Immanuel Kant vs. René Descartes

[@NinjasSpirit]

Very well explained. I appreciated hearing about these concepts in a novel way. I enjoy your videos a lot.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Happy to hear it, mah GUYYYYYYYY

[@WilfridCyrus]

Absolutely fantastic explanation of one of Kant's main ideas.

[@a_b897]

Great video, really enjoying thw Kant content (dare I say… Kantent?) I’d love to hear a discussion on Kant’s conception of time (and space) in relation to current scientific and philosophical theories of 4D spacetime. It appears to me that a lot of modern thinkers seem to think these new theories discredit Kant and go against what he was saying, but I feel this really misses the point that Kant is investigating the human faculties of understanding. For example, if 4D spacetime is an accurate/acceptable scientific/philosophical model (and I personally think that it is), surely this doesn’t impact the points of Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic? Kant is explicitly talking about ‘space’ and ‘time’ as our forms of intuition, and so when he says they “only exist” as such, this sounds to me to be right in line with current theories of time that suggest our experience of ‘time’ is dramatically different to what the best theories suggest about it; i.e. space and time as seperate 3 and 1 dimensional ‘things’ do not in fact ‘exist’ externally, because they are our pure forms of intuition, and this is further supported by current theories that describe space and time as existing as a 4dimensional ‘spacetime’, so again the space and time that we experience does not exist externally. tldr: Kant’s “time” and modern science’s “time” are not the same thing, and neither discredit the other. (There is a similar claim about space, where Kant’s discussion of space is discredited for being focused only on euclidian geometry, and so they say that since we now know that space can bend etc his theories are proven false, but again the main point it seems like is being missed is that he is talking about the ‘space’ that *we* experience) The reason I’m wondering about this is because some very popular scientists like Stephen Hawkins have publicly written passages that paint Kant as someone who was confused about time not existing, and since now we know time does exist, he was wrong. This just seems like it’s missing a lot of the point, so I’d love to hear you weigh in! I’ve read the short volume ‘Kant’s Conceptions of Space and Time and Contemporary Science’ by A. Strefanov that aimed to defend Kant in a similar way to what I am describing, for anyone interested in this, but I did think some of the main points could have been pushed further and made a bit stronger, which is also why I’d like to get your insight on it. [It also makes me think of the conflict Bergson had with Einstein over his theory of relativity and what that meant for ‘time’, which again seems to be more of a misunderstanding of 2 seperable concepts than anything in direct conflict (though in that case Bergson felt Einstein’s theory was an indirect attack on his own, whereas I’m arguing that Kant would not have felt threatened by current theories of Time since they are not about the same “time” he is focusing on)]

[@alexandralisogor7272]

Hey, that's a very interesting topic you write about here! I wonder, though, if Kant's transcendental idealism is an erroneous conception exactly because modern science proves that we can talk/conceptualize/make synthetic a priori judgements about noumena, not only phenomena? You give an excellent example by distinguishing between space-time as a scientific concept and space and time as human forms of intuition. We can also think of quarks, quantum fields, quantum entanglement etc. I agree with you that in case of space-time as a scientific concept VS human intuition Kant's paradigm works, but transcendental idealism is largely disproven by modern science. What do you think?

[@a_b897]

