@ErichWr please remind me, was he just like John Stuart Mill? You know, the guy who, on his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill?
@kostbill It's a shame they picked up these detrimental habits from Nietzsche, and rumour has it that there was nothing he couldn't teach ya' about the raising of the wrist.
@ErichWr you are right, this reminds me of a story about Mr. David Hume, who once out-consumed Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, althought, different versions of the story are talking of different kinds of booze. Oh, lovely times.
@kostbill Oh, yes, I think I remember that story. But at the end, didn't Heidegger, that boozy beggar, think them both under the table with existentialism and bourbon?
@ErichWr Yes, that is a true story. It was told by John Stuart Mill who was particularly ill one day after he had half a pint of shandy. Oh! I should not forget to mention that he drank that by his own free will.
You must not let the fact that, JSM died before Heidegger was born, it's all about being, time and dasein.
@pislys33 Your consciousness is nothing but the way your mind puts sensory perceptions together, which happens to be the same way you reason. So if you reason differently you are conscious of the world differently.
@pislys33 The song is based on the Critique of Pure Reason, where the self is viewed as a continuous consciousness of itself, unchanging, persistent, having substance, but nothing else. Kant then asks how we can know this identity is there. He claims it requires categories of understanding already within our minds (internal) which connect to intuition (of space and time, external) in an act of synthesis which is carried out by the self. It's called the original unity of apperception.
grazie a questa canzone ho affrontato l'interrogazione di filosofia il quarto anno del liceo ahah (thanks to this song i affronted the oral test in my high school the fourth year xD)
Kant obsesses over the cognitive phenomenon of the axiom in order to falsely demonstrate intuition with a place over reason at the convenience of his mystical, unintelligable conjectures. All logic must rest on assumptions. But try to suppose assumptions that contradict logic, and live by them completely, or try to suppose a reality without any assumptions, and therefore without logic, and live on that basis, and observe the results. Or deny your own observations if you will.
@dalien347 This song seems to capture Kant's major positions on the nature of the world and the self in the Critique of Pure Reason, the first of three critiques written by Kant. If you haven't read the critiques, don't bother. They're very difficult (and brilliant), so you should consider reading "Accessing Kant" instead.
ah yes, but as heidegger showed, space and time are already the framed concepts we force upon being by way of a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of cognition, and worse, reason. reason is only "a" mode of thinking and need not set the conditions for the possibility of anything more than the measure it uses to relate to the world as objective.
I disagree to this song. Empiricism is a lie. Rationalism is the only way to knowledge. I agree to Kant's opinion that a priori logic can apply to synthetic reasonement (just do science, you'll see that's it's not so a posteriori). But how can you say that our perception of the world justifies itself. If I'm blind it does mean that I do not perceive the truck comming twards me, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (even for me)! Clearly there is more to existance then perception!
@GregTom2 there is more. anyways, everything else aside what perceptions give us is futile. you can't have any acces to the thing itself (dich-an-sich), the only way to known is through the phenomenon. in that point, and many others like the one you mentioned, I agree with kant. for me, there cannot be more existence than perception, simply because existense is made, held and composed by our percepcion, disposed by our understanding. u can know about the truck, but just with another phenomenon
@GregTom2 You just simplified perception to vision. Surely the blind man will feel the truck hit him, if he hadn't heard it coming before or sensed the grounds a-shacking. Perception is not a synonym of vision, though in especially in Western thought, this conclusion is all too often made!
@GregTom2 This is precisely what Kant was attempting to clear up. He knew that parts of Empiricism and Rationalism were both true, and so he developed theories on "a priori" knowledge (i.e. space and time)If only Empiricism were true, the world would be a mere mess of random sensations, and so the a priori knowledge of space and time would give context to experience. A Critique of Pure Reason covers all of this. I have read most but not all of the book, so I cannot claim to be an expert on this.
@angel4everable God here. Come back when you can shape and order my laws. Good luck getting around the "If I change God's laws, the delicate fabric of reality I rely on to live will tear open oblivion rule."
@neothi That gets us into the question of causality, or further, does the universe need an explanation? Kant sees causality, much like Hume, as a mental habit, not a physical fact, hence the universe need not have a first cause, or any cause strictu sensu.
@YardsaleStudios I don't think we need to presuppose time, it could be a product from relations. We don't have a mover of time, how could time move without having an cause and effect, to solve this, I say time is a product from change. As they say, time is relative.
This man is an awesome nerd. He is still regarded as an elegant and surprisingly accurate visionary in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. His stuff is like filosofical rocket-science: maybe not directly usuable, but fucking awesome none the less.
@Waranoa Yeah, but his writing itself leaves something to be desired. He should have edited it a bit more carefully - parts (if not most) of the Critique of Pure Reason are unnecessarily obtuse.
To be honest I haven't read the previous comments (well, only a light fraction of it), but I still have a question. How does Kant arrives to "whatever is extended is composed of a plurality"?
@SinfulMessiah "...from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."
@MichaelThorneBJJ Yes I've read the Meditations. What I'm questioning is how one would conclude that Descartes therefore thought perception was valueless. Value is not the same as certainty. Descartes' project was epistemological in nature, not ethical.
@SinfulMessiah Kant does not allow a transcendental employment of the understanding. Only an empirical employment. We cannot perceive anything but sensible objects.
If all we can perceive is sensible objects (through our senses) and Descartes does not feel that they should be trusted, then it is safe to assume that he found them to be useless. After all, he is the epitome of external corporeal skepticism.
@MichaelThorneBJJ "Descartes does not feel that they should be trusted, then it is safe to assume that he found them to be useless."
I just don't think this is true. As far as I know, Descartes never tells us to disregard our sense impressions entirely or to consider them valueless. He simply tells us that we cannot be absolutely certain of them at all times. Descartes was a scientist after all.
@SinfulMessiah He does, however, phrase the particular passage I quoted in a way that allows your skepticism here, with the songs lyrics, room to move.
Almost all of the major words that Kant used in his books to describe his thoughts and philosophy are gathered here in a long poem and song harmonically. beautiful job.
