Script & introductory reading recommendations in order: www.thenandnow.co/2023/04/20/kant-a-complete-guide-to-reason/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
Philosophy is Dead Putin says "Believe in me, Support me & be rewarded or else!" Everyone agrees that he is pure evil and his supporters are scum But change the name Putin to God & repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!" And not one modern day philosopher or student can see this Just blind book readers of ancient white men
It's amazing what quality content one can find on TH-cam these days. This is right up there with a high budget BBC documentary. Very impressive stuff! Thank you very much for your work!
A "complete guide...." to Kant is a misnomer in this presentation. IT is FULL of 'new-age' buzz without much on the real ideas behind Kantian idealism.
I've been telling people that for about 2 years, paying for education is only needed for a job. We now have the biggest library in the palm of our hands and people don't even realize.
If you're out at night - it's because they Kant find cheap speed in Essex anymore since the '90s. Also i guess the ones running it for the firm today are real Kants, which is also a real philosophy..
I spent about 2 weeks watching the Spinoza video over and over again and I can tell you that understanding came in thin layers, a little bit each time and was only after those two weeks that I felt comfortable with Spinoza at any level. I very much appreciate these deep, slow, meditative dives into the concept. Just the first few views feel more like echoes of my own intuitions and experiences. Well done.
This is a very high-quality video, and it does a great job in particular with introducing some of the finer points of Kant's theory of mind. But its emphasis on 'pure reason' as the summit of Kant's thought is fairly misleading. Kant's work was a rejection of the dogma of the rationalists no less than it was a rejection of the skepticism of the empiricists. His Critique of Pure Reason has that title because it's intended as a study of the structures, abilities, and _limitations_ of pure reason. Don't forget: the portion of the Critique entitled "The Transcendental Dialectic" is almost exclusively dedicated to the tendency of pure reason to come up with completely groundless and unfalsifiable ideas. And similarly, with regards to the field of metaphysics, Kant lays out his project as follows toward the end of his Prolegomena: "what is wanted is the possibility of this science, the sources from which certainty therein can be derived, and certain criteria by which it may distinguish the dialectical illusion of pure reason from truth." Kant's point there is that 'pure reason,' without constant pertinence to experience, can easily lead a thinker into confidence about unknowable matters. So pure reason can easily become a dialectical illusion, distinct from truth. When Waller reaches the mountaintop in this video and follows up his explosive praise of 'the summit of pure reason' with, "But remember: Kant says that experience is required too," it's a genuinely incredible understatement. One of Kant's main points is that all we can know about is either actual experience in life, possible experience in life, or the conditions for the possibility of experience. Now, Kant _does_ think that's enough to refute Hume's most pervasive skepticism, but it obviously still places experience at the center of his system. Not reason. As Kant writes in the Prolegomena: "The dictum of all genuine idealists, from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: 'All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason is there truth.' The principle that throughout dominates and determines my idealism is, on the contrary: 'All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth.'" So, one might prefer to say Kant was trying to bring us to the summit of our experience of the world, rather than the summit of pure reason. The firm basis on which Kant wants to rebuild metaphysics is not reason alone, but all of cognition (including sensibility, understanding, _and_ reason). What is needed, in Kant's view, is an awareness of transcendental idealism---his doctrine that (1) all objects we encounter in the world must necessarily conform to our cognition; (2) the cognition in question is composed of our sensibility, our understanding, and our reason; and (3) we have no access whatsoever to the world as it is in itself, apart from our cognition of it. I believe this mistaken emphasis surfaces in the video simply because Waller seems to conflate Kant's notion of 'synthetic a priori judgment' with Kant's notion of 'pure reason.' So when he rightly identifies that Kant's highest aim in the Critique is to establish the legitimacy of the former (and hence a way for metaphysics to become possible), he mistakenly assumes that means Kant's highest aim can be expressed as basing philosophy, or at least metaphysics, on the latter. But this misses a primary thread in the text, as Kant puts it at the start of the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic: "The outcome of all dialectical attempts of pure reason not only confirm [. . .] that all the inferences that would carry us out beyond the field of possible experience are deceptive and groundless, but it also simultaneously teaches us [. . .] that human reason has a natural propensity to overstep all these boundaries."
Thanks for your explanation and clarification. I began to learn, on my own, about Kant's philosophy recently, and I felt a little confused with this video. 'Intuitively' -I don't know if that is exactly the right word 😂- I felt that something was wrong on this video, compared to what I have learned from other sources. Now I know that I wasn't wrong: your ideas were more adjusted to what I was understanding about this subject. I appreciate it.
@@carlosmh11If you're looking for an accurate overview of Kant's work in a video format, I'd recommend the lectures on Kant by Daniel Bonevac that he has self-published here on TH-cam.
Thanks for this. When I was trying to figure Kant out, it almost seemed to me as if a lot of his would-be expositors were afraid of just how weird his key ideas were and were constantly domesticating them into things that made more intuitive sense. But claiming he's all about bigging up reason, especially, is baffling to me. What's not to understand about the word 'critique'? The first chapter of that book, which is, I admit, about as far as I got, is all about pointing out, at the tail end of the Age of Enlightenment, that reason, taken to its limits, ends up at paradox, and that's what leads Kant to his transcendental idealism and thing in itself. Weird territory and hard to accept, but if you don't take it on, you don't acknowledge the clay out of which grew Schopenhauer or Hegel and the other idealists, hence Marx and even, arguably, Nietzsche.
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.
Good lord! What an OUTSTANDING, and AMAZING job you've done with this video. I've been studying Kant for a few years, and have never come across a better introduction to Kant than this. Truly SPECTACULAR! So beautifully done that I had tears in my eyes. Thank you ... and I just joined.
Philosophy is dead! Putin says "Believe in me, support me & be rewarded or else!" Everyone agrees that Putin is pure evil, his supporters are scum But change the name Putin to God and repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!" And not one philosopher can see this blindness! Amazing! Just blind book readers of ancient old white men
I've been thinking of this on my own, before i even got into philosophy, from atoms and before atoms, time. To 1. To 2. And 3.However I'm lost when it comes to ideas. There has to be something deeper. 1 single thought can change it all.
Sir: you have taken grand steps on your way to the mountain top with this video on Kant's reason. I have listened (watched it repeatedly). With each exposure my understanding and appreciation of Kant has increased noticably. My sincere thanks for all of your efforts.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, -*-you are correct.-*- So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks."According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press."Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," states "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000.Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested.- 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested.Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers at a protest during the Ferguson protests in AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?**2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops? 2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks." According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press." Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000. Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested. - 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested. Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?* *2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you: 1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops? 2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks." According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press." Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway." Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post." I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000. Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next. - 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested. - 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested. Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point I was trying to make was about punishments. The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store" The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest" Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy. I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer: *1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?* *2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?* If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer. And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you. I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
I know this video doesn’t have much popularity as your Spinoza video, but you must know this is another master piece video and I found that I think Kants philosophy quite intriguing all in itself. Very good video! Thanks you for taking the time and energy for your brilliant videos and making them into understandable concepts
When a I was 18 I reasoned my way to Kant's categorical imperative concept. I held it as a guide for a long time. It's incredibly rewarding and discouraging at the same time to know it was already taught of mora than 200 years ago.
