Beginner's Guide to Kant's Metaphysics & Epistemology | Philosophy Tube

A simple explanation of Immanuel Kant’s famous philosophy on how we experience and understand the world.
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Guest starring:
RedTed Art - tinyurl.com/hw73yzf
The Philip Green Show - tinyurl.com/jaglznz
Bird Keeper Toby - tinyurl.com/nw8uwe6
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
Pokémon. Just, like, all of them.
Glow shine animation by AAVFX: • 4K 60FPS 2160p Perfect...
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Can we experience the noumenal world? Apparently, we Kant.

[@jimi02468]

lmao

[@buboetherat]

+Shawn Ravenfire So, if you had a bad time and didn't want to admit it to someone for fear of hurting their feelings, you could still say you had a 'phenomenal' experience.

[@jimi02468]

Frank Brown Why not? All experiences require time to occur.

[@gabriellerumbolo7429]

lol... ! cute

[@TeaParty1776]

Im experiencing it right now.

[@Braydog101]

Phenomenal world / Noumenal world reminds me of the expression. ''There's three sides to a story, yours, mine and the truth''.

[@hyperduality2838]

Noumenal is dual to phenomenal. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- Hegel. Truth is dual to falsity. Problem, reaction --> solution, synthesis (truth). Ying is dual to yang!

[@MrPtrlix]

Kant's epistemology was like that: All knowledge starts with experience. But not all knowledge is derived from experience.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Negative he would laugh at you and say you should know that, that knowledge becomes an abstract system of ontology that synthesizes history after you eat it and leave him in the back room they sent him in he reduced our existential angst to drugs which could be anything

[@michaelmccloskey8718]

The central concern of Critique of Pure reason is if metaphysical truths can be discerned lacking experience. Kant's arguments are complex but I'd say he argues that we can't and that all metaphysics we produce are always vested in some experience. A lot of critique of pure reason is seeking to answer if it's possible to have Apriori noumena (ie. explanations of phenomena without experience) and ultimately comes to the conclusion we can't. My interpretation was that Kant's central concern isn't epistemology but metaphysics, epistemology (the theory of how we acquire true knowledge) is pretty obviously not possible without experiences of some sort. Kant's philosophy propelled people to move away from abstract detached thinking and I think is why philosophy shifted towards more questions of human behavior and supports skepticism of divine ways of thinking about the world. This video I think misrepresents Kant by misunderstanding him as concerned with epistemology and not metaphysics.

[@hemlockhostel9006]

Hi, just getting into Kant, I’m more interested on his epistemology and metaphysics rather than ethics (for now) would you suggest critique of pure reason as a good intro to his non ethical concepts? Or, Is not starting with ethics stupid? I’ve just finished a level philosophy, and have a basic understanding of the CI (and philosophy/theology as a whole) and have begun reading philosophy in my own time. I wouldn’t say I’m a beginner to philosophy, but I’m certainly no expert. Basically my question is should I read critique of reason first?

[@mattstephens343]

@@hemlockhostel9006 I'm not a Kant expert, but the concepts that Kant uses certainly has grounding in the other continental philosophers of the day, primarily John Locke and David Hume. I'd recommend familiarity with both of them prior to starting the Critique of Pure Reason. If classical philosophy and theology is more your thing, like it is for me, then I suggest you read some Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle then progressing into the Medieval Philosopher-Theologians, such as Miomedes, St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and others.

[@charlesdesobry9446]

@@Impaled_Onion-thatsminecomplete non sense

[@apokos8871]

i have to write a paper on Kant for uni, due Monday. my brain was hurting trying to make sense of what he's talking about, but this really helped. Thanks a lot Abby :)

[@Unknown-ql6ni]

You should do a series on Hegel. His writing style is so difficult to understand.

[@stephenmoore1606]

Dear god. Hegel's World Spirt is one of the hardest bits of philosophy I've every come across. It's on par with Schopenhauer's ideas and Will

[@sgnMark]

Shopenhauer isn't actually that difficult. For one you have to read his first dissertation (relatively short compared to will and representation) called the fourfold root of sufficient reason. But keep in mind, he had a personal distaste for Hegel. Very personal lol

[@marioaraujo7544]

One thing about him for sure was he didn't like God.

[@AaronAtkinsHonorableChairman]

all of these comments are like "after three years of not understanding kant, someone else that doesnt understand kant finally validated my misunderstandings of kant!"

