Kant's Transcendental Idealism

[@mikeob5894]

Uncommonly clear explanation of Kant which many academics seem to struggle presenting. Thank you for this.

[@hyperduality2838]

Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

[@adaptercrash]

That's because it's insane ...the moon is a quantum sphere that rotates the earths axis, you can't prove it. Or something like that, it's not just a rock. It's some abstract theory on transcdental spacetime as temporary and the satellite physics of the moon in relation to earth. Time is set to reverse itself in the year 4000, it's an actual thing, like how we use to be BC, now we are in AD. This is just his watered down social science.

[@trashygit]

@@hyperduality2838 Transcendental Aesthetic is not sensory.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@trashygit The word "aesthetic" in German means sensory. The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Immanuel Kant shows you how to make new concepts in The Critique of Pure Reason. Homology (syntropy, convergence) is dual to co-homology (entropy, divergence). The 4th law of thermodynamics is hardwired into mathematics and mathematical thinking. Your mind is syntropic as it makes predictions!

[@trashygit]

@@hyperduality2838 Aesthetics in German (die Ästhetik) means sense of something, not senses. This 'sense of something' can be roughly translated in English as 'perception' - other than direct translation aesthetics.

[@hilde45]

Former grad student, David Hildebrand, here, Dan. This was a really great lecture and it sounds like you had a cold. Heroic levels of energy and clarity throughout. I really enjoyed it.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Thanks! And good to hear from you!

[@bluesky45299]

@@PhiloofAlexandria Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection.

[@Patatronik]

I got a book that says the complete opposite of everything you said. Where do we go from here?​@@bluesky45299

[@Alkis05]

This analogy with the projector helped A LOT. I was almost there, and now, I think I get it.

[@hyperduality2838]

Here are some videos about projective geometry, universal hyperbolic geometry:- kzbin.info/www/bejne/navEnZWEgciqfas "All geometries are projective geometries" -- Arthur Cayley. Projective points (lines) are dual to projective lines (planes) -- the principle of duality in projective geometry. Points (poles) are dual to lines (polars). Quadrance is dual to spread. There is a pattern of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics & philosophy. The word "projective" implies at least two, an origin or projector and a screen to be projected onto -- it is therefore dual. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@tewtravelers9586]

As someone who has only taken a couple philosophy classes, I was never exposed to this explanation of reality. That said, I came to believe that matter is a somewhat like a projection through my own thought processes. We can only know mind. All objects we perceive are essentially mental models. It took me quite some time to find my way here and learn about Kant’s theory. Thank you for sharing.

[@jasonclarke2346]

I loved this, thank you! Really clear and wonderfully presented.

[@eudaemonia17]

as a philosophy instructor myself i find your energy and excitement for the content so refreshing and inspiring - thank you for sharing !

[@galaddamodred1110]

How in earth you don't have more followers? Please don't stop making videos. You are a fantastic teacher.

[@APaleDot]

An alternative way to understand the phrase "Copernican Revolution", is that before Copernicus, people believed the Earth was stationary. It sat there passively as the rest of the universe moved around it. And Copernicus revealed that it is the Earth which moves. It is an active element in the universe. In the same way, people before Kant believe that the mind passively receives impressions from the world which acts on it. But Kant showed that the mind actively constructs those impressions. It is an active element in perception.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Great point!

[@arthurgreene4567]

Thank you. Finally I think I understand. I was waiting for it, waiting, thought I’d finally get the answer I have been looking for, and then get a question mark. Brilliant!

[@Incitatushka]

Hey dude, you are really amazing, you are the master of teaching !

[@rmphilosophy]

Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the clear interpretation and demonstration of Kant and his project.

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

2:11 Copernicus 3:10 Kant, similar to Copernicus, in the idea of being a world changer Induction, Evidence, (Reason, Logic) 6:42 Concepts revolving around Objects, or Objects revolving around Concepts 12:46 The Mind, The Mirror of The World. A Projector? Structure can give understanding of what will be inside that structure 15:00 (Sounds like a Transcendental line of logic) Innate Ideas, The Categories Laws of Understanding Appearance, Experience 19:32 Necessary Factor to Have a Possibility You have to have a projector to have a projection experience 22:39 To Know The Real World? 23:44 Mind --> Thought of a shape --> Recognition of the shape (access to a form of triangle) Idea of Triangle, A-priori Concept, Mind Projects Shape? Projection of Prior Experience Phenomena - Appearances, Objects of Experience Shape, Motion - Sensed and Actual Color, Texture - Sensed but phenomenal ?