@@michaelwu7678 Sure. I was a Christian at the time but never really accepted the Bible's authority by itself. I thought that if the "Christian morality" were true, the Bible was just guidlines that were derived from the world. I accepted that all humans are worth the same and because I accepted that morality existed to limit your rights to act on your desires, in principle, I reasoned that everyone should possess equal constraints and liberties based on their equal value. From there I just evaluated different scenarios where I was unclear how to judge. (I evaluated cliche situations about stealing or murdering but a big one I remember liking was justifying my ideologically pre-determined judgment on homosexuality. I reasoned that if everyone had the right to be homosexual it should be true that we could, everyone, at once, be homosexual and for it to be "good" the result of everyone exercising one's right to homosexuality should produce a "good" outcome. With this tool and some added pieces of reasoning, I made my views into, what I thought was a very good reason to believe in moral realism and that homosexuality is "wrong" of course. ) and ended up thinking it was a good moral compass to follow. Even though I was never very religious nor inclined to philosophy until very much later on my life, I do believe my ideological background made me prone to think like so. Ps: I don't hold most of those lines of reasoning as valid any longer, just if you were wondering.
@@andresdubon2608 Thanks for sharing. That was very interesting to read. Kant actually used his principles to argue against homosexuality and any kind of non-procreative sex in general. It's interesting though that we can also use the Categorical Imperative to argue for sexual freedom as well, depending on how you formulate it.
A real treat to a restless mind. I thank my time and space for having come across this brilliant piece. Puts the mind at ease . I am going to follow you for more wisdom. Thanking you is Rashida from Chennai , India
Happy to put my kermit the frog voice to use once again! Seriously though, I have no idea how you do these. An absolute ton of work. Thanks for doing this, and thanks for having me on here!
ive come to think of a flaw in his categorial imperative, which is scope (of the action in question). Idk if this is discussed in Kant's work, since i didnt read it all, but for every action, for which one is asking if it is moral, one could just narrow down the scope so much, that the categorial imperative can be uphold. Lets take a benign and trivial example: stopping at a red traffic light. It is clear that if there is no general rule to stop at red traffic lights, there would be chaos, accidents happen and people would have problems. But if u take ur specific situation into account, lets say stopping at a red traffic light when no other traffic member is around, no vehicle is seen, no pedestrian is there, even a general law to not stop in this particular situation wouldnt do any harm. My point is that one could narrow the scope of the action in almost any case, adding exeptions to exeptions, and basically declare any action moral, given the particular circumstances.... of course one had a huge amount of non-applicable general laws that are only applicable in very specific circumstances, but Kant's moral imperative can be uphold. Or take another example: someone broke into ice on a lake and intuitively one is obliged to help. But take the risk for the rescuer into account, since he could end up breaking the ice, too, or lets say (which is very constructed, i admit) he is a serial killer and ends up destroying the lives of others, and suddenly a general law to help this person is very much in question. What im saying is, that there are loopholes to this categorial imperative that are practically as big as one wants and can reason with.
We really enjoyed this documentary, which has greatly improved our understanding of Kant. I am part of a book club discussing John Vervaeke’d Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series, and we wanted to learn more about Kant (who Vervaeke touched on) and chose your documentary.
Your channel may not grow as quickly as some others, but that has nothing to do with the quality you put out. I think it is because the content you produce takes a lot of effort to ingest and understand at the level it is due. Excellent sort as always
The ideas of Kant are profound and need repeating to internalize. Love they you presented it; I personally think I would be confused at first if I read the book initially
Critique of Pure Reason is a book I would recommend to almost anybody, and to literally nobody without first reading or watching a proper introduction about the book and its author. This video is a great example of a proper introduction. I would still warn against skipping editor's notes.
Hume did not say that the more we view something happening the more likely it is that it will happen again. He only said that the more we see a constant conjunction, the more our expectation that they will occur together increases. This prompts Kant's problem: how do we explain the connection between our expectations and our possible experiences. His answer was that our expectations constitute space and time, reason structures the empirical world.
I just want to say I thought you did an absolutely amazing job with this one and it couldn't have come at a better time, I just so happen to be writing a report on Kant in my philosophy class this week and you just happen to drop this video at the same time. I've watched it like 4 times trying to absorb everything but apart from that it simply has this beauty that makes the rewatch ability very high. Thank you again!
you have no idea, how much i am blessed to see this. i have been following you since my graduation days. i have gotten a lot from your videos and your videos are part of the influences on me to give me courage to pick philosophy as a hobby! right now i am not earning but will surely pay a little contribution from my side to you. keep dont let this channel down. keep it unique thanks lot of love
Absolutely brilliant. Hats off. I can't but help imagining that Hume was feeling rather smug and pleased with himself after developing his problem of induction, but Kant has took him to school, he's pulled Hume's pants down. You think you're clever mate, this is clever, boom, have some of that
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
You are the very perfection when it comes to the TH-cam channels. I love your content. I'll help your channel financially as soon as I have the means to.
I love your philosophy overviews! I am halfway through and realizing I made a huge mistake trying to tackle Hegel without actually having read Kant. Like, I have eventually sussed out a lot of it, but this video is already making things clearer, and also making me say, "Oh, this or that would have been much easier to understand if I had already worked through that or this."
Like space as an a priori precondition for experience. Kant's proposition that we cannot derive space empirically because it's a precondition for experience. And Hegel comes along and is like, "Sure. We don't derive space through INDIVIDUAL experience. But it WAS derived through a dialectical experience across the evolutionary development of consciousness." My brain-meat firmware may have come preloaded with space as a precondition to knowledge, but my nematode ancestors had to be shaped by experience of a spatial world. Their forms literally twisting through the generations in response to the outside world. Their descendants' central nervous systems forged by trial and error. A forgotten collective experience for the whole animal kingdom, passed down in our very shapes. The shape of human consciousness CONTAINS that whole development. Kant, and his whole era were so stuck in the individual mind as though it were it's own island of consciousness. They couldn't consider the experiences of our forebears as, in a very literal and physical way, a part of our experience before we even become conscious of it, even if we NEVER become conscious of it. It's a deep, collective knowledge that we have. This shit just clicked for me. I need to go back and reread "Sense Certainty", "Consciousness", and "Force and the Understanding" from Hegel's phenomenology.
Can you read this iceberg abstraction of transcdental space-time that makes no sense, yeah I can but it makes no sense. And they have bots. There's 3 critiques, the only one that made sense oa his critique of the categorical Imperative and judgement. Oh it's a posterior.
You're getting nothing by tackling a bunch of ambiguous sentences which could be interpreted in 100 different ways. They are just food for thought. You'll think about those random connotationless words, connect them with your pre-existing thoughts, come up with a clearer understanding of concepts and form new knowledge. As Nietzsche said and I paraphrase "you only dig what you bury yourself." I'd rather spend time with wittgenstein. Knowing what Hegel or Wittgenstein said is useless to me, having a deep understanding of the topic is better than knowing what they actually said but with a superficial understanding.
Wow! Your guide captured so much in an hour. I am now a member and hooked. Thank you! The notes taken, stopping-starting, rewinding, looking up your references has helped me understand what Hegel is reacting to in The Phenomenology of Spirit. I have a greater appreciation for Kant and his influence on the World.
I've been watching your videos for a long time now and you've always done such incredible work. That being said, this may be the best you've made to date.
So to my understanding, Kant argues that even though we do get data from the outside world, we form concepts by ourselves. That gathering data is empiricism and forming concepts on our own is pure reason. The main three questions are: 1) What can I know? 2) What should I do? 3) For what may I hope? We swim through space and time. It's not something we experience by looking for it outside but not something we create on our own either. It's just there, like Mathematics. 28:45
I'm a huge fan of these videos so feedback comes from the heart. The narration is excellent but the sound recording is just a bit muffled and it seems like it could be clearer. There's quite a decibel level difference depending on how or when the narration was captured. That may jar someone listening on headphones. (E.g. transition at 18:40) Keep up the great work!
I'd add that listening from a TV the cut-aways of other speakers seem significantly louder than the narration. Also say this as a huge fan. I will always watch and rewatch, regardless.
I agree. The balance is hopeless. Many times the music is too loud and I cannot make out the words. Such a shame it diminishes an otherwise amazing piece of work.
The utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and Emmanuel Kant’s philosophy of “maxim and treating humanity as an end in itself and not as a means” seem to form a duality.. I find it interesting that Kant regarded Mathematics as a transcendental object. I enjoyed your discussion of Immanuel Kant’s philosophical claims and arguments. Excellent explanation, description, supportive quotes, examples and references. Interesting concepts: Transcendental aesthetics, transcendental deduction and metaphysical deduction. Emmanuel Kant belongs to the group of transcendentalists: Arthur Schopenhauer, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Swaami Vivekananda,, Parahamsa Yogaananda and others.
Thank you so much for doing this video, it really means a lot to me as kant and his first critique helped me through some really tough ordeals including dealing with psychosis. A hegel video on the phenomenology of spirit would just be the cherry on top, particularly with an emphasis on the classical metaphysical interpretation, of which there should be information about on the Stanfords plate institute...
This is an amazing video which ytb recommend to me. it makes me consider more about how to make choice, and since my youth I always want to know more about philosophy, and kant is the one which I can hardly understand, this video help me a lot, paves a way for better understanding.
I was looking for just this video and you made it! Thanks so much 🙏. I can’t count how many times I’ve rewatched your videos. Your my favourite continental philosophy TH-cam channel.
I've been working on the phrase "Nothing changes" as an epistemic and ontological truth to expand upon and pursue reason through philosophical discourse. In my opinion, We have the certainty that things change for good or bad without intervention by human resources or thought...but it's through positive,ethical, democratic, and altruistic interventions we effectively save ourselves from others...Something beyond reasons and absurdities successful outcomes and hopefully more purposeful to maintain.
For those giant intellectuals, source of knowledge and pure reason might be from a specific starting point. How ever, it looks that pure reason and knowledge can be attained from combination of multiple dimensions. For example, a person can understand and know hunger not by thinking by himself but after he started to feel and experienced hunger. Furthermore, he would know the effects of hunger and malnutrition consequences which broader his knowledge and reasons. Another example is that a less than three year old child could know the danger of burning with fire only after he/she experienced the fire heat or got burning shock with fire. This is externally experienced knowledge and reason. In this case, our internal thoughts and thinking knowledge may not be pure data of internal knowledge but absorbed from our individual, social, and environmental experiences which invoke our extra progress needs for the fulfilment of our growing needs emanated from experiences of multiple generations.
Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy theory is a breakthrough in our truly modern world! Doing something out of your own free will and freedom of thought is what characterizes the QUALITY of humans as BEINGS. Helping poor families through food, clothes, or medicine donations is truly an act by nature and the universal laws!
Obviously the best video on kant on youtube. It's clear that you put a lot of heart and effort into this, and it paid off! I also second another commentator here suggesting hegel for this kind of format
I’m studying machine learning and its cool how Kant’s philosophy of senses and concepts align with the processes of models like artificial neural networks
This is absolutely outstanding. Thank you for the time effort and for all the research and travel that went into it. I too would love to see Hegel explained in the same way.
Hegel a Complete Guide to History, is a very excellent description of knowledge and understanding of life and the world. There is a lot I would like to comment, but not here. I can´t discover who the speaker is, and would like to congratulate him on his very clear and profound lay out of the theme.
We were seemingly discovering Continental philosophy in parallel and atm I'm using your content for teaching purposes in a German highschool. A lot of people are indebted to your magnificent content. A heartfelt thank you for standing in the line of succession of the enlightenment (respectively for the videos on Behavioral Addictions & Spinoza). Godspeed and bon courage!
Kant did then apparently explain us that our artificial inteligence is conscious as long as it makes its own judgements out of its experiences, and its reasoning model contains a large enough set of categories used to classify its experiences.
Hey man you make it really easy for me to imagine again!! Like really, I couldn't picture things and come up with things and focus all that well but now it's like I'm flourishing!! Every time I watch this I come up with something new.
I love this video and how you explain things. Thank you so much for taking your time and effort to make this. I very recently got the courage to start making videos on some meta physical, and perhaps a little super natural at times, topics and somebody said to look into Kant. Your video is the ultimate guide, everything a beginner could have wanted to know. Thanks so much!
Your work is monumental in my adventures through philosophy. I can't imagine a better way to be introduced into new ideas or thoughts than through your content
thanks again lewis for these wonderful videos. They are a great prompt to stop, consider and understand the worlds we live in and all the effort you and your supporters put into creating these videos are valuable ends to invest in
If you see how a baby develops its sense of depth by looking at his tiny hands and the things around him, how he learns that things further away look smaller, etc. you have to agree with Hume. Everything is a human construction. Sound itself as we hear it is nothing but are molecules vibrating that are not in themselves make any sound. Your eardrums vibrate and then create an electric signal that we use to make sound inside our heads. Other animals feel these vibrations like tiny pressure on their skin. We discover truths like 2+2=4 but everything comes from experience. Very bright people like Prof. Donald Hoffman are wondering if we humans create time and space themselves from within our brains.
Can't comment on the video yet, but I wanted to drop a comment about how good the technical aspect is. This is set up the way a professional documentary would be. It really doesn't feel YT produced :D
Aantekeningen: Over kennis, rationaliteit & kennis > Benadrukt intellectuele onafhankelijkheid > Verdieping in de werking van het (pure) verstand om de realiteit te onthullen. 27:45
Considering "how do we get a comprehensible picture?". There is very interesting concept and practice of "Deconcentration of attention". With it you can practically understand some of Kant's points. All you need is some Schulte Table or Necker Cube, maybe also some instructionson how to achieve deconcentration state, but it's pretty intuitive.
Excellent video and introduction to Kant. The physical and metaphor ascent to the mountain top enhanced the content. Where was this filmed? Would love to climb in this area.
I think Hume had it right.. Our sense of morality comes from our feelings rather than our thoughts, however our feelings are more complex forms of thought. Feelings are low-resolution signals sent from your unconscious mind to 'translate' how your brain is interpreting a complex series of processes. Like an intuition, such as a 'gut' feeling. Your brain is processing many stimuli at once, and the feeling is given as a response. We 'feel' what is morally right through our use of intuition, because that feeling is drawing from a system of complex thoughts and processes in the mind. Kant sees this intuition as the bridge between what we know (empiricism) and what we can't (kant) truly know. Just because we can't map it out, it doesn't mean the connections aren't there. We can intuit what we don't know to form a bigger picture. I would think making what is metaphysical known and unassailable would be impossible.. but this man was driven to create a framework for it, and that's an inspiring notion
Wasn't Kant decrying "pure reason" as the problem with contemporary metaphysics? The metaphysicists could make stuff up without ever proving it through demonstrable experiments, most notably on the existence of a soul, its immortality and what happens after death. That's what I recall from my Kant : Critique of Pure Reason class in university 13 years ago. If anything, he fused the empiricists and the rationalists to shield the scientific method from charlatans.
You're quite right. I just finished writing a rather lengthy explanation of this in another comment. Kant would be very displeased to hear 'pure reason' described as the summit of his philosophical system rather than 'experience' or 'cognition.'
I will not be satisfied until this channel reaches the million follower mark. That this content only has the followers that it does speaks volumes on what’s wrong with Western Society writ large.
Perhaps the main reason so many have such a problem in dealing with infinity is that it can be the most terrifying conceptual experience of all time/space and beyond.
"Kant says Hume woke him from his dogmatic slumbers, but apparently Kant went right back to sleep" is a quote I heard years ago, but I can't remember where. Bertrand Russell? Hegel? Or maybe even one of my old philosophy professors. Anyone else heard this?
Absolutely brilliant! Really inspiring. On your patreon page, you mentioned that you are looking for a video editor/animator. It would be my honor if I could get to collaborate with you on your projects. Keep up the great work. Cheers!