@papecxyy This is my understanding as well. It is unclear to me why Kant would say reason gives us concepts that are true but tautological when he clearly believed in the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge. The lyrics seem to better describe David Hume's distinction between necessary truths and matters of fact. Or perhaps I am missing something here? Or expecting too much?
@TripleEvent It is tautological if it is without any kind of content, not simply "pure", but empty just as in Aristotelic logic. Knowledge, for Kant, requires to have some kind of subject-matter connected with sensation, not deriving from it (or it wouldn't be pure, it would be empiric) but the condition of possibility of experience; be it external (space, and we could add also time) or internal (just time).
@TripleEvent0:40 what ever exists must be in space and time. Space and time are subjective principles, then not dependent on experience. So, we can then commence the study of what knowledge is attainable (or if it is possible) by pure reason, i.e., in the form of synthetic a priori judgment.
@TripleEvent0:58 Thus space and time are forms of our perception whereby sensation's synthesized in orderly array, the same must hold for rational conception and everything bla bla bla
@Frozeal What I don't understand is why he doesn't think we can ground absolute time in the unity of consciousness that he grounds our capacity to synthesize representations into a unity of experiential objects. Wouldn't the synthesizing act need to take place in time, and thus our placing objects in time is due to that fact that there is such a thing, time, in which to put them and that our minds are also temporally located in? He concedes that inner sense is never without a perception of time.
@blitzel3 Also I'm not very sure about that, and discussed that in my University. But what is important to note is that while space is the condition of possibility of external experience, time is BOTH internal and external. I think from this point is that the discussion about how idealist really was Kant begins. Maybe we should reread the two transcendental dialectics (A and B) :P
I recommend you this Chilean scholar: Roberto Torretti (search him in Wikipedia), he has an INCREDIBLE work in Kant
@Frozeal I know that time is the condition for both inner and outer sense, but I think that is precisely my point; for time is not a creation of the mind which is imposed onto things as they are recognized into appearances, but is 'where' our mind and things external to us are: in time. I don't think Kant gives a good reason why this isn't the case. Anyway, I will look up that scholar that you suggested.
@blitzel3 Becuase if it were external then it would be a posteriori, and being a posteriori it would not give the necessity and universality expected from the principles of science and metaphysics. KrV: B X - XI ; B XIII (Reason recognizes what herself has produced) ; B 15-16 (Pure math and pure intuition of time) ; and also very important: Trasc. Aesthetic: Trasc. exposition of the concept of time: B 48
@Frozeal It is a posteriori, just as much as our awareness that we exist is also a posteriori, but that is an indubitable truth insofar as we are conscious of our own existence, and since our own consciousness, or at least the unity of it, is what grounds the synthesis of a priori judgments, it would be unintelligible to make sense of this unless the logical form that we impose on things we cognize is itself grounded in our actual being, which thus has logical form prior to being cognized.
@blitzel3 It is not a posteriori from Kant's P.O.V because he conceives it as the condition of possibility of experience. Every phenomena occurs in a space and time, hence both of them need to be a priori; and from analyzing this intuitions is that we (or I should say, Kant) can get to the conclusion that necessarily they are subjective principles.
The passages I referenced in the last message shows Kant explaining this.
Also, I'm just writing what has been exposed in KrV, not my view.
@blitzel3 Kant means with "a priori", that something does not depend from certain experience. He admits, that without experience at all, we could never know or think anything, as there would be no content of thinking. But space and time are just forms of perception, and therefore the condition for any content (or material) of experience to be given. We would not be aware of space or time without any experience at all, but any exp is given in them, so they are a priori.
@EwekEmelot Therefore, space and time could be called a posteriori in the meaning, that without any experience at all, we would not be aware of it. But as they give the form for every possible exp, they are logically (not temporal) prior to it: We cannot perceive anything, which is not given in space and time.
@blitzel3 called Manuel Kant. Estudio sobre los fundamentos de la filosofía crítica. (1967). If you know Spanish, or you can find that book in your language, try to take a look at it. It is really amazing for Kant's studies.
Whether space and time are subjective is a questions relying on whether physics is subjective or objective; it is up to the person to trust science as truth (to an understanding far beyond any sensational comprehension) or to doubt its fundamental beliefs (induction, materialism..)
@ helmuthoorn, I will only say that you either trust that the very computer you use is indicative of the idea that space and time are objective ideas obeying a natural order beyond u, or it is a complete fallacy...
Kant thought that certain brain functions make us capable of contemplating certain ideas, and that these ideas should be restricted to their 'creators' based on the very essence of the creators. So intuitions leads to experience and understanding leads to ideas and reasons leads to contemplating those very ideas.
That everything is subjective only seems to be factual statement; it seems that whether a statement is right or wrong may be not a question that can be raised.
I'm writing a paper on Kant and it is absolutely driving me crazy! This song has become a sour joke between my classmates and I... I wonder if any other philosphers have been put into jingle tunes like this. One of my professors suggested that Spinoza's Ethics could be interesting...
All you need to do is percieve Kant as proto-psychology on a rationalistic base and the key is in his anthropology and corresponding epistemology (human subject) and the manner in which we can know the world (object) surrounding us.
Therefore;
ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS SUBJECTIVE, EXCEPT THE MORAL LAW WITHIN US .
Kant reasons from a proto-darwinistic aristotelean paradigma in which nature and natural laws are regarded as interrelated, unchangable and teleological.
Nature and natural laws are objective by themselves, but cannot be known in an objective manner by the human subject, with the exception of morality, which is however NOT natural and exclusivily human.
I think the nature and it's natural laws can be known in an objective manner; we work in mathematics and that is a pure language. It just seems to me that this argument fails or is at least flawed because someone would have to have a completely objective view to make the claim that our reflections on morality are subjective.
Although the laws of nature are universal our cognition of this universal natural laws remains subjective and mathemathics are a human abstraction of these natural laws.
