Dean's Lecture Series: Transcendental Deduction in Kant

[@PettruchioL]

This fellow has tremendous potential.

[@DaveWasley]

I'm rereading the first critique and am on the TD. I've been wracking my mind the past few days trying to work out what Kant's saying. This has been the clearest, most helpful video I've seen so far, so thanks. It's spooky though, over the past few years, I've read the Phenomenology of Spirit, the Science of Logic, and the Encyclopaedia Logic (all Hegel). In the Encyclopaedia Logic, this is also summarized quite well...then you realize that the first three chapters of PoS are basically explaining this in a dialectical form, too. Oddly enough, Hegel is easier to read, at least in translation, than Kant, but the Shorter Logic definitely puts a finger on the scale. Anyways, I came to this after watching the Dan Robinson lecture on the TD trying to figure out how Kant deduces the categories from pure self-consciousness as the simple unity of sense representations, and I think I must've read the same 30 some-odd pages of the Transcendental Analytic maybe 10+ times in a row. I accompany all my representations, and am their simple unity, but I wasn't comprehending how that deduction allows me to unify an object from the diversity within the sensory manifold. This was the only thing that made it clear: I *can* always deduce myself (but don't, consciously at least), but that deduction of I am is conceptual, so our originary transcendental proto-concept is the concept of simple unity of self as the being all representation happens to. As concept, it must comply with the logical forms of judgement, and since, in a word, in contains (or is the very) said diversity in sense, said diversity in sense must also comply with logical forms of judgement.

[@daviddorsey8754]

Extraordinary Teaching.

[@andrewrae8064]

the whole meta-language of judgments/sentences being more fundamental than concepts/ individual words thing wow

[@nikkixu]

Excellent lecture!

[@TheIntrepid7]

Do you know - this whole idea of a priori concepts, or rules allowing for synthesis of perceptual objects into experience, is very similar to Buddhist thought.

[@kadaganchivinod8003]

Is the zoom meeting uploaded here?

[@elizabethfortson4735]

Brilliant!

[@CoolZfromShenmue]

Thank god

[@labrat4986]

Good stuff!

[@dubbelkastrull]

3:28 bookmark

[@seoileiasolar9118]

[@psychonaut689]

The thing-in-itself can't both be compulsory and accidental; Hoffe points out that it functions as a regulatory concept, a bit like a keystone that holds the system together.

[@Grandyu]

Where’s the link to the handout? The description link seems to be broken. Thank you! @kitslover2367