I notice that a lot of Kant’s ideas about reason and morality seem in line with those of the stoics. I've recently been studying Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus and can't help but notice all the similarities. Is there a connection?
13:01 didn't Hume talk about a part of knowledge as the "relations of ideas" that can be known by the "mere operation of thought"? doesn't that include 2+2=4, every triangle has 3 sides, all bachelors are unmarried and so on?
I mean, someone might think that this idea from Hume as simple and self evident but the presumed absence of it is treated as the main motivation for Kant's work, but as the idea was not absent in Hume's we're left from the video as if Kant's epistemology was unmotivated, without any need to exist wich is a really weird way of analyzing Kant
The crux of the matter is what Hume and Kant understand the relations of ideas to be. According to Hume, our capacity to relate ideas with certainty rests only on the principle of non-contradiction. Hume argues that such relations do not produce new facts. The only source of new facts is experience. At the end of the day, different relations between the same ideas merely express the same fact in a different way (they are a form of A = A, as Kant says). Hume claims that mathematical truths are also of this kind. Kant denies this. Kant claims that there is a difference between purely logical judgments of type "either A or not-A" (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried", "the whole is equal to the sum of its parts", which he calls analytic) and judgments such as "2+2=4" or "the ratio between the diameter and the radius of a circle is constant" ("2", "+", and their combinations do not in themselves contain "4", Kant argues). The latter two judgments are synthetic - in them, besides checking for non-contradiction, reason directly apprehends the pure conditions of synthetic coherence in spatial/temporal experience to generate new knowledge (new "facts"). Such knowledge is nevertheless certain - independent of any particular experience - therefore it is a priori. This notion of a reason that can produce new facts is crucial in Kant's analysis of causality in nature where he demonstrates, against Hume, that it is a complicated form of knowledge rather than an unjustified claim of reason based on habit.
I am looking forward to this. I found a good copy of Critique of Pure Reason in a second hand bookshop for £1 and have made multiple attempts to dig into it. But every attempt was stopped dead by how (pardon my French) fucking indecipherable the text was. Hoping to pick up some tools/tips for my next attempt.
He... is thought provoking for sure but, while that can be enjoyable, the reading is work. It's building a brick and mortar structure without gloves. You'll have a strong building that'll last but you're going to experience some pain.
@@shanefoster2132 I’m happy to feel the pain. Trust me. When I did my physics degree there was a joke/common saying. “When you are feeling stupid. that’s good. It the first step to learning.” Diving into philosophy with no prior reading experience has been brutal. (I barely passed getting my English credits. )But I’m reading more literature and philosophy. And I have the most potent motivation fuel there is. A 1/1 mixture of petty spite and a love of learning. I feel the burn. I made my way through Kropotkin. I’m chugging through Spinoza and Kuhn. Next stop Kant and Feyerabend.
Script & introductory reading recommendations in order: www.thenandnow.co/2023/04/20/kant-a-complete-guide-to-reason/
► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/
► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
Philosophy is Dead
Putin says "Believe in me, Support me & be rewarded or else!"
Everyone agrees that he is pure evil and his supporters are scum
But change the name Putin to God & repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!"
And not one modern day philosopher or student can see this
Just blind book readers of ancient white men
..
..
.o.o
o
Typical case of guy who read but didn't understand the book.
@@RodolfoAlcazarPortillowhat did he get wrong?
It's amazing what quality content one can find on TH-cam these days. This is right up there with a high budget BBC documentary. Very impressive stuff! Thank you very much for your work!
Guys like this are going crazzzy on the TH-cam grind
A "complete guide...." to Kant is a misnomer in this presentation. IT is FULL of 'new-age' buzz without much on the real ideas behind Kantian idealism.
ditto brothers in arms ;)
@@hplooi I'd be very interested to learn, honestly. Could you point out some of the problematic parts? Thanks!
I've been telling people that for about 2 years, paying for education is only needed for a job. We now have the biggest library in the palm of our hands and people don't even realize.
Surprisingly popular in Essex. One only has to walk down any high street in the great county to hear "Kant" this and "Kant" that.
"that's a real fat kant right there" - Australian
If you're out at night - it's because they Kant find cheap speed in Essex anymore since the '90s. Also i guess the ones running it for the firm today are real Kants, which is also a real philosophy..
Came here to say this (in Aussie - yeah, nah)@@dukewild5071
I spent about 2 weeks watching the Spinoza video over and over again and I can tell you that understanding came in thin layers, a little bit each time and was only after those two weeks that I felt comfortable with Spinoza at any level.
I very much appreciate these deep, slow, meditative dives into the concept. Just the first few views feel more like echoes of my own intuitions and experiences. Well done.
I'm in the same boat - I don't absorb all of it at once, so I come back to many videos and always pick up more and more of them.
Reading books should also give you a deeper understanding
Which videos you have watched about Spinoza ? Send me link if u
@@samreenkhawar8031 i assume theyre talking about this channel's video on spinoza. looks like one of his biggest hits so far
@@youtubeisawebsite7484 got it thank you
This is a very high-quality video, and it does a great job in particular with introducing some of the finer points of Kant's theory of mind. But its emphasis on 'pure reason' as the summit of Kant's thought is fairly misleading. Kant's work was a rejection of the dogma of the rationalists no less than it was a rejection of the skepticism of the empiricists. His Critique of Pure Reason has that title because it's intended as a study of the structures, abilities, and _limitations_ of pure reason.
Don't forget: the portion of the Critique entitled "The Transcendental Dialectic" is almost exclusively dedicated to the tendency of pure reason to come up with completely groundless and unfalsifiable ideas. And similarly, with regards to the field of metaphysics, Kant lays out his project as follows toward the end of his Prolegomena: "what is wanted is the possibility of this science, the sources from which certainty therein can be derived, and certain criteria by which it may distinguish the dialectical illusion of pure reason from truth." Kant's point there is that 'pure reason,' without constant pertinence to experience, can easily lead a thinker into confidence about unknowable matters. So pure reason can easily become a dialectical illusion, distinct from truth.
When Waller reaches the mountaintop in this video and follows up his explosive praise of 'the summit of pure reason' with, "But remember: Kant says that experience is required too," it's a genuinely incredible understatement. One of Kant's main points is that all we can know about is either actual experience in life, possible experience in life, or the conditions for the possibility of experience. Now, Kant _does_ think that's enough to refute Hume's most pervasive skepticism, but it obviously still places experience at the center of his system. Not reason. As Kant writes in the Prolegomena:
"The dictum of all genuine idealists, from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: 'All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason is there truth.'
The principle that throughout dominates and determines my idealism is, on the contrary: 'All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth.'"
So, one might prefer to say Kant was trying to bring us to the summit of our experience of the world, rather than the summit of pure reason. The firm basis on which Kant wants to rebuild metaphysics is not reason alone, but all of cognition (including sensibility, understanding, _and_ reason). What is needed, in Kant's view, is an awareness of transcendental idealism---his doctrine that (1) all objects we encounter in the world must necessarily conform to our cognition; (2) the cognition in question is composed of our sensibility, our understanding, and our reason; and (3) we have no access whatsoever to the world as it is in itself, apart from our cognition of it.
I believe this mistaken emphasis surfaces in the video simply because Waller seems to conflate Kant's notion of 'synthetic a priori judgment' with Kant's notion of 'pure reason.' So when he rightly identifies that Kant's highest aim in the Critique is to establish the legitimacy of the former (and hence a way for metaphysics to become possible), he mistakenly assumes that means Kant's highest aim can be expressed as basing philosophy, or at least metaphysics, on the latter. But this misses a primary thread in the text, as Kant puts it at the start of the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic: "The outcome of all dialectical attempts of pure reason not only confirm [. . .] that all the inferences that would carry us out beyond the field of possible experience are deceptive and groundless, but it also simultaneously teaches us [. . .] that human reason has a natural propensity to overstep all these boundaries."
