IMMANUEL KANT : CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

[Galeanification]

In 2:40 you say 'The Empiricists who Kant was Criticising thought that all knowledge, all certain knowledge was deductive ...' that is analytic; I have the impression Kant was not criticising the Empiricists, he was criticising both, Empiricists and Rationalists, what's more, Empiricists couldn't or can't care less about analytic statements, since, for them, and certainly for Hume (to whom you're referring) all possible knowledge derives from synthetic a posteriori instances .... ;-)

[drift16hab]

ugh i have a test on Mr. Kant tomorrow.... not looking forward to this

[Devranderya]

Germany injure the human rights.Rich germans fight 18 years with my family.They essay to kill my mother me and my sister.Germans give me 14 years medicals to make me sick.My poor mother cry but germans have no pitty.

[elendiel]

Wait a minute... Is really "I think therefore I am" an apriori statement? It seems to me, that the "I am" has to be empirically (though not through senses, but through an inner sense) based. As in - I observe thoughts in my head, therefore I am. Of course it is obviously necessary for me to exist in order to even come to that thought, but still - I came to that through perception.

[treegraph]

I don't understand why your example "There are other worlds" is syntetic.

Eighter A)

you declare everything which can be talked about as existent - in which case the statment is a tautology and therefore analytic.

Or B)

there is actually the possibility for something named not to be existent - then I don't see how an existence-statment like this is a "necessary deduction" from anything. The statment "There are NO other worlds" would then also be syntetic but how could both be necessary?

[lifestraight]

@treegraph For your example of A) It would be anayltic a priori, as opposed to just analytic. What is described in the video as analytic is a phrase or expression that has the conclusion and statement in one. A tautology is what is expressed as analytic a priori.

As for B) That statement is also synthetic a priori viewpoint, because it also "can't be tested empirically".

[treegraph]

@lifestraight for B: I thought a priori statements have to be necessary.

Aside from that, when talking about other worlds (another universe, heaven, etc.) I rather thought about places which can't be contacted by people you can talk to (including yourself).

[Kelchup]

Reading all the essays others have to do on Kant, I am grateful mine is a mere explanation of how he deals with Hume's scepticism. Seems much easier~

This talk has helped me understand the basics a lot! Cheers

[darnoc698]

Man i had write paper on how kants idea of space is similiar to Newton's and Leibniz. Many he is hard to understand.

[oali94]

coGito ... not coJito

[XavierMacX]

@oali94 Depends on what type (regional variation) of Latin you're speaking. Both are correct.

[FeelingFreshSon]

The critique of pure reason has allowed me to see how superficial my reading comprehension actually is. That being said, the book will

not leave my side until I understand what Kant wanted to convey. HE DESERVES

OUR RESPECT GOSH DARNIT. Berkeley and Hume get bonus points for being easily read though.

readable though.

[FeelingFreshSon]

@FeelingFreshSon

see what the critique has done to me!! I don't even make sense anymore!

[WhiterThanYall]

Kant's name is pronouced KONT / KAHNT. Not can't.

[sagexp]

anyone got the actual link for the full lecture? Im having some trouble finding it.

[MaRLeEthEKiTTy]

Other than the occasional pronoun, preposition, or article, Immanuel Kant did not believe in using words with fewer than 4 syllables. Also, he didn't believe in writing sentences less than a page long. If he were alive today, he would be very offended by all of this Twitter and text messaging and would view it is a sign that most modern people are severely mentally deficient. Kant's pretentious vocabulary and syntax prove his superior intellectual prowess.

[BrianCardova]

@MaRLeEthEKiTTy Nothing is proven! SCIENCE IS SHIT! REASON IS SHIT!

[jeffreysbrother]

@MaRLeEthEKiTTy you're just frustrated.



[MaRLeEthEKiTTy]

@jeffreysbrother I'm shitting right now. Love you.

[robgeorge87]

4:00. a tall tree is a synthetic statement but....... 2:10. a tall man is an analytic statement......

bollocks

[samaleyo]

@robgeorge87 It's clearly not bollocks. He says "A tall man is a man" is an analytic statement, and he's right because the predicate of being a man is contained within the term "tall man".

