I'd agree that Kant is the greatest of them all. You read just the introduction and there is a huge amount of information and insight. You get into the transcendental aesthetic and it becomes incredibly challenging - you have to reread it just to grasp his most basic of his immensely complex points. You can read it 10 times over and you still know that there is10 times more knowledge that you have not uncovered. Then you head into the transcendental logic. My word. I've never felt so small in my intellect. The amount of information and complexity of argument is simply beyond my intellectual capacity to ever comprehend 'most' of it. I've stayed up all night half asleep, half awake from just reading the transcendental aesthetic chapter with thoughts reflecting how profound the chapter I've just read.
a couple of things that comes out of this talk: we can't know what the world is, but we can know the world on how we perceive it. To see the world we see out spectacles that is our preconceived knowledge. Science is concerned with what we see through spectacles, rather than finding the reality or the things in itself.
Synthentic A Priori is where Kant conducts his Copernican revolution, reveling how the mind structures the input from the world .Kant focuses on the mind as the center of human knowledge so therefore nouemena would never be accessible to us. After Kant no discussion of knowledge took place without the awareness of the human mind constructing reality.That is why sometimes philosophy is divided into post and pre Kant.
P2) It is the intellectual tension between these two concepts that have driven Western Civilization forward to discovery (science) through rationalism & empiricism in parallel to understand context & be apt to it - that is why we have evolved both instinctive reflex & free-will to make rational decisions; Ethics is not only about cultural norms (traditions of solutions to problems) but also the rationality of morals - in any scientific or ethical discussion leads to democratic judgement.
The Kantian philosophy is actually simple to understand; less its system built in a complex and problematic mode. He did nothing but give a scientific form to what which Plato expressed in a mythical form. I would like to suggest to read Schopenhauer who, in my opinion, is the best exegete and emendator of his philosophy.
Is there any boundary between science and Metaphysics ? if so, then what is the boundary. As for Synthetic a priori, All scientific/mathematical principles are synthetic a priori. Could it be that science is merely a subset of metaphysics. can 7 + 5 = 12 be analytic a priori ? Can we define 7 and 5 in such way that we can derive 12 thru definition?
Xiao 晓 Chen 陈 Science is empirical and mathematics can be synthetic a priori but not necessarily empirical. The two can't always be grouped together. That is mathmatical rules can be invented to describe any possible phenomenon but it doesn't demonstrate whether such phenomenon actually exists. This is where science is useful is that it is the ONLY method that can demonstrate whether any claim is true.
Nathaniel Zhu Science is not necessarily empirical neither. For example in physics there is conservation of mass. This law states that ALL matter or energy is conserved in a closed system. Notice the ALL. Is it possible to empirically observe ALL matter and ALL energy in the universe are conserved in a closed system, off course not. We are make an synthetic a priori judgement not an empirical judgement.
Science makes such assertions as a simplification. My physics professors have said that in reality, the Laws of Conservation deviate by a tiny amount, so the "all" in this case is merely saying, "it appears that all matter and energy is conserved" but the "all" isn't used in such a way that it can be believed with 100% certainty. Science relies on models based on observation. It appears that the conservation of energy is true based on empirical studies such as in combustion- matter is supposedly conserved but it's not by a very tiny amount but I assume during the time the observation was made, the scientists did not have the precise instruments we have today. Science attempts to make generalizations to a larger scale but the point is, any terms that scientists may use that appears to be synthetic a priori is not so because it isn't assumed to be knowledge. However scientists aren't afraid to speculate but any speculation results in hypotheses and hypotheses is not knowledge. String theory for example isn't taken seriously as a science by many scientists since it is synthetic a priori. However since it isn't empirical, no scientist can claim it has any truth value. It is not a justified belief.
P3) This why rational ethics such as consent & responsibility underpin concepts in law such as consent, citizenship principle of natural rights & duties to fellow citizens and the national society community - this is why written constitutions have emerged as the highest law & citizens manual to that law;
"We KANT really know how the world is; all we can know is how we perceive it" Did KANT set out to ex-HUME metaphysics and un-LOCKE the mysteries of human understanding? (Tee,hee-hee)
(Mainly a Stoic idea) Rationalism - everything is knowable given enough effort & time. = gives an understanding of context & ethics. (Epicurean) Empirical - nothing is knowable - leads to the scientific principle of removing the margin of error = provision of things (material) or the understanding of biological stages. So whilst science (from the epicurean branch) provides a principle & method - its final conclusion is neutral; Rational (Stoic - implies Ethical norms i.e consent) = decision
the concept of female in the beginning is not include in the concept sister. After reflections one reach the ANALITIC conclusion: All sister are female. For a no mathematician 7+5 does not include the concept 12. For a mathematician it is.
P4) so that there is no law with out scrutiny & by consent since it is the citizens individual & collective responsibility for there well being & their whole nation; underpins why amendments are legitimate to avoid the Tyranny of dead generations views of what laws should be as their views may be not fit to the present context to apt for a citizen & nation now.
You know, I'm really not interested in things that are needlessly difficult to understand. Either the explanation is made easy by the teacher or the teacher is garbage. Perhaps Kant was a great thinker, But, my goodness, what a terrible teacher.
I'd agree that Kant is the greatest of them all. You read just the introduction and there is a huge amount of information and insight. You get into the transcendental aesthetic and it becomes incredibly challenging - you have to reread it just to grasp his most basic of his immensely complex points. You can read it 10 times over and you still know that there is10 times more knowledge that you have not uncovered. Then you head into the transcendental logic. My word. I've never felt so small in my intellect. The amount of information and complexity of argument is simply beyond my intellectual capacity to ever comprehend 'most' of it. I've stayed up all night half asleep, half awake from just reading the transcendental aesthetic chapter with thoughts reflecting how profound the chapter I've just read.