Kant saw human cognition as a product of the human subject and the true meaning of this is that man can be master of his/her own fate ,independent of any natural law, except and restricted by his/her morality, stated by the categorical imperative, which must logically therefore be objective.
I think Mathematics is beyond human abstraction of the natural laws; they (mathematical laws) exists as quasi-natural laws themselves, independent of human thought.
Sorry for forgetting to switch off the channel of my wife.
Anyway:
Since mathematics are absolutely relaint upon the human mind they cannot be independent in themselves. We must although admit they are not objects of the senses and therefore abstractions.
I agree that they are not objects of the senses, I disagree that they are absolutely reliant on the human mind. If we were to ever encounter an alien race, assuming they were intelligent and advanced enough, the one way we could could communitcate with them is through mathematics. Further I think that mathematics exists just not in a material sense.
Mathematics as pure language can therefore be used for purposes of communication. But the fact remains that they cannot exist outside the human mind our outside any intelligence for this intelligence depends on the material in which this intelligence has to be contained and nourished. Therefore mathematics are a synthesis.
Does that mean a circle or sphere does not exist beyond human or intelligent thought? It seems that nature follows precise mathematical laws that exist whether intelligence is there to know it or not. These laws, I would argue, exist whether there's material things or not. It may not make any sense to have a law of gravity without a source or something, but the mathematical relationship still holds. Does a circle or sphere exist beyond the material?
Yes I see what you mean, I made an error in equating that to post-modernist or (in augustine's time) the skeptics argument that there is no truth and therefore all knowledge is relative or subjective. Even still, this idea that our knowledge is subjective because all knowledge has the problem of mediation, what about the intelligible method? Of Plotinus, thought thinking of itself?
The "Enneades" of Plotinus rely on a neo-platonic duplication of the ''enteleicheai", which states that we as humans are unable to percieve these "entelecheiai" in their essence, because we are not entirely spiritual beings.
In short; this is just another way of describing the same problem of cognitive mediation.
Hegel however identified this part of human knowledge with the "Zeitgeist" and its phenomenology, therefore constituting this as subjective in extremis.
Marx later on reduced it to market forces, the principle of profit and the class struggle, therefore constituting this as objective in extremis.
Therefore we may conclude that morality in itself is objective, but human reflection upon morality is subjective again, proving Kants epistemology and anthropology right.
Lol completley funny, more of this kind of thing should be on youtube rather than the time wasting moronic life fillers for the unjust. Lol i went a bit far. Still great video. Oh and yes i know if i feel that way i can just not watch videos i feel are time wasting, but i just want to offer kudos to this video.
it makes me imagine my inner philosopher dancing gaily through the summer breeze in wonderful fields of colorful flowers... very calming; piece of mind...
The only knowledge man can have is that there is Noumenal Reality, Phenomenal Experience and the structures of the mind. The mind interprets Noumena into Phenomena - and it adds space and time in the process.
Human knowledge is therefore limited to the empirical world: but man has the natural impulse to abandon the secure island of phenomena in order to explore the perilous ocean of Noumena.
So we're bound by empiricism to understand the Universe? That is not true, the classic example of a tree falling proves that mere empiricsm is not the only way to perceive the Universe, if you think pure empiricism is, what makes you think anything you perceive through experience is valid?
I personally think, empiricism and experience are the beggining of knwoledge, but reason and logic complete it, as in they order what our perceptions find through laws of logic.
In my opinion, experience and observation are not the basis of human knowledge. Man does not begin with empirical sensations in his quest for truth (may or not be attainable): he begins with theories and expectations, with trascendental structures and innate beliefs.
So you're a rationalist? Do we have innate beliefs? But how can we have innate ideas of the Universe if our experience is flawed? The falling tree argument would fail, mainly because you don't know through rationality that trees that fall make noise in the first place. It would be flawed to thnik we have a priori knowledge, do babies know how to reason without understanding their enviorment?
By innate knowledge, I intend the structures of the mind itself, that may be shared by all rational beings, the predisposition to abstract thought and symbolic languages, the tendency to arrange experiences spacially and temporally. I don't believe in rationalistic philosophies, but I neither believe that we start from pure and terse observations: we always begin, even if unconsciously, with beliefs, superstitions, expectations that then interact, in a complex way, with the senses.
What I meant is that, according to me, knowledge is bound to the universe, to physical reality in a broad sense, which also includes mathematics and logic. Logic is the boundary of what we can think, of what we can say. We cannot speak properly about noumena, that is we cannot formulate ethics or religious theories, but we feel that the island of phenomena is not able to satisfy our most profound needs.
Yes, I also think knowledge is bound to the Universe, but then that wouldn't be rationalism. I have to ask you though, for the sake of questioning, what makes you think anything you say is true? How do you know that the Universe has knowledge? How do you know that they are governed by logic and mathematics and natural law?
I believe that human knowledge is, in its essence, problematic and without any form of autorithy to rely on. However, man has to believe in logic, causality and the existence of reality beyond human mutable sensations. Logic is a heuristic principle, the substratum of all possible demonstration, the framework around which the edifice is structured. Logic itself says nothing, but it determines the form and structure of everything that can be spoken about.
So all human knowledge is problematic, then isn't your belief of the all human knowledge problematic in itself? Man has to believe in logic? Why? Logic is a method which we use to understand our enviorment, but why do we have to?
Also, by innate knowledge, you assume that there is such thing as 'rational beings', you have yet to prove that premise. Prove language is credible. We begin with a rationalistic mind, even though you deny it.
Logic isn't one of many tools we may or not use: it is the basis, the structure of the universe. The propositions of logic, are the limits of language and thought, and thereby the limits of the world. We cannot build any form of epistemology without it; otherwise knowledge is subject to solipsism and despotism. Man isn't a completely rational animal (in the sense that other dimensions live in a human mind with all its complexity); but every human being uses logic, even if refuses to accept it.
