Geoffrey Warnock on Kant: Section 5

[kthnxbai69]

"Why did he write so badly?"

You hit the nail on the head Bryan.

[cirosuperiore]

if the average man cannot understand it then maybe it's not worth knowing about it.

sorry kant but you bore the crap out of me.

[maxmin]

@cirosuperiore Yes, so things like Quantum Physics and Biochemistry aren't worth knowing about because the "average" person has no real understanding of them.

[cirosuperiore]

@maxmin i guarantee you it's easier to understand science than it is to understand kant.

[LooksAeterna]

@cirosuperiore This is complete bullshit:

1. Kant CAN be understood (even where he's wrong), quantum physics CANNOT.

2. contemporary science would not exist without Kant who is part of science's theoretical foundation. Karl Popper did not just pop out of nowhere.

[LooksAeterna]

3:47 Am I hearing this right: Magee is wondering why Kant was writing in his native German and not in ENGLISH ??? And that hence the foreign language is an unnecessary obstacle ??? bwaha, if that's right there is something seriously wrong with Magee's head. Certainly, had Kant not written in German, it would have been French or Latin at the time.

And thank goodness it was German, otherwise the language would have been far more monstrous.Only German can at least half way digest Kant's thought.

[maxmin]

@LooksAeterna No, he's "complaining", (to the degree he is, which he isn't really, since he isn't at all criticizing Kant writing in German) that Kant didn't write in French or Latin. In no way did he imply Kant should have written in English.

[stonemanrichard]

@LooksAeterna

No, he is not. Either there is something seriously wrong with your understanding, or you need to have your ears syringed.

[LooksAeterna]

@stonemanrichard It seems normal these days for half-educated people to use insulting attacks on a person in order to substitute for arguments. You seem to follow the Zeitgeist in this respect.

But Magee's words were "It's a huge UNNECESSARY obstacle" - when just a moment before Warnock pointed out how the circumstances WERE in fact such that the obstacle was necessarily there ! The only logical way to justify Magee's judgement is to assume that he should naturally have resorted to English ...

[LooksAeterna]

@stonemanrichard (cond.)

... which is of course total folly because the dominating learned languages at the time were either French or Latin which would have resulted in far greater obstacles.

Please think before you write. Instulting arrogance is always somewhat ugly, even if necessary to correct someone, but it is particularly ridiculous if it expresses a lack of education such as in your case.

[stonemanrichard]

@LooksAeterna It is often necessary to instult arrogance. 2/10

[LooksAeterna]

@stonemanrichard Yes, if it is an expression of ignorance or some other neglect. That's why I felt I had to retort a little.

What I meant with "Insulting arrogance" above, though, is not "insulting another's arrogance" but "[one's own] arrogance [that is also] insulting".

[stonemanrichard]

@LooksAeterna I'll stick with the gerund. Here's the shovel; keep digging.

[LooksAeterna]

@stonemanrichard What a speaker means to say is not open to another's preferences.

[stonemanrichard]

@LooksAeterna Less talk. More digging.

[LooksAeterna]

@stonemanrichard So you suggest that if you engage in argument free, disingenious superiority rhetoric, this would somehow distract from the inappropriateness of your original comment ? You need stupid readers to swallow that. Try a Britney Spears video.

[stonemanrichard]

@LooksAeterna Welcome to my parlour.

[Eyedunno]

I took a drink every time Warnock said "yes". Now I am dead.

[ethankegley]

that was super awesome

[cakkkbap]

question: has anyone talked about "analytical a postriori?"

[EsWe1990]

@cakkkbap Though this may be a late answer: Analytical a posteriori is self contradictory.

[photosynthesis7]

great video

[Eldel15]

Parrot philosophy

[ising2love]

math is the constant language...the use of words change over time

remember...between two things...one flexible and one rigid...the answer exists between them

[barrywinehousexp]

Renumeratedfrog and Godlessphilosopher demonstrate adequate familiarity with the philosopher in question//the subject in general. Their comments are good supplements to the vidoe.

[bradh57]

"Hmmm, yes, indeed, hmmmm, yes"

It's so very British, I love it.

[rajasmasala]

Yeah... it's cool how he talks like an elderly James Bond and looks like a Christmas elf.

[icwo]

thank you for posting, this helps me understand the man and his works better. And I need to since I need to write a paper on his works on pure reason.

