Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic

[@gloo0m]

So happy I found this channel, binging every video you have right now - I just graduated in physics and this kind of content is exactly what is missing from the field. Funny how were stuck at observation and spacetime. Both of which have been debated in philosophy for centuries. Love your content x

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! And congratulations on graduating! 😄

[@adaptercrash]

Are you watching a movie?

[@kakistocracyusa]

Maybe you simply need to learn more physics, as the subject (and the critical physiological dependence) is addressed far more rigorously and intelligently in physics. To the "metaphysical" aspect that is not addressed by physics, Kant does not introduce anything remotely new, as this was contemplated throughout antiquity. Worse yet, Kant's "synthetic a priori" is a self-impressed word game that hopes you will be confused enough to agree.

[@nextfuturesongs]

Was this the last video of the CPR series? It's very helpful, I wish there was more

[@gowtham120xx]

Been loving all your videos so far, stuff which I struggled to understand are so clear now

[@Svarog187]

This is the best Philosophy content on youtube. Respect.

[@tanweeralam7798]

I appreciate you sharing this video. I was struggling to understand these concepts. I got too much clarity after watching it. Respect.

[@bearybearbear7514]

Thank you so much for this video. Helps a lot in my undergrad Kant class. Please make more! :)

[@Benjamin-ml7sv]

Helped me a lot with understanding and reading Kant thanks. You are capable of explaining these concepts pretty well, which shows that you understand what is written.

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! Happy to hear that our work helped you in some way 😄

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

This understanding, which creates a delay in being in the world "they" don't like it. Which leads us to Heideggers philosophy.

[@MuguEditz13]

Thank you for your efforts sir :) Amazing explanation, especially the summary in the end.

[@abbeymaeliam1]

I've been trying to find the passage in Schopenhauer where he talks about why these intuitions don't mean our brain is tracking every cause in the world, which is a question I had for a while. I'm wondering if Kant gives his explanation of this somewhere, i.e., that each individual brain isn't somehow miraculously taking stock of the sum of all causes at every instant and projecting a world for itself, but rather, because the 'subject' is not subject to the same relations of sensibility, that it is in fact only ONE consciousness, one WILL, of which all entities are only instances. I don't know if Kant got this far with the idea, but it seems to explain not only why objects exist discretely as they do, but also why we take an INTEREST in them, rather than just letting them float by as hallucinations. It's all clearly one thing, of course; like, cognition is the manifestation of life-drives that are working at any given instant to keep us alive; I only wonder if this fact occurred to Kant somewhere, and how he articulated it.

[@julesjgreig]

Good job, Thank you

[@antonnie5177]

I really like your videos and they are really helpful, thank you. I only miss the official references of your quotes i.e. B39 or A24. Might be helpful to see where you got the quotes from. Since one might have other translations of his Critique

[@soulfulreverb7540]

Please put summary in the format of flow chart/mind map. It would be more helpful. And use pop ups describing meaning of hard words/concepts. It should be easy to understand for me, because I'm not philosophy student.

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Hey thanks for your comment and your helpful advise!😁

[@colinpatterson728]

Hey do you fancy making such a map with me ? - we could make it together- I am ready.

[@Jorens97]

really nice vid! thank u so much! i hope you keep on making more content

[@evanchethik4639]

Incredible - really clear. Better than some of my profs.

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Thank you so much! 😄

[@colinpatterson728]

Some - you mean nearly all ?

[@dp4922]

Amazing explanation . Thank you so much ☺️

[@atharvaswami5726]

It seems like you enjoy doing this. keep it up.

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

I really do! And will do! 😄

[@Mal1234567]

This video is pretty good.

[@Plutão-r3h]

but then I got confused: are space and time objects, forms, representations or intuitions?

[@Plutão-r3h]

@Marc van den Boogaard 🤝🤝

[@maxr.k.pravus9518]

Nice summary

[@jessezhang8350]

thank you for these videos!

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Very welcome! 😄

[@tatha_gat7483]

9:00

[@zardoz7900]

We place objects outside of ourselves including "our " bodies . I wouldn't talk about our bodies as "ours". Because then you can say "my" daughter or "my" car. Our bodies are things in themselves and cannot be known. According to Kant. Right?