To the question: "what makes you think anything you think is true?" I answer: "I cannot believe that something is definitely true, but I can recognize mistakes and eliminate them. Absolute truth transcend all human knowledge. Its growth proceeds from our problems and from our attempts to solve them: we elaborate tentative hypothesis and than we compare our expectations with the empirical world. [...]
im in that strangely culturally outstanding part of youtube again
hyuhyuuyh 1 week ago 2
Anyone who can use the phrase "innate subjective transcendental ideality" in a song is a genius.
t3hpighouse 3 weeks ago
I wish it was german, so I could learn it better
but anyways its great :)
HarukaHosho 1 month ago
I heard Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely stable.
ErichWr 2 months ago 2
@ErichWr
rarely stable?
he did the same thing everyday with such precision that people used to set their watches using Kants visits to certain places.
He was too stable.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago 5
@InvincibleNumanist That is an urban legend, is is not literally true.
1384juce 1 month ago
@ErichWr indeed, but not as Socrates himself, who was permanently pissed.
kostbill 1 month ago
@kostbill But worst of all, René Descartes was a drunken fart who's philosophy was "I drink therefore I am."
ErichWr 1 month ago
@ErichWr please remind me, was he just like John Stuart Mill? You know, the guy who, on his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill?
kostbill 1 month ago
@kostbill No, I think you're talking about Plato: remember that guy who could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day?
ErichWr 4 weeks ago
@ErichWr indeed, he was drinking with Wittgenstein, who, was a beery swine and contrary to popular belief, he was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
kostbill 4 weeks ago
@kostbill It's a shame they picked up these detrimental habits from Nietzsche, and rumour has it that there was nothing he couldn't teach ya' about the raising of the wrist.
ErichWr 4 weeks ago
@ErichWr you are right, this reminds me of a story about Mr. David Hume, who once out-consumed Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, althought, different versions of the story are talking of different kinds of booze. Oh, lovely times.
kostbill 4 weeks ago
@kostbill Oh, yes, I think I remember that story. But at the end, didn't Heidegger, that boozy beggar, think them both under the table with existentialism and bourbon?
ErichWr 4 weeks ago
@ErichWr Yes, that is a true story. It was told by John Stuart Mill who was particularly ill one day after he had half a pint of shandy. Oh! I should not forget to mention that he drank that by his own free will.
You must not let the fact that, JSM died before Heidegger was born, it's all about being, time and dasein.
kostbill 4 weeks ago
@kostbill Ah...those were the times. To be honest,I particularly miss Socrates. He was a lovely thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
ErichWr 3 weeks ago
He left out the imagination! They all do.....
strav12 2 months ago
Oh I love this song.
linp9623 3 months ago
For those who enjoyed the video, check out Roderick T. Long's blog: aaeblog.com
godofreudson 4 months ago
Smart people comments >.<
Fraaace 4 months ago
Comment removed
pissedoffdude1 4 months ago
Res extensa separation from res intelligens destroyed human mind. I don't like Kant.
pedrohqb 4 months ago
Comment removed
Drgamedood 5 months ago 19
@Drgamedood LOL!
kostbill 1 month ago
@Drgamedood That's because he died before Kant wrote the first Critique....
1384juce 1 month ago
@Drgamedood Brilliant.
ErichWr 4 weeks ago
Aristotle rules! Kant can suck it! SUCK IT KANT!
CelticKraut 5 months ago
"The self is nothing but its act of synthesis sublime" Could someone please explain what that means?
pislys33 6 months ago
@pislys33 Your consciousness is nothing but the way your mind puts sensory perceptions together, which happens to be the same way you reason. So if you reason differently you are conscious of the world differently.
At least that's how I understand it.
Statismiks 4 months ago
@pislys33 The song is based on the Critique of Pure Reason, where the self is viewed as a continuous consciousness of itself, unchanging, persistent, having substance, but nothing else. Kant then asks how we can know this identity is there. He claims it requires categories of understanding already within our minds (internal) which connect to intuition (of space and time, external) in an act of synthesis which is carried out by the self. It's called the original unity of apperception.
strav12 2 months ago
This is priceless...
leonelidas89 6 months ago 2
grazie a questa canzone ho affrontato l'interrogazione di filosofia il quarto anno del liceo ahah (thanks to this song i affronted the oral test in my high school the fourth year xD)
PsykeDady 6 months ago
Kant obsesses over the cognitive phenomenon of the axiom in order to falsely demonstrate intuition with a place over reason at the convenience of his mystical, unintelligable conjectures. All logic must rest on assumptions. But try to suppose assumptions that contradict logic, and live by them completely, or try to suppose a reality without any assumptions, and therefore without logic, and live on that basis, and observe the results. Or deny your own observations if you will.
eggory 6 months ago
just listening to this song makes me want to slit my wrist
beruterando 6 months ago
I'm imagining the face of kant hearing this
YSiLvErY 7 months ago
¿Por qué no harán estas canciones en español?
¿POR QUÉ?
Ausenciadegravedad 7 months ago
this guy fucks any teen life xD
lucky you in the usa that don't study philosophy in high school xD
biaskatergirl 8 months ago
@biaskatergirl I live in California, and my high school has a philosophy class.
wowwoawubbzy 8 months ago
@wowwoawubbzy really? is it compulsory? for us it is :(
biaskatergirl 8 months ago
@biaskatergirl yeah
wowwoawubbzy 7 months ago
subverbum com shows why kant was evil to maria von herberg
subverbum 8 months ago
anyone who does not think life is a dream should listen to this
dracd235 8 months ago
@dracd235
You totally don't understand Kant...
t3hpighouse 7 months ago
@dracd235
You clearly don't understand Kant...
t3hpighouse 7 months ago 3
Is this an essay, or part of one of his books?
dalien347 8 months ago
@dalien347 This song seems to capture Kant's major positions on the nature of the world and the self in the Critique of Pure Reason, the first of three critiques written by Kant. If you haven't read the critiques, don't bother. They're very difficult (and brilliant), so you should consider reading "Accessing Kant" instead.
michaelgj23 8 months ago
@michaelgj23 I've heard the Critiques are notoriously difficult!
