How Kant’s Philosophy Lets Us Fly Spaceships And Airplanes

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Another excellent presentation, and I think it’s a great point that Kant gives us reason to think that new phenomena which we can encounter, think of, and/or invent will operate according to previous categories of understanding, which means that we don’t have to ever worry about encountering something which doesn’t so operate, and thus it’s possible for us to posit how a thing operates and behaves even if we’re just encountering it for the first time. If we actually had access to “things in themselves,” we might find ourselves wondering, with every new encounter, if this “thing” operates in an entirely new way, a thought which might paralyze us and make it difficult for us to operate. But in only having access to our experience of things, then we have reason to assume that the categories of our experience universally apply. And thus, though we lose things in themselves, we gain existential stability and courage to approach the new. In this way, like you said, thought Kant hardly left home, he better equips us to head into the future.

[@msmelanie.]

Kant would love this angle on his work, he was fascinated by the skies and starry heavens!

[@EduardoMartinez-df8jr]

Thanks 😊

[@brucecmoore2881]

Thank you

[@vishmonster]

That was a valiant effort. I definitely didn't understand it though. I try again tomorrow.

[@LTDsaint15]

Same. I am finishing my undergraduate degree in December and am just not talented enough yet to pick up on philosophy of this caliber on first listen.. I will also try again tomorrow!😂

[@marionengel5275]

DANKE

[@Self-Duality]

Great title!!!! 😌💭

[@WeenkerIV]

right!

[@fourtimez]

Great lecture

[@johnwoodcock3880]

An elegant description of the transcendental logical roots of our tech civilisation. Thank you! Another way to get to this truth is via the often overlooked observation that, in order to fly in space at all, or anywhere, we have to take our "earth" with us (oxygen, space suits, space stations with their own "gravity", etc.; hydroponic farms, and so on). So that ontologically we never leave our world of calculations at all, we take it with us and that is how we survive "out there", always encapsulated in our posited world. We only, and at all times, register the effects of the inaccessible noumenon through our instruments (telescopes, oxygen levels etc.).

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Excellent! I hope to meet you and discuss more at one of my courses some day

[@johnwoodcock3880]

@@JohannesNiederhauser Johannes, I thought you and your readers might enjoy this stunning example of the ontology of our scientific materialism at work: An amazing demonstration of the mechanical cause-effect world. So the experimenter posits the end result (which we see) that he wants and then sets about making that result “appear” in the world. What he originally posits thus turns out to be “true”! Except we don’t get to see how many trial and error attempts he made before he could prove what he posited. He never encounters or gets access to the noumenon. He only “finds” what he already had posited (mechanical causation) and excludes the rest from his experiment. fb.watch/cDfdfcZHXU/

[@albertwidjaja5938]

Would you think that there's a simpler example and a simpler way to look at transcendental logic? Our physics textbooks in high school! Courseworks such as "if Car A moves at 80km/h and the distance to its destination is 320km and Car B moves at 100km/h and the distance to its destination is 500km, which car will arrive at its destination first?" Is transcendental logic the condition off possibility that allows for a true answer, independent of an experience observed real-time? If so, then can we say that transcendental logic allows us to make abstractions out of experience and communicate using these abstractions in such a way that they have truth values independent of experience? I might be wrong about this, but great video!

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

That’s it precisely 👍

[@charlesmartel7502]

Heidegger was adamant that the subject of Kant's first critique was not epistemology. But as I understand Heidegger's books on Kant, H thought K more as a kind of photo-phenomenologist than a transcendental idealist.

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Heidegger’s reading of Kant and Hegel is seriously limited not least because he doesn’t understand logic

[@charlesmartel7502]

@@JohannesNiederhauser Really? It seems to me Heidegger understands logic perfectly well. Those books on Kant opened my eyes.

[@franciscogarcia8880]

Moments like these I throw up my hands and say philosophy is a cruel joke

[@EcstaticTemporality]

That’s alot of kerosene to get to the moon! 😮 Cant wait for summer session!

[@pseudaeles]

the end result is usually pretty sobering. this is a cope for many people although do not think its intended as such.