[@solomeen6512]

my prof has been yelling about the copernican turn for like a month without even explaining why kant refers to his redefinition as one. thanks so much for this 😭

[@muhammadasifkhan4198]

Beautifully presented.

[@abdussalampakistan3694]

Kant is great philosopher. Thank for the video lecture

[@hyperduality2838]

Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

you're joking right? well nobody is gonna miss us

[@crosstolerance]

@@hyperduality2838 A very complex analysis of various axioms. I'm not sure why you felt the need to outline all of these axioms. Please enlighten me.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@crosstolerance Information is dual and this means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics. Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. Knowledge is dual according to Kant, and if knowledge is dual then information is dual. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to co or mutual information (syntropy). Space is dual to time -- Einstein. The past (everything) is dual to the future (nothing) -- time duality. We know everything about the past as we have experienced or measured it (physics) and we know nothing about the future as it has not happened yet -- knowledge is dual. Everything is dual to nothing synthesizes something (the present) -- the Hegelian dialectic. Left is dual to right, up is dual to down, in is dual to out -- space duality. Both space and time are fundamentally dual concepts. There are new laws of physics if you take Kant and Hegel seriously. "Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking. Main stream physics currently rejects philosophy -- eliminative materialism. Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Energy is duality and everything in physics is made from energy (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.

[@franciskm4144]

Excellent. I think that Hegel gave the answer. Through work one can transform the real world by using apriori knowledge. Then our present knowledge moves towards thing in itself.🙏

[@h.p.j.niemeijer9917]

It seems to me that not the real world is being transformed but your personal understanding of what was the real world after the work was finished. BTW , is it ever?

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@h.p.j.niemeijer9917A telescope changes what we are conscious of. Does it change how we perceive the world? No. We still see lights in the sky, except now we “accept” that some of those lights are planets or galaxies. The telescope expands our perception of near and far. Because it works with “light” it also changes our perception of past, present and future. Because light travels at a finite speed, the light from a celestial object shows us a picture of the object from the past. We are looking at it from our present time, but what we are looking at belongs to a past time. Is there a type of telescope that can show objects as they will be in the future? Is there a type of light whose focus reveals the future? How would we know?

[@efleishermedia]

I think a key component to Kant's theory that has been lost to modernity due to science and now postmodernism veiling its existence, is Noumenon. It's his unchanging realm around the world of phenomenon. It's the realm beyond Hegel's geist. I find that in presentations like this one and most contemporary writers on the subject seem to downplay his emphasis on "metaphysics", giving it the position of a kind of broad psychology. But I think of it as a true metaphysics--a physics which includes transcendent realities, those objective AND numinous elements of the noumenon. The realm of phenomenon is all we accept today and thus, using Hegel's dialectic magic, have had to alchemize our language and theory to create a kind of synthetic noumenon. I've heard a lot of talk about a return of the logos, which I think has been encaged by Hegel's geist. But I think of this less in Greek or gnostic terms as much as in Kantian terms (with some Otto and Jung and others), in that we have lost our connection to Noumenon while chasing the synthetic. While Kant argued we can only know things subjectively, he argued for the existence of an unchanging realm. Maybe I'm not understanding this well and drawing connections where they shouldn't be

[@TeaParty1776]

Kantian noumenon or Hendrixian purple haze?

[@thethomist]

Thank you. Incredible explanation.

[@linguaphile9415]

Thank you so much for uploading this valuable content. It is so nice to adopt different perspectives on the world.

[@jasonclarke2346]

This is wonderfully lucid! Thank you.

[@LTDsaint15]

Dr. B for the win as always! Astoundingly clear explanation for my undergrad ears.. So many thanks!!

[@julesjgreig]

Very clear Dr. Bonevac, thank you.