I'm more interested in Kant's work on ethics, and do intened on reading the Groundwork on Metaphysics and Morals!
dalien347 8 months ago
@dalien347 If he rhymed i think we would know, wouldn't we.
Steveee1231 8 months ago
pretty impressive!
RevolutionaryJam 8 months ago
BRAVO!!!!! This is a great song. Outstanding job. Absolutely brilliant!
SherryVapors 9 months ago
ah yes, but as heidegger showed, space and time are already the framed concepts we force upon being by way of a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of cognition, and worse, reason. reason is only "a" mode of thinking and need not set the conditions for the possibility of anything more than the measure it uses to relate to the world as objective.
inverhillsphilo 9 months ago
Well, I hope you passed the exam.
GuitaristInProgress 9 months ago
great fun!
bhigr 10 months ago
& i thought Toto did well to get the word serengeti into a song LOL
i haven't been back to listen to this for ages... Missed it lol
really good song, great for the mind.. Even if i only partly agree with the theory
Anyways, he was a smart man!
Peace
Prestige29 10 months ago
I disagree to this song. Empiricism is a lie. Rationalism is the only way to knowledge. I agree to Kant's opinion that a priori logic can apply to synthetic reasonement (just do science, you'll see that's it's not so a posteriori). But how can you say that our perception of the world justifies itself. If I'm blind it does mean that I do not perceive the truck comming twards me, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (even for me)! Clearly there is more to existance then perception!
GregTom2 11 months ago
@GregTom2 there is more. anyways, everything else aside what perceptions give us is futile. you can't have any acces to the thing itself (dich-an-sich), the only way to known is through the phenomenon. in that point, and many others like the one you mentioned, I agree with kant. for me, there cannot be more existence than perception, simply because existense is made, held and composed by our percepcion, disposed by our understanding. u can know about the truck, but just with another phenomenon
togetheras0ne 10 months ago
@GregTom2 You just simplified perception to vision. Surely the blind man will feel the truck hit him, if he hadn't heard it coming before or sensed the grounds a-shacking. Perception is not a synonym of vision, though in especially in Western thought, this conclusion is all too often made!
DrBenway83 10 months ago
@GregTom2 This is precisely what Kant was attempting to clear up. He knew that parts of Empiricism and Rationalism were both true, and so he developed theories on "a priori" knowledge (i.e. space and time)If only Empiricism were true, the world would be a mere mess of random sensations, and so the a priori knowledge of space and time would give context to experience. A Critique of Pure Reason covers all of this. I have read most but not all of the book, so I cannot claim to be an expert on this.
Flingtheduck 9 months ago
bonita forma de explicar el mundo que nos rodea :D
MermeladaBeth 11 months ago
I am an atheist but I absolutely love Kant, and this song.
AbusiveAntitheist 11 months ago 3
@AbusiveAntitheist Kant took away from God His greatest power, viz to give shape and order to the universe.
angel4everable 11 months ago
@angel4everable God here. Come back when you can shape and order my laws. Good luck getting around the "If I change God's laws, the delicate fabric of reality I rely on to live will tear open oblivion rule."
MastersOfInfinity 11 months ago
@angel4everable But what of the existence of the universe itself?
neothi 11 months ago
@neothi That gets us into the question of causality, or further, does the universe need an explanation? Kant sees causality, much like Hume, as a mental habit, not a physical fact, hence the universe need not have a first cause, or any cause strictu sensu.
angel4everable 11 months ago
9 people dislike the fact that they must presuppose space and time in order to apprehend the phenomenal world.
YardsaleStudios 1 year ago 99
@YardsaleStudios I don't think we need to presuppose time, it could be a product from relations. We don't have a mover of time, how could time move without having an cause and effect, to solve this, I say time is a product from change. As they say, time is relative.
moegreen2 11 months ago
Awesome. Can't say more.
Nereidhar 1 year ago
This man is an awesome nerd. He is still regarded as an elegant and surprisingly accurate visionary in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. His stuff is like filosofical rocket-science: maybe not directly usuable, but fucking awesome none the less.
Waranoa 1 year ago 2
@Waranoa Yeah, but his writing itself leaves something to be desired. He should have edited it a bit more carefully - parts (if not most) of the Critique of Pure Reason are unnecessarily obtuse.
Solario392 1 year ago
To be honest I haven't read the previous comments (well, only a light fraction of it), but I still have a question. How does Kant arrives to "whatever is extended is composed of a plurality"?
S4NDWRA1TH 1 year ago
ahahahahahaha it's fantastic ;D
SerenaSilvi 1 year ago
Did Descartes really think that sensory perception was valueless? Not so sure if went that far.
SinfulMessiah 1 year ago
@SinfulMessiah "...from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."
MichaelThorneBJJ 1 year ago
@MichaelThorneBJJ Yes I've read the Meditations. What I'm questioning is how one would conclude that Descartes therefore thought perception was valueless. Value is not the same as certainty. Descartes' project was epistemological in nature, not ethical.
SinfulMessiah 1 year ago
@SinfulMessiah Kant does not allow a transcendental employment of the understanding. Only an empirical employment. We cannot perceive anything but sensible objects.
If all we can perceive is sensible objects (through our senses) and Descartes does not feel that they should be trusted, then it is safe to assume that he found them to be useless. After all, he is the epitome of external corporeal skepticism.
MichaelThorneBJJ 1 year ago
@MichaelThorneBJJ "Descartes does not feel that they should be trusted, then it is safe to assume that he found them to be useless."
I just don't think this is true. As far as I know, Descartes never tells us to disregard our sense impressions entirely or to consider them valueless. He simply tells us that we cannot be absolutely certain of them at all times. Descartes was a scientist after all.
SinfulMessiah 1 year ago
@SinfulMessiah I already said that he leaves skeptics on this topic (like you) room to maneuver.
MichaelThorneBJJ 1 year ago
@SinfulMessiah He does, however, phrase the particular passage I quoted in a way that allows your skepticism here, with the songs lyrics, room to move.