Thanks for your explanation and clarification.
I began to learn, on my own, about Kant's philosophy recently, and I felt a little confused with this video. 'Intuitively' -I don't know if that is exactly the right word 😂- I felt that something was wrong on this video, compared to what I have learned from other sources. Now I know that I wasn't wrong: your ideas were more adjusted to what I was understanding about this subject.
I appreciate it.
@@carlosmh11If you're looking for an accurate overview of Kant's work in a video format, I'd recommend the lectures on Kant by Daniel Bonevac that he has self-published here on TH-cam.
@@TheGemsbok Thank you for the recommendation! I'll definitely watch it.
Thanks for this. When I was trying to figure Kant out, it almost seemed to me as if a lot of his would-be expositors were afraid of just how weird his key ideas were and were constantly domesticating them into things that made more intuitive sense. But claiming he's all about bigging up reason, especially, is baffling to me. What's not to understand about the word 'critique'? The first chapter of that book, which is, I admit, about as far as I got, is all about pointing out, at the tail end of the Age of Enlightenment, that reason, taken to its limits, ends up at paradox, and that's what leads Kant to his transcendental idealism and thing in itself. Weird territory and hard to accept, but if you don't take it on, you don't acknowledge the clay out of which grew Schopenhauer or Hegel and the other idealists, hence Marx and even, arguably, Nietzsche.
T&N is the best philosophy series ever. My fav is Our Consumer Society.
But this video is a leap forward in production and content.
Thank you!
was kant a m-gtow?
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.”
Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.
Good lord! What an OUTSTANDING, and AMAZING job you've done with this video. I've been studying Kant for a few years, and have never come across a better introduction to Kant than this. Truly SPECTACULAR! So beautifully done that I had tears in my eyes. Thank you ... and I just joined.
⁹⁹yy66666
Next time break the blue pill in half!
Philosophy is dead!
Putin says "Believe in me, support me & be rewarded or else!"
Everyone agrees that Putin is pure evil, his supporters are scum
But change the name Putin to God and repeat the very same words and now we get "Praise the Lord!"
And not one philosopher can see this blindness!
Amazing!
Just blind book readers of ancient old white men
I've been thinking of this on my own, before i even got into philosophy, from atoms and before atoms, time. To 1. To 2. And 3.However I'm lost when it comes to ideas. There has to be something deeper. 1 single thought can change it all.
@@AhhsvsvHhehe Well said.
This was outstanding. As someone who only has a casual understanding of philosophy I'd recommend to anybody in the same boat.
Sir: you have taken grand steps on your way to the mountain top with this video on Kant's reason. I have listened (watched it repeatedly). With each exposure my understanding and appreciation of Kant has increased noticably. My sincere thanks for all of your efforts.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you:
1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, -*-you are correct.-*- So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize. Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks."According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6." The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press."Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway."
Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," states "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post."
I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000.Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next.
- 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested.- 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested. Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested.Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was trying to make was about punishments.
The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store"
The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers at a protest during the Ferguson protests in AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest"
Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy.
I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer:
*1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?**2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?*
If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer.
And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you.
I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you:
1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?
2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize.
Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks."
According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6."
The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press."
Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway."
Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post."
I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000.
Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next.
- 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested.
- 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested.
Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested.
Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was trying to make was about punishments.
The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store"
The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest"
Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy.
I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer:
*1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?*
*2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?*
If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer.
And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you.
I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
Thank you for your reply, Dane. I end this reply with two important questions for you:
1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?
2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be honest, I expected your number of 10,000 BLM protesters arrested to be an exaggeration. So I googled "10000 arrests blm protests" and, according to Time, The Guardian, and the AP, *you are correct.* So I thank you for informing me -- accurately -- on something I did not realize.
Under the same googling of "10000 arrests blm protests" I also noticed a NY Times article called "Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History" that stated "Four recent polls - including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns - suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks."
According to Newsweek in an article called "Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors [sic]" that states "as many as 120,000-would show up on the Mall on January 6."
The LA Times in an article called "Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection" states "Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press."
Now, I must point out in your favor that while researching this reply to you, I also found an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian PBS/BBC) entitled "Antifa, Boogaloo boys, white nationalists: Which extremists showed up to the US Black Lives Matter protests?" that stated "According to one estimate by the Washington Post's factchecker data unit, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began in late May, and the vast majority of them involved locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfew or blocking a roadway."
Forbes, in an article called "Figures Show Stark Difference Between Arrests At D.C. Black Lives Matter Protest And Arrests At Capitol Hill," stated "14,000. That's the estimated number of arrests made across 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to the Washington Post."
I can only find ABC and Forbes using the number 14,000, so I'm not sure it is accurate. But let's use 14,000.
Let's also use the BLM protesters number of 15 million and the January 6 protesters of 80,000 because those two figures will be more conducive to _you_ in the point I will make next.
- 14,000 arrests divided by 15 million protesters means 0.000875% of BLM protesters got arrested.
- 1000 arrests divided by 80,000 protesters means 0.125% of January 6 protesters got arrested.
Numerically, a much higher percentage of January 6 protesters got arrested than BLM protesters. In fact, it means that -- as a percentage of the total number of protesters -- 142 January 6 protesters were arrested for each BLM protester arrested.
Now, you and I could quibble about the meaning behind the percentage of protesters who got arrested.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was trying to make was about punishments.
The longest sentence for a (George Floyd) BLM protester I could find was Richard Rubalcava, which a WRAL article headlines about him saying "Raleigh man gets 7 years in prison for starting fires during downtown riots" for "setting a fire at a Dollar General Express store"
The longest sentence for a _any_ BLM protester I could find was Jeffrey Williams, who was sentenced to 25 years for shooting two police officers during the Ferguson protests in an AP article entitled "Man gets 25 years for shooting 2 cops in Ferguson protest"
Now, what crime was the idiot Enrique Tarrio convicted of? Seditious Conspiracy.
I'll end with the two question I really would like you to answer:
*1. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as someone who shot two cops?*
*2. Do you seriously believe that Enrique Tarrio should be sentenced to almost as many years as Derek Chauvin, the cop who killed George Floyd and was sentenced to 22 1/2 years?*
If your answer to either of the two previous questions is Yes, please explain why you believe Yes is the appropriate answer.
And please take as much time as you'd like to answer them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I also want to apologize for taking as long as I did to reply to you.
I posted my comment about half an hour before a 2-hour subway/bus ride to get to work. There were several replies fairly quickly which I quickly replied to. But then I went to work, ended up working an 11-hour day, and by the time I got home I saw your reply. I then spent about 3 hours researching my own reply. Hence the reason my reply took so long.
I know this video doesn’t have much popularity as your Spinoza video, but you must know this is another master piece video and I found that I think Kants philosophy quite intriguing all in itself. Very good video! Thanks you for taking the time and energy for your brilliant videos and making them into understandable concepts
i was so blessed and lucky to find this two days before my “philosophy of the human mind” exam Thank you so so much❤️
When a I was 18 I reasoned my way to Kant's categorical imperative concept.
I held it as a guide for a long time.
It's incredibly rewarding and discouraging at the same time to know it was already taught of mora than 200 years ago.
Would you mind sharing your reasoning?
@@michaelwu7678 Sure.
I was a Christian at the time but never really accepted the Bible's authority by itself.
I thought that if the "Christian morality" were true, the Bible was just guidlines that were derived from the world.
I accepted that all humans are worth the same and because I accepted that morality existed to limit your rights to act on your desires, in principle, I reasoned that everyone should possess equal constraints and liberties based on their equal value.
