A heartfelt thank you; it’s a privilege to have had public access to these top university degree level lectures, from a point far removed in space and time.
I can't thank Professor Wolff enough for these lectures. It is (I can't find any word other than) "a blessing" to be able to access these deep lectures years after they were recorded. Thanks Alex for you r effort.
Just a like cannot express how much I enjoyed professor Wolff's lectures, and also thanks to Alex, who took the time to record and upload these videos. I'm really looking forward to a series of lectures on the Trascendental Dialectic.
I want to comment on how much I have enjoyed this series! Recently turned 71, I live in Kansas City, which has some increasingly intollerable long hot humid summers and I find myself a prisoner inside an air conditioned house. (In winter I don't feel I feel cozy warm....if Robert can do many asides, so can I). I spend too much time on the internet, watching movies, Facebook, etc. I had seen youtube lectures before and watched some about philosophers and thought I'd explore that again. I lacked one course at the University of Kansas to get a second major in philosophy (the other was art history) but did go on and do one year of graduate work in philosophy before I had to admit (remember that Know Thyself! admonition) that I simply lacked the brain power. But I was quite taken with Kant and actually had a one on one seminar with a new professor William Young who was a Kantian and we went through the 3rd Critique together. So I searched for Kant lectures and came across the series and was enraptured. I did the readings and watched the videos. I thought I had a glimmer of what Kant had done, but Robert brought clarity (as much as I will ever have) to my poor understanding. So I want to thank him and tell him how much I enjoyed his diversions and stories. And it pained me to think that the last lecture was given just a week before the Donald was elected and sympathize with the agony that must have brought to him.
I've been eagerly anticipating these lectures every week, and they've greatly enlightened my reading of the Critique. Thanks for sharing your analysis with us, Professor Wolff! I don't think there's anything remotely comparable in online lectures on Kant in terms of depth and clarity. I hope you'll decide at some point in the future to do a new series on the rest of the Critique or Kant's moral theory. I've started reading the Dialectic and it already pains me that I don't have professor Wolff's guidance to look forward to.
The best Kantian exposition ever. Thanks much. I already watched some videos more than once. Nice videos to bookmark for future reference. Also I hope, given the election results, the professor has not followed through on the threat about buying a one-way ticket to Paris.
I am a 2nd Year Philosophy student at the Univesity of Southampton doing a module on Kant's Critique. A massive thank you to Professor Wolff for these amazing lectures. They have helped me immensely in navigating the dense wording of the first half in the Critique. I really hope Professor Wolff does more Kant lectures.
Thank you Robert Paul Wolff and Alex Campbell. I came to look forward to each lecture as it came around in Sydney on Wednesday morning, a stimulating mental treat to go with breakfast. I now look forward to going back to read more in the Critique with the reconstructed argument in mind.
Not that I expect these questions to be answered: 1. What are the rules (for reproduction) exactly? Is Kant saying we all have the same rules, from which objectivity follows? 2. What are noumena exactly? Kant emphasizes we can never have any knowledge of them, but then what does it even mean to say they exist? Are they being postulated as what give rise to all these appearances? If so, how can we tell whether a single noumenon would suffice or we would need individual noumena (for apples and oranges, etc.)?
