Kant's Prolegomena - Section 2 - Understanding and the Possibility of Pure Natural Science

[@AC-nx9vz]

God bless this guy's soul

[@widad8505]

Thank you!!!! you are an amazing professor!!

[@dubbelkastrull]

50:37 Transcendental Object 50:59 "Hume say we just do it by custom and habit and that it can't be grounded" 51:36 Transcendental Unity of Aperception (About the Transcendental Self) 58:50 "The only way they can have subjective validity is if there is a subject." 59:28 Hume vs Kant on the Transcendental Leap. 1:01:05 Can't perceive the perceiver.

[@mt70092]

Can't we necessarily know our body in of themselves? Like, I can for example understand my desires, but in a way where I can differentiate between pure desires I wish I desired (such as reading/writing philosophy all day), and just random desires (such as sex drives). Also, I think we do necessarily take a step back from the intuition of time at least when we look at something such as a photograph or painting, which do not seem to have any concept of time, only space.

[@degenerateme4356]

So the first thing to remember is that we cannot experience things-in-themselves. Why is this? I cannot say for sure as i, presumably just as you, have just begun wrestling with Kant. My interpretation however, is that due to Kant’s insistence that experience relies upon the intuitions being filtered through pure intuitions and then concepts before experience is actual experience we cannot then have knowledge of something void of this process. What does this mean? From what i have gathered this means Kant thinks we cannot experience objects as they are in themselves because for cognition to be possible it needs to run through a sort of filter. “Even if we cannot cognize these same objects as things in themselves, we at least must be able to think them as things in themselves. For otherwise there would follow the absurd proposition that there is an appearances without anything that appears.” Now, as for the question of the photograph. A photograph might be a representation of space, and the aspect of space is often what we seem to focus on when we see a photograph, but it is a representation of that exact moment of time as well, or more importantly we cannot experience looking at a photograph without experiencing time. Now to appreciate this i think we really have to try our best to think of empty time. I know personally that no matter how hard i try to think of the concept of no time at all i am still thinking of time-even if a very small quantity of time. But perhaps this gets at the problem better, Kant is first and foremost addressing epistemology and human understanding. The essential topic Kant is addressing is the grounds of human nature and human knowledge (transcendental). When Kant is talking about space and time it is easy to forget that he is talking about them as pure intuitions necessary for experience. Meaning, we cannot experience looking at a photograph without putting that photograph in time and space in our understanding, these are necessary conditions for cognition. What has helped me is to think of my succession of thoughts. I cannot have a thought without time and even if i were trying to think of the idea of having a thought devoid of time i can only think about the idea of a thought frozen in time. Even if we are to reject the idea that time is linear and we embraced the b theory of time or something like that we still would require time (and space) to experience anything Sorry for the text wall, forgive my errors in spelling and grammar, and good luck with Kant :)

[@therealmysteryschool]

I completely disagree that we cannot know the noumena because as he previously stated in this discourse, objective reality is required prior to experience. To rephrase - experience presumes objective reality. What this means is that all cause and effect relationships require prior conditions in which the cause and effect relationship can exist. To clarify, this means is that for a fire to exist, there must be certain conditions prior to the cause and effect relationship of someone striking a match to light a fire would require shelter from the elements as well as a proper source of kindling to sustain that fire. What this means is that there must be an objective universe to have experience. Otherwise there is no experience because there is no conditions in which experience can be possible because experience implies a universe. And since it implies the universe and we can do things like say know the periodic table of elements we obviously can know the noumena and I have no comprehension why people are so convinced of the literal retarded claim of not being able to know reality in of itself even though we are constantly knowing reality in of itself all the time to do science and again just to live your life and to be able to do things like eat or respond to comments on KZbin videos. How could I write this message if I can't know the KZbin video in of itself, that it does have objective existence outside of my sense impressions, My phenomenological perspective? Finally, Bertrand Russell wrote an essay about how you can't buy someone else's sense experience. So the very fact that we can say go online and buy a table means that we can know objective reality because otherwise we wouldn't be able to buy anything from someone else because you would just be buying their sense experience. You wouldn't be buying the noumena and since we can buy actual reality, we can clearly know it enough to do things like discern what kind of table we would buy because we can know the reality enough to differentiate between multiple different tables!!!! Final example comes from P. D ouspensky who says self implies other, the very act of having a self and knowing not everything is yourself, implies that there are things that are objectively true and are objectively knowable that are not yourself

[@ながれる季節]

It's ridiculous to play word games when it comes to scientific topics. Of course, scientists need to at times pause to reflect on their methodology, but at least the way to talk about science shown in this video is extremely ineffective.

[@hollisticbomber2660]

The conversations happening in this video are about the study of Metaphysics. And the conversations here are not designed to be apart of the scientific method. This is philosophy, not science. So while these conversations may seem immaterial to a scientist, they not are to a philosopher. And Kant was both, so he liked to describe both science metaphysically when speaking philosophically, as well as describe philosophy scientifically. That you describe this as word games shows a dismissive view, and the whole of your statement shows you know very little about the topic you're speaking about. You shouldn't criticize something you don't understand. This is not a tutorial for how to describe scientific things. This is a history lesson, about a scientific philosopher.

[@kurtgodel8789]

@@hollisticbomber2660 great! That isn't science, that is PHILOSOPHY. And, we musn't accept methodology and technics of science.