Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Robert Paul Wolff Lecture 2

Follow Robert Paul Wolff on his blog: robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/

[@nicolasisaksson1175]

This is trascendental. I recommend a priori that everybody watch it. You will thank me a posteriori.

[@vusisindane]

hehehhe. I am appreciative a posteriori of your recommendation.

[@meowwwww6350]

Lol

[@George-li6zl]

I just got that a priori lol

[@giorgiomalvezzi]

These conferences are truly fascinating even if the topics dealt with are not at all simple nor do they have the concreteness of everyday problems; the way in which the Professor manages to involve us and drag us into philosophical reasoning is very beautiful. Thank you for the opportunity to attend these classes, it is a privilege, it is a great personal enrichment!

[@easyspanish4894]

Someone get this man a replica of his old license plate 😂

[@arterial]

Somebody get a sponge!

[@luckOFtheIRISH9989]

Also I would like to state that it's extremely enjoyable listening to someone who grasps the profound notions that Kant realized. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to cram 9 years worth of meditation and compartmentalizing the grandest concepts known to man into a couple of books, and anyone that can understand his incoherent rambling for pages and pages has my utmost respect.

[@finmoorhouse4007]

Thanks so much for posting these, they're really useful!

[@fredjohnson6186]

This is beyond fabulous. I can't wait for each one. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

[@RAMZIAARON]

" I gotta tell you a story. I cant help my self " Love it!

[@achimkriechel2383]

I never tought that Kant realy cross the Atlantic and find such a profound understanding. Thanks a lot for these impressiv lectures.

[@mistymouse6840]

The point made at the end, that Kant makes a sharp distinction between understanding and sensibility, reminds me of a similar point Alfred North Whitehead made. In Process and Reality, Whitehead wrote, "It is a complete mistake to ask how concrete particular fact can be built up out of universals. The answer is 'In no way.' The true philosophic question is, how can concrete fact exhibit entities abstract from itself and yet participated in by its own nature? In other words, philosophy is explanatory of abstraction, not of concreteness." Thanks for making these lectures publicly available.

[@cotecine]

Thank you for your lectures. Keep them coming. 👍

[@Alkis05]

"The important is not Kant, It is the stories you enjoy along the way."

[@MrRichygm]

Another gripper. Love the stories.

[@bambamhookes]

I have to say I was impressed by the Russel story, and I'm absolutely mindblown by the Quine--Tarski story. Awesome! thanks for uploading

[@bambamhookes]

52:49

[@psychonaut689]

Absolutely fascinating. I will be watching the rest.

[@arlofarts9]

This is so wonderful - and I love all of his joy filled stories and enriching tangents

[@ajkauthen]

I was watching the Anders Kraal lectures on the Critique but made the switch after a few minutes of one of these Wolff videos. This guy is great!!!

Very nice talks. Professor Wolff is extraordinary good lecturer. Thanks for the upload.

[@imnot_]

Wonderful to experience these series. Very thankful to prof Wolff and authors of this video.

[@enlightenedturtle9507]

Thank you. I'm coming to Kant from Schopenhauer, which makes this significantly easier.

[@elliotswain]

Few academic philosophers are genuinely hilariously funny. RPW's humor is of a piece with his sensitive, thoughtful engagement with issues of serious concern for human beings. Dream grandfather figure/mentor/interlocutor, this guy. Obviously also these lectures are fantastic, the content yes of course but the fact that he cares about doing these publicly--it's quite rare that academic philosophers will open up their serious lectures to the public. As in, not insulting the intelligence of non-academics by dumbing everything down but rather giving the public the straight not-from-concentrate Juice of the philosophy; and also not insulating these robust discussions within the confines of the academy

[@cheron5630]

Thanks so much. These lectures are just great

[@EltonNRichards]

Thank you for posting these

[@testiclay89]

I've been looking forward to this! I am very thankful and appreciative that I get to be a part - via computer - of these lectures. Over the coming months I am writing a thesis document for my MFA in Sculpture. Not being too well versed in all things Philosophical, but making Art that discusses human beings in relation to objects and objects in relation to humans and, perhaps more important, how easily these relationships can be distorted, expanded, clarified, even, means that these lectures are proving to be very insightful and inspiring. Thanks again! Christopher.

[@Erickvazquezc]

This is wonderful, thank you

[@kevanhendrickson1356]

Thank you for teaching. I only had ten minutes to listen right now but the depth of your understanding is clear and I will be listening to more later.