@@boardpassenger1483 1. The rules are the categories. Yes, Kant says we (humans) all have the same ones and that this is what allows for objectivity. (Objectivity for Kant is defined by universal validity, and the universal validity of a determination is ultimately the result of the universality of the categories.) 2. We don't know. Kant writes in the introduction to _Critique of Pure Reason_ that it would be absurd for there to be appearances without that which appears. (That's a paraphrase, but I think it's very near to Kant's exact wording.) I understand this as meaning that things-in-themselves are taken for granted. Given his use of the plural and the way he seems to talk about different things-in-themselves corresponding to different appearances (although I don't think he ever states this explicitly), I think he takes for granted a multiplicity of things-in-themselves. Many philosophers (probably most, at least most of the ones who have commented on this) consider Kant's treatment of things-in-themselves to be unjustified or inconsistent. In "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy," usually found as an appendix to _The World as Will and Representation_ , Schopenhauer cites G.E. Schulze, who argued (under a pseudonym) in _Aenesidemus_ that Kant considered things-in-themselves the causes of appearances, which is an overextension of causality because it is a merely empirical law which cannot apply to things-in-themselves. I think this argument is very widely accepted. (I don't think it's a very charitable interpretation of what Kant writes about things-in-themselves, but Kant never does give an account that explains exactly what their relation to appearances really is.) Schopenhauer writes that there cannot be a multiplicity of things-in-themselves because the principles of individuation are spatio-temporal and therefore cannot apply to things-in-themselves. (I think this is a bad argument; the fact that they're not subject to spatio-temporal principles of individuation doesn't mean they can't be subject to other principles of individuation that might exist beyond our knowledge.) Of note: Kant implies that we can have negative knowledge of things-in-themselves. This is because negative knowledge, in his eyes, is not knowledge at all. (Again, a paraphrase, but I think very near to his exact words.) Also of note, although mostly just a point of terminology: Existing is, according to Kant, a determinate property of empirical objects. Things that don't exist can still correspond to real things-in-themselves; we just determine them not to exist empirically at a given time. (I think this is a super cool approach to ontology.) Things-in-themselves never exist, although they are real.
@@thejimmymeister Thank you! I want to add something clever, but your answer is so comprehensive that all I need to do seems to be to just go read Schopenhauer :)
These lectures have been so useful. Thank you professor Robert and it would be appreciated if you continue lecturing on Kant (or any other topic). Thanks again.
Thank you Professor Wolff. This is my third attempt at Kant and I finally see a good deal of light. Thank you, Alex. I was not a philosophy major at UCLA, but this is a profound example of the challenges and satisfaction to be found in it’s study.
I belong to an eastern culture and tradition .. but the words of the esteemed Professor Wolff transcend all traditions and all culture .. There s an ancient eastern tradition that belongs to Sufi circles where the student is allowed to kiss the hand of the teacher .. I kiss your hand Professor Wolff out of respect for this wonderful illuminating series .. I hope we see you continuing this project on Kant in future series .. Thanks and God bless ..
Ended up reading the rest of the critique and it is now probably the most rewarding and impactful books I've ever picked up. All really thanks to the professor here, as the initial hand holding at the start really made it a text I could start to grapple with and understand. Still very much thankfully for this set of lectures and always will be.
You were wrong, TH-cam could have used many more hours of this. I will watch these nine videos until I can form my own opinion. Meanwhile, the categorical imperative is the most useful lesson I take from Kant. Thanks for making philosophy really interesting and fun.
This lecture series has been the most intense, convincing and successful encounter with the critique I ever had. Where many masters, in my regards, have failed to forward Kant's Critique to me and fellow colleagues, R.P. Wolff has succeeded with bravado. Can someone tell me where to get a copy of his book on the Critique? It seems to need a reprint!!! Thank you Prof. Wolf for the lecture and thank you Alex for the upload!!!
The point is not who is correct Leibniz or Newton but where to iniciate an argument so the undestanding be easy to get to other part since they are two parts of the same unit.
From my reading of Kant I ended up with an appreciation for the suspicion that any mental activity can result in a certainty about anything. All that about which we may have certainty is merely the conclusions we will make about stuff based on how the stuff is presented in a way that presupposes the conclusions. Then, if people are inclined towards honesty they can at least agree on the conclusions, even though they have not choice but to agree, else they be dishonest. As Nietzsche pointed out, the question remains as to whether humans are inherently honest, or only instrumentally honest. From Kant's detailed and long-winded CPR we can at least understand how instrumental honesty is possible, which can then explain how quite far in the past of human history merchants and accountants were in agreement about the importance of measuring and weighing. When one party is cheating, the other party feels cheated because he/she is predestined to know that appearences are not matching up with what was expected. In these lectures, Prof Wolff did not touch upon what I think was Kant's early warning about the perfectness of Reason, namely that thinking as we must in terms of time, space and number we quickly get to the idea of infinity of time space and number, which is by definition something or some state which is not possible to experience. Kant gives that warning or suspicion early on but does not re-emphasize it later. I will say that some of what comes out of Quantum Physics, like double-slit experiment, actually does go into a realm beyond our pre-configured faculty of Reason, and is the reason we say the double-slit experiment does not make sense......that is, it can't be processed into a unity of understanding. Recently, listening to an audio book on YT of Will Durant's Story of India, I was surprised to learn that philosophers in HIndustan had already considered most of the whole gamut of European philosophy up to about the mid 19th century and came to a conclusion like that of William Rorty, that it's all argument that get's caught up in technical definitions of words, and so the Hindus just concluded that "it's all an illusion", and turned towards pragmatism of the average person, the householder, along the lines of the Vedas....which at least explains why India today is a polite society.