From there I just evaluated different scenarios where I was unclear how to judge.
(I evaluated cliche situations about stealing or murdering but a big one I remember liking was justifying my ideologically pre-determined judgment on homosexuality.
I reasoned that if everyone had the right to be homosexual it should be true that we could, everyone, at once, be homosexual and for it to be "good" the result of everyone exercising one's right to homosexuality should produce a "good" outcome.
With this tool and some added pieces of reasoning, I made my views into, what I thought was a very good reason to believe in moral realism and that homosexuality is "wrong" of course. )
and ended up thinking it was a good moral compass to follow.
Even though I was never very religious nor inclined to philosophy until very much later on my life, I do believe my ideological background made me prone to think like so.
Ps: I don't hold most of those lines of reasoning as valid any longer, just if you were wondering.
@@andresdubon2608 Thanks for sharing. That was very interesting to read.
Kant actually used his principles to argue against homosexuality and any kind of non-procreative sex in general.
It's interesting though that we can also use the Categorical Imperative to argue for sexual freedom as well, depending on how you formulate it.
@@michaelwu7678 intresting.
Can you share that formulation?
A real treat to a restless mind. I thank my time and space for having come across this brilliant piece. Puts the mind at ease . I am going to follow you for more wisdom. Thanking you is Rashida from Chennai , India
Oh My 😳I could sit and talk to this man all day,.......I love consciousness
Happy to put my kermit the frog voice to use once again! Seriously though, I have no idea how you do these. An absolute ton of work. Thanks for doing this, and thanks for having me on here!
Wow. The collaboration I never knew I needed.
A nice surprise
As long as it's not Jordan Peterson-level kermit then I'm sure it will be tolerated by the audience.
Oy, oy! (Agree!)
ive come to think of a flaw in his categorial imperative, which is scope (of the action in question). Idk if this is discussed in Kant's work, since i didnt read it all, but for every action, for which one is asking if it is moral, one could just narrow down the scope so much, that the categorial imperative can be uphold. Lets take a benign and trivial example: stopping at a red traffic light. It is clear that if there is no general rule to stop at red traffic lights, there would be chaos, accidents happen and people would have problems. But if u take ur specific situation into account, lets say stopping at a red traffic light when no other traffic member is around, no vehicle is seen, no pedestrian is there, even a general law to not stop in this particular situation wouldnt do any harm. My point is that one could narrow the scope of the action in almost any case, adding exeptions to exeptions, and basically declare any action moral, given the particular circumstances.... of course one had a huge amount of non-applicable general laws that are only applicable in very specific circumstances, but Kant's moral imperative can be uphold. Or take another example: someone broke into ice on a lake and intuitively one is obliged to help. But take the risk for the rescuer into account, since he could end up breaking the ice, too, or lets say (which is very constructed, i admit) he is a serial killer and ends up destroying the lives of others, and suddenly a general law to help this person is very much in question. What im saying is, that there are loopholes to this categorial imperative that are practically as big as one wants and can reason with.
We really enjoyed this documentary, which has greatly improved our understanding of Kant. I am part of a book club discussing John Vervaeke’d Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series, and we wanted to learn more about Kant (who Vervaeke touched on) and chose your documentary.
Well damn, you're doing better edutainment and documentaries than the basic level of today's BBC. How times change. Congrats.
Your channel may not grow as quickly as some others, but that has nothing to do with the quality you put out. I think it is because the content you produce takes a lot of effort to ingest and understand at the level it is due. Excellent sort as always
It’s not for the TicTok generation.
@@rosebudadkins6803 that's exactly who Its for, this is timeless wisdom for every generation
I appreciate your simplifying Kant's complex concepts with illustrations aligned so well with the concepts.
Truly stunning. Thank you so much. You give us Kant beautiful and clearly. Fascinating, exciting. You're a brilliant teacher!
The philosopher Immanuel Kant is by far the greatest philosopher of the modern period. Thanks for the documentary. congratulations!
The ideas of Kant are profound and need repeating to internalize. Love they you presented it; I personally think I would be confused at first if I read the book initially
Critique of Pure Reason is a book I would recommend to almost anybody, and to literally nobody without first reading or watching a proper introduction about the book and its author. This video is a great example of a proper introduction. I would still warn against skipping editor's notes.
The quality of this video is absolutely incredible. Better than the vast majority of major tv documentaries I have seen
Hume did not say that the more we view something happening the more likely it is that it will happen again. He only said that the more we see a constant conjunction, the more our expectation that they will occur together increases. This prompts Kant's problem: how do we explain the connection between our expectations and our possible experiences. His answer was that our expectations constitute space and time, reason structures the empirical world.
I just want to say I thought you did an absolutely amazing job with this one and it couldn't have come at a better time, I just so happen to be writing a report on Kant in my philosophy class this week and you just happen to drop this video at the same time. I've watched it like 4 times trying to absorb everything but apart from that it simply has this beauty that makes the rewatch ability very high. Thank you again!
you have no idea, how much i am blessed to see this. i have been following you since my graduation days. i have gotten a lot from your videos and your videos are part of the influences on me to give me courage to pick philosophy as a hobby! right now i am not earning but will surely pay a little contribution from my side to you.
keep dont let this channel down. keep it unique
thanks lot of love
Absolutely brilliant. Hats off. I can't but help imagining that Hume was feeling rather smug and pleased with himself after developing his problem of induction, but Kant has took him to school, he's pulled Hume's pants down. You think you're clever mate, this is clever, boom, have some of that
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day.
One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?”
He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.”
A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.”
The woman asked, “About what?”
He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.”
The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing.
It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same.
One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.”
But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.”
The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.”
He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
The quality of these videos just keeps getting better and better. Thanks for doing what you do!
You are the very perfection when it comes to the TH-cam channels. I love your content. I'll help your channel financially as soon as I have the means to.
I love this channel and the way you put things into perspective. Really grateful for the existence of this channel! Love from Pakistan
I love your philosophy overviews! I am halfway through and realizing I made a huge mistake trying to tackle Hegel without actually having read Kant. Like, I have eventually sussed out a lot of it, but this video is already making things clearer, and also making me say, "Oh, this or that would have been much easier to understand if I had already worked through that or this."
Like space as an a priori precondition for experience. Kant's proposition that we cannot derive space empirically because it's a precondition for experience.
And Hegel comes along and is like, "Sure. We don't derive space through INDIVIDUAL experience. But it WAS derived through a dialectical experience across the evolutionary development of consciousness."
My brain-meat firmware may have come preloaded with space as a precondition to knowledge, but my nematode ancestors had to be shaped by experience of a spatial world. Their forms literally twisting through the generations in response to the outside world. Their descendants' central nervous systems forged by trial and error. A forgotten collective experience for the whole animal kingdom, passed down in our very shapes. The shape of human consciousness CONTAINS that whole development.
Kant, and his whole era were so stuck in the individual mind as though it were it's own island of consciousness. They couldn't consider the experiences of our forebears as, in a very literal and physical way, a part of our experience before we even become conscious of it, even if we NEVER become conscious of it. It's a deep, collective knowledge that we have.
This shit just clicked for me. I need to go back and reread "Sense Certainty", "Consciousness", and "Force and the Understanding" from Hegel's phenomenology.
@@QuintessentialQs Hegel is the GOAT
Can you read this iceberg abstraction of transcdental space-time that makes no sense, yeah I can but it makes no sense. And they have bots. There's 3 critiques, the only one that made sense oa his critique of the categorical Imperative and judgement. Oh it's a posterior.
You made a mistake wasting your time with Hegel. Don't make that mistake again. Hegel is a dead end.