@@alexandralisogor7272 This line of thinking is something I’ve reflected on quite a bit(and continue to do so), as you rightly point out it does seem to pose much more of a problem for Kant’s overarching conceptions than the space/time issue. However, I actually think the most important question is actually “does modern science prove that we can talk/conceptualise/make synthetic a priori judgments about noumena?”, because I’m not convinced that it does, while the problem your comment poses assumes that it does. I see a few issues with this; I wont go into too much detail as these thoughts are continuously developing and I don’t have an easy answer, but here are a few general thoughts: Kant’s use of the terms noumena/noumenon doesn’t actually seem to line up too well with modern scientific concepts. He talks quite directly about the divide between phenomena and noumena arouns B306-316, and I think it would really have to be argued that what he is talking about applies to something like quarks or even quantum entanglement. Another point is that new technologies play a role in allowing us to perceive things we otherwise could not, but that still don’t offer any extra-sensory modes of perception and simply represent things in such a way so that we can have a sensory experience (e.g. microscopic imagery). This doesn’t mean we are conceiving of something outside the sphere of sensibility; the technology isn’t giving us access to a new form of sensibility, we are sensing the resulting images/data/etc in the same way we sense everything else, and any resulting interpretations are therefore not coming from pure reason drawing conclusions about things outside the realm of possible intuition. On this note, science (when properly conducted) arrives at new theories and discoveries based on empirical evidence, mathematical formulations, and hypothesis testing, not just by coming to conclusions about the world based on pure reason alone seperated from experience (which is what Kant is targeting when he talks about noumenon). There is a lot more that could be said on any of these points, but hopefully this given enough of an idea of my thoughts on the topic!

[@alexandralisogor7272]

@@a_b897 Thanks for such an elaborate answer! I will have to reread the relevant passages in Kant having your arguments in mind.

[@adaptercrash]

Oh yeah in league of legends we have to move over here because of his cogito machine and this historical idealism I was telling you about with an experienced mind kant argues all experience is trancdented process Philosophy required for ignition so we aren't authentically sensing reality we are formulating an intuition of reality

[@tremerezurowski1652]

Thanks!

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Thank YOU!

[@ivanelrino]

Kant says we understand time and space intuitively. Kant never saw Interstellar.🤯

[@WhereisWaldo]

For me the discussion of Kant vs. Descartes around idealism, sensation and the properties of things always leads to Hume's contribution. I know it's outside the scope of this particular video, but especially when discussing something like "wetness" or geometry, my thinking goes right to Hume's Enquiry.

[@whereisawesomeness]

Might be of interest: my understanding is that the forthcoming book ‘Le discours philosophique’ (a manuscript by Foucault, expected to publish in May) will contain an extensive discussion of Descartes and some discussion of Kant

[@not_enough_space]

At around 10:00 you say, "The problem with that, though, for Kant is that if space and time weren't just sensible objects or forms of our intuition and they existed out there, then we could not be sure that all people have the same possible understanding of them." But I'm not seeing how Kant's idea would contrast with that. Suppose we _do_ have space and time built into us. It's still possible that we each have a different space and time, or that our understanding of space and time changes. And Kant's idea would miss out on one advantage of external space and time -- an independent point of reference. A standard that we then _could_ universalize with. EDIT: After looking into it a bit on my own, it seems as though Kant isn't worried about both ways possibly being the same. Instead, he takes it for granted that our understanding of space and time is universal. And he then wants to contrast "out there" as necessarily being variable vs intuition as possibly being variable or possibly universal. Given his assumption, he goes with the possibility that allows it. At this point, I'm not immediately sold on everything going into it, but that argument does have a logic to it.

[@samparr3368]

so i listen to the podcast (great work btw, and i just got to this episode what’s with the Eckrich Smoked Sausage ads?

[@Firmus777]

Waiting for the synthesis that is Deskante to drop.

[@laviebelle3385]

Could u explain Gaston Bachelard's work The Poetics of Space

[@viljamtheninja]

This is why I don't think an AI talking about typically "human" emotions is any sign of intelligence or sentience, quite the opposite. An AI lacks the human senses for human experience, so when it's talking about "human" or even just bodily emotions (I think it was ChatGPT who described love as a "floating feeling"), that's just confirmation that it is mindless code simply repeating things it has seen said in the same context. And that's why I don't think AI will ever become Skynet; sentience, I believe, requires sensory knowledge of oneself as being in the world. (Though I suppose creating artificial senses might at one point be possible that are actually based on physical information from the external world as opposed to digital information, and who knows what happens then.)

