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

[@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.

[@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 :)

[@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

[@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

[@willieluncheonette5843]

" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

[@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.

[@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.

[@gabrielggripp]

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

[@Sleeplessstars]

Exactly! Dude, you are an amazing human being.

[@milanstevic8424]

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

[@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

[@greed9541]

Can you explain how they are wrong?

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@bassem500]

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

[@dontworry9372]

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

[@philosophemes]

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

[@Direfloof]

Came for the foundational philosophy, stayed for the Pokemon analogies

[@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!

[@GarboSweaty]

I Kant even.

[@GarboSweaty]

sorry.

[@maggitPL]

+Logan Bradberry (Nomnomniscient) You should be.

[@specmence32]

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

[@andrewpaczynski4018]

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

[@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.

[@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! :)

[@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!

[@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.

[@Acquavallo]

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

[@MSUK1910]

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!

[@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?

[@ceegh5386]

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

[@andrewfielden284]

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

[@cheenu711]

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

[@cassandrafrancais5358]

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

[@anaborja9724]

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

[@CyeOutsider]

Great explainer. Thanks for posting.

[@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

[@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!

[@hoba1210]

Thanks man, you really wrapped it up nicely

[@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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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 :)

[@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

[@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!"

[@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!

[@iamwaynerooney]

Thanks Olly! Love your work!

[@tigerw00dsyall]

Great video! Hope to see more Kant stuff!

[@wlauriemcintosh]

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

[@marguini]

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

[@legocarlinistXIII]

I learned and understood more about Kant and epistemology from this 5-minute video than I did from reading an entire 100 page, single spaced chapter of a college philosophy textbook.

[@jeremy3766]

That’s because it’s not really accurate to what Kant actually thought. Like, Kant had a very specific definition of “concept” as something that was specifically not an individual interpretation. PT constantly refers to the “concept of space” but to Kant it was absolutely crucial that space was NOT a concept. This seems trivial but the distinction between “intuition,” which is what Kant thinks space is, and “concept” is essential to understanding Kant. If you wrote a paper for a college philosophy class in which you called space a concept you’d probably get severely marked down.

[@legocarlinistXIII]

@@jeremy3766 Your comment was also orders of magnitude more concise and digestible that the textbook was. The class work didn't really go deep into things like Kant's view of "concepts", and other chapters were easier to understand, but the epistemology unit was just maddening, vague, and way too damn long. Passed the class in the end so I'm good now.

[@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.

[@abdul_ha]

THANK YOU, I REALLY NEED THIS FOR MY PRESENTATION

[@gurugeorge]

It's easily understood in the context of evolutionary psychology. Socrates' slave, regardless of intelligence or ability to articulate, is born with an animal consciousness as well, that's evolved to have quite a realistic view of the world, long before he as a person can speak about it; and if he thinks to speak of it (if Socrates questions him), he elicits from his mind and articulates what he already implicitly took for granted, which was embedded in his behaviour. Schopenhauer was also big on this (and clearer than Kant on it), on the distinction between Understanding (which we share with animals, a basically realistic understanding of how to generally get about in the world - how to navigate 3-dimensional objects in time, how to recognize them, how to distinguish them from a background, or from other objects, etc.) and Reason (the logically coherent articulation of ideas _about_ objects, which can then become abstracted, and free-floating, and then other counterfactual or hypothetical ideas can be floated freely as alternatives - as well as pattern recognition, symbol usage, reality-testing, puzzle solving, etc.). Basically, as soon as by using symbols you tag and track the behaviour of objects, you can start saying things about them, about how they behave in time and space. But you already have inbuilt the ability to pick objects out and wordlessly recognize them (at least general "middle-sized furniture of the world"-type objects) in time and space. ("Folk x" stuff also lives here - folk physics, folk psychology, etc., a good deal of those are inbuilt too. For example the tendency to see agency in things is probably very deep - in fact the mystery is that we ourselves are the first things we surmise to be agents, and that's probably what non-dual systems of meditation, etc., try to relax or undo :) )

[@riccardo_aquilanti]

I can't believe philosophy is literally uncertain even about the actual existence of space-time. Please give me something that can't be an illusion.

[@Hreter]

This is the best intro to Kant I've ever watched.

[@yonee1984]

That's depressing because this video is full of misinformation

[@BingeWatchers]

Fascinating. Great stuff!

[@leonwang3072]

Excellent video. Concise and informative.

[@Jonas_isnot]

This is similar to Chomsky's idea of a natural grammar. He proposed that have an innate language learning mechanism and that language's just an arbitrary compilation of words. This idea that there are innate mental processes has been extraordinarily important in shaping the study of developmental and evolutionary psychology.

[@Dazzletoad]

So my question is, how did they recruit Quentin Tarrantino? 00:35

[@ethanf7719]

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

[@svergurd3873]

Good explanation!! Thanks!