India today is a polite society? Whoah. Ever heard of caste? India is the deadest, most inequal and static society anywhere in the world today. It a society where master-servant morality is so out in the open. What you see as 'politeness' is not politeness at all; it is fear.
Thanks for the prompt response. You guys are doing a wonderful work making these available to all. For somebody like me who has no proper access to academic resources (where I live nobody reads, not even in the so-called universities here) these have been helpful. After completion of Critique I move to Hegel's Phenomenology where Gregory Sadler's lectures are waiting. Thanks.
If you read some oriental classics like Daoism or Buddhism sutras about cosmos, about substance and spirit, about reality and consciousness, etc, you may have a good reference or even better understanding regarding these things. Great human minds think alike, whenever and wherever.
Great lecture. Thanks for your perspective. I would say, however, which you didn't, is that though Kant argues against the rational proofs for the existence of God, he doesn't argue against faith in God. Rather Kant argues for a moral reason for believing in the existence of God, or force Majeure, freedom and justice. Also, surprising that Kant's argument in the Prolegammena was not even mentioned: How are synthetic A Priori statements possible? and that if you have a better solution then give it and he would acquiesce the field. That seems to be the entirety of the Critique, that synthetic a priori statements are possible and to describe how, the only way they are possible, through the concepts of time and space. Also, I hope you kept your word about the election. Many said the same thing. If Trump wins then you would leave and not come back. So I presume you are living in Paris? Would love to visit with you there. I would even make a special trip just to sit on the Leftbank and drink wine with you.
Kant estar certo de que a experiencia necessaria como base de onde o movto para o conhecimento como o primeiro movto por questao de identificacao do sujeito da acao em foco.
Alguns processos precisam passar pelo empirico antes da alcancar o estado da gnose, outros nao, estes, ser necessario passar direto a gnose sem a interferencia da experiencia.
After multiple readings of Kant's Critique it became clear that the "rule" Kant repeatedly posits is the ruling order of time, the objective order in which things happen which unifies everything by placing everything into a time relationship with everything else. Wolff is right in inferring that the major significance of Kant regards time and what it makes possible: number, memory and imaginative reproductivity, causation, and reason itself. Any other take on Kant is a sidetrack.
I don't exactly regret having slogged through all nine of these, but let's face it-Professor Wolff is a) smart, no question, and b) an affable old fella, but his digressions are, for the most part, narcissistic and godawful, and these nine hours of lectures could have been condensed down to one, concise, 90 minutes top lecture, hence saving a good deal of space and time in the process. Not that space and time are anything but our forms of intuition.
"the only way to introduce synthetic unity into a manifold of contents of consciousness" -- -----[ the ...way - to introduce - ___ ___ into a ___ __ ______ __ _____________ ] :: --- "to introduce" -- "is by reproducing it by imagination according to a rule" [---is by----reproducing it _ -_-____//according _ _ ___-_- ]--- "reproducing it" //// introducing it - so that is the first time ? - or - me , legally, looking at the m of c of c - is to - ie in my conception - I can introduce xy - to make sense - if it is a correct description/idea - so I have to assume : unity - unity - that is - unifying [this is getting psychological] - unifying the consciousness (?) what the ? synthetic unity ---according to a rule - the imagination works out the rule - so that’s physical ? or the imagination is ruled by the rule - reproduce the synthetic unity - I have to imagine it - synthetic - the idea - that it’s beyond - transcendent
Have you watched the entire series of videos? There's one class in which he expounds upon this analogy of the unity of consciousness and objective reality.
i think this elaboration on the logic of the causal maxim is RUBBISH very minute thing in the critique lecturer on freud marx and kant, and ...doesnt read german hahaha thats like a pianoplayer with no hands
A heartfelt thank you; it’s a privilege to have had public access to these top university degree level lectures, from a point far removed in space and time.