MichaelThorneBJJ 1 year ago
Very Lehrerian.
guselsky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what the fuck is this music?
sr20DETdrift 1 year ago
you should get this for itunes. lol
ccauffma 1 year ago
im gonna make an accoustic guitar version of this song and present it for my philosophy project haha
xo1tom1ox 1 year ago 3
this so good :)
madisonorsunnybill 1 year ago
GENIUS
boitadeu 1 year ago
How interesting,
Almost all of the major words that Kant used in his books to describe his thoughts and philosophy are gathered here in a long poem and song harmonically. beautiful job.
aidinbm 1 year ago
This sounds like Sesame Street philosophy.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
If they put Bernard Lonergan Thomist-kantian epistemology here... I imagine the damage.
pedrohqb 1 year ago
i would find this funny if it wasn't so confusing!
BeyondOrwell 1 year ago
PURE AWESOMENESS
Frozeal 1 year ago
The song was a great introduction to Kant
philonous09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
good old immanuel
suzeyq27 1 year ago
good old immanuel
suzeyq27 1 year ago
:DDDD
lammasification 1 year ago
And Kant's philosophy does not even work to explain his disoriented brain.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
AHHH Kant :3
This song is awesome!
DieMeg91 1 year ago
I learned Kant's theory's in dutch, which was hard enough. Listening to them in english is another challenge! cool song btw.
michielios2 1 year ago
Any song that successfully uses "spatiotemporal" deserves props!
rcalicea 1 year ago 46
according to Kant. reason "gives us" concepts that are NOT tautological, they are indeed synthetic a priori.
papecxyy 1 year ago
according to Kant. reason "gives us" concepts that are NOT tautological, they are indeed synthetic a priori.
papecxyy 1 year ago
@papecxyy This is my understanding as well. It is unclear to me why Kant would say reason gives us concepts that are true but tautological when he clearly believed in the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge. The lyrics seem to better describe David Hume's distinction between necessary truths and matters of fact. Or perhaps I am missing something here? Or expecting too much?
TripleEvent 1 year ago
@TripleEvent It is tautological if it is without any kind of content, not simply "pure", but empty just as in Aristotelic logic. Knowledge, for Kant, requires to have some kind of subject-matter connected with sensation, not deriving from it (or it wouldn't be pure, it would be empiric) but the condition of possibility of experience; be it external (space, and we could add also time) or internal (just time).
Frozeal 1 year ago
@TripleEvent 0:40 what ever exists must be in space and time. Space and time are subjective principles, then not dependent on experience. So, we can then commence the study of what knowledge is attainable (or if it is possible) by pure reason, i.e., in the form of synthetic a priori judgment.
Frozeal 1 year ago
@TripleEvent 0:58 Thus space and time are forms of our perception whereby sensation's synthesized in orderly array, the same must hold for rational conception and everything bla bla bla
Frozeal 1 year ago
@Frozeal Thank you for your comments. Btw, are you really 19?
TripleEvent 1 year ago
@TripleEvent Yes :P Just the past semester I took in my university the Introduction to Kant course.
Frozeal 1 year ago
@Frozeal What I don't understand is why he doesn't think we can ground absolute time in the unity of consciousness that he grounds our capacity to synthesize representations into a unity of experiential objects. Wouldn't the synthesizing act need to take place in time, and thus our placing objects in time is due to that fact that there is such a thing, time, in which to put them and that our minds are also temporally located in? He concedes that inner sense is never without a perception of time.
blitzel3 1 year ago
@blitzel3 Also I'm not very sure about that, and discussed that in my University. But what is important to note is that while space is the condition of possibility of external experience, time is BOTH internal and external. I think from this point is that the discussion about how idealist really was Kant begins. Maybe we should reread the two transcendental dialectics (A and B) :P
I recommend you this Chilean scholar: Roberto Torretti (search him in Wikipedia), he has an INCREDIBLE work in Kant
Frozeal 1 year ago
@Frozeal I know that time is the condition for both inner and outer sense, but I think that is precisely my point; for time is not a creation of the mind which is imposed onto things as they are recognized into appearances, but is 'where' our mind and things external to us are: in time. I don't think Kant gives a good reason why this isn't the case. Anyway, I will look up that scholar that you suggested.
blitzel3 1 year ago
@blitzel3 Becuase if it were external then it would be a posteriori, and being a posteriori it would not give the necessity and universality expected from the principles of science and metaphysics. KrV: B X - XI ; B XIII (Reason recognizes what herself has produced) ; B 15-16 (Pure math and pure intuition of time) ; and also very important: Trasc. Aesthetic: Trasc. exposition of the concept of time: B 48
I hate the fact that YT comments are so short @:
Frozeal 1 year ago
@Frozeal It is a posteriori, just as much as our awareness that we exist is also a posteriori, but that is an indubitable truth insofar as we are conscious of our own existence, and since our own consciousness, or at least the unity of it, is what grounds the synthesis of a priori judgments, it would be unintelligible to make sense of this unless the logical form that we impose on things we cognize is itself grounded in our actual being, which thus has logical form prior to being cognized.
blitzel3 1 year ago
@blitzel3 It is not a posteriori from Kant's P.O.V because he conceives it as the condition of possibility of experience. Every phenomena occurs in a space and time, hence both of them need to be a priori; and from analyzing this intuitions is that we (or I should say, Kant) can get to the conclusion that necessarily they are subjective principles.
The passages I referenced in the last message shows Kant explaining this.
Also, I'm just writing what has been exposed in KrV, not my view.
Frozeal 1 year ago
Comment removed
EwekEmelot 1 year ago
@blitzel3 Kant means with "a priori", that something does not depend from certain experience. He admits, that without experience at all, we could never know or think anything, as there would be no content of thinking. But space and time are just forms of perception, and therefore the condition for any content (or material) of experience to be given. We would not be aware of space or time without any experience at all, but any exp is given in them, so they are a priori.