[@malachimansfield5688]

Great video, great lecturer, thank you and your team for these videos.

[@MsAnkhaa]

Yes

[@symphonicsco1014]

Very good explanation!! I was enlightened by this video..

[@acevaptsarov8410]

Fantastic presentation. Thank you for presenting Kants ideas clearly and concisely like this! Love mulling these over haha

[@sisimaria1415]

Thank you for your work

[@Portekberm]

Thank you!! The most concise Kant video on YT

[@hyperduality2838]

Duality: two sides of the same coin (Heads is dual to tails). Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@amraouza4937]

This was a treat and invaluable explanation of kant's contribution compared to others , thank you professor .

[@NorthenTasawwuf]

Thanks professor! Greetings from Sweden. I enjoy following your lectures while doing part-time jobs, to boost my philosophical work and studies in the rest of the day. My school even use some of your books for a few smaller courses. To anyone watching and/or reading this, I can highly recommend Roger Scruton's introductory book on Kant (Oxford University Press). Also, at least reading Prolegomena (a few times) will greatly help you to understand Kant. I think professor Bonevac does a brilliant job of laying out all the important stuff here, but would like to stress, that one ought to resist any relativist/subjectivist/strong antirealist notions misleading one to construe Kant as meaning that we somehow construct the world willfully and that that construction would be infinitely malleable (like the intersectionalists/constructivists believe). To a very small degree, in some circumstances we may play some part, and we may be able to affect things through our attitudes, add or modify our beliefs, either willfully, or by negligence/ignorance, and so on, but it's one thing to speak of the world as a product of our minds (for us as humans, human condition, pre-sets, possible experience, essentially still retaining objectivity within our collective human framework etc.) and something entirely different to claim that the world fundamentally is, ontologically speaking, merely a case of constructivism. Sadly, many believe and actively promote that line of thinking (especially within sociology, while having zero grasp of philosophy, let alone metaphysics, even of their own subject). This difference we can see in the contemporary political battles. I think anyone clever and sharp enough knows what I mean. I love Kant and Wittgenstein, properly understood (the resolute reading), is a great continuation of the Kantian project of a synthesis between modest realism and modest antirealism.

[@hyperduality2838]

Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

[@isawilraen9816]

Well, Prof Bonevac did stress that point. He said something like "obviously this (the fact that reality is mentally constructed) doesn't mean that we don't need to go to school and learn stuff about reality; "the world conforming to our experience" doesn't mean that we can shape reality with our minds as we wish" ... and then he spent basically the rest of the video explaining how we can know the objects of our experience by knowing the fundamental structures of our 'projectors', which implicitly conveys, imo quite clearly, that those structures are what they are and not the product of whatever we want them to be. I ofc agree with what you said (cuz it's correct), but I just think that anyone who actually paid attention to the video would understand it.

[@adaptercrash]

The atmosphere was full of dark matter so we could go swimming, they are the movie house, they were just like ok. Schopenhauer just laughed at me. Then I taught them transcdental logic and they just started doing it.

[@dipaksen4765]

​@@hyperduality283821:03

[@dipaksen4765]

​@@hyperduality2838​@hyperduality2838

[@TheVibeDrive]

Very clarifying, thank you! Also I’d like to say your intonation and speech style leaves me imagining that Jeff Goldblum is explaining Kant 😂

[@neoepicurean3772]

For some reason I just took 'Copernican Revolution' to mean paradigm shift, but I've always missed the point about the change placing the mind at the centre of the world view. Thanks for this.

[@hyperduality2838]

Duality: two sides of the same coin (Heads is dual to tails). Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

[@zubariakhan2696]

Thank you for such a nice explanation.

[@YaBoiiiiiiiii]

12:04 You've explained this in such simple terms. Thank you!

[@DouglasHPlumb]

Kant was absolutely right in the transcendental aesthetic. The two-capacitor paradox proves it in time, Gabriel's horn proves it in space - you cannot have enough paint to paint the surface area but can have enough to fill its internal volume, so you could pour out the paint and have half the surface area covered. It doesn't have the implications people believe and is widely misunderstood. It doesn't make Kant a solipsist. He proves the Berklian view as absurd and apparently does the same thing with Leibniz, I don't quite understand the proof against Leibniz, but the case is clear but not conclusive IMO. Reading Allison clarifies Kant, although many books on the deduction are excellent. I wonder if there is anything post-Kantian on the philosophy of mind that is as good?. I wonder if there is such a thing as an honest academic - Kant has enemies and is hated. The category of quality has been a hard point for me. Comments?