I can't thank Professor Wolff enough for these lectures. It is (I can't find any word other than) "a blessing" to be able to access these deep lectures years after they were recorded. Thanks Alex for you r effort.
Just a like cannot express how much I enjoyed professor Wolff's lectures, and also thanks to Alex, who took the time to record and upload these videos. I'm really looking forward to a series of lectures on the Trascendental Dialectic.
I want to comment on how much I have enjoyed this series! Recently turned 71, I live in Kansas City, which has some increasingly intollerable long hot humid summers and I find myself a prisoner inside an air conditioned house. (In winter I don't feel I feel cozy warm....if Robert can do many asides, so can I). I spend too much time on the internet, watching movies, Facebook, etc. I had seen youtube lectures before and watched some about philosophers and thought I'd explore that again. I lacked one course at the University of Kansas to get a second major in philosophy (the other was art history) but did go on and do one year of graduate work in philosophy before I had to admit (remember that Know Thyself! admonition) that I simply lacked the brain power. But I was quite taken with Kant and actually had a one on one seminar with a new professor William Young who was a Kantian and we went through the 3rd Critique together. So I searched for Kant lectures and came across the series and was enraptured. I did the readings and watched the videos. I thought I had a glimmer of what Kant had done, but Robert brought clarity (as much as I will ever have) to my poor understanding. So I want to thank him and tell him how much I enjoyed his diversions and stories. And it pained me to think that the last lecture was given just a week before the Donald was elected and sympathize with the agony that must have brought to him.
Thanks Professor. This was indeed a treat to watch.
I just cannot thank highly enough for these excellent lectures, Professor Wolff. I am deeply grateful. Now I can go back and read Kant again
Thank you, Professor Wolff. I really enjoyed the lectures. Thank you, Alex Campbell, as well.
I've been eagerly anticipating these lectures every week, and they've greatly enlightened my reading of the Critique. Thanks for sharing your analysis with us, Professor Wolff! I don't think there's anything remotely comparable in online lectures on Kant in terms of depth and clarity. I hope you'll decide at some point in the future to do a new series on the rest of the Critique or Kant's moral theory. I've started reading the Dialectic and it already pains me that I don't have professor Wolff's guidance to look forward to.
The best Kantian exposition ever. Thanks much. I already watched some videos more than once. Nice videos to bookmark for future reference. Also I hope, given the election results, the professor has not followed through on the threat about buying a one-way ticket to Paris.
What a blessing to get this teaching by someone so involved in his favourite kind of thing
I am a 2nd Year Philosophy student at the Univesity of Southampton doing a module on Kant's Critique. A massive thank you to Professor Wolff for these amazing lectures. They have helped me immensely in navigating the dense wording of the first half in the Critique. I really hope Professor Wolff does more Kant lectures.
Thank you Robert Paul Wolff and Alex Campbell. I came to look forward to each lecture as it came around in Sydney on Wednesday morning, a stimulating mental treat to go with breakfast. I now look forward to going back to read more in the Critique with the reconstructed argument in mind.
A delight.
A wonderfully helpful series! Thank you.
Thank you for these invaluable lectures! This has been an exciting journey for me.
Not that I expect these questions to be answered:
1. What are the rules (for reproduction) exactly? Is Kant saying we all have the same rules, from which objectivity follows?
2. What are noumena exactly? Kant emphasizes we can never have any knowledge of them, but then what does it even mean to say they exist? Are they being postulated as what give rise to all these appearances? If so, how can we tell whether a single noumenon would suffice or we would need individual noumena (for apples and oranges, etc.)?
@@boardpassenger1483 1. The rules are the categories. Yes, Kant says we (humans) all have the same ones and that this is what allows for objectivity. (Objectivity for Kant is defined by universal validity, and the universal validity of a determination is ultimately the result of the universality of the categories.)