[@sunkith5047]

great lecture, very helpful and I also enjoyed the anecdotes

[@OsakaTexas]

These lectures are so interesting thank you

[@tylermacdonald8924]

This guy is such an awesome lecturer

[@charlesdesobry9446]

I think the reason Kant draws a sharp distinction between sensibility and understanding is two-fold: 1. Without this distinction, true certainty is always in question. This is what Kant identifies as the issue between the Empiricists and the Rationalists-that the Empiricists beginning with intuition could never reach any universal claim about reality. Intuition can only ever tell us something might happen and never that it must-the problem of induction. The rationalist, on the other hand, lacked a true reference for their conceptual mode of grasping the world. Concept only ever related to other concepts and therefore there was always a risk of circular truths. Second, Kant must posit a distinction between understanding and sensibility to remain consistent with his theory of space and time as forms of intuition. Kant identifies these forms of intuition as substrates of subjectivity in which space makes possible our relationship to external objects, and time makes possible our self-relation, and therefore the very unity of the thinking subject. Kant therefore must draw a distinction within the subject between modes of knowledge which are fundamentally self-referential (concepts and categories) and modes of knowledge which depend on external affects (empirical judgements). The only way of making sense of a subject whose basic relationship to the world is spatio-temporal is to divide the subject into the inner/outer sense. One corresponds to understanding, and the other correspond to intuition

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

I love how the better audio quality in this one makes the poor audio for the first one a barrier to stop everyone watching the entire series.

[@alexandrapopova9760]

Amazing! The way you deliver your lectures makes me feel as if I participate in a philosophical discourse in one of your classes. You make years spent in college, and dollars paid to boring, snobbish professors seem worthless. Thank you

[@hasycromz]

Thank you so much for this!!

[@lindascanlan6317]

The noise factor was resolved! Thank you...

[@neixian]

Great talk about the title, preface and introduction.

[@JohnVKaravitis]

15:30 Explanation of word "transcendental."

[@aliuyar6365]

Thank you for the lecture

[@benk.psy32]

Reading the works of Jung and Piaget made Kant relatively easy for me to interpret and comprehend, terminologically speaking. Although I must confess that as interesting as it may sound, Kant's theories are more aesthetical than practical, primarily due to his own logical and linguistic inhibition, which resulted in a lack of explicit understanding in collective standards, and the change of terminology as time progressed. I feel Jung delved deeper into the subject that Kant perhaps established, but lacked the knowledge to fully understand himself. This is nonetheless exquisite material and I was educated tremendously, thank you very much professor. Now back to Jung.

[@utubeSunny]

Best lecture experience

[@fredericol1]

Thank you very much

[@joaugustinecorpuz518]

Thank you for your free lecture. I hope there's a subtitle to help foreign viewers understand the accent more :)

[@jimjiminy76]

Lecture is lit!

[@sotirissalloumis6129]

Thanks for sharing !

[@mustafaallouch7647]

I totally agree with the idea concerning how disappointing to the expectations are meetings with famous figures

[@antiquetozai1744]

A true teacher

[@firstlast3324]

Good job!

[@Dirtgut]

Legend.

[@Oceanmachine27]

I don't know the first damned thing about philosophy, but this was worth watching just to hear him lay into David Brooks

[@ToriKo_]

39:00, 41:03 talking about synthetic a posteriori and analytic a priori

[@pmcgee003]

The clarification for reverse implications at 56:00 reads a lot simpler in maths with (if and only if) substituting for => (implies)

[@williamgass9242]

The license plate people were like, "nope, you can’t get the same one. It was taken."

[@oliverblaylock4642]

I would love to play music with you Robert Paul Wolff.

[@jmanderson84]

Wolff is a badass.

[@luckOFtheIRISH9989]

At 31:11, the passage about reason having insight into a plan which it produces on it's own is a description of the unity of mind with the past and future. I like metaphors and parables, but this I can explain literally; Reason, being a force of mind not bound by physics, travels in all dimensions simultaneously. If we consider mind to be consciousness in a Universal sense, then what Kant describes as "God" at the end of the critique has the ability to see all possible future outcomes simultaneously as well as the ability to separate and manifest itself at any, some, or all points in time and change 3rd dimensional events as it see's fit, to ensure it's future existence as well as the creation of the Universe. I'm not big on religious anecdotes but I'll quote Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."

[@danchiappe]

At 53:00 his advice to write down the logic is valuable. I have seen great minds not do that and then be dumbstruck in front of the class.