[@charlesdesobry9446]

Lmao

[@ramonveracruz7511]

Your explanation of the "synthetic a priori" concept was more clear than my professor's when I took a History of Modern Philosophy class two years ago...but then again...maybe I wasn't paying a lot of attention then. But this is so clear! Thank you!

[@charlesdesobry9446]

That’s because his explanation is over simplified and wrong

[@gabrielggripp]

dude, you are an awesome person. Sharing all this knowledge with us, thank you. Keep it up the good work

[@chronicskeptic]

Exactly! Dude, you are an amazing human being.

[@milanstevic8424]

dude is suddenly a dudette, so there's that.

[@JareuAnimation]

The quality of this episode shows just how much you've developed from that youtube camp you're on. Great stuff, looking forward to more! :)

[@AshtrayHDlate]

What you're doing is really amazing. Your videos are the best for listening while doing work on the pc, and getting familiar with a certain rule book of the human mind, so to say. Listening to all those philosophers I never really took time to learn about, and to understand their way of describing reality. It gives me a certain feeling of calmness in thinking that even the smartest and the mediocrest (me) of people try to decipher the same thing.

[@hollypitches920]

Thank you for explaining such horribly dense concepts so simply. I'm writing an essay for uni on the distinction Kant makes between phenomena and noumena and this is really helpful to get the basic idea. There is the debate of whether Kant intends these things to be distinct "two object" or two sides of the same coin "two concept" but this video gives the gist of what he's on about which is extremely helpful.

[@dontworry9372]

This was really well expressed. I especially loved the pokemon analogy.

[@venumeagle4264]

I KANT believe how good this video is! Thank you for posting! Just a quick thought for a future video maybe on Kant's views on education :)

[@agugguluggu2818]

This video helped me a lot making concepts clear and organise them into my mind. I love the great job you're doing by taking education to youtube, thank you a lot!

[@martinrea8548]

I've been looking into Kant for over a year now and this is the best explanation of his thinking I've come across so far. Well done!

[@HappySlapperKid]

search on youtube for bad philosophy videos and this channel is right up there for being trash

[@iamwaynerooney]

Thanks Olly! Love your work!

[@cassandrafrancais5358]

This blew my mind and you did such a good job explaining it

[@juanorellana8945]

Probably the best Kant Metaphysics & Epistemology wrap-up video in KZbin!

[@abguitar99]

This video was so helpful. Thank you so much Olly ♥️

[@CyeOutsider]

Great explainer. Thanks for posting.

[@andrewfielden284]

Thanks. Nice intro. You've whetted my appetite for learning about philosophical matters.

[@leonwang3072]

Excellent video. Concise and informative.

[@workingTchr]

Excellent explanation. Thanks!

[@juliettebonnet8588]

woo, dude your videos are so good! Thank you for the time you spend on it! And thanks for sharing in such a short and easy way to understand the knowlegde you probably took years to get!

[@josephmarcotte328]

Thank you for this video presentation!

[@anaborja9724]

Oh my god you’ve literally saved me from failing this trimester so thanks I love you lol

[@wlauriemcintosh]

I'm a fan. You are brilliant at bringing it all together - like putting an edge on a blade. Thank you.

[@abdul_ha]

THANK YOU, I REALLY NEED THIS FOR MY PRESENTATION

[@hoba1210]

Thanks man, you really wrapped it up nicely

[@katieduggan9956]

I don't think I've written a philosophy essay without at least consulting one of your videos beforehand...especially useful with really complicated dudes like Kant...thank you!

[@svergurd3873]

Good explanation!! Thanks!

[@ethanf7719]

Awesome vid, prepared me for a lecture on Kant tomorrow. Cheers!

[@mittayashu3984]

Tqsm for this video! Some deeper insights in metaphysics and that too in a layman's language is all i m looking forward to

[@ssorcron]

My Philosophy 12 class in Vancouver, British Columbia is unsure whether we have synthetic a priori concepts, but thanks for such a thought-provoking video!

[@tigerw00dsyall]

Great video! Hope to see more Kant stuff!

[@ceegh5386]

This was excellent - I have a paper to write on Kant's Metaphysics and this helps enormously

[@BingeWatchers]

Fascinating. Great stuff!

[@nilskaarme5691]

Thank you so much for sharing this information in a so easy way to understand😃👍

[@cheenu711]

I was kinda lost while reading prologomena but you actually helped me make sense of what I just read. Thanks.

