IMMANUEL KANT : CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

Webcast lecture on Kant's critique of pure reason produced for the history and context of journalism course at the university of winchester in the UK. This video is the first ten minutes of a 40 minute discussion which continues at:"http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=394"

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Immanuel
• Kant
• critique
• pure
• reason
• journalism
• philosophy

[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.

[FeelingFreshSon]

@FeelingFreshSon

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

[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.

[MaRLeEthEKiTTy]

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

[jeffreysbrother]

@MaRLeEthEKiTTy you're just frustrated.

[BrianCardova]

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

[XavierMacX]

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

[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]

@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).

[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".