Sorry for s many comments - philosophy is very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for uploading. I subscribed.
All the best
David
Thanks, helped a lot for my philosophy course. I struggled with Kant's theory
a couple of things that comes out of this talk: we can't know what the world is, but we can know the world on how we perceive it. To see the world we see out spectacles that is our preconceived knowledge. Science is concerned with what we see through spectacles, rather than finding the reality or the things in itself.
Thanks for the upload it really helped my reading
Not a bad explanation, fairly clear. Thank you
Synthentic A Priori is where Kant conducts his Copernican revolution, reveling how the mind structures the input from the world .Kant focuses on the mind as the center of human knowledge so therefore nouemena would never be accessible to us. After Kant no discussion of knowledge took place without the awareness of the human mind constructing reality.That is why sometimes philosophy is divided into post and pre Kant.
P2) It is the intellectual tension between these two concepts that have driven Western Civilization forward to discovery (science) through rationalism & empiricism in parallel to understand context & be apt to it - that is why we have evolved both instinctive reflex & free-will to make rational decisions; Ethics is not only about cultural norms (traditions of solutions to problems) but also the rationality of morals - in any scientific or ethical discussion leads to democratic judgement.
Interesting comment. I've never heard any philosophers say Kant isn't a philosopher even when they disagree strongly with his positions.
Awesome!
The Kantian philosophy is actually simple to understand; less its system built in a complex and problematic mode. He did nothing but give a scientific form to what which Plato expressed in a mythical form. I would like to suggest to read Schopenhauer who, in my opinion, is the best exegete and emendator of his philosophy.
thanks for this
Is there any boundary between science and Metaphysics ? if so, then what is the boundary.
As for Synthetic a priori, All scientific/mathematical principles are synthetic a priori. Could it be that science is merely a subset of metaphysics.
can 7 + 5 = 12 be analytic a priori ? Can we define 7 and 5 in such way that we can derive 12 thru definition?
Xiao 晓 Chen 陈
Science is empirical and mathematics can be synthetic a priori but not necessarily empirical. The two can't always be grouped together. That is mathmatical rules can be invented to describe any possible phenomenon but it doesn't demonstrate whether such phenomenon actually exists. This is where science is useful is that it is the ONLY method that can demonstrate whether any claim is true.
Nathaniel Zhu Science is not necessarily empirical neither. For example in physics there is conservation of mass. This law states that ALL matter or energy is conserved in a closed system. Notice the ALL. Is it possible to empirically observe ALL matter and ALL energy in the universe are conserved in a closed system, off course not. We are make an synthetic a priori judgement not an empirical judgement.
Science makes such assertions as a simplification. My physics professors have said that in reality, the Laws of Conservation deviate by a tiny amount, so the "all" in this case is merely saying, "it appears that all matter and energy is conserved" but the "all" isn't used in such a way that it can be believed with 100% certainty. Science relies on models based on observation. It appears that the conservation of energy is true based on empirical studies such as in combustion- matter is supposedly conserved but it's not by a very tiny amount but I assume during the time the observation was made, the scientists did not have the precise instruments we have today. Science attempts to make generalizations to a larger scale but the point is, any terms that scientists may use that appears to be synthetic a priori is not so because it isn't assumed to be knowledge. However scientists aren't afraid to speculate but any speculation results in hypotheses and hypotheses is not knowledge.
String theory for example isn't taken seriously as a science by many scientists since it is synthetic a priori. However since it isn't empirical, no scientist can claim it has any truth value. It is not a justified belief.
oops, never mind. You gave credit to Plato....my bad.
P3) This why rational ethics such as consent & responsibility underpin concepts in law such as consent, citizenship principle of natural rights & duties to fellow citizens and the national society community - this is why written constitutions have emerged as the highest law & citizens manual to that law;
The republic was written by plato, the allegory of the cave was a story in the republic.
"We KANT really know how the world is; all we can know is how we perceive it" Did KANT set out to ex-HUME metaphysics and un-LOCKE the mysteries of human understanding? (Tee,hee-hee)
(Mainly a Stoic idea) Rationalism - everything is knowable given enough effort & time. = gives an understanding of context & ethics.
(Epicurean) Empirical - nothing is knowable - leads to the scientific principle of removing the margin of error = provision of things (material) or the understanding of biological stages.
So whilst science (from the epicurean branch) provides a principle & method - its final conclusion is neutral; Rational (Stoic - implies Ethical norms i.e consent) = decision
the concept of female in the beginning is not include in the concept sister. After reflections one reach the ANALITIC conclusion: All sister are female. For a no mathematician 7+5 does not include the concept 12. For a mathematician it is.
Hegel is the greatest of all time
i grew brain cells durig this video
P4) so that there is no law with out scrutiny & by consent since it is the citizens individual & collective responsibility for there well being & their whole nation; underpins why amendments are legitimate to avoid the Tyranny of dead generations views of what laws should be as their views may be not fit to the present context to apt for a citizen & nation now.
Totally different... there is just no argument-- try.
You know, I'm really not interested in things that are needlessly difficult to understand. Either the explanation is made easy by the teacher or the teacher is garbage. Perhaps Kant was a great thinker,
But, my goodness, what a terrible teacher.
Boring