[@keziahNjiraini-nh2rh]

Thanks for the insight.

[@johnward5102]

Great presentation, kan't fault it. Second that I've watched (Hume) and will check out Descartes and Hegel in due course. I want to know how Western thought went so dreadfully wrong and you lay it out in such a clear and comprehensible manner. Very many thanks.

[@chrisrichardson8988]

Amazing that anything intelligible can be garnered from KANT at all. His sentences are compounds full of commas and contrary phrases that are as long as paragraphs.

[@bernicekauzu9788]

This is magnificent lecture

[@ReaganFabry]

Amazing! Thank you

[@thuokagiri5550]

God i love your pedagogy

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Hi Daniel. I would appreciate any help with understanding Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of space and time and would appreciate some clarification on the metaphysical implications of Kant’s view of space and time, especially as someone who isn’t familiar with Kant’s ideas (even though I am interested). From what I know, Kant claims that both space and time only exist in the mind. As far as I understand, space and time wouldn’t exist for Kant if it was not for the human mind - it has no external mind-independent/objective reality. Am I right or wrong about this? (Is Kant only making an epistemological claim and not an ontological one? If this is the case, space and time would be incoherent without our mind, but space and time would still have some type of existence independent of our mind - maybe it would be chaotic?) If my assessment of Kant’s doctrine on space and time are valid, I was wondering then is there no objective reality that exists for Kant? If so, what is it, if it does not include space or time? Also, is Kant’s doctrine on time compatible with the growing block metaphysical theory of time (the past and present exist, but the future doesn’t exist) in contrast to both presentism (the present is real but the past and future are not real) and eternalism (past, present and future all equally coexist with one another)? Thanks for any response with these questions! 😃 I also apologise for my ignorance regarding Kant

[@Just.arandom1]

For Kant time and space only exists in mind as universal necessities which are functions of mind that help in structuring our experience and they don’t exist in reality. I would say he got it wrong ( time and space exist even before humans). For your second question Kant is saying world cannot be known. He doesn’t say it exists or doesn’t exist. But for practical reasons world, God etc. becomes a necessary precondition in Kants philosophy. So in theoretical sense he says he can’t say they actually exist or not but says they are preconditions for practical reasons.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Kant was ahead of his time

[@kaleidoscopicvoid]

But Daniel Bonevac strawman's Kant throughout this presentation. IDT he read the Critique of Pure Reason. Or if he did, he glossed over most of it.

[@Zoharargov]

Great lecture! Is there a playlist or a link to the following episode?

[@samanthaohren7223]

thank you!

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

You're welcome!

[@PracticalWisdomPhilosophyDS]

You are great sir 🌼👌

[@MauriceGucci]

I love these so much. I feel like a criminal watching them for free. Thank you so much!

[@yp77738yp77739]

Not all Kants are created equally. I nearly understood this.

[@williamcallahan5218]

"critique critiquing itself" or as Ramana Maharshi used to say "is using a thorn to remove a thorn".

[@Individualist73]

How did Helen Keller’s synthetic apriori intuition inform her about the objects of experience?

[@danielwarton5343]

Isn’t the question that Kant hasn’t maybe asked, how can he know this? His experience is one of growing in a place where he had these concepts given to him as he grew up. They were implanted in him, albeit unknowingly, as he developed. Outside input was teaching him things that he assumes are a priori. To then think that this knowledge is a priori he would need to study someone who hadn’t ever had human contact or any external feeding of information. Our experience conforms to the objects and our a priori knowledge isn’t a priori, it’s learnt. Instinct is a different value to understanding

[@crosstolerance]

I would have enjoyed him as my philosophy professor.