You're getting nothing by tackling a bunch of ambiguous sentences which could be interpreted in 100 different ways. They are just food for thought. You'll think about those random connotationless words, connect them with your pre-existing thoughts, come up with a clearer understanding of concepts and form new knowledge. As Nietzsche said and I paraphrase "you only dig what you bury yourself." I'd rather spend time with wittgenstein. Knowing what Hegel or Wittgenstein said is useless to me, having a deep understanding of the topic is better than knowing what they actually said but with a superficial understanding.
Wow! Your guide captured so much in an hour. I am now a member and hooked. Thank you! The notes taken, stopping-starting, rewinding, looking up your references has helped me understand what Hegel is reacting to in The Phenomenology of Spirit. I have a greater appreciation for Kant and his influence on the World.
I've been watching your videos for a long time now and you've always done such incredible work.
That being said, this may be the best you've made to date.
He makes space and time A rioting but matter as not so. This is pure prejudice , Doxa to justify
All kinds of. Nonsense , without due diligence.
Typo I meant space and time are A-Priori
So to my understanding, Kant argues that even though we do get data from the outside world, we form concepts by ourselves. That gathering data is empiricism and forming concepts on our own is pure reason.
The main three questions are: 1) What can I know?
2) What should I do?
3) For what may I hope?
We swim through space and time. It's not something we experience by looking for it outside but not something we create on our own either. It's just there, like Mathematics.
28:45
I'm a huge fan of these videos so feedback comes from the heart.
The narration is excellent but the sound recording is just a bit muffled and it seems like it could be clearer. There's quite a decibel level difference depending on how or when the narration was captured. That may jar someone listening on headphones. (E.g. transition at 18:40)
Keep up the great work!
I'd add that listening from a TV the cut-aways of other speakers seem significantly louder than the narration. Also say this as a huge fan. I will always watch and rewatch, regardless.
Also, the intro music is a little too loud
I agree. The balance is hopeless. Many times the music is too loud and I cannot make out the words. Such a shame it diminishes an otherwise amazing piece of work.
Immanuel Kant Is my favourite philosopher.l am very influences with western philosophy.Love from Nepal 🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵
This guy's video on Spinoza is categorically amazing.
I agree; the Spinoza video brought me to tears.
You are absolutely amazing. Understanding, writing, explaining, editing. Most of all, making people love philosophy. You are an inspiration.
I Kant stand either how good this video is, or that no one made this pun yet.
lmao
The utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and Emmanuel Kant’s philosophy of “maxim and treating humanity as an end in itself and not as a means” seem to form a duality.. I find it interesting that Kant regarded Mathematics as a transcendental object. I enjoyed your discussion of Immanuel Kant’s philosophical claims and arguments. Excellent explanation, description, supportive quotes, examples and references. Interesting concepts: Transcendental aesthetics, transcendental deduction and metaphysical deduction. Emmanuel Kant belongs to the group of transcendentalists: Arthur Schopenhauer, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Swaami Vivekananda,, Parahamsa Yogaananda and others.
This was a great watch. Thanks for this. You should do a series of Complete Guides to different Philosophers in this long format, if possible.
This is better than most professional documentaries on TV.
Thank you so much for doing this video, it really means a lot to me as kant and his first critique helped me through some really tough ordeals including dealing with psychosis. A hegel video on the phenomenology of spirit would just be the cherry on top, particularly with an emphasis on the classical metaphysical interpretation, of which there should be information about on the Stanfords plate institute...
This is an amazing video which ytb recommend to me. it makes me consider more about how to make choice, and since my youth I always want to know more about philosophy, and kant is the one which I can hardly understand, this video help me a lot, paves a way for better understanding.
I was looking for just this video and you made it! Thanks so much 🙏. I can’t count how many times I’ve rewatched your videos. Your my favourite continental philosophy TH-cam channel.
I've been working on the phrase "Nothing changes" as an epistemic and ontological truth to expand upon and pursue reason through philosophical discourse.
In my opinion, We have the certainty that things change for good or bad without intervention by human resources or thought...but it's through positive,ethical, democratic, and altruistic interventions we effectively save ourselves from others...Something beyond reasons and absurdities successful outcomes and hopefully more purposeful to maintain.
I loved studying Kant in my philosophy classes!
For those giant intellectuals, source of knowledge and pure reason might be from a specific starting point. How ever, it looks that pure reason and knowledge can be attained from combination of multiple dimensions. For example, a person can understand and know hunger not by thinking by himself but after he started to feel and experienced hunger. Furthermore, he would know the effects of hunger and malnutrition consequences which broader his knowledge and reasons. Another example is that a less than three year old child could know the danger of burning with fire only after he/she experienced the fire heat or got burning shock with fire. This is externally experienced knowledge and reason. In this case, our internal thoughts and thinking knowledge may not be pure data of internal knowledge but absorbed from our individual, social, and environmental experiences which invoke our extra progress needs for the fulfilment of our growing needs emanated from experiences of multiple generations.
Great video! Even after reading Kant many years ago and thinking about it much ever since, this still helped me put a few more pieces together.
Scrambled eggs, not that great.
exmilitary rules
Can't wait to watch this later!! Only had five minutes to spare but no doubt this is another thought provoking, excellent video.
Honestly I’m so happy to got to know this channel, keep doing this great work! You’re amazing and I’m falling in love with physics again
this is philosophy
Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy theory is a breakthrough in our truly modern world! Doing something out of your own free will and freedom of thought is what characterizes the QUALITY of humans as BEINGS. Helping poor families through food, clothes, or medicine donations is truly an act by nature and the universal laws!
Obviously the best video on kant on youtube. It's clear that you put a lot of heart and effort into this, and it paid off!
I also second another commentator here suggesting hegel for this kind of format
I’m studying machine learning and its cool how Kant’s philosophy of senses and concepts align with the processes of models like artificial neural networks
This is absolutely outstanding. Thank you for the time effort and for all the research and travel that went into it. I too would love to see Hegel explained in the same way.
Hegel a Complete Guide to History, is a very excellent description of knowledge and understanding of life and the world. There is a lot I would like to comment, but not here. I can´t discover who the speaker is, and would like to congratulate him on his very clear and profound lay out of the theme.
We were seemingly discovering Continental philosophy in parallel and atm I'm using your content for teaching purposes in a German highschool. A lot of people are indebted to your magnificent content. A heartfelt thank you for standing in the line of succession of the enlightenment (respectively for the videos on Behavioral Addictions & Spinoza). Godspeed and bon courage!
Kant did then apparently explain us that our artificial inteligence is conscious as long as it makes its own judgements out of its experiences, and its reasoning model contains a large enough set of categories used to classify its experiences.
These are amazing! you should do more hour-long videos on amazing philosophers OR topics to do with ethis/political philosophy
Hey man you make it really easy for me to imagine again!! Like really, I couldn't picture things and come up with things and focus all that well but now it's like I'm flourishing!! Every time I watch this I come up with something new.
I had studied Kant in College, this video touched the philosophy of Kant brilliantly.
I love this video and how you explain things. Thank you so much for taking your time and effort to make this. I very recently got the courage to start making videos on some meta physical, and perhaps a little super natural at times, topics and somebody said to look into Kant. Your video is the ultimate guide, everything a beginner could have wanted to know. Thanks so much!
Your work is monumental in my adventures through philosophy. I can't imagine a better way to be introduced into new ideas or thoughts than through your content
Thank you soooo much for this perfectly done documentary! Thank you for taking the time to make it 🙏 I loved it 💙
A stunningly sensational work! Thank you for making my afternoon alight with wonder!
When he said “now”, “when”, “then”, and “again” I felt that
thanks again lewis for these wonderful videos. They are a great prompt to stop, consider and understand the worlds we live in and all the effort you and your supporters put into creating these videos are valuable ends to invest in
You are an amazing scholar one of the best in the British intellectual and moral tradition of this century Thank You
Did you come up with "the parade of experience"? It's a brilliant way of expressing the pre-conceptual flux of reality.