[@afazafshar9453]

Thanks

[@MrStrutxD]

41:00 goes over definitions

[@srikantdelhi]

Yes, sensibility or sensory perception can supply the knowledge of "horse", but conception of "horse" as a concept beyond the physical-organic animal, is the work of history, or material development of society, and not development of the mind in abstract. For example, the application of the term or concept 'horse power', a certain material, engineering, technical evolution must take place. Similarly, for the concept a 'work-horse', a certain level of intensification of human labour-power must take place as a result of material reorganisation of society, in order for the concept to be applied. Therefore "reasoning" develops with the development of material relations of the society. This discovery would be made finally by Karl Marx after Kant and Hegel tried to come to terms with complexities of 'reality'. I have enjoyed listening to Prof. RP Wolff. Wish I could meet him in person some day.

[@boardpassenger1483]

Love these lectures! At any rate, so what Kant is doing in the Prolegomena is that to prove p, he first establishes the equivalence between p and q and assumes (or proves) q? And in the Critique, he, somehow, establishes p first and then derives, through ratiocinatio polysyllogistica, q?

[@hegerwalter]

Regarding "the starry heavens above me and the moral law within" license plate cover, you could commission some young artist to make that for you?

[@bernardmontgomery3898]

Please can you also lecture on Nietzsche and Kierkegaard

[@Hardcoreforliife]

The self criticism is funny. This dude is a Legend

[@redred333]

In regards what the esteemed professor discusses around 1:05:00 , I believe the evidence of mirror neurons and EEG data of brain activity indicate that the taking a concept to such a descriptive specificty does indeed result in an experience that is analogous and in some cases similar to a sensual experience.

[@arielf9587]

Tell it to Kant brother

[@longcastle4863]

Makes me miss my University days

[@ericgamful]

35:30 starts explaining the Critique!

[@meowwwww6350]

Cant thank!

[@keyevanoordt1357]

at 01:08:00 Wolff talks about an example of making the concept of a horse more specific to arrive at the experience of an individual horse. By making it more specific does he mean adding additional concepts such as color and size?

[@prerna22munshi]

Keye van Oordt yes

[@crizish]

Thanks for uploading these! Can you possibly say exactly where the lectures were given (sorry if I missed it somewhere in the description/comments)

[@alexcampbell7886]

Caldwall Hall (the philosophy department) at UNC Chapel Hill, specifically in the seminar room 213.

[@crizish]

@@alexcampbell7886 Great. Thanks Alex!

[@stuarthicks2696]

Literally made me think I can take another stab at this work. Possibly even make some heads or tails over it. Thank you.

[@eugeneho7556]

Anecdote about meeting Russell at start Anecdote about Tarski's talk at Harvard 52:32

[@ToriKo_]

57:30 talks about how in the second edition Kant shows his argument backwards (how to get from the conclusion to the premise. This caused a lot of confusion since it you start with the conclusion, any premises can show that’s ,,sound,,.

[@prerna22munshi]

Tori Ko but then Kant kind of tries cleaning up the mess by adding the ‘only possible conditions’ wherein Prof. Wolff gives the syllogism if P is the only condition under which Q is possible then that’s equivalent to if there’s Q, then P is also there.

[@ToriKo_]

Prerna thank you for your comment. To be honest I’m not sure why I made the initial note, maybe to notice that in real life people often start from the conclusion, and that there is something logically inappropriate there, and that I could try to notice that.

[@DrBenway83]

Regarding the passage of 'denying reason to make room for faith': Manfred Kühn's biography of Kant doesn't depict him as a pietist in a functional sense of the term - much rather to the contrary. Pietism was a dominant current of Lutheran religion in Kants Köningberg and as such had a profound impact on the education of the young. But Kant himself clearly opposed these methods as an adult. Kühn goes so far as to state that Kant did not have personal faith in the existence of a God or the promise of an afterlife, though these claims are too poorly substantiated to be presented as absolutely certain facts. Yet putting the label 'pietist' on Kant probably doesn't do him much justice. (It goes without saying that I very much enjoys these lectures, obviously)

[@arthuradler2800]

But if you combine philosophy with art this movement from the concept to the actual individual could be accomplished. For example in cinema: The creator of a film creates a creature out of a concept and projects it on the screen so everyone can see the inidividual creature.

[@tylermacdonald8924]

When does he discuss the subjective deduction??

[@KitCalder]

Transcendent: beyond experience; transcendental: behind experience?

[@garykemp7137]

transcendental: presupposed by experience?

