Kant's Prolegomena - Introduction & Section 1 - "Intuition" and the Possibility of "Pure Mathematics

[@Perjorativeterm]

I’m SO stoked about this channel. Thanks for posting this

[@ismaelspechtintuition3519]

Professor Adam, your classes are great. I love the way you present hard stuff in a straightforward manner. Thanks for sharing.

[@dreambinger]

I stumbled upon these--thanks for posting these Dr. Rosenfield.

[@auddangelodias3507]

MUITÍSSIMO grato, aula muito interessante e esclarecedora.

[@christie_quite_contrary1657]

Thank you so much for sharing this!

[@dabYaching]

Aristotle on nous at 27:50, see SEP: Aristotle describes mind (nous, often also rendered as “intellect” or “reason”) as “the part of the soul by which it knows and understands” (De Anima iii 4, 429a9-10; cf. iii 3, 428a5; iii 9, 432b26; iii 12, 434b3), thus characterizing it in broadly functional terms.

[@dubbelkastrull]

27:41 Where Aristotle talks about Nous. 1:02:18 Parmenides 50:38 Empty Space & Empty Time 1:04:00 bookmark

[@andrewdornan3942]

thank god this exists

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

I love how slooowly the problem of induction starts creeping in again: What's Kant's justification for the pure intuitions? Seemingly it is that every time in the past, our thoughts an experiences have had a spacial dimension to them and followed sequentially, and yet this doesn't justify us saying the intuitions must remain that way in the future. Certainlty doesn't grant us justification to make such a claim about other minds, out there in the world, that we haven't experienced. Maybe the operate completely differently, but thoughts arise nontheless. He also doesn't really nail down why this has to be a priori. Sure, we can grant these intuitions are a prerequisite to have experiences, but that doesn't stop our brain from "absorbing raw sense data" without us being aware of it. It could be that in the first few months of fetus development, the brain is gathering raw sense data for lack of a better term, randomly organizing it, with time, without time, without space, without space and time, until it finds a combination that works. Then it uses that intuition framwork to categorize the sense data in a way that gives rise to consciousness and experience. To call this underlying process "knowledge" is a bit misleading. Because even though the result is us experiencing things, what's meant by "know" here? About the world? Not really. About us? also not really, since we never experience the intuitions directly, we can't claim they're there, truly. All we can do is infer, and make assumptions, exactly like we do of the world at large.

[@mikeg.1611]

Intuitive thought only goes so far as long as we are in this body it's impossible to have pure thoughts but they can go so far in space and time it's totally metaphysical he seems to hide behind a priori however like his explanation of synthetic

[@lijiahou178]

Thank you!!!

[@averroesaverroes4257]

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽thanks

[@mt70092]

Doesn't Schopenhauer make a point somewhat related to what the person asked about with space and time at about the one hour mark but with regards to art? As in art tries to depict a thing in of itself because, for example, a painting has no real conception of space(I think) or time when looked and pondered at, revealing or trying to depict a thing or topic in of itself.

[@meowwwww6350]

Why no new videos since 2020?

[@mt70092]

If we take time and space to be a knowing thing we have outside of experience (which I think we can when pondering the thought), can't we then lump in cause and effect into said space and time prior to experience, therefore excluding it out of faulty inductive reasoning, and in turn answering Hume's problem of induction?

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Nope it's your personal orientation in a temporal containment, you are responsible for any changes. You can't lump them into something else. I'm sure you could but not recommended. And why would he want that? And when? Because he lost his brother because of that.

[@SlightysBack]

Hey Adam! What would Kant say to a person, who is blind and deaf and who is living in a room without other sensual feedback. In his theory he would not have any intutions, right? Does that mean, that he would not have any experience and/or thinking whatsoever? This does not sit quite right with me...

[@SlightysBack]

Adam Luis elaborate…