[@eversbrothersproductions1476]

Yes that's it. We only know the appearance and representation of our selves, but not our self as thing in itself. Bridging to psychoanalysis we could say that we do not "know" the unconscious (thing in itself), yet we act as if "we" (the appearance) controls our actions.

[@zardoz7900]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant in that respect. Do "things" even exist is the question. If there is no "thing" and that is what nothing really means and that is, there is no nothing, meaning there is always something, the "I" as Schopenhauer elaborates, the "I" is all there is and that it is not a thing, so what I think follows is since things are only concepts so by default they cannot be known in themselves because in reality they do no exist and that which does not exist cannot be known. One could argue as you said our actions are driven by our unconscious which is very real but I don't know how that relates to this veiled reality underneath. Maybe. Maybe I'm not understanding. In other words I don't see how it relates to this veiled Platonic sphere of ideas. I think Sartre argued that and said, existence precedes essence. Maybe. Maybe not. But I need to read up further on Kant my apologies. I think he did say time does not exist and that it's just how our minds make sense of the world and that is the sequence of things in the past, the present and the anticipated future. This is very interesting. I appreciate your reply. Anyway, again, real quick, I was just confused when you brought up the unconscious. I thought it was an entirely different subject. But maybe I wasn't understanding something.✌️

[@zardoz7900]

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 I think what you meant by the unconscious has to do with our lives and kidneys functioning and employing extremely complex tasks that our rational minds aren't even able to conceive. David Bohms, Implicate and explicate order is another example of that and that is, the unfolding in the movement itself. Simpler examples are mosquitoes or bed bugs. A mosquito doesn't premeditate flying towards an area that conceals it once we try to kill it, it just does it. Bed bugs too are never felt and difficult to catch in action and they too don't "think" and it's all unconscious. However, I do agree with Schopenhauer and that Kant was wrong in a sense that there are no things in themselves. Everything is just one "thing" for lack of better words and it cannot be known. Truth cannot be known.

[@wuwang55]

guys need to know,Kant didn't denfined our self is a object,and ourself same as others object in space&time。

[@raviolihog4002]

if anyone reads this, i just dont understand how space and time are entirely subjective. if i put two objects in a room, then have 10 aliens from different far away galaxies measure the distance between them, with their own subjective languages, units of measurement, etc. they will surely conclude the same answers. the space is real whether we perceive it or not right? so how can it be entirely subjective?

[@Nature_Consciousness]

Space and time need minds to exist.

[@raviolihog4002]

@@Nature_Consciousness simply repeating kants argument doesn't challenge my conclusions. so your house doesn't exist until you come home to it? im saying thats impossible.

[@Nature_Consciousness]

@@raviolihog4002 That is idealism, where objects in the world are only objects if there is a mind to perceive them.

[@raviolihog4002]

@@Nature_Consciousness ok ok, i apreciate what ur saying cause that's wild and i didnt understand. however idk how true that actually is, but again im just trying to understand haha

[@Nature_Consciousness]

@@raviolihog4002 I am currently not an idealist, since I think minds need a world beyond them, but lately I have been debating whether it is actually true or not. In this video series, there is someone defending it and it might be very interesting to you. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpOag2magbaYpbs

[@wuwang55]

Time space cannot exist independently of objects, and sensibility must be predicated on our bodies, which are in time space. So what is time space? And what are we? Self-consciousness

[@peterroberts4509]

Whatever they are, they're not the same thing

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Yeah I'll just give you a see, the aesthetics of spacetime- it is not a priori- vision. You probably cannot even remember, and I can. Intuitions are developed and distorted through objects obviously. Literally it's nonsense, he couldn't complete it because the controversy between fichte and hegel.

[@dabYaching]

Why the distracting flashing specks of light? Why ruin the video with these flashing specks of light???

[@kakistocracyusa]

Kant's word games are critically dependent on misrepresenting the animal senses through the same stale, highly tortured, curated, and continually-parroted "examples." Outside of history classes, the ONLY reason Kant's "reason" is still relevant today, along with all the same IDENTICAL, tired, asinine word games parroted by every 3rd-rate teacher's assistant for last 100 years, is that it allows philosophy academics to FEEL relevant, as well as to FEEL as though they are knowledgeable in the rigors/wisdom of Math and Physics (belied by the same stupid word games), because...because..... it's "metaphysics"!!