If you see how a baby develops its sense of depth by looking at his tiny hands and the things around him, how he learns that things further away look smaller, etc. you have to agree with Hume. Everything is a human construction. Sound itself as we hear it is nothing but are molecules vibrating that are not in themselves make any sound. Your eardrums vibrate and then create an electric signal that we use to make sound inside our heads. Other animals feel these vibrations like tiny pressure on their skin. We discover truths like 2+2=4 but everything comes from experience. Very bright people like Prof. Donald Hoffman are wondering if we humans create time and space themselves from within our brains.
Kant changed everything for me when I studied him in college.
Fundamentally altered the course of my internal and external life.
@@janoycresmay I ask what it was he changed? I’m struggling to understand his work.
I never really got through Kant; too rational, to my opinion.
You contextualising it, gives it reason. Thank you!
As usual, the video is once again high-quality, and in-depth.
I really appreciate the effort and time that you put into it!
Can't comment on the video yet, but I wanted to drop a comment about how good the technical aspect is. This is set up the way a professional documentary would be. It really doesn't feel YT produced :D
Phenomenal work mate keep it up 🙌🏽
Aantekeningen:
Over kennis, rationaliteit & kennis
> Benadrukt intellectuele onafhankelijkheid
> Verdieping in de werking van het (pure) verstand om de realiteit te onthullen.
27:45
I'd love to see you do an introduction to phenomenology, if you continue making videos in this vein.
Considering "how do we get a comprehensible picture?". There is very interesting concept and practice of "Deconcentration of attention". With it you can practically understand some of Kant's points. All you need is some Schulte Table or Necker Cube, maybe also some instructionson how to achieve deconcentration state, but it's pretty intuitive.
Excellent video and introduction to Kant.
The physical and metaphor ascent to the mountain top enhanced the content.
Where was this filmed? Would love to climb in this area.
I think Hume had it right.. Our sense of morality comes from our feelings rather than our thoughts, however our feelings are more complex forms of thought. Feelings are low-resolution signals sent from your unconscious mind to 'translate' how your brain is interpreting a complex series of processes. Like an intuition, such as a 'gut' feeling. Your brain is processing many stimuli at once, and the feeling is given as a response. We 'feel' what is morally right through our use of intuition, because that feeling is drawing from a system of complex thoughts and processes in the mind.
Kant sees this intuition as the bridge between what we know (empiricism) and what we can't (kant) truly know. Just because we can't map it out, it doesn't mean the connections aren't there. We can intuit what we don't know to form a bigger picture. I would think making what is metaphysical known and unassailable would be impossible.. but this man was driven to create a framework for it, and that's an inspiring notion
Please make vedios explaining Nietzsche, Hegel, Wittgentein, and Heidegger. Also make some vedios about women philosophers. 😊
Well, this has certainly helped me define why I've always preferred Spinoza to Kant.
Wasn't Kant decrying "pure reason" as the problem with contemporary metaphysics? The metaphysicists could make stuff up without ever proving it through demonstrable experiments, most notably on the existence of a soul, its immortality and what happens after death. That's what I recall from my Kant : Critique of Pure Reason class in university 13 years ago. If anything, he fused the empiricists and the rationalists to shield the scientific method from charlatans.
You're quite right. I just finished writing a rather lengthy explanation of this in another comment. Kant would be very displeased to hear 'pure reason' described as the summit of his philosophical system rather than 'experience' or 'cognition.'
We are not the centre of our universe the universe is at the centre of ourselves. We are the extremities of the universe.
This is really well done, thank you
I will not be satisfied until this channel reaches the million follower mark. That this content only has the followers that it does speaks volumes on what’s wrong with Western Society writ large.
Perhaps the main reason so many have such a problem in dealing with infinity is that it can be the most terrifying conceptual experience of all time/space and beyond.
A very helpful video. I have struggled with the texts . For anyone starting with the texts I strongly recommend the video.❤
Gotta respect that my man literally went out into the rain to record. Pure dedication.
"Kant says Hume woke him from his dogmatic slumbers, but apparently Kant went right back to sleep" is a quote I heard years ago, but I can't remember where. Bertrand Russell? Hegel? Or maybe even one of my old philosophy professors. Anyone else heard this?
Absolutely brilliant! Really inspiring. On your patreon page, you mentioned that you are looking for a video editor/animator. It would be my honor if I could get to collaborate with you on your projects. Keep up the great work. Cheers!
Wait, what. I want in on a collab.... I can only write.
❤❤❤
Our reasoning ability and willing to explore uncharted territories is our only hope to survive and master this reality .
I think therefore I am .
I notice that a lot of Kant’s ideas about reason and morality seem in line with those of the stoics. I've recently been studying Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus and can't help but notice all the similarities. Is there a connection?
Pretty darn high quality! I think everyone should watch these.
13:01 didn't Hume talk about a part of knowledge as the "relations of ideas" that can be known by the "mere operation of thought"? doesn't that include 2+2=4, every triangle has 3 sides, all bachelors are unmarried and so on?
I mean, someone might think that this idea from Hume as simple and self evident but the presumed absence of it is treated as the main motivation for Kant's work, but as the idea was not absent in Hume's we're left from the video as if Kant's epistemology was unmotivated, without any need to exist wich is a really weird way of analyzing Kant
The crux of the matter is what Hume and Kant understand the relations of ideas to be. According to Hume, our capacity to relate ideas with certainty rests only on the principle of non-contradiction. Hume argues that such relations do not produce new facts. The only source of new facts is experience. At the end of the day, different relations between the same ideas merely express the same fact in a different way (they are a form of A = A, as Kant says). Hume claims that mathematical truths are also of this kind. Kant denies this. Kant claims that there is a difference between purely logical judgments of type "either A or not-A" (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried", "the whole is equal to the sum of its parts", which he calls analytic) and judgments such as "2+2=4" or "the ratio between the diameter and the radius of a circle is constant" ("2", "+", and their combinations do not in themselves contain "4", Kant argues). The latter two judgments are synthetic - in them, besides checking for non-contradiction, reason directly apprehends the pure conditions of synthetic coherence in spatial/temporal experience to generate new knowledge (new "facts"). Such knowledge is nevertheless certain - independent of any particular experience - therefore it is a priori. This notion of a reason that can produce new facts is crucial in Kant's analysis of causality in nature where he demonstrates, against Hume, that it is a complicated form of knowledge rather than an unjustified claim of reason based on habit.
Just found this channel. It's a great explanation. You got it. You won one subscriber.
I am looking forward to this. I found a good copy of Critique of Pure Reason in a second hand bookshop for £1 and have made multiple attempts to dig into it. But every attempt was stopped dead by how (pardon my French) fucking indecipherable the text was. Hoping to pick up some tools/tips for my next attempt.
He... is thought provoking for sure but, while that can be enjoyable, the reading is work. It's building a brick and mortar structure without gloves. You'll have a strong building that'll last but you're going to experience some pain.
@@shanefoster2132 I’m happy to feel the pain. Trust me. When I did my physics degree there was a joke/common saying. “When you are feeling stupid. that’s good. It the first step to learning.” Diving into philosophy with no prior reading experience has been brutal. (I barely passed getting my English credits. )But I’m reading more literature and philosophy. And I have the most potent motivation fuel there is. A 1/1 mixture of petty spite and a love of learning. I feel the burn. I made my way through Kropotkin. I’m chugging through Spinoza and Kuhn. Next stop Kant and Feyerabend.
One word: Manifold... 》》》
Bravo! Thank you so much for the simplicity and clarity.