Geoffrey Warnock on Kant: Section 4

Contemporary philosopher Geoffrey Warnock discusses the philosophy of anti-empiricist Immanuel Kant, and his view that activities and powers within the mind are the key to knowledge, and that all knowledge is appearance. Knowledge for Kant, is a complex affair, in which knowing is acquired not just through the senses, but through pure concepts of understanding indigenous to the mind. Countering Hume, Kant insists it is the mind, not the senses, which unifies and organizes sensory flow into meaning full definitions of things.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bryan
• Magee
• Geoffrey
• Warnock
• Immanuel
• Kant
• Philosophy
• Mind
• Knowledge
• David
• Hume

[vegtam1]

Why are you quoting Ayn Rand as if I were to shake in awe? She was as amateur as you or I.

[vegtam1]

And furthermore, appeal to authority is disgusting in philosophy. It should go without saying.

But when it is Ayn Rand.... HAHAHAHA

[CommunistWarrior1917]

I see that in 2009 there was a discussion on Ayn Rand. Please don't mention that dyke on a video on Kant; it defiles his name

[gorgolyt]

@AEFic the ideas of causality, of space and time, have all been shown to be empirical, and a priori incorrect. kant has been totally destroyed by science. we don't need to analyse his steps: his conclusions were wrong.

[randomnomenclature]

@AEFic

Being a complete idiot is not a prerequisite for being wrong. 

[SwordInAir]

Click 8:33 repeatedly to reduce a wonderfully enlightening discussion into trivial vulgarity

[EricHerboso]

I've been watching the entire series playlist in order and only just now realized that this is the first episode where the host didn't match his suit/shirt/tie color to the color of the wall/couch/carpet/table.

[AEFic]

@randomnomenclature That's why I don't try refuting philosopher's works in one paragraph. :) But if you think that your comment was on the same level as 'A Critique of Pure Reason', then I suppose I'll try to study your works more.

[randomnomenclature]

@AEFic

I believe the same applies to you :).

[AEFic]

@vegtam1 She's probably published and studied more than you. That doesn't count for nothing.

[AEFic]

@AEFic *your. Sorry, typo.

[AEFic]

@randomnomenclature If you're discarding the statements of a philosopher who's work has been studied since the 19th century, you should just MAYBE assume that he's not a COMPLETE idiot, and PERHAPS made some mental strides that you have not. In other words, if you think you're one-paragraph refutation of Kant's philosophy is enough to put you on his level, you simply don't understand what he's saying and why it's relevant.