[@AbsurdistPanda]

Bruh, this was a sick ass explanation of some dppe ass concepts. On the real though, I appreciate kants willingness to say "absolute truth is out of humans scope." I think in some ways mans awareness of the gap between phenomena and the minds constructed interpretation of an object has driven so much of what we call progress. Whenever we find a phenomenena that does not conform to our existing priori were driven AF to create a better interpretation. I also think its a trip how humanity as an entity has created tools of observations which in themselves interpert natural phenomena into an observable constructions ala the projector. So a simple example would be infa red or radio waves. These phenomena exist, but are unobservable by human "Intuition." So obvi humans can't TRULY see or hear these phenomena, but we observe a constructed interpretation. And once you can see some shit, you can use it, in some instances manipulate it. E.g.. we make radio signals. Whats got me hyped recently is out ability to see gravity. Look that shit up if you haven't heard about it. But we've begun detecting gravitational waves through their minute distortion of space time. Think about what we'll be able to do with that!

[@brucekern7083]

What happens when the categories of the mind are applied to the categories of the mind? Is that what gives rise to our sense of metaphysical reality in constview or in any other philosophers view?

[@chemophile9106]

Kant was a genius....

[@Alkis05]

19:25 using modal symbology: P1) P -> q P2) p C1) q +++++ Proof A1) ¬q; Assume C1 is false. P3) P; P2, Axiom T P4) q; P1, MP P5) False; A1, P4 Contradiction C1) q ; A1-P5, Proof by contradiction

[@DouglasHPlumb]

The last half of his 3rd belongs at the end of his 1st.

[@raktimamchiforthe4thtime445]

Is the a priori knowledge kant claims also has to come from past experience? Because it's impossible to get an understanding of the things without first being confronted by them. How will the laws of understanding be a priori? Lets say you see an Apple which is a construction of your mind upon witnessing a object and applying the laws of understanding we came to know that that's an apple but this laws must have came from past experience right? I haven't a rationalist for a long time but after discovering Hume I am losing my grip

[@hyperduality2838]

Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

[@hyperduality2838]

@ant Duality leads to new laws of physics but as you can see it shows up in the metaphysics of Kant, Hegel, Plato et al. Good news is dual to bad news. Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. The bad news is that teleophobia currently dominates thinking in physics departments hence you are not likely to hear about these new laws. Immanuel Kant talks about teleology in "The Critique of Judgment". Teleology = targets, goals, intentions, objectives, aims or target tracking. You can associate teleology with the concept of God or a divine being or ideal perfect states in physics and some people do not like this at all -- teleophobia. The laws of physics are objective with respect to all observers for instance:- The velocity of light is the same and equal for all observer -- an ideal or perfect state in physics. The laws of physics are independent of the observer's perspective or position. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative.

[@hyperduality2838]

@ant "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Einstein. There is also a 5th law of thermodynamics:- The conservation of duality (energy), energy is duality, duality is energy. All energy in physics is dual. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual. Immanuel Kant had a mind duality and this is completely consistent with these new laws of physics! "I have awoken from my dogmatic slumbers" -- Immanuel Kant. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato. Plato was a student of Socrates so the dialectic comes from the Socratic method or dialectic. Dyads, dialectic = duality. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other (paradox) -- Immanuel Kant. Duality is two sides of the same coin (heads, tails) -- two differing perspectives of the same thing. In physics null vectors (photons, light) are perpendicular to themselves from our perspective and perpendicularity requires at least two. Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy (light) is therefore dual. The Christian cross is built from perpendicularity -- duality. I am not too sure what you are saying so I will ignore it. Nothing wrong with my brain as once you have a deep understanding of duality you can create new laws of physics:- Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics! Energy is duality, duality is energy -- Generalized duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Transcendental logic (concepts) is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory perception) -- Immanuel Kant. The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas. The philosophy of Kant et al. just reinforces the physics.

[@Alkis05]

Not you again...

[@hyperduality2838]

@@Alkis05 Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato. Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Monads are units of force which are dual, monads are dual. If your mind is a monad then your mind is dual! Duality (energy) creates reality! Perceptions are converted into conceptions (thinking) -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Thinking is therefore a syntropic process -- teleological. Syntropy is dual to entropy.