[@osks]

Very nicely presented!

[@buboetherat]

I think the Chomskian concept of universal grammar “which is innate to the human brain, rather than being learned from the environment” would qualify as transcendental.

[@TeaParty1776]

Chomsky's politics is not learned from the environment.

[@serioussaitama4071]

I would argue that while there are many different innate human gestures, they differ dramatically across cultures which tells me that the environment definitely plays some sort of role in forming these gestures.

[@shaquevara]

​@@serioussaitama4071 They're not talking about gestures though. They are talking about concepts such as space and time. While I am not super familiar with Chomsky's universal grammar, I always understood it as the most basic things. Like that there is such a thing as adjectives. There is no culture that does not separate objects by their properties somehow and hence we all have adjectives (I assume. I am not aware if there is a language without adjectives lol). I'd love for someone to correct me, if I'm talking bogus.

[@SonyaMustetsova]

@@shaquevara sure there are languages that lack adjectives. if we speak from grammatical not semantical perspective. take some agglutinative languages for example. some argue that structures can affect meaning hence concepts, but that's disputable

[@KickinAss1000]

It’s definitely synthetic a priori

[@jonathanhili7104]

Love this video! Keep this work up!

[@thinriteacnow1535]

Thank you very much.This is a wonderful video.

[@ILyogibibs]

That was a great video! thank you for clarifying it with the pokemon analogy!

[@marguini]

THIS IS THE MOST HELPFUL VIDEO OF ALL TIMES THANK YOU SO MUCH

[@bassem500]

The nominal world concept reminds me of the shadows on a a cave wall from Plato.

[@andreacvecic]

Thank you! I've learned it is doable in

[@GarboDoBePlayin]

I Kant even.

[@GarboDoBePlayin]

sorry.

[@maggitPL]

+Logan Bradberry (Nomnomniscient) You should be.

[@specmence32]

+Logan Bradberry (Nomnomniscient) Momentai Logan. Momentai :)

[@puddingball]

great episode. you explained pretty hard concepts in a very easy way. This KZbin crash course is paying off :)

[@namrtapurohit4476]

beautifully explained

[@sanakhan8463]

Thanks Mr. philosopher your video was really helpful and informative as well as engaging just like you.

[@danbondarenko7894]

I hope to see more videos discussing Kant from this channel.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Dan Bondarenko Then you are in luck! I've got another one on his moral philosophy in the bag! Should be out in two, maybe 3 weeks. Got a collaboration coming next week first and then maybe one on aesthetics, or maybe some comment replies, but it will come!

[@danbondarenko7894]

Philosophy Tube That is great news! Best of luck to you!

[@vishmonster]

+Philosophy Tube Hoping for a vid focused on Kant's political philosophy.

[@ayinka4040]

really helped thank you for making this video!!

[@Prophecy21UK]

Great video! Really liked your description of synthetic a priori judgements. I would have loved for you to have explained analytic judgements and the distinction between them too, purely for my personal gain, although I appreciate that wasn't entirely necessary here!

[@CompilerHack]

He should do a month of Kant!

[@alesantander5089]

BRO THIS WAS SO HELPFUL THANK YOU

[@sarass6389]

Thank you for the video I was looking for this

[@andrewpaczynski4018]

Wow. You explain this so much better than my professor. It all make sense now.

[@shakilasalem7901]

I really wish this video was put up before my exam on the Critique. Great job Olly, hope to see more Kant on your channel!

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Shakila S then you are in luck! I have a video on his morality coming in a few weeks!

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Shakila S then you are in luck! I have a video on his morality coming in a few weeks!

[@Acquavallo]

I'd love an other Kant video about his ideas on Art

[@MrJameseder]

Hey Olly, have you ever considered doing philosophy of ideas presented in movies? I'd certainly be very interested in a series of those videos, possibly on Fight Club, Christopher Nolan movies (Memento, Interstellar, The Prestige, Inception) and The Matrix too. Not sure if it's something you'd be interested in, but personally I would love it. Cheers for all the thoughtful videos

[@varzzzzable]

thank you so much! that was helpful

[@lyrical9582]

Excellent explanation

[@UdellOctorara]

Nicely done.