A statement like "That tree is tall" is synthetic because the definition of tree contains no mention of tallness.

[Mal1234567]

Empiricists say that knowledge begins with experience. This is most emphatically true. But it does not therefore follow that all knowledge arises out of experience.

For example, Copernicus derived a new theory of the cosmos. While his theory was partially based on empirical observation, such observation does not give us any theory. The theory itself is a purely human invention. It is thus synthetic a priori: as synthetic, it is based on observation; but as a priori, its origin is also mental.

[DJZanark]

@Mal1234567 By your line of reasoning, it follows that everything is practically a priori, no? Everything we come to know is basically a rediscovering of what's out there or an interpretation of it such as theories that we develop to explain phenomenons in our world. If a priori is that which is known without reference to the world, it means that whatever is a priori is objectively true, doesn't it?

[Mal1234567]

@DJZanark The Critique of Pure Reason would have almost all judgment as based in the a priori. But not all. Kant eliminated subjective judgment ("this pan feels hot to me") from the realm of a priori rules. Such judgments are a posteriori.

[DJZanark]

@Mal1234567 I haven't read The Critique of Pure Reason yet, but I heard it was a hard piece to grasp. I guess what Kant's saying is the opposite of Descartes, where he claims that whatever you feel is true (even if you see a purple dragon - though it's not real, for you it is real because you experienced it, etc).

[Mal1234567]

@DJZanark Descartes would not even know the "I think" in his formula without first having something to think about. There can be no thought devoid of content. So he can't very well doubt everything outside of "I am" since that content makes it possible for him to think at all. But is the content real or fantasy? He can't very well know fantasy without first knowing reality.

[DJZanark]

@Mal1234567 Good point.

[soultorment27]

@Mal1234567

"Descartes can't very well doubt everything outside of "I am" since that content makes it possible for him to think at all."

No Descartes is NOT doubting whether something exists external to his mind, what he is in fact doubting is whether it's possible to "know" anything about the external world...

"He can't very well know fantasy without first knowing reality."

What? It's never possible to know something x, if x is indeed false. So I'm really not sure what you mean...

[Mal1234567]

@soultorment27 Descartes finds that the only thing he cannot doubt is the fact that he is doubting it. This is a question of knowledge not of things existing. But Descartes lacked any Critique to tell him that this "it" he is doubting makes it possible for him to doubt in the first place. That is what I called the content of thought. Descartes thus begs the question.

[soultorment27]

@Mal1234567 Yes Descartes begs the question. In addition to this though, even if we grant everything and ignore his begging the question, the conclusion still wouldn't follow. From the premise: "I think" we cannot conclude that therefore "I am". The only thing that we would be able to deduce from "I think" is that therefore "Something thinks"...

[Mal1234567]

@soultorment27 In that case you're assuming that this "I" is a something. Kant spent some pages in the section on rational psychology arguing against treating the self as a thing, that is, an empirical existent.

[soultorment27]

@Mal1234567 I'm not assuming anything. I'm only saing that even if we grant everything, the conclusion still doesn't follow. Regardless of whether the self is a thing, regardless of whether it begs the question, regardless of whether the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow.

[Mal1234567]

@soultorment27 You mean "I am" doesn't follow from "I think." I don't believe Descartes was trying to make an argument here. It was just his sloppy way of stating that the "I think" implies the existence, the "I am," of a thinker.

[Mal1234567]

@soultorment27 It doesn't look like an argument, not enough premises.

[Mal1234567]

@DJZanark A priori grounds give objective truth. A posteriori grounds only give subjective truth.

[grandmasterqz]

I freakin' Love PHILOSOPHY.

[abuseforapie]

It's not "cant' it's "Kant"

[freakOFtheNature]

every proposition is an analytical statement because it entails all properties remembered through sensory experiences, the cogito ergo sum is not a synthetic statement because the concepts of being, the "I", the "am", and the "think" all share similar foundations in what our perception evidently reveals

[Mal1234567]

@freakOFtheNature Kant is not talking about the empirical content of knowledge but the capacity for knowledge.