part2: kant's epistemology consists basically of the entire analytic part of the Critique of Pure Reason. If you take hume's position to it's logical conclusion, all you know is the momentary content of your own consciousness. This isn't theory of knowing, it's the destruction of knowledge. Hume had his own purpose: he wanted to be the "Newton of the mind", explaining mental goings on the way Newton explained physical goings on. Kant, on one view, realized how inadequate Hume's story was..
Part 1: kant raises questions he thinks hume lacks resources to answer. as in...ok, david, you say we have NO idea that does not come from an antecedent impression, and all ideas are faded, less lively copies of impressions. Where do we get the idea of space from? Or time? Try to imagine a being with no sense of space or trying to abstract them by copying them from particular impressions. How would it experience an object as distinct from itself? How would it represent a succession of objects?
Also, an *epistemology* cannot be a learned process. That doesn't even make sense. An epistemology is a theory, not a process. I assume you meant to say that Hume thinks that we can only come to know something through experience. This is actually completely inaccurate, but it's not necessary to go into that. Kant is normally taken to have responded to Hume in the Second Analogy. But there Kant simply presupposes the transcendental idealism of the Transcendental Aesthetic. Some "response."
@dkurmanov, you're entirely incorrect. Kant doesn't even *have* an epistemology. He doesn't offer a theory of the necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular belief to be an instance of knowledge. He is interested only in the general conditions which make knowledge, experience, cognition, etc. possible *at all.* Hume, on my reading of him, does have an epistemology. Kant hardly obliterates it. He doesn't even address it.
@ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin His specific epistemology would be my defense. Although I am a great fan of Hume's Discourse on Natural Religion...his epistemology is more of a learned process rather than natural observation. Kant obliterated Hume's epistemology.
@Shmior Empiricism is the foundation of science, but it is first based on observation and experience. In comparison to Rationalism which is entirely cerebral, it's understandable why Empiricism might be presented in this way.
part2: kant's epistemology consists basically of the entire analytic part of the Critique of Pure Reason. If you take hume's position to it's logical conclusion, all you know is the momentary content of your own consciousness. This isn't theory of knowing, it's the destruction of knowledge. Hume had his own purpose: he wanted to be the "Newton of the mind", explaining mental goings on the way Newton explained physical goings on. Kant, on one view, realized how inadequate Hume's story was..
tyz228 1 month ago
Part 1: kant raises questions he thinks hume lacks resources to answer. as in...ok, david, you say we have NO idea that does not come from an antecedent impression, and all ideas are faded, less lively copies of impressions. Where do we get the idea of space from? Or time? Try to imagine a being with no sense of space or trying to abstract them by copying them from particular impressions. How would it experience an object as distinct from itself? How would it represent a succession of objects?
tyz228 1 month ago
For what it's worth, the fact that quantum mechanics overthrows certain principles of Newtonian physics suggests that Hume actually obliterates Kant.
ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin 2 months ago
Also, an *epistemology* cannot be a learned process. That doesn't even make sense. An epistemology is a theory, not a process. I assume you meant to say that Hume thinks that we can only come to know something through experience. This is actually completely inaccurate, but it's not necessary to go into that. Kant is normally taken to have responded to Hume in the Second Analogy. But there Kant simply presupposes the transcendental idealism of the Transcendental Aesthetic. Some "response."
ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin 2 months ago
@dkurmanov, you're entirely incorrect. Kant doesn't even *have* an epistemology. He doesn't offer a theory of the necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular belief to be an instance of knowledge. He is interested only in the general conditions which make knowledge, experience, cognition, etc. possible *at all.* Hume, on my reading of him, does have an epistemology. Kant hardly obliterates it. He doesn't even address it.
ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin 2 months ago
Hume! Where is your defense?!
ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin 3 months ago
@ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin His specific epistemology would be my defense. Although I am a great fan of Hume's Discourse on Natural Religion...his epistemology is more of a learned process rather than natural observation. Kant obliterated Hume's epistemology.
dkurmanov 2 months ago
Kant is sooooooooooo gay
tenseman08 4 months ago
So Immanuel Kant was gay?
jsh0Xx1 6 months ago
Hhahahahah ... seriously this is brilliant.
mashinebenz 6 months ago
Hhahahahah ... you just made my studying a lot more fun!
mashinebenz 6 months ago
JAJAJAJAJAJA no lo puedo superar
constanzaah 9 months ago
CONSTANZA IS HOT... jummy.
octavitogaytan 9 months ago
LMAO awww this is so hilariously wrong. its cute.
woshamboo 10 months ago
Haha. Well you totally got that wrong, the EMPIRICIST should be the scientist, and the RATIONALIST should be the hippy smoking that ganja.
bookwormmiee51630 11 months ago
Yikes.
proffromgview 1 year ago
I think it's kinda cute. Hope you kids got the grades you wanted.
DrDeist 1 year ago
wtf?
This should be the other way around...
bmandown 1 year ago
weird. Empiricism should be a scientist not a hippy.
Shmior 1 year ago
@Shmior Empiricism is the foundation of science, but it is first based on observation and experience. In comparison to Rationalism which is entirely cerebral, it's understandable why Empiricism might be presented in this way.
hasatum 1 year ago 2
Why is empiricism a hippy?
beefpoker 1 year ago
Her accent annoys me
Fnord23Gnosis 2 years ago
the girl seem to have an indian accent
top414141 2 years ago
lol
GohModley 2 years ago
@top414141 this is not indian, lmao
Mu5clehead 2 years ago
Too much acting and not enough clarity.
Achilles94627 2 years ago
0:56 good introduction for a xxx movie
Farbog 2 years ago
el wero esta bien papasote !
amesago91 2 years ago
Constanza
qe buena actuacion me sorprendes pekeño tapon!!
=O
ajajajaja mirruñilla cuidese
pavelrs17 2 years ago
Constanz!!!!! SOY TU FAN!!!!!!!
:D
ciaooo
WizardOfUs 2 years ago
yey
bien hecho Karen, maraly, conss y jorge!
Jajajaja
consss traias toda la ondaa
te kieroo
^^
nightsern 2 years ago
firme con la cuenta de mi hermanito
jajaja
Soy kaba ^^
AngelicKnightKaba 2 years ago
quien es la chaparrita de verde? me encanto :D cual es su nombre?
alarass 2 years ago
ah si maraly? jaja saludos
uulises1 2 years ago
hahaha saludos.. evelynn
princezz8 2 years ago