[@larrybaby9377]

Excellent - super clear. I would like to know more about Kant's certainty that the concept of space could not have its genesis in experience. The argument presented - IE if you can think of things over here and over there, you already have space - doesn't work. Think of Russell and his (utterly bizarre, bizarrely straight-faced, and bizarrely prolonged) effort to provide analyses of all propositions concerning objects outside the mind in terms of logical constructions composed of propositions about sense data - objects by (a priori) definition, wholly given to minds. This was part of the madcap and paranoid hyper-empiricism that dominated analytic philosophy from the 1920s, let's say, through to, let's say, the 1970s. Ontological terror at resting any part of scientific discourse on anything other than propositions known with certainty drove these efforts: metaphysics actually determined by epistemology (...d'oh!). It was not only "that red thing" that was sought to be analysed away, but also, "...over there." Even space was just something to be constructed from sense data. And time - read it! To Russell, it was not obvious that space was necessarily and inherently part of experience, particularly where objects in space were themselves not necessarily supposed to have any existence. Russell seems not to have allowed himself to even to imagine that the concept of space could be thought of as necessarily or inherently part of experience. Was it perhaps really just a brazen and deliberately roughshod trampling of common sense and what may be or appear to be an unavoidable aspect of our conceptual awareness? Quite probably. 'Being startling' is a philosophical trick which wide reading of Russell will tell you he relished, a part of the philosophical, academic and social parlour game. Even if it is merely perverse insistence, it is not a given that the concept of space necessarily arises a apriori. Leaving aside argument from authority (which you must take the foregoing to be, if you don't agree with Russell about this), there are further arguments. Even if we concede that the concepts of space could not arise directly from experience, it still could be the product of unconscious or forgotten inference. What type of inference? Not deductive. Not any type of inference which would quell the paranoia of Russell and his friends the Logical Positivists, for example. Abductive inference: the mode of reasoning used to arrive not at tested conclusions, but rather, at ordinarily highly reliable hypotheses. It is the mode of reasoning reliably used all day long by all of us about empirical matters in the particular case, and most of us about empirical matters in the general case. Why could our concept of space not simply result from a "joining of the dots", or a "reading of the writing on the wall"? These metaphors express the essence of abduction. In a poker game, conclusions as to holdings are underdetermined, and your opponent will most likely be attempting to deceive you or induce uncertainty. Not so in basic perception. I have no qualms about abductively dismissing Descartes' deceitful demon. Though not a certain inference, it's a seriously good bet that sensory experience is to be interpreted most sensibly - most usefully - by supposing space exists, outside the mind. It's such a good bet, in fact, that the perceptual 'pipeline' that I also abductively infer exists between my mind and external objects is likely to have been hardwired automatically to make it. We evolved to respond to objects in a spatial world as if they were objects in a spatial world. So, is this the same as Kant, afterall? No. I'm an epistemological naturalist. He isn't. Kant locates the necessary foundations of our understanding in the mysterious realm of innate knowledge, floating in the dark, of inexplicable genesis. It is, in fact, a short step from here into the occult: 'pure reason' as an object of fetish.

[@yayuma2393]

Great explanation

[@petterbladlund6514]

Great video as always Olly! However, I reckon it is important to emphasize that the empiricists did not completely disown the utility of reason, and that the rationalists did not entirely disown the use of empirical sensory experience (although, often skeptical about its veracity). Hume, for instance (one of the most notable empiricists), would argue that the statement 2+2=4 can be known without empirical evidence, but rather constitutes a relation of ideas in our reason a priori. I know you that are certainly aware this notion, but I think your interlude in the video gives a somewhat imprecise impression of the contrast between empiricism and rationalism. Anyway, have a good one!

[@Direfloof]

Came for the foundational philosophy, stayed for the Pokemon analogies

[@-rpm]

Thanks! Subscribed!

[@mohitsampat7490]

lovelyyyy explanation thankyouuuuuuuuuu

[@Marco199977]

I would like yo see a video explaining aesthetics it would be extremely useful for me. Great video,this channel does show how awesome philosophy is

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Marco C Kant's aesthetics, or aesthetics generally? Because I have a whole playlist on aesthetics?

[@Marco199977]

+Philosophy Tube Kant aesthetics. Thanks for answer

[@agedejong7693]

the character Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen is a great character to anallive trough the lens of Kant. he lives in the nounenal world and this changes his perspective (``Tachions, subattomic particles that travel backwards trough what you percieve as time``) it is really cool to see how this affects his morrality troughout the movie as he loses touch with his human side. also is the skill breathing a synthetic Apriori concept? cognito ergo sum, so learning it requires a brain but that brain needs oxygen to learn it but if you cant breath you can`t get the oxygen to learn it.

