KANT | Free Will in a Determined World | Critique of Pure Reason

Рет қаралды 6,684

Mindful Philosophy

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 47

@Zitouzik 6 ай бұрын

Great explanation thank you

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful welcome

@SukukNetwork 6 ай бұрын

yes i think Kant was indeed phenomenal

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

yeah philosophy in not the same after Him

@freudianslip2534 22 күн бұрын

@@SukukNetwork I see what you did there

@prschuster 3 ай бұрын

It seems to me that compatiblism bridges the gap between determinism and free will. Everything has a cause, but the causes of our decisions and actions occur within our own brain/mind. It is still cause & effect, but it happens within us. Therefore, it preserves the concept of moral responsibility.

@mindphilo 3 ай бұрын

i think compatibilist misses a crucial point - simply having internal causes doesn't give us genuine free will or moral responsibility, if our decisions are just links in a causal chain, even an internal one, we're still just sophisticated machines following predetermined paths. that's why Kant believed we need a special kind of causation through reason that exists outside the natural causal order - what he called transcendental freedom.

@prschuster 3 ай бұрын

@@mindphilo The term, compatibilism is confusing. I see determinism as being only through natural causes, but those within the brain appear to be a separate reality because the brain responds to its own neural circuitry in a way that is largely shielded from outside influences. It's like walking through a maze. When you're in the maze, you are on a path of your own, but when you exit, it's still connected to the entry and exit in an unbroken zigzag line. Maybe I misunderstand compatibilism. If Kant is speaking of a separate line of cause and effect in the mind, then I disagree with his dualism. The separation is only apparent, due to the complexity of neural circuits.

@zameerkazi4438 2 ай бұрын

Thank you 😊 There is too much bass in the sound

@mindphilo 2 ай бұрын

Sorry for that, editing it s not my best skills

@mehmetkurhan9876 6 ай бұрын

One of the best Kant videos on platform. Thank you so much for all work you do and the contribution to our intellectual growth ❤

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoy it my friend Mehmet thank you for your support

@zhubajie6940 6 ай бұрын

Good presentation of Kant despite the failure of his philosophy. Emotional attachment to things of faith is not a justification for belief as any thought then can be true just because you or enough people surrounding you believe. To know is to justify not merely desiring it to be true.

@mehmetkurhan9876 6 ай бұрын

If there is “things in itself “ that block us from getting the absolute truth then anything towards absolute truth would be merely faith. That’s what Kant means I think. The limits of knowledge leaves us to our own cognition

@Mark.Allen1111 6 ай бұрын

The only thing we can ever truly know is that we can never know. It’s also the most important thing to know. We know how to use the things in the exterior but we can’t know the interior aspect of the unchanging thing. We can know how to use numbers, but we can never know the zero. The placekeeper of all things can never be known.

@user-oi9iz9jr8y 6 ай бұрын

Very well said

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

Thank you

@TikaClub 6 ай бұрын

Nice very helpful as usual thank you

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

So nice of you

@yeyohuevonhassassin2 5 ай бұрын

Im not completely sure but, the antinomies are what Hegel used to explain his philosophical system right?

@mindphilo 5 ай бұрын

Great question and you are right ;;the antinomies in Kant’s philosophy highlight contradictions that arise when we try to apply pure reason beyond possible experience. Hegel indeed engages with these ideas, but he goes a step further by using dialectics to resolve such contradictions in his own system. He sought to show how opposing ideas could be synthesized into a higher truth. So, while Hegel was influenced by Kant's antinomies, he developed them into something quite different for his own philosophical framework.

@kelciebasham236 4 ай бұрын

@@mindphilo I would love your take on Hegel. I recently got into him and goodness he is difficult lol

@mindphilo 3 ай бұрын

Chech the last podcast on hegel

@yeyohuevonhassassin2 3 ай бұрын

@@mindphilo I was listening yesterday to it 👍

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

Join and be channel member to support my work: kzbin.info/door/4hkfv9BNzYh-IafZd94b9wjoin My ETH crypto wallet wallet : 0x3db70687855fcd93c179d532e9ba59c582ee10bc (to be credited please send email to mindfulphilo@gmail.com )

@sibco96 6 ай бұрын

Why we *Kant be free

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

we kan ;-)

@aiwekhojoshua9218 6 ай бұрын

Thank you for these great content. U mentioned only 3 out of 12. Wat if the rest 9

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

hi @aiwekhojoshua9218 & thank you very much for your comment and for paying attention to the very important details in my podcast about Kant. y ou are absolutely right in pointing out that I mentioned three "categories" by citing time, space, and causality. In fact, time and space are what Kant calls forms of intuition, while causality is one of the twelve categories of understanding. To clarify: Forms of Intuition : (time and space) are the frameworks within which we perceive all our experiences. Time structures our perception of internal events, and space structures our perception of the external world. Categories: These are the fundamental concepts that our understanding uses to organize and interpret experiences. Kant divides these into four groups: Quantity: Unity, Plurality, Totality Quality: Reality, Negation, Limitation Relation: Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident), Causality and Dependence (cause and effect), Community (reciprocity) Modality: Possibility, Existence, Necessity I chose to simplify and combine these concepts to make the podcast more fluid and accessible to a broader audience. Mentioning and explaining all twelve categories in detail would have made the episode too long and potentially less accessible for those not already familiar with Kantian philosophy. again thant you for your remark

@centercannothold9760 6 ай бұрын

Well..there is no noumenal world- it doesn't exist. Metaphysically there's only the one world of nature and you and I are part of it. Kant was a thoroughgoing mystic- his sophistry was no wonder.

