relativity? Why would our minds create anything as complex and counter-intuitive as General Relativity when we can understand the world perfectly well as a 3D Euclidean space with constant flow of time? If causality is part of our way of understanding and has no reality independent of our minds, how do you explain Quantum Mechanics? Why would our minds create anything as mystifying as random radioactive decay when we can understand the world perfectly if it were entirely deterministic?
Couldn't you deduce that all analytic claims are created from synthetic observation and then just re-purposed to fit future means? So in a sense all thought does come from sensory data.
Yes, but you can be sure of some things without checking it or "accumulating sensory data" again. The concepts follow from experience, but once we have those concept there are things which must be true.
I'm a little sick of the glasses analogy that I seem to come across all the time when it comes to Kant's philosophy, I find that it's not a very good one. Otherwise, good video! Quite a few key ideas in there
Logic is transcendental emerging through spacetime but conceptually and contextual throughout the mind itself a priori in this sense are the categories that make this synthesis possible same with consciousness which is also astral and transcendental his idealism is that the nature of reality is an isolated conciousness or transcdental medium existing regardless of the mind In spacetime regardless most of this is on epistemology a priori becomes the perceptual apparatus a posterior becomes synthesized after our perceptual nature of reality is a posterior implying its delayed while the metaphysic that makes perception possible isn't its a consciousness and conscious of itself
But how can all sisters are female be a priori? In another world females might be called brothers. Those concepts come from experience/society, I think...
Heavy editing, do the spectacles refer to the transcendental schema? If they do why not use as an example of synthetic knowledge as any thing or concept where we have to combine empirical sense impressions in our head to then realise the definition of that synthetic thing or concept. The definition of synthetic knowledge as that kind of thing where you have to go outside to 'get your hands dirty' is misleading. Synthetic is simply 'combined'. To say that Immanuel Kant is the greatest philosopher of all is like saying Bach or Handel are the greatest composers of all...that's fine if your Beethoven...but haven't we moved on from that? or shouldn't we try? Adorno seems to be one who has genuinely tried to move it on like several others. This is not to say that Kant is an irrelevance because that would be so barbaric. Yes I have been surprised at what an influence Immanuel has had on my thinking.
It seems rather embarrassing for someone not to be able to say Kant in the way it should be pronounced [kaant], but to pronounce his name almost as [Kent].
Kant failed to realize the obvious myth of pure reason, for by reason, reason cannot be proven. Pure reason merely attempts to cut the theological branch it has been sitting on throughout history. Reason is the product of countless generations of culture based on religious belief, which is impossible to purge in favor of pure reason, it's integral and at the core of reason, it is the foundation. If any think pure reason can exist without a foundation couched in culture, ask yourself this, is reason not constructed of language ? Can one even prove words have meaning... without using words, or can one prove mathematics without invoking mathematics ? Kant and his contemporaries needed to dig a little deeper into the philosophical foundations of all beliefs. God bless you all.