2. We don't know.
Kant writes in the introduction to _Critique of Pure Reason_ that it would be absurd for there to be appearances without that which appears. (That's a paraphrase, but I think it's very near to Kant's exact wording.) I understand this as meaning that things-in-themselves are taken for granted. Given his use of the plural and the way he seems to talk about different things-in-themselves corresponding to different appearances (although I don't think he ever states this explicitly), I think he takes for granted a multiplicity of things-in-themselves.
Many philosophers (probably most, at least most of the ones who have commented on this) consider Kant's treatment of things-in-themselves to be unjustified or inconsistent. In "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy," usually found as an appendix to _The World as Will and Representation_ , Schopenhauer cites G.E. Schulze, who argued (under a pseudonym) in _Aenesidemus_ that Kant considered things-in-themselves the causes of appearances, which is an overextension of causality because it is a merely empirical law which cannot apply to things-in-themselves. I think this argument is very widely accepted. (I don't think it's a very charitable interpretation of what Kant writes about things-in-themselves, but Kant never does give an account that explains exactly what their relation to appearances really is.)
Schopenhauer writes that there cannot be a multiplicity of things-in-themselves because the principles of individuation are spatio-temporal and therefore cannot apply to things-in-themselves. (I think this is a bad argument; the fact that they're not subject to spatio-temporal principles of individuation doesn't mean they can't be subject to other principles of individuation that might exist beyond our knowledge.)
Of note: Kant implies that we can have negative knowledge of things-in-themselves. This is because negative knowledge, in his eyes, is not knowledge at all. (Again, a paraphrase, but I think very near to his exact words.)
Also of note, although mostly just a point of terminology: Existing is, according to Kant, a determinate property of empirical objects. Things that don't exist can still correspond to real things-in-themselves; we just determine them not to exist empirically at a given time. (I think this is a super cool approach to ontology.) Things-in-themselves never exist, although they are real.
@@thejimmymeister Thank you! I want to add something clever, but your answer is so comprehensive that all I need to do seems to be to just go read Schopenhauer :)
Thanks, Professor Wolff, the course is really inspiring.
Brilliant summary of the. series of lectures!
Thanks for sharing these Alex and Paul. It helped a lot with me getting through CoPR.
Thank you Alex and Prof. Wolff.
Thank you for uploading these lectures
These lectures have been so useful. Thank you professor Robert and it would be appreciated if you continue lecturing on Kant (or any other topic). Thanks again.
thanks for these lectures, sir! They were very enjoyable and instructive.
Thanks to evryone involved :-)
Thank you so much, Prof Wolff and Mr. Campbell! Immense gratitude
Thank you Professor Wolff. This is my third attempt at Kant and I finally see a good deal of light. Thank you, Alex. I was not a philosophy major at UCLA, but this is a profound example of the challenges and satisfaction to be found in it’s study.
Thank you very much, prof. Wolff for this great lectures. Also thanks to Alex for uploading the videos.
Amazing exposition of this incredible work Prof Wolff, I and surely many others are hoping to see more in the future.
I wish RPW would put up more lectures on the Critique
Thank you so much for these lectures. :)
I belong to an eastern culture and tradition .. but the words of the esteemed Professor Wolff transcend all traditions and all culture .. There s an ancient eastern tradition that belongs to Sufi circles where the student is allowed to kiss the hand of the teacher .. I kiss your hand Professor Wolff out of respect for this wonderful illuminating series .. I hope we see you continuing this project on Kant in future series .. Thanks and God bless ..
Thank you from Hong Kong
Thanks, Mr. Wolff. It's been a blast!
Not only helpful, but enjoyed it as well. Thanks very much.
God what I would give for more or this! Just so appreciated, thank you professor!
Ended up reading the rest of the critique and it is now probably the most rewarding and impactful books I've ever picked up. All really thanks to the professor here, as the initial hand holding at the start really made it a text I could start to grapple with and understand. Still very much thankfully for this set of lectures and always will be.