[@JoaoMarcelo-cf7xl]

''transcendental has roughly the meaning that we would use on the word epistemological''

[@garykemp7137]

@@JoaoMarcelo-cf7xl Roughly. (:

[@luckOFtheIRISH9989]

I feel compelled to ask the question, doesn't it seem that Kant was torn between a duality of a juxtaposition of a mind bound perfectly within the perfection of pure mathematical logic and deductive reasoning and a mind that was also perfectly in tune with knowledge that a priori possibilities are absolute and infinite? How else could a mind justify the understanding that everything is both absolute and relative? The only faculty that would allow continuity of sanity would be pure understanding. For instance, it is a dichotomy and a paradox that objects exist in many forms, but there is no form which all objects derive their standards from. I can imagine an infinite amount of variations of a chair, yet there is no such blueprint a posteriori of a pure form of a chair. The only possible result is endless duality between a priori conception (software) and a posteriori objects (hardware). I lack the technical knowledge to describe what I know but it seems that within my lifetime I could describe a holographic Universe whereby all a posteriori objects are related through patterns of a priori force. Where the confusion sets in is epistemology, which I believe if I had the resources of a scholar, I could prove that metaphysics is not only a literal science, but the foundation of all nature. I lack the vocabulary to describe what is in my mind, but Kant clearly laid the foundation for metaphysics as the science that would answer all known questions. I would like to talk to someone more about this.

[@johnnycockatoo1003]

I am a reborn empiricist - the illusion of Kant has, in retrospect …..so "god" became "the a priori"

[@lokeshparihar7672]

1:00:19 famous four questions

[@andrewrae8064]

what translation is he using?

[@alecmisra4964]

Ironic that a Kantian would steal his license plate. He needs to read more. "Ah yes, the moral law within! Im going to steal that!"

[@edineifacioli3919]

Well noticed ahaha

[@Israel2.3.2]

43:23

[@user-ns3ev5sm4d]

I thought it’s a very nice class for me, although I am a foreign students so I can’t get understand clearly every sentence

[@Pikkendorff94]

Those lectures are great By the way, anyone can write to me what is the latin expression that he uses to refer to the polysyllogism please ? I'm french so I can't figure out by myself :)

[@Painfoot]

Théophile Chomienne ratiocinatiopolysyllogistica

[@patriciatinajero410]

Do you know which book is he using? Translation and editor?

[@andreaabraun]

Patricia Tinajero He answers your questions at the start of the first lecture

[@myrlewulf6256]

Norman Kemp Smith

[@RenanL.S.]

Ratio cenário palio silogística. Am I writing it right?

[@AL-fz9yh]

Ratiocinatio polysyllogistica

[@helenemasour9256]

I am clearly way too stupid. What a pity but one must know one's limitations.

[@jamesmoseley5428]

You are not too stupid for not initially getting this. It may be one of the most complex works ever written. People can spend their whole lives studying this work and never grasp its scope. If you can’t understand it, that means you’re closer than most to getting it. People throw Kant around all the time and pretend to understand him. They rarely do and it’s their loss if they think they can use words like “Kantian” and “Neo-Kantian” as some catch all description.

[@helenemasour9256]

@@jamesmoseley5428 Thank you for your time. I read CDR in French and I think I got the gist of it but these lectures made my understanding feel muddier... but it must be me. Thank you

[@ahadkhan3486]

@@UberGastronomer u can at least try to troll better. Btw if anyone was "anti-science" it would prob be hume

[@lamminkai9748]

@11:33

[@g7frag.516]

I noticed that every time he pause he moves his lips weird? was he sick at the time?

[@MV-vv7sg]

15:54

[@lamminkai9748]

5:23

[@fuckugplus]

Wow so ironic stealing a plate scribed: the starry heavens above and the moral law within. Someone lacked moral there.

[@pleasedontdestroythiseither]

5.

[@mariusmanci]

Too many ads unwatchable

[@remfrancis]

Could you let me have the link to the course book he is using. Thank you.

[@yuvrajk6133]

I love how with each lecture, number of veiws decrease...hard to understand Indeed..😄

[@alexcampbell7886]

Did you expect the number to increase?

[@_photography_]

Dig at sociologists around 41:15 was unnecessary

[@meowwwww6350]

Wow7:20

[@Daretoknow2020]

In case anyone interested, I just started a Immanuel Kant Series Podcast: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5_ZaWeNZayCkKM

[@banpaksebangfaixaibouri1107]

37

[@alecmisra4964]

"All animals are mortal" - sounds like an inductive inference to me.

[@lemonsys]

It is a premise, not an inference.

[@anilraghu8687]

a priori 37:40. Synthetic 38:40

[@unfortunatebeam]

No ma'am or mzz? Even if that were true, who cares and what's the point of bringing that up?

[@Hiroprotagonist253]

Triggered

[@unfortunatebeam]

@@Hiroprotagonist253 you don't know what "triggered" means

[@ahadkhan3486]

@@unfortunatebeam why do u care

[@jmanderson84]

Whoever stole his license plate should feel like such as asshole.