[@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.

[@namrtapurohit4476]

beautifully explained

[@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.

[@jonathanhili7104]

Love this video! Keep this work up!

[@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.

[@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

[@tomikuz1654]

I've never read Kant thoughts on free will, but now i am curious.

[@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.

[@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!

[@vanvulcj]

2:15 - 2:21 - "Our brains must be hardwired to experience the world in that way". Exactly, but as per my comment below, this only alludes to the CAPACITY for understanding space that comes hardwired in human brains, not the actual KNOWLEDGE of space. Being able to navigate the world, and consciously manipulate the idea of space well, that kind of knowledge gets filled in so exceptionally gradually and probably begins as far back as in the womb, that it can seem as if it is a priori.

[@PPakzad]

From the "poverty of stimulus" argument we can say that humans have all kinds of innate cognitive capacities without which it would be logically impossible to make the cognitive leap from scattered sense data to creative and situationally appropriate action. One example of such a leap is optical illusions: When we are presented with tachistoscopic presentation of successive dots on a screen, we can't help but perceive a straight line -- a rigid object in motion -- when in fact there are only three dots.

[@JeffreyM641]

It goes even further than that. Optical illusions are linked to the biological make-up of the human brain. It is your biology tricking you. But Kant claims that these innate cognitive capacities are necessary for logic and thinking in general. So even if you ignore biology, you still would need these capacities to start your proces of thinking.

[@billgkohl]

I enjoyed your video. I agree with Kant, there are synthetic apriori concepts of the human mind. As you point out, we cannot have any sensory knowledge of things such as space, time or causality. Yet without these concepts, we would not be able to make our way in the world. The synthetic apriori concepts which Kant discovered are necessary for us to interact with reality successfully to continue our existence. If the human species (and many sentient species) did not have these concepts, we would quickly perish as a species. Evolution is the source of the transcendental structures of our minds.

[@osks]

Very nicely presented!

[@juanorellana8945]

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

[@nilskaarme5691]

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

[@TonyLouis9345]

So basically Kant viewed reality much as in the movie Matrix?

[@sanakhan8463]

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

[@michaelfresco2769]

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

[@Manodragon]

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

[@abguitar99]

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

[@amalgamdesign3220]

This reminds me of Chomky's generative grammar: Chomsky wrote an article arguing against the behaviorist view of language acquisition. The behaviorists thought that we learn language by listening to other talk and chomsky pointed out that there is no way that we can learn these grammatical rules since we wouldn't be exposed to some of the rules often enough to statistically determine those rules. This is called the Poverty of Stimulus argument. Instead, he proposed that language is built into us from birth and learning your native language is simply setting the parameters for the language module. This has generated a ton of research and arguably whole fields of science and has formed our modern concept of the mind.

[@MindForgedManacle]

While true, I don't think hardly anyone accepts Chomsky's view on language & language acquisition anymore. I think it was, at the time, one of those brilliant theories. Not because it was correct, but because it led to new research. :)

[@Digifan001]

So in comparison to what Kant said , we have inside us some "apps" or "programs" inside ourselves that help us taking external data with out senses and then processing/ analyze and then reconstruct it in the form of our programming ( bites 1&0)

[@Digifan001]

And if so why the empericist weren't right? From a darwinian perspective if a specie learnt from experience that you should do X and Y in this World to survive , they genetically installed the Program so that the next generation does not need to experience it too so they can be bothered with other problems and the cycle goes on.

[@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

[@lyrical9582]

Excellent explanation

[@andreacvecic]

Thank you! I've learned it is doable in

[@puddingball]

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

[@MindForgedManacle]

Kant's distinction between the Phenomenal World & the Noumenal World was also made in ancient Buddhist philosophy as well!

[@TheLaughingOut]

+Mind-Forged Manacles Wouldn't a Buddhist Noumenal world be emptiness?

[@limmanne]

+TheLaughingOut Since everything in Indian philosophy hits some kind of duality ("is and is-not") I would think that the Buddhist noumenal world would be both empty and full ;-)

[@CosmoShidan]

Interestingly, Leibniz, who was Kant's main inspiration, was himself inspired by Eastern Philosophy!

[@WordsandNumbers1]

I like tha way how Kant combined the metaphysics with epistimology

[@josephmarcotte328]

Thank you for this video presentation!

[@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...?

[@ilz7_3]

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

[@TRayTV]

If we were a point in a vacuum would we understand space? Or would we at least need a frame of reference, perhaps a three-dimensional self or ourself and another object in space? If we experience two objects in space we do not recognize their separation through are a priori understanding of space but rather we come to also understand Space by their separation.

[@AlexGoldhill]

I Kant get enough of your videos.