[@ashat16]

This is really great! Could you do a video about the application of philosophy in literature? I'm really fascinated by it and didn't do stuff of that sort in college so..thanks!:)

[@peacy7184]

Can u do a video of earsten philosophy? I think it is quite underappricaited and want to learn more about. Great videos btw :)

[@conorb6281]

I recommend reading up on what Ernst Mach had to say about a priori concepts.

[@saltycrotchwhiff3946]

A priori I don`t know if this is a good suggestion.

[@user-pw3jn2dz5e]

Great intro!

[@shubhamsharma191]

Well explained budd

[@nostalgia63]

Excellent video. And besides Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible and measurable.

[@caleblancaster538]

what a phenomenal introduction ;)

[@Wtfsenromy]

Cool work.

[@CDeruiter5963]

Kant says "everybody has them" (these synthetic apriori experiences like time, space, and number) but is it an equal level of understanding that everyone has about these concepts? or does he account for potential variations in understanding?

[@TeaParty1776]

What do you think about Hitler's synthetic a priori, race?

[@kidscadbuttended]

Yes, its equal, pls

[@georgepantzikis7988]

@@TeaParty1776 That's not how synthetic apriori work. It's not my one and your one. To understand it it's best that you understand the roots of the words. Apriori means that which exists as an innate truth or fact. The truths of the numenal world would be apriori. The word synthetic is applied since these truths are innate to the "spectacles" with which we view the world. So a synthetic apriori is really anything which can be logically proven to be 100% certain: space, time and mathematical truths are an example. Kant's point is that even though we know these things to be apriori they are, nevertheless, synthetic. They are a part of how we see the world but aren't necessarily how the world actually is.

[@georgepantzikis7988]

The way to tell if something is an apriori is if that thing stands outside of experience. In other words, if this thing is true whether or not you are aware of it or have an understanding of it. Mathematical truths, for example, were true before we discovered them. So, one's level of understanding has nothing to do with synthetic apriori.

[@TeaParty1776]

Consciousness is the consciousness of existence. You are rationalizing the claim that your consciousness is split from existence. Your "words" have no meaning, no content, refer to nothing. You are intellectually lost , conceptually disintegrated inside the rationalization of the evasion of reason. Virtually the entire history of philosophy is a rationalization of the evasion of reason. You are conscious of existence. Consciousness, like existence, has (is) an identity. You are conscious of existence by means of that identity. "Spectacles" are the means by which man is conscious of existence. They are not a barrier to the consciousness of existence. Kant is the biggest intellectual destroyer in history with a fundamental, comprehensive rationalization of evasion. Man either focuses his mind, thru his senses, onto existence and acts accordingly or he dies. Philosophy is a guide to life, just as religion falsely claims to be. Philosophy provides a framework for the minds focus onto existence. Philosophy is not a method of rationalizing evasion. Reasoning about existence is man's unique method of being conscious of existence. Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is the identification of the identity of existence. Existence, not consciousness, is metaphysically primary. The rational consciousness of existence ,ie, of existents has three stages: entity, identity and unit. Space and time are relations among entities. Math is part of man's rational consciousness of existence, the method of identifying quantitative relationships among entities considered as units. Logic is man's method of identifying existence without contradiction. See _Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology_, Ayn Rand, for more on reasoning about existence. Again, man, first, is conscious of existence. Only in that context, man is conscious of his consciousness of existence. Existence, not consciousness, is epistemologically primary. Rand has solved the problem of universals. Very briefly, a concept is a mental integration of units, w/their particular measurements omitted. The concept of horse refers to real individual horses regarded as units of horse. A unit is a method of the conceptual consciousness of existence. Units are not real or subjective. Rand has built on Aristotle with her own radically unique system. Our culture is disintgrating from a consciousness trying to split from existence. The result is increasing conceptual disintegration. See modern "art" for concretization of this. Modern man is retreating from reason into emotion. The next stage is claiming that emotion transcends existence into an (impossible) metaphysically primary consciousness, ie, "God." We are rejecting mans basic moral responssibility, focusing his mind onto existence. Since mind is volitional, epistemology teaches man how to focus his mind.

[@Nonkosherian]

Citations needed on this but: I remember a study where birds were raised in captivity for mutable generation with out the materials around to make a nest. then when Generation 3 was given the sticks and fur and so on to make a nest and it one without ever seeing a nest made.