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

hi ur statement contains a misunderstanding. Kant posited both the phenomenal world (the world of experiences) and the noumenal world (the world of things-in-themselves). While we can never have direct knowledge of the noumenal world, it exists as a necessary counterpart to the phenomenal world, grounding our experiences. Kant was not a mystic; his philosophy rigorously explores the limits and conditions of human knowledge, asserting that we can know appearances but not things as they are in themselves. for example we can study and describe the properties of an apple-its color, taste, and texture-but we cannot know the apple's true essence independent of our sensory experience. Kant's point is that our knowledge is limited by our cognitive framework, making certain aspects of reality inherently unknowable. hope it s more clear

@prschuster 3 ай бұрын

@@mindphilo I see the world of our experiences as a model our mind makes to make sense of a world that is far more vast than we can fully know. Color, sound and distinction between foreground and background are artifacts of our mind making sense of wavelength of light and air vibrations. Quantum mechanics involves crude models of phenomena way beyond our understanding. Science can peal only so much deeper than surface appearances, but can't get down to the thing itself. It's limited by what we can perceive or conceive. It's kind of like a dog that can see and feel the warmth of the Sun, but can never understand the heliocentric solar system, or realize that the Sun is a star. Just like the dog, we also have limits of which we are not aware. Is that what Kant means?

@SwatantraNandanwar 6 ай бұрын

Useful reading for all muslims wjo think they have choices

@medmed-db2dg 6 ай бұрын

Time doesn't exist and well explained but how about Space ?

@ThermaL-ty7bw 6 ай бұрын

Space is a three-dimensional continuum containing positions and directions. we call it space-TIME , because time DOES exist Modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

@faxingitin 6 ай бұрын

My two cents: Space can exist in its sheer size because time does not exist. The existence of space and its cause are beyond the domain of human knowledge. But what do I know? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

space is not something that exists independently of our perception; rather, it is a framework that our mind uses to organize sensory input. Imagine you are dreaming, walking through vast landscapes. Upon waking, you realize these spaces didn't exist independently-they were constructs of your mind. similarly, Kant argues that space is not an external reality but a mental framework for organizing our sensory experiences.

@judewarner1536 5 ай бұрын

Reason requires at least two things: information and words. I separate words from other types of information because it is possible to write a grammically correct sentence that provides no useful information or conversely is pathologically ambiguous in the information it does provide. Reason requires empirical observation to provide the vehicle that reason fuels. Neither can exist in isolation. Having said that, Reason is overrated because EVERYBODY who claims to operate on Reason ignores the human element. The efficiency of the brain you are born with; the family structure or lack of it; the culture you are born into; perceptive acuity; range of experience; education and developing ability to process all these along with barely controllable, often unrecognised emotion combine to determine decisions and choices that involve far less Reason or freewill than most people are able to consider from their biased or simply ignorant perspective.

@mindphilo 5 ай бұрын

Good point stay tuned fr my next podcast about Descartes and how he believed that reason, when properly applied, can lead us to certain truths despite the complexities of our human condition.

@ThermaL-ty7bw 6 ай бұрын

you either do something For previous reasons , which makes it determined or you do something for No reason , random but randomness is another form of determinism , so basically all we CAN have ... is determinism , in all cases there is no other ''slot'' to put things in , determined and randomness is all you have to work with free will is NOT A COHERENT concept we know most things ARE determined in the universe , we Also know that randomness is an Actual force in the universe , there is nothing else people confuse libertarian ''free will'' with the other one , we THINK we have free will , but when you actually look in to the current problem , you'll figure out quickly that they were wrong and oh , look at that , it WAS determined after all it's a bit like giving ''god'' as an answer to a problem , when you have NO GOD to propose , not even a little bit , it's just weird to me ... hey man , do i use this philips screw driver or a flat one '' well , i got this triangle screw driver at home , but i can't find it , know what it looks like OR what color it has'' oh , ok , ---turns head and walks away quickly--- ( you just look like a moron when you propose things like this , gods , free will , ... ) reality does NOT care about the little thoughts you have

@mindphilo 6 ай бұрын

welcome @ThermaL-ty7bw you mention the concept of randomness, which indeed plays a role in the universe. Kant would argue that randomnes doesn’t provide a basis for moral responsibility or meaningful choice. Instead, his idea of free will is about the autonomy of rational agents-acting according to self-imposed principles rather than being solely driven by physical or random causes. It's true that this view doesn’t fit neatly into either strict determinism or randomness. Kant proposes a unique framework where free will and determinism coexist in diffrent domains: the empirical world of phenomena and the noumenal realm of rational agency.

@ElSighi 2 ай бұрын

Kant was not a criticist

@mindphilo 2 ай бұрын

Actually, i think Kant was considered a 'criticist', but not in the everyday sense of the word. He pioneered 'critical philosophy,' which is all about examining the limits and conditions of human knowledge.