[@caleblancaster538]

what a phenomenal introduction ;)

[@kriti846]

Kant's concept of synthetic apriori judgements finds its application in quantum physics where the observer is itself part of the quantum equation. The act of observing the experiment influences what is being observed.

[@CompilerHack]

But aren't synthetic a priori limited only to humans? and are different for different living beings? But quantum physics seems (I know nothing about quantum physics) to talk about a universal phenomenon, rather than one limited to humans alone.

[@kriti846]

+The Compiler quantum physics affects us directly. We, humans, are made up of basic fundamental particles( whatever that might be). The movement and nature of the particle is dependent on the observer. We don't know about sub atomic particles in categorical sense but only in relation to ourselves.

[@CompilerHack]

+Kriti Arora Oh I didn't think of that.. even particles, we only know then subjectively. Say then can it be so, that our concept of space and time is not suitable to express the quantum phenomenon, like how 0.3333.. can never be the exact value of 1/3, or is the whole field of quantum physics just that- a way to express such phenomena (through equations) that cannot be adequately expressed using the concepts of space and time? a bit of unrelated crazy thought: There were other comments here that pointed out how evolution is basically acquiring new concepts to 'know' more and more aspects of the noumenal world. In that sense, if we somehow really study quantum physics for centuries, we might somehow develop an intuition for it, followed by a few more centuries and we might develop a new conceptualization of quantum phenomena! Now wouldn't that be neat?

[@kriti846]

+The Compiler the behaviour of particle changes when there is a measuring apparatus and an observer involved. Now even us observing the event is being observed by someone else, it will lead to infinite regress. It's gonna a leviathan task to solve this problem but probably in future, we will solve this. Fingers crossed.

[@sirajalmoarawi5532]

Thank you so much for simplifying yet well explaining Kant’s philosophy. My teachers couldn’t pull that off.

[@AaronAtkinsHonorableChairman]

because he is incorrect

[@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?

[@rh001YT]

An important part of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, left out of this video are these three points: 1) All minds of any species of animal have a subjective picture of the world that is unique to the species. From the standpoint of any species the world picture is objective, as all of the species are picturing the world in the same way, with very little variation. He noted that we can't know much about the world picture of any other species other than human because we can't talk to them, so he spent no time on that. He did think that species lower in brains size and complexity than humans probably sensed less than do we, so they have a subset of our world picture. That conjecture has been largely proved out since with some few exceptions....for instance migrating birds actually sense North by sensing the magnetic north pole. Electric eels seem to sense other creatures and maybe plants by their electric fields. However in both cases their unique senses seem to be used to augment their spatio-temporal picture of their world, so in that way we are the same as they. 2) With regards to wondering how accurate is our human world picture he thought it quite accurate, citing for instance the success of the sciences to figure out how stuff works based on conjectures originating from out world picture. He also opined that since the mind/brain is made of the same stuff as is outside our internal representation of the world, then it seems almost a no-brainer that it can only react to sensory stimulus in the same ways that we picture things outside of ourselves reacting/interacting. In other words, there is no break in the flow of cause and effect from outside of us to inside of us. 3) The human world picture may be incomplete in some way, but we have no way of knowing if it is or is not. Kant claimed that if ever an empirical observation does not comport with Reason then we will not have the feeling that it makes sense, and it is therefore not part of our world picture. In his time, nothing like that had yet happened, but in the early 20th century the double-slit experiment in quantum physics validated Kant's claim....we just can't make sense of it, it does not comport or support our world picture...it is essentially useless observation to us...nothing can be made of it as being yet one more plank in our world picture ediface.

[@hadleybrine3429]

Well, I certainly think Gerativists had something to do with Kant, then... which, by the way, I agree on many terms with them. What do you think? :)

[@houstonnewman4196]

I don't see how Kant can say anything about the noumenal world at all, especially that it exists. If space, time, and causality are parts of the phenomenal world, then how does the noumenal world relate to the phenomenal world at all? It isn't like the noumenal world can cause any of the phenomena we experience (since causality is a part of the phenomenal world), so what does it even mean for the noumenal world to exist? And how can we say that it does? Great video btw! I'm impressed that you are able to do an introduction of Kant's M&E in under six minutes

[@charlesdesobry9446]

Well, the nominal world precisely does not exist for Kant. ‘Existence’ is imparted onto things through the form of judgement. We cannot make a judgement about the noumena, so the noumena does not exist. It is something posited by thought to make sense of the fact that our experience is the experience of appearances

[@alesantander5089]

BRO THIS WAS SO HELPFUL THANK YOU

[@felixbarber4840]

I'm watching this really late and I FUCKING LOVE PHILLIP GREEN and I just had to like rub my eyes like am I dreaming?

[@PhilosophyTube]

Hah, Phil's a mate - great guy, game for anything