EwekEmelot 1 year ago
@EwekEmelot Therefore, space and time could be called a posteriori in the meaning, that without any experience at all, we would not be aware of it. But as they give the form for every possible exp, they are logically (not temporal) prior to it: We cannot perceive anything, which is not given in space and time.
EwekEmelot 1 year ago
@blitzel3 called Manuel Kant. Estudio sobre los fundamentos de la filosofía crítica. (1967). If you know Spanish, or you can find that book in your language, try to take a look at it. It is really amazing for Kant's studies.
Frozeal 1 year ago
This amazing video deserves many more views! Congratulations, you've had a wonderful idea
Kisseus 1 year ago
Whether space and time are subjective is a questions relying on whether physics is subjective or objective; it is up to the person to trust science as truth (to an understanding far beyond any sensational comprehension) or to doubt its fundamental beliefs (induction, materialism..)
@ helmuthoorn, I will only say that you either trust that the very computer you use is indicative of the idea that space and time are objective ideas obeying a natural order beyond u, or it is a complete fallacy...
gegrost 1 year ago
Kant thought that certain brain functions make us capable of contemplating certain ideas, and that these ideas should be restricted to their 'creators' based on the very essence of the creators. So intuitions leads to experience and understanding leads to ideas and reasons leads to contemplating those very ideas.
That everything is subjective only seems to be factual statement; it seems that whether a statement is right or wrong may be not a question that can be raised.
gegrost 1 year ago
who the hell could thumb down this epic?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Re vuela pelos! Deja de chuparle el culo, pareces Leo!
elnegromelba09 1 year ago
I have an exam tomorrow involving this, handy!
SophiaDianne 1 year ago
Being & Tim: The story of a boy & his ontological blob.
Give it a google....
I think you'll enjoy it!
JCMcGee 1 year ago
this is brilliant
jumboshrimp09 1 year ago 3
My brain just exploded due to hearing pure genius
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago 3
I'm a philosophy reasearcher and one of my specialization is modern philosophy (so also Kant) and this is trully genial!!! KUDOS! :)))
Ariel39A 1 year ago 2
@Ariel39A * I am a pretentious tit
Jouen1990 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ariel39A * I am a pretentious tit
Jouen1990 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ariel39A * I am a pretentious tit
Jouen1990 1 year ago
I'm writing a paper on Kant and it is absolutely driving me crazy! This song has become a sour joke between my classmates and I... I wonder if any other philosphers have been put into jingle tunes like this. One of my professors suggested that Spinoza's Ethics could be interesting...
SnapeBennet 1 year ago
Come on.
All you need to do is percieve Kant as proto-psychology on a rationalistic base and the key is in his anthropology and corresponding epistemology (human subject) and the manner in which we can know the world (object) surrounding us.
Therefore;
ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS SUBJECTIVE, EXCEPT THE MORAL LAW WITHIN US .
That's not hard.
Try Hegel...*__&
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn Yea sure whatevs
Jouen1990 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn Wouldn't that tid bit of knowledge therefore be subjective?
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
''Let's attempt to vivisect cognition."^^
Kant reasons from a proto-darwinistic aristotelean paradigma in which nature and natural laws are regarded as interrelated, unchangable and teleological.
Nature and natural laws are objective by themselves, but cannot be known in an objective manner by the human subject, with the exception of morality, which is however NOT natural and exclusivily human.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn
I think the nature and it's natural laws can be known in an objective manner; we work in mathematics and that is a pure language. It just seems to me that this argument fails or is at least flawed because someone would have to have a completely objective view to make the claim that our reflections on morality are subjective.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
Good evening.
Although the laws of nature are universal our cognition of this universal natural laws remains subjective and mathemathics are a human abstraction of these natural laws.
Kant saw human cognition as a product of the human subject and the true meaning of this is that man can be master of his/her own fate ,independent of any natural law, except and restricted by his/her morality, stated by the categorical imperative, which must logically therefore be objective.
helenahoorn 1 year ago
@helenahoorn than how it is that there are a priori items ?
carusggg 1 year ago
@helenahoorn
I think Mathematics is beyond human abstraction of the natural laws; they (mathematical laws) exists as quasi-natural laws themselves, independent of human thought.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
Sorry for forgetting to switch off the channel of my wife.
Anyway:
Since mathematics are absolutely relaint upon the human mind they cannot be independent in themselves. We must although admit they are not objects of the senses and therefore abstractions.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn
I agree that they are not objects of the senses, I disagree that they are absolutely reliant on the human mind. If we were to ever encounter an alien race, assuming they were intelligent and advanced enough, the one way we could could communitcate with them is through mathematics. Further I think that mathematics exists just not in a material sense.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
Mathematics as pure language can therefore be used for purposes of communication. But the fact remains that they cannot exist outside the human mind our outside any intelligence for this intelligence depends on the material in which this intelligence has to be contained and nourished. Therefore mathematics are a synthesis.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn
Does that mean a circle or sphere does not exist beyond human or intelligent thought? It seems that nature follows precise mathematical laws that exist whether intelligence is there to know it or not. These laws, I would argue, exist whether there's material things or not. It may not make any sense to have a law of gravity without a source or something, but the mathematical relationship still holds. Does a circle or sphere exist beyond the material?
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
"But a problem here arises with respect to natural science.
While emperical in method, on pure thought it lays relaince.
Although for Newtons findings we to Newton give the glory.
Newton could never have found them, if they were not known a priori. " ^__^
Phenomena do exist outside human perception, but the human subject can only know those phenomena through perception and abstraction.
Our knowledge is subjective and contingent and abstractions are a product of human knowledge.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@helmuthoorn
Yes I see what you mean, I made an error in equating that to post-modernist or (in augustine's time) the skeptics argument that there is no truth and therefore all knowledge is relative or subjective. Even still, this idea that our knowledge is subjective because all knowledge has the problem of mediation, what about the intelligible method? Of Plotinus, thought thinking of itself?
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905
The "Enneades" of Plotinus rely on a neo-platonic duplication of the ''enteleicheai", which states that we as humans are unable to percieve these "entelecheiai" in their essence, because we are not entirely spiritual beings.