[@bradhightower564]

Right. The referent experience AI is describing is not the same phenomena as what human wet ware is describing when describing love.

[@viljamtheninja]

@@bradhightower564 Well, sort of. I think it kind of is, because it's simply aggregating a bunch of human conversations on the human experience of life, so I think it is describing exactly that human experience, or rather, recapitulating other human conversations on it, while it has no references of its own, outside of human discussions and concepts. It has no referent experiences of its own that it can refer to, it exists in a world of only references. Also, an AI cannot experience floating since it is a bodily, spatial experience, which is meaningless and incomprehensible to something without a body.

[@doovstoover9703]

What is experience, though? It's not something inherently quantifiable or material - we can't point to some function within the brain and say 'that is experience' - and our only way of understanding and expressing our experiences is via the same means that an AI would use to describe experience. It's the philosophical zombie thing, right?

[@bradhightower564]

@@doovstoover9703Again, sort of. That is why I said "wetware." Our biology gives us actual sense experiences of thinks not merely description. So when I experience excessive heat, something biologically happens that my wetware really does experience as what we call pain. This experience was developed over many years navigating a dangerous terrain in time and space. Current AI is not often embodied and protective of its vulnerable body. And so long as their senses are not biological, I doubt the experience would be analogous to our biological experience. BUT that begs the "what is it like to be a bat" question.

[@doovstoover9703]

@@bradhightower564 yeah exactly, it's the consciousness problem. If we say that humans "experience" the universe and that makes us unique, and then go on to define that concept of "experience" as the specific way the human organism interacts with the world, then we may as well just be saying humans are special because they're human.

[@numbersix8919]

Thanks! I think I now kind of understand another idea of Immanuel Kant. He sort of turns Platonism on its head, doesn't he? Instead of ideal Forms giving rise to the phenomenal world, phenomena through their regularity act to sort of create the ideals (functionally or conceptually) within us. Is that right?

[@dubbelkastrull]

8:24 bookmark

[@cristiangabor6568]

What about Arthur Schopenhauer in relation to Immanuel Kant and René Descartes ?

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you, note to self(nts) watched all of it 11:05

[@christofthedead]

Descartes seems to take for granted that his thoughts originate from himself. He doesn't provide any evidence that there is a "thinker" behind his thoughts, or that it's him. "I can observe the phenomenon of thoughts in my head therefor I exist" seems like the same problem he thought he solved.

[@viljamtheninja]

Well, without some form of consciousness that is not only thinking but also is aware of thinking, that awareness would be impossible, just like the thoughts would be. Of course the unified subject is a bit of an over-simplification (I still wouldn't call it a myth, it is just perceived of very differently in different cultures and times regarding its level of independence from the external world) but I think we can't dismiss this basic truth. You can't have thoughts without consciousness or consciousness without thoughts, I think they again rely on each other, and that concept has just gone on after Descartes and Kant to be more problematized and analyzed.

[@noah5291]

Descartes thinks his thoughts come from God basically

[@alexandralisogor7272]

There's a very interesting critique of Descartes' cogito (and immediate certainty which he relies on) in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Eval that follows this line of argument that you mention. To sum it up briefly, Nietzsche says that Descartes speaks of "I" as cause of thought, but he does not prove that there is truly a cause-and-effect situation going on here. Neither he provides definitions of "thinking", or "I" (how's "thinking" different from feeling or willing, for example?) and that's problematic.

[@jorgetejada4458]

joder y yo pensando que estaba en español... tengo examen mañana

[@spelkar]

Decalt

[@johncracker5217]

You’re not French. Say Descartes normal you cringe lord

[@matildecosta6421]

If it borders you so much just close the video damn…

[@johncracker5217]

@@matildecosta6421 hahahahaja awww look at you

[@johncracker5217]

Do you think it makes you better than anyone else because you poorly attempt the French pronunciation of Descartes?