Great series, thought provoking and engaging. Sorry about the election.
Wonderful series of lectures! Thanks!
Thank you professor Wolff.
Thank you very much for the lectures!
Amazing content and delivery
Thank you, i enjoyed watching your lectures.
Thank you so much Sir, cheers
I enjoyed watching these lectures, they gave my a better understanding of the first part of the critique. You receive my sincere thanks.
You were wrong, TH-cam could have used many more hours of this. I will watch these nine videos until I can form my own opinion. Meanwhile, the categorical imperative is the most useful lesson I take from Kant. Thanks for making philosophy really interesting and fun.
Great job Mr. Wolff , thnx indeed for your lectures
Please, More.
What a journey. Thanks!!
This lecture series has been the most intense, convincing and successful encounter with the critique I ever had. Where many masters, in my regards, have failed to forward Kant's Critique to me and fellow colleagues, R.P. Wolff has succeeded with bravado. Can someone tell me where to get a copy of his book on the Critique? It seems to need a reprint!!! Thank you Prof. Wolf for the lecture and thank you Alex for the upload!!!
hello, are the lectures on the second half of the critique recorded?
Very well put, thank you.
The point is not who is correct Leibniz or Newton but where to iniciate an argument so the undestanding be easy to get to other part since they are two parts of the same unit.
Thank you
From my reading of Kant I ended up with an appreciation for the suspicion that any mental activity can result in a certainty about anything. All that about which we may have certainty is merely the conclusions we will make about stuff based on how the stuff is presented in a way that presupposes the conclusions. Then, if people are inclined towards honesty they can at least agree on the conclusions, even though they have not choice but to agree, else they be dishonest. As Nietzsche pointed out, the question remains as to whether humans are inherently honest, or only instrumentally honest.
From Kant's detailed and long-winded CPR we can at least understand how instrumental honesty is possible, which can then explain how quite far in the past of human history merchants and accountants were in agreement about the importance of measuring and weighing. When one party is cheating, the other party feels cheated because he/she is predestined to know that appearences are not matching up with what was expected.
In these lectures, Prof Wolff did not touch upon what I think was Kant's early warning about the perfectness of Reason, namely that thinking as we must in terms of time, space and number we quickly get to the idea of infinity of time space and number, which is by definition something or some state which is not possible to experience. Kant gives that warning or suspicion early on but does not re-emphasize it later.
I will say that some of what comes out of Quantum Physics, like double-slit experiment, actually does go into a realm beyond our pre-configured faculty of Reason, and is the reason we say the double-slit experiment does not make sense......that is, it can't be processed into a unity of understanding.
Recently, listening to an audio book on YT of Will Durant's Story of India, I was surprised to learn that philosophers in HIndustan had already considered most of the whole gamut of European philosophy up to about the mid 19th century and came to a conclusion like that of William Rorty, that it's all argument that get's caught up in technical definitions of words, and so the Hindus just concluded that "it's all an illusion", and turned towards pragmatism of the average person, the householder, along the lines of the Vedas....which at least explains why India today is a polite society.
India today is a polite society? Whoah. Ever heard of caste? India is the deadest, most inequal and static society anywhere in the world today. It a society where master-servant morality is so out in the open. What you see as 'politeness' is not politeness at all; it is fear.
Thank you, sir.
Experience is important as well is reason because both are parte of the unit realm.
Quite superb.
Great summary. Direct and practical. No unnecessary stories :)
Thankyou so much!
Thanks, professor. (Honestly, I did not understand everything. I will understand more, as I replay the lessons, hopefully !)
Any chance of Prof Wolff coming back to do the rest of the book?
No plans to at the moment. If we did another lecture series, I take it that it would likely not be on Kant.
Thanks for the prompt response. You guys are doing a wonderful work making these available to all. For somebody like me who has no proper access to academic resources (where I live nobody reads, not even in the so-called universities here) these have been helpful. After completion of Critique I move to Hegel's Phenomenology where Gregory Sadler's lectures are waiting. Thanks.
If you read some oriental classics like Daoism or Buddhism sutras about cosmos, about substance and spirit, about reality and consciousness, etc, you may have a good reference or even better understanding regarding these things. Great human minds think alike, whenever and wherever.