[@itopir]

❤

[@benquinneyiii7941]

The sun will rise

[@blackmonster4708]

When asked my political opinion - I start talking about a Carrot, On a Plate, On a table.

[@linguaphile9415]

This reminds me somehow of the way stereotypes shape how we perceive others. But it is weird to think we come into this world preequipped with concepts without which we couldn't make sense of the world. Let's take a chair. I know what a chair is because I was repeatedly exposed to chairs in my life and soon developed an understanding of what it is used for. This would be a realist's view. Kant would say I identify the chair and know everything about it (?) because I have a priori knowledge of it. When I see a chair for the first time in my life I will naturally sit down on it. But why do cultures without chairs not immediately understand the use of a chair? For example Aborigines before European contact. If the fixed (?) inventory of concepts is culture-specific, then is it impossible for Aborigines to acquire knowledge about the use and design of a chair? Clearly not, but how does Kant explain creative processes that make necessary the acquisition of new concepts?

[@mark4asp]

This lecture convinces me much philosophy is mytifying speculation. Tricks played by language, rhetoric, metaphor. Of course, some philosphy is sometimes a demystification; but way too little of it.

[@Ripred0219]

Do you have an example

[@mark4asp]

@@Ripred0219 Everything Heidegger ever wrote?

[@vee985]

If Kant doesn't blow your mind you do not understand what he states.

[@raresmircea]

I’m not saying that he’s right but for me revelation came from an AI researcher’s answer to the question "How do you think outside Reality looks like?". He said something along the lines of "Reality doesn’t look like anything because ‘looking like something’ is a property of the internal models that the various conscious agents have of the outside world. Only internal models look like something. There’s no clear naked direct way to perceive reality; any perceiving (by its very definition) happens indirectly through a representation". Off course i have problems getting used to this, it brakes our naive but enchanted view of the world.

[@hyperduality2838]

Duality: two sides of the same coin (Heads is dual to tails). Transcendental idealism is dual to transcendental aesthetic (sensory) -- Immanuel Kant. Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@vishalkrishnakumar6399]

May be If there is a cause there will be effects

[@1330m]

so good 2023 Huh kyung young Eternal milk Kerygma

[@thuokagiri5550]

In conclusion ,Emmanuel kan't ,but at least Emanuel tried

[@CesarSandoval024]

I understand nada....

[@DazeyChaineMusic]

according to metaphysics he might be right

[@aes9154]

21:11

[@canisronis2753]

Enter Shopenhauer

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Quantum mechanics

[@HelenBrown-s1j]

Rodriguez Jason White Michael Martin Shirley

[@Piedone21]

The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@whatsinaname691]

And yet he presupposes regularity in order to apply scientific hypotheses. Obviously the universe doesn’t have obligations, that doesn’t mean that you can just throw out fun anti-intellectual quotes that can only be meaningfully applied to the end of ceasing the quest for knowledge.

[@jvpresnall]

The problem with this guy is that he has his own philosophical vocabulary. He doesn’t take the text as it presents itself. Instead he has a style of argument that he imposes in the text. So if you try to read the texts he’s talking about, you would have no idea. Because this guy thinks he’s smart, and he is, but he won’t help you learn about all the philosophers he’s talking about.

[@landonech]

All do respect, you can always just read Kant’s work, or read along with a readers guide. Professor Bonevac is lecturing us (for free, mind you) as he would his students. But its not as if he’s assigning us homework and is free to contact to clear up questions in person or by email. If you want to learn this material you’ll have to grapple with it (as you do in the classroom, through homework, outside reading , etc.) I’d say this is a great primer on Kant, and again, it’s free! And considering any ole’ schmuck can upload a KZbin video, and Professor Bonevac has actually been teaching this material for years, I’d say it’s one of the better primers you’re going to get.

[@whatsinaname691]

He’s an incredibly well-respected college professor who’s letting you watch his lectures for free. He’s made this easily digestible and he’s not assuming you’re completely ignorant since this probably comes at the midpoint of the semester, so don’t complain about your own ignorance going in.

[@science212]

Kant is a bad philosophy.

[@clman4]

You heard it here folks, let's close down shop

[@henriknielsen1662]

@science212: No, you just have a low IQ