Geoffrey Warnock on Kant: Section 3

[CommunistWarrior1917]

Kant was certaintly correct in giving a role to both the subject and object in constituting experience. On this point, Karl Marx saw Kant as beingsuperiorto vulgar materialists.

[stonemanrichard]

A thousand thanks to the person who made this series available to us all. Although I don't grasp every point, I'm beginning to understand the terminology, and thereby the meaning, of philosophy much better; and I find this much easier via the to and fro of discussion than struggling with a book which takes too much for granted of it's (lay) reader.

Cheers !

[VVillowz]

Geoffrey Warnock is a lucid speaker. Everything he says is based on the premise of clarity.

[DrDeist]

Thanx again, flame. 

[1844Freddy]

Geoffrey Warnock has a nice playful grin

[ethankegley]

This is really fantastic, thank you for posting

[mightyafrowhitey]

although paradoxically, it is this very external reality that I can never prove, since to do so I would have to call on my sense faculties to do so.

[mightyafrowhitey]

@SuperWorldwide23 it seems to me that all he is saying is that we can never know anything objectively independant of our sense faculties. I necesarrily experience the world through my limited sense organs and contruct a model of that world in my head which I call reality. this doesn't seem much different from what hume argued. that what I know is based on the acceptence of an external reality.

[tattoofthesun]

them spectacles look like magnifying glasses on Magee

[richardcadbury]

Half an hour and Warnock hasn't given a SINGLE specific example of how on of Kant's ideas would apply to particular instance.

Half an hour.

2 possibilities:

1. Warnock is a really crap pedagogue.

2. As soon as you try to apply the ideas to an example, their silliness becomes obvious.

3. Or both.

What does Warnock have to fear in giving an example or two?

[AlephNeil]

@richardcadbury : Actually, I think Warnock (or rather the two of them) are explaining it pretty well, considering the limited time available.

I don't know quite what kinds of 'specific examples' you're expecting to get, but the 'example' of how Kant treats space and time is very characteristic of his thinking.

[richardcadbury]

The interviewer is lucid and doing very well, granted.

A "specific example" of how this abstract idea of noumenal/phenomenal difference might include how the idea applies to an object.

Like a chair, or a lamp etc.

I think it's reasonable to expect an example or two like that to make things clearer.

[MelchBurg]

@SuperWorldwide23 Well, how many dimensions are there? Our senses may be good enough to perceive some of gravity's effects here on Planet Earth, but it's very much possible that many of the structures in the Universe escape us... our ability to apprehend is limited by ourselves.

[4EVERton]

What's up with the reverb

[mach1man22]

Sound is terrible! These guys sound like their talking through a bucket

[entropia34332]

they are too

[JesuitFarmer]

Can anyone give an example on Kant's "Forms of sensibilities" and "Forms of Understanding"??...I become lost there since no such 'forms' are mentioned in the interview--just that there are forms that work as limits within which we operate...or if anyone can recommend the book Kant explains this in--that's cool too.

[MelchBurg]

analytic truths -> known a priori (via logical reasoning)

Synthetic truths -> only known if experienced

Kant's truths -> only apprehensible within our limited senses, but a priori truths nevertheless.

Forms -> our way of arriving at a priori truths existing in the environment.

"Sensibilities" and "understanding" - ordered sequence of perceiving nature and subsequently applying our reasoning to arrive at truths (sort of a precursor of today's scientific method)

[otakurocklee]

The forms of the sensibilities are space and time...

The forms of the understanding, are are the building blocks we need to think. concepts like quantity, pluarilty, affirmation, negation. without these, we wouldn't be able to think. Search for "Categories of understanding"

Eg: we need an priori some conception of quantity or number before we can learn any mathematics. You cannot through experience/osmosis obtain an idea of what number is... it is a building block a priori in our minds...

[sirac1925]

because the western illuminati thinks that a drunk happy mass is a better investment toward there ultimate benefit

[kaioxygen]

Why don't they make programmes like this nowadays?

[NumbFaith]

Because Paris Hilton getting drunk and saying idiotic things on television are of much greater interest to humanity.

[FaaarLeft]

@kaioxygen Programs like this are not on television anymore because they don't sell. Money determines what is important. Understanding reality loses; Reality shows win.

[enraGeUKK]

they do and there better also

[kaioxygen]

@enraGeUKK Such as?

[trisix99]

this is great.

[rgarcia46]

this guest does not seem to have read The Critique of Pure reason

[hatc9723]

thats why hes doing the interview on national tv, retard

[suren1946]

Copleston IS the guest you idiot