Immanuel Kant, Groundwork | The Thing In Itself and The Free Human Being | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@solomon525]

This man is simplifying my understanding of philosophy to an immeasurable extent

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the Kant is helpful for you

[@nilswaage7626]

Stumbled upon this on a drunken journey to explain philosophy. This is fantastic work! Subbed!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@orang1921]

I have attempted to read Kant for about 4 years now (one long attempt per year) and in my HS senior year I have finally just now started to understand what he is saying in his texts. These videos serve as great supplements; thank you for them. I have encountered no philosophes other than Kant who lay out a formal, moral structure detached from human preconceptions so well. If you (the video-poster or any other reader of this comment) have any recommendations for modern (and, here, I use modern in the "1800's or later") Kant-esque texts or authors.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, you're understanding Kant at a much younger age than I was. I didn't even know about him until I got to college

[@Hobokip]

Just now getting into philosophy myself, but I my understanding is that Arthur Schopenhauer and Philipp Mainländer were heavily influenced by Kant

[@scotuslaurentius2763]

Nice short enlightening lectures. Kant's a massive bloke. That there might be unknowable things-in-themselves is not now something that's commonly/popularly pondered and the complexity of Kant breaks the mind a little. Thanks.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@matthdogoo1581]

great work

[@shayrowland8840]

This is a simplified and admirable breakdown of Kant's thing in itself. Thank you. I read a large chunk of The world as will and idea before losing the book and missed out on all that Schopenhauer breakdown

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoy it

[@way2lyrical326]

Prime example of why zero is not a natural number. It's impossible to approach the noumenon with empirical language. Schopenhauer was right to implement the "will" as a transcendental principle that's devoid of sensation.

[@bram2]

I have a test tomorrow and this really helped. Thanks a lot!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@andrewhoxsey100]

How it exists beyond our Nounomen... doors to Metaphisics. Nous or nus in Ancient Greek. Cool video thank you. God gave us Great Door.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@Leo-dr6yf]

Finals are coming next week, thank you

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome.

[@crashdummyglory]

so to conjecture: the being behind appearances in the case of a person would be the molecular being, the flesh and bones body, where a cell does not know itself but still exists in a multicellular body. The form of matter as it exists ( as a human body )before disintegrating and turning into other forms of matter. Is this anywhere close to the-thing-in-itself?Of course our conception of our bodies as a complex of unconscious cells is phenomenal- we perceive our own bodily existence using our senses, through our brains.

[@GregoryBSadler]

No. Anything science can handle - like "molecular being" - would be phenomenal

[@squfucs]

thank you

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@korwl540]

would it be accurate to say that the thing-in-itself is kind of the furthest-reduced unit of ontology? kind of like a noumenal elementary particle? very loosely speaking, of course. i just like to try to grok things as much as i can.

[@GregoryBSadler]

No, I don't think so. You're a thing in-itself, as far as a free being. You're not a particle

[@Wtfsenromy]

a good lecture. thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@mwmingram]

Great.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@blackmetalmagick1]

The thing (no pun intended) that throws me off is that Kant said that we cannot know anything of the-things-in-themselves, yet you stated (and other academics have stated) that we can ascertain the-things-in-themselves by 'thinking of them' so is the-things-in-themselves essentially abstract ideas?

[@GregoryBSadler]

"so is the-things-in-themselves essentially abstract ideas"? No

[@blackmetalmagick1]

Gregory B. Sadler I'll ascertain it one day, thanks anyway, your videos have helped a lot over all.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read it!

[@andrewhoxsey100]

Gregory B. Sadler thing in itself is FACT. We have to just admit it. And we regcognize it throw our phiical and psychologicall “mirror” or concise. But how it exists beyond our cognitive vision? This is a question. Only God know answer

[@andrewhoxsey100]

Abstract ideas )))) well this is funny

[@acdory]

would our unconsciousness fall under the realm of "the world of understanding"?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I guess it would depend on which of the many conceptions of the "unconscious" you have in mind

[@kingnevermore25]

How does Kant prove that such thing as Noumena actually exists if we cant have any knowledge of it? Please reply, if Kant didnt provide evidence for his Noumena then there is no reason to believe in it and the whole Critique was just a waste of time.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Philosophy doesn't work quite like you you seem to envision it. And, I'm not simply on tap to provide whatever "proof" people ask for as comments on videos I've already provided for free. Sounds like this would requires a long conversation, so if you want, you can book my time for a tutorial session. If you're interested in that, I can do that next week, and here's my site - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/ If not, good luck with your studies

[@kingnevermore25]

Gregory B. Sadler No im actually into philosphy and everything ive read the Critique but my only concern is with Noumena. What proof does Kant have of it, we cannot say out of the blue that Noumena exists if we have no reason to believe in it, thats why Hegel criticized him, what if objects really are things in themselves, i dont know how Kant defends his position and thats why i would like to see that proof from him not you professor, i just need a passage from his works. If Kant failed to present evidence of Noumna actually existing then the whole Critique is a failure and i dont want to accept that, i love Kant.

[@Revan579]

@King Nevermore: Did you actually read the CPR? Because Kant speaks about objects in themselves quite a few times, one of the most notable being right at the beginning of the book at B-70. Your whole critique is slightly problematic as it's not the case that we can't have "any knowledge" about objects in themselves, it's that we can't have positive knowledge of what objects are (their properties) in themselves (without a subject) like we can about those objects insofar as they exist as appearance for our senses. Objects in themselves are precisely the internal element of objects (the part of an object that isn't made manifest in a certain domain) that cannot be cognized by human sensibility insofar as the empirical domain is limited by the pure forms of intuition demonstrated in the Transcendental Aesthetic; this is the element of the objects that cannot appear for us and therefore cannot be synthesized by the understanding. Objects in themselves however can be characterized through reason as being the non-empirical source of appearance, insofar as appearances must have a causal reason or source for their existence beyond the conditioning procedures of intuition, that is, something must in the first place affect us such that our power of intuiting is able to produce presentations of that affection for us. However, Kant can't simply give "proof" to noumena as if they were something you can point to given the right instruments as they are by definition unable to be an object of experience, they are without sense. There's no absolute proof: either you accept his arguments or you don't, for whatever reason.

[@kingnevermore25]

Revan579 Thanks for your comment can you provide more of these paragraphs (if you have them) im interested in what else you have to say about this.

[@stephenhogg6154]

For Kant the 'proof' of the noumenal lies in the existence of our moral sense, and our free-will.