Part of what we can know needs the senses.
Great lecture. Thanks for your perspective. I would say, however, which you didn't, is that though Kant argues against the rational proofs for the existence of God, he doesn't argue against faith in God. Rather Kant argues for a moral reason for believing in the existence of God, or force Majeure, freedom and justice. Also, surprising that Kant's argument in the Prolegammena was not even mentioned: How are synthetic A Priori statements possible? and that if you have a better solution then give it and he would acquiesce the field. That seems to be the entirety of the Critique, that synthetic a priori statements are possible and to describe how, the only way they are possible, through the concepts of time and space.
Also, I hope you kept your word about the election. Many said the same thing. If Trump wins then you would leave and not come back. So I presume you are living in Paris? Would love to visit with you there. I would even make a special trip just to sit on the Leftbank and drink wine with you.
Bom censo de sentido. Bom!!!!!
Kant estar certo de que a experiencia necessaria como base de onde o movto para o conhecimento como o primeiro movto por questao de identificacao do sujeito da acao em foco.
Kant's theory of mental activity and the double nature of Kant's notion of representation
O conflito entre empirico e espirito nao reside no causal mas no entendimento tecnico da questao,
Newton se alinha com o empirico como bom ingles; Leibniz nao, como bom continental, segue Descartes.
Looking at the dates this was recorded the day before the US presidential election?!
Alguns processos precisam passar pelo empirico antes da alcancar o estado da gnose, outros nao, estes, ser necessario passar direto a gnose sem a interferencia da experiencia.
Maybe Kant dropped the concepts-as-rules idea in the second edition because he realized it undermined his ethical philosophy.
After multiple readings of Kant's Critique it became clear that the "rule" Kant repeatedly posits is the ruling order of time, the objective order in which things happen which unifies everything by placing everything into a time relationship with everything else. Wolff is right in inferring that the major significance of Kant regards time and what it makes possible: number, memory and imaginative reproductivity, causation, and reason itself. Any other take on Kant is a sidetrack.
This was a great series of lectures . Much appreciated. Go TRUMP!
You were doing so well, then spoiled it with your last two words...
2 dislikes...hmmmm...oh well, Philosophy is not for them
I don't exactly regret having slogged through all nine of these, but let's face it-Professor Wolff is a) smart, no question, and b) an affable old fella, but his digressions are, for the most part, narcissistic and godawful, and these nine hours of lectures could have been condensed down to one, concise, 90 minutes top lecture, hence saving a good deal of space and time in the process. Not that space and time are anything but our forms of intuition.
This is the day he found out Trump became our President-mark of objectivity-necessity of connection . Hahaha hence 31 min brief lecture .
33 min only..? He must’ve found out Trump was his president
"the only way to introduce synthetic unity into a
manifold of contents of consciousness" -- -----[ the ...way -
to introduce - ___ ___ into a ___ __ ______ __ _____________ ]
:: --- "to introduce" -- "is by
reproducing it by imagination according to a rule" [---is
by----reproducing it _ -_-____//according _ _ ___-_- ]--- "reproducing
it" //// introducing it - so that is the first time ? -
or - me , legally, looking at the m of c of c - is to - ie in my conception
- I can introduce xy - to make sense - if it is a correct description/idea - so
I have to assume : unity - unity - that is -
unifying [this is getting psychological] - unifying the consciousness (?)
what the ? synthetic unity ---according to a rule - the imagination
works out the rule - so that’s physical ? or the imagination is ruled by the rule - reproduce the synthetic unity - I
have to imagine it - synthetic - the idea - that it’s beyond - transcendent
Have you watched the entire series of videos?
There's one class in which he expounds upon this analogy of the unity of consciousness and objective reality.
Are you ok?
It has really almost nothing to do with Kant. Nothing more than a joke, a bad joke. Kant would hate him.
i think this elaboration on the logic of the causal maxim is RUBBISH
very minute thing in the critique
lecturer on freud marx and kant, and ...doesnt read german hahaha
thats like a pianoplayer with no hands
thank you