Видео

Kant believes there are synthetic judgments that can be known a priori that can be true. My answer is, if he’s asking about “could” it be true, then I agree but if it’s a statement that means there is knowledge that can and will be true then I disagree because isn’t by his very definition of synthetic, it can’t be known just by definition? Or am I misunderstanding

things that are independent of apperences are things by themself they exist and to exist do not need of a reference of space/time. They do not belong to Newton world but to the one of Descates/Leibniz

Indeed we are reading in 2024, quite fascinating!

Empiricist and idealist are figting the same object to know who is right thinking there are two of them.

2024 we made it

substance is a notion by nature then posses an abstract state of Reality

Monad of Leibniz as the universal Unicity as quality by one side and quantiy by the other.

Idealistas falam do ser metafisico, enquanto emperalistas falam a experimentacão, do empirico dentro do sistema de referencia de Tempo/Espaco necessario para se medir a diferencia entre A e B por sua vez medidos com relaçao ao mesmo sistema de Newton determinando a nova realidade

O movimento predicado a entidade Superior tem o sentido "para dentro" de si e não "para fora" de si o que justifica o nome dado por " o velho grego" de motor imovel significando uma entidade dual em que na aparencia de imobilidade possui um motor.

James Beatty is right and new idea: whatever exists does not dies.

Yes, empirist and idealist are talking about the same object, but in differents times. To nature it makes no difference at all

Fascinating, but ads are crowding in every five minutes making it impossible to listen to unless I cough up the YT subscription fee.

Hume needs a visit to psicologist.

The point is each side got to tell the juge what he knows about the other fundamentals

to go back to old philosophy That is: go back to where you belong.though art.

Do you mean that conflit needs into an end. Too important things on stake.The point is do find ending point where the interruption due to the difficulties of mutual understanding, ocurred. Then comes the decide what to do!!!

Empiricist and acionalist difference is apparent since each one is talking of the same reality but in different time ( and different space).

What exists does not change, only what is non-existence does.

A exemple of what is in preposition does not prove anything of the argument because the empiric depends of what we sense and that is risky

Newton is a reality to empiric world, Leibniz is reality not only Newton but also beyond him :the part of reality the empirism can"t reach, the external world, two parts of the total.

The existence of God as a Supreme notion is a matter of logic demand.

you always get to where go in reasoning provided you keep in mind the dualism of the object as content in preposition.

Tell us a history of a place where a philosopher can be the king e a king can be a philosopher

The object is the real of the stste of consciousness as unity of the contents inside the limits described by Reason

The point is not who is correct Leibniz or Newton but where to iniciate an argument so the undestanding be easy to get to other part since they are two parts of the same unit.

O ponto é entender que as duas partes são, necessariamente, independentes.

tanto os empiristas como os espiritualistas estão em debate para saber quem esta certo. Trata de uma disputa aparente, não real. pois os dois estã certos. A unidade é constituida pelas duas partes: uma estudada pela filosofia analitica e outra pela filosofia sintetica. Antiga filosofia sabia que uma delas não é a unidade nem a outra: uma dispersa, a outra agrupa, mas não é possivel serem experimentada ao mesmo tempo.

Watching it in 2024 from brazil, brilliant.

Land Labor Capital (LLC) Rent Wages Profits (RWP) 😂😂

I don't like that he's an atheist. But boy, he's very good 👍

Jackson Jennifer Lopez Helen Jackson Eric

There should be two versions of this- one is including brilliant stories and the other is not- 😭🙏🏼

Experience is important as well is reason because both are parte of the unit realm.

Part of what we can know needs the senses.

Bom censo de sentido. Bom!!!!!

O conflito entre empirico e espirito nao reside no causal mas no entendimento tecnico da questao,

Kant estar certo de que a experiencia necessaria como base de onde o movto para o conhecimento como o primeiro movto por questao de identificacao do sujeito da acao em foco.

Newton se alinha com o empirico como bom ingles; Leibniz nao, como bom continental, segue Descartes.

Alguns processos precisam passar pelo empirico antes da alcancar o estado da gnose, outros nao, estes, ser necessario passar direto a gnose sem a interferencia da experiencia.

24:31 interactions between monads

I laughed aloud at the "hustling used iphones" comment😂

I was delighted to see this pop up when searching for Freud lectures. The series on Kant was brilliant.

this is the most ads i've ever seen in a youtube video, it's absurd

Quick question if anyone could assist, very much appreciated but in the part where he talks about the compounding of labor to reach the total labor value of an object. It is said that the shovel, once made, over 5 years adds to the next cycle of production and a kind of compounding effect happens when that shovel is used to further increase production of the following cycle and at minute 53 there is a way in which to compute the total labor value of an object but it looks to me as though that is not what is happening. The shovel only adds as long as it is free. Bc whatever I make with the shovel already factors in the cost of labor in getting the shovel. So what I guess I’m trying to ask is where is my confusion happening; I don’t particularly understand the need of computing the compounding labor value of a product when value isn’t what’s being generated but refinement is. Looks like the friction for production goes down with the addition of a shovel not the compounding of wealth or labor.

It would be better without the political slights. Lost me there. When I hear "liberal" nonsense, it just calls into question the validity of anything the lecturer has to say.

“I am the lawgiver of Nature”. Problem:who are you? You are an appearance in my realm of appearance. You are an appearance I’ve synthesized. It’s not clear how there can be two consciousnesses. This fact one unity of consciousness undermines his ethical theory. Who do I owe debts to? Moral obligations? Lie to? Hegel took all this he distinguishes world spirit organizes the world from self

Physical objects= structures of judgment

Mind affects itself. Contra Descartes , mind only knows the self the same way it knows other objects. It represents itself. Not in itself. It imposed temporality. It imposes a rule a category . They’re unified due to temporal order. 😊

Patrick , his chess don the hedge fund manager 300 billion

You’re worried about Trump..? Your son Patrick is a hedge fund ceo manages 300 billion worth of assets .. greed much?