[rails007]

cheers mate

information is after all power

[jpoiyacneo]

Kant massacred the human mind.

[3589546]

Thankyou Flame.  Great series

[1974freud]

Thanks for the upload, that was a pleasure to watch.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

homer,

I'm not sure if Kantianism takes one to pantheism, like Spinozism (perhaps), as you imply. The question to which the answer is "God," is "Who can know things in themselves?" and a Kantian probably wouldn't say that the Universe can only know things in themselves.

Surely a kantian can be an atheist, as far as I know. Do you, or anyone, know why Kant needed god? I don't think there's anything inconsistent in saying, "Only a god can know the world in itself, but no gods exist."

[renumeratedfrog]

That would be tantamount to saying that no objective reality exists, which is negated by Kant's notion of the "noumenal" world.

For him, noumena represent the absolute truth. He certainly wasn't a relativist. And if we unable to perceive this truth, God must exist in order to keep it from "collapsing", as it were.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

Frog, I don't know how anything I said implies there is no objective reality. I have taken the anti-metaphysical, epistemic interpretation from Henry Allison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense" which vigorously argues that the noumena/phenomena distinction is an epistemic one, not a metaphysical one. God is supersensible and therefore is one of Kant's antinomies; he can't use God to keep the distinction from collapsing.

[renumeratedfrog]

How can you discuss idealism without resorting to metaphysics? The very notional that all of the Universe is an idea in SOMEONE'S HEAD, implies either solipsism or God. Kant certainly wasn't a solipsist, so he needed God (not necessarily Christian one) just as did Berkeley.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

I don't have to resort to theistic metaphysics. Suggesting that Kant thought that Universe is an idea in "SOMEONE'S HEAD" is absurd - the very idea of which ( "material idealism" or Berkeleyanism) he was trying to refute in the Refutation of Idealism.

[renumeratedfrog]

Fact 1: Kant was an idealist

Fact 2: Kant wasn't a solipsist

It's not hard to figure out the inevitable conclusion of these two axioms. Kant would have laughed at your naive materialism/physicalism, which is based on the illusion of technological triumphs. In essence, all of your world is contained within your mind. You cannot deny that.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

I'm starting to think you've never even read the first Critique. Do you know what "transcendental idealism" is and how it differs from "subjective idealism," "material idealism," or Berkeleyanism? Do you know that Kant also called himself an "empirical realist?" I've also said nothing to imply that I'm a physicalist and Allison certainly isn't - the Kantian doctrine of spontaneity doesn't fit well with any modern materialism.

[takethisusernamebitc]

i can deny anything

[pricelessamelia]

@takethisusernamebitc no you can't

[takethisusernamebitc]

what can i not deny

[pricelessamelia]

@takethisusernamebitc YOUR ABILITY TO DENY ANYTHING. AND YO T-SHIRT LOOK LIKE A DISHRAG.

[Rarnabybudge]

If you're asking yourself a question, "what can I not deny?" You cant deny: that you're asking yourself a question, that you're thinking, and there exists a thing that is capable of thinking (you).

[soultorment27]

@Rarnabybudge

something thinks, therefore something is! lol

[SirMelanin]

@GodlessPhilosopher Are you really an atheist? If so, which angle of approach do you justify refuting something that's purely ideal and not objective: Like God?

[GodlessPhilosopher]

That is not the God of nearly all the theists in the world (the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Abrahamic monotheism), it is a philosopher's construction. I reject that God and the rest of the supernatural, but I find some of the constructions of "God" in religious naturalism, pantheism, and panentheism or process theology appealing.

[Timurito1]

And how Kant know's that there is a noumenal world if he say's that there is no way to see it?

[vegtam1]

That is the point of reading the first Critique, not the job of you tube commentors. Supplement your reading with videos like this, and a fundamental knowledge of the history of philosophical inquiry and you have a chance. With that attitude you don't have a chance of understanding Kant.

[richardcadbury]

the answer isn't in the first Critique

[homerthompsonman]

The acquaintance of "god" to the universe would have to be so close that "god" could not be separate from the universe. "God" then would be the universe. This then makes Kant's view like Descartes: a view small cartesian circular view, or just trivial.

It is far simpler to just believe that our appearances are accurate enough to operate successfully in the world, and we can modify them upon failure.

The world cannot be "proved" into existence, it just is. Kant is fighting ghosts.

[mrfatd]

flame0430, 5 stars for both you and the video!