[@michaelfresco2769]

I wish there was a 2nd part to this video.

[@JoseDeSous19]

Brilliant!

[@philosophemes]

Space isn't a concept. It's a form of intuition.

[@Manodragon]

this looks like PBS Space-Time. So good job, it starts to look professional

[@strugglingproficiently7947]

The Hyperion series is an excellent sci-Fi trip that explores Kant’s theory here as a central theme. It isn’t exactly subtle about referring to Kant either :p

[@hemlockhostel9006]

just getting into Kant, I’m more interested on his epistemology and metaphysics rather than ethics (for now) would you suggest critique of pure reason as a good intro to his non ethical concepts? Or, Is not starting with ethics stupid? I’ve just finished a level philosophy, and have a basic understanding of the CI (and philosophy/theology as a whole) and have begun reading philosophy in my own time. I wouldn’t say I’m a beginner to philosophy, but I’m certainly no expert. Basically my question is should I read critique of reason first?

[@jangtsedude]

I think I am having a déjà-vu ;) this video is even better than the old one :D

[@PhilosophyTube]

+jangtsedude That was very much the idea!

[@IsabelleManken]

i actually would not have grasped this at all without the pokemon analogy

[@JeremyStephensTX]

Isabelle so my thought on watching the second time- is the inside of the Pokéball like the noumenal world?

[@CoreyAnton]

Good vid. Thanks. Please see The Number Sense by Stanislas Dehaene. He powerfully shows how evolutionary biology and brain studies have introduced a significant revision/challenge to the notion of synthetic a priori and/or the meaning of transcendental.

[@CompilerHack]

Thanks for recommending the book! I was looking for a title like this. But how complex is this book, according to you? I have no education in philosophy, all of it comes from Olly and Google only. Would there book be suitable for some with such a background? It would be great if you (or anyone) could suggest any prerequisite readings.

[@edthoreum7625]

cool, dude ! thanks for sharing and the clear explanation! kant's noumenal world, or maybe lala land! it is 17th century philosophy, similar to lewis' modal realism ,lots of words for what should be call strong fiction or transcedental abstract!

[@cotepm]

Thanks from Montreal. Dan

[@dominikkulcsar2753]

Man, after three years of philosophy, I fully understood Kant. MANY THANKS!!

[@AaronAtkinsHonorableChairman]

"after three years of not understanding kant, someone else that doesnt understand kant validated my misunderstandings of kant!"

[@Usalama42]

I know I'm late to the game here, and I love this video, but ... how, then might you differentiate between epistemology and ontology...?

[@runningturtle871]

A priori, the elemental emotions transform contradictions with paradox synthesis. Both parts were necessary to develop this stage of consciousness. The mind, used by ego, hijacks the process through ego validating "feelings." Thus, emotion connects and feelings domineer. Love vs. Disinterest. Disdain. Rejection. Self-righteousness..... I'm agreeing, and I am trying to get to the nuts and bolts. Can you break this part down further?

[@cyclesofstrength]

Thank you so much for making this simple and digestible. I'm working on Kant in class right now (the class is God and Modernity). I get the concepts once they're laid out in better language, but so much of our material is written by people who needed to work on their formal writing skills. Just because your ideas make you famous, doesn't mean you get to forget how to lay out sentences with a proper flow for your readers!

[@aslekay]

They deliberately wrote like that so as not to disturb the plebs

[@Ohmakie]

I feel like the concept of space, as described in the video, stems from our ability to be able to see things and perceive distances visually. I wonder what kind of a priori knowledge people who are blind experience about space and distance?

[@daltontonga5761]

What's the difference (metaphysically speaking) between transcendental idealism and phenomenology a la Edmund Husserl?I've been pondering this question for a while. To me it seems phenomenologists are committed to the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds for the same reasons Kant was, but focus their efforts on determining how the various phenomena in the phenomenal world develop and come to be. In a way that makes phenomenology a kind of transcendental idealism.

[@zody300]

yes we do. Like a computer what can only interpret what what inputs we get and to interpret inputs we need software and hard ware. hard ware to hold are physical form as well as tack in information about the world and software to interpret data to function.

[@IrontMesdent]

So... does that mean that some instruments, like infrared cameras, transfered noumenal experiences to phenomenal experiences? Is the noumenal world finite or infinite? I love the new camera angle BTW