In short; this is just another way of describing the same problem of cognitive mediation.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
@Jim1905
Hegel however identified this part of human knowledge with the "Zeitgeist" and its phenomenology, therefore constituting this as subjective in extremis.
Marx later on reduced it to market forces, the principle of profit and the class struggle, therefore constituting this as objective in extremis.
Therefore we may conclude that morality in itself is objective, but human reflection upon morality is subjective again, proving Kants epistemology and anthropology right.
I LOVE old Immanuel.
helmuthoorn 1 year ago
This for the win.
petermckane 1 year ago
Lol completley funny, more of this kind of thing should be on youtube rather than the time wasting moronic life fillers for the unjust. Lol i went a bit far. Still great video. Oh and yes i know if i feel that way i can just not watch videos i feel are time wasting, but i just want to offer kudos to this video.
ottoskorzey 1 year ago 3
Genius!
leomulder 1 year ago 2
great :)))))
19BadaBong84 1 year ago
Kant's brain would make good zombie chow
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago 46
this is so cool
bmdola 2 years ago 2
Kant war ein derber Rocker!
BulsarDe 2 years ago
All I do be the knowings in thems are thems brains about thems Kant's are that he was them weird persons in them brains all the times.
wgaule 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one of the worst songs I've ever heard. Much offense intended.
evan9694 2 years ago
Where did you get the background song for this?
theepsilon2010 2 years ago
Look in the video description.
LennyBound 2 years ago 2
Oh sorry I misinterpreted I thought you were Paul L. Fine
theepsilon2010 2 years ago
[fanboy] Fantastic song! Go Kant! [/fanboy]
Palearch 2 years ago
This song is too awesome.
it makes me imagine my inner philosopher dancing gaily through the summer breeze in wonderful fields of colorful flowers... very calming; piece of mind...
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago 5
caution: heavy comments below :3
PS! This song is awesome.
SundayChilde 2 years ago 23
Hey man, don't cramp my solipsism.
phubans 2 years ago
This is so bleeping excellent that I am actually humbled in its presence !!
LaurenceJGillis 2 years ago
I love it!!! Amazing!
StrongHeartLives 2 years ago
hey
I know we are further in the discussion, but still great idea to make such a song
kompetenzpartner 2 years ago
The only knowledge man can have is that there is Noumenal Reality, Phenomenal Experience and the structures of the mind. The mind interprets Noumena into Phenomena - and it adds space and time in the process.
Human knowledge is therefore limited to the empirical world: but man has the natural impulse to abandon the secure island of phenomena in order to explore the perilous ocean of Noumena.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
@Wittgenstein91:
So we're bound by empiricism to understand the Universe? That is not true, the classic example of a tree falling proves that mere empiricsm is not the only way to perceive the Universe, if you think pure empiricism is, what makes you think anything you perceive through experience is valid?
I personally think, empiricism and experience are the beggining of knwoledge, but reason and logic complete it, as in they order what our perceptions find through laws of logic.
ogirv101 2 years ago
In my opinion, experience and observation are not the basis of human knowledge. Man does not begin with empirical sensations in his quest for truth (may or not be attainable): he begins with theories and expectations, with trascendental structures and innate beliefs.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
@Wittgenstein91:
So you're a rationalist? Do we have innate beliefs? But how can we have innate ideas of the Universe if our experience is flawed? The falling tree argument would fail, mainly because you don't know through rationality that trees that fall make noise in the first place. It would be flawed to thnik we have a priori knowledge, do babies know how to reason without understanding their enviorment?
ogirv101 2 years ago
By innate knowledge, I intend the structures of the mind itself, that may be shared by all rational beings, the predisposition to abstract thought and symbolic languages, the tendency to arrange experiences spacially and temporally. I don't believe in rationalistic philosophies, but I neither believe that we start from pure and terse observations: we always begin, even if unconsciously, with beliefs, superstitions, expectations that then interact, in a complex way, with the senses.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
What I meant is that, according to me, knowledge is bound to the universe, to physical reality in a broad sense, which also includes mathematics and logic. Logic is the boundary of what we can think, of what we can say. We cannot speak properly about noumena, that is we cannot formulate ethics or religious theories, but we feel that the island of phenomena is not able to satisfy our most profound needs.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
@Wittgenstein91;
Yes, I also think knowledge is bound to the Universe, but then that wouldn't be rationalism. I have to ask you though, for the sake of questioning, what makes you think anything you say is true? How do you know that the Universe has knowledge? How do you know that they are governed by logic and mathematics and natural law?
ogirv101 2 years ago
I believe that human knowledge is, in its essence, problematic and without any form of autorithy to rely on. However, man has to believe in logic, causality and the existence of reality beyond human mutable sensations. Logic is a heuristic principle, the substratum of all possible demonstration, the framework around which the edifice is structured. Logic itself says nothing, but it determines the form and structure of everything that can be spoken about.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
@Wittgenstein91:
So all human knowledge is problematic, then isn't your belief of the all human knowledge problematic in itself? Man has to believe in logic? Why? Logic is a method which we use to understand our enviorment, but why do we have to?
Also, by innate knowledge, you assume that there is such thing as 'rational beings', you have yet to prove that premise. Prove language is credible. We begin with a rationalistic mind, even though you deny it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Logic isn't one of many tools we may or not use: it is the basis, the structure of the universe. The propositions of logic, are the limits of language and thought, and thereby the limits of the world. We cannot build any form of epistemology without it; otherwise knowledge is subject to solipsism and despotism. Man isn't a completely rational animal (in the sense that other dimensions live in a human mind with all its complexity); but every human being uses logic, even if refuses to accept it.
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago
To the question: "what makes you think anything you think is true?" I answer: "I cannot believe that something is definitely true, but I can recognize mistakes and eliminate them. Absolute truth transcend all human knowledge. Its growth proceeds from our problems and from our attempts to solve them: we elaborate tentative hypothesis and than we compare our expectations with the empirical world. [...]
Wittgenstein91 2 years ago