Very lucid presentation. The diagrams were also instructive. Thank you. Will be checking here again when I run up against more philosophers in my Syllabus. Cheers!
My favorite is Kants 3rd, second half. This is really tough to understand but I think its a fundamental restatement of much of the start of the first Critique. I like the dialect between reason and understanding better than the one between noumenon and phenomenon. This is way harder to read than anything else by Kant but I think the effort is double worth it. I think when I understand about the first 40 pages on teleology I will understand Kant, but I'm probably wrong about that and I wonder if I will ever completely understand these 40 pages, or if anyone else claims to. This was a great explanation, I've been working on this book intensely over the past month and this has confirmed my understanding and was explained at exactly the level I needed to hear it. I'm working on a video called "dialectic" and I illustrate the dialectic between reason and understanding in the physical world through a paradox in physics that is being "resolved" incorrectly all the time. Then I apply that dialectic to other domains to explain the nature of conflict empirically. Is and Ought fall naturally out of this dialectic. This dialectic really explains all of Kant and many other things. So what does anyone else think of what I said? Agree? Disagree?
His exposition is like wtf but it put the Imperative to the right ? As you mentioned it's a dialectic synthesis between faith and reason? Or temporal affirmation could be faith ? I just sit here.
i am an graduate student of philosophy currently working on a masterthesis concerning kants theoretical philosophy (to be more precise: his transcendental critique of "the" empirical conception of the mind (as elaborated by such diverse thinkers as Hume, Berkley, Locke but also the logical positivists).It seems to me that Kant was the first thinker in the history of philosophy to appreciate the fundemental normative essence of the mind (this is Brandoms reading with which you might be familiar). This all led me down a strang rabbit-hole. I saw systematic connections in the different critques, which I simply oversaw before. If you think of it: 1. Critique -> The transcendental grounds of epistemic normativity; 2. Critique -> The transcendental ground of practical normativitiy (i.e. instrumental and moral rationality). 3. Critique -> The transcendental ground of aesthetic normativity. Anyhow, enough of my thoughts. This video was a clear and fresh reminder and I am truly amazed how able you are in breaking down these highly technical kantian notions.
I don't really agree with your interpretation of the third Crtique. I think the problem of teleology is not principally a problem regarding the causality of organism, rather it is a problem regarding the structure of judgement in applying concepts. Kant says in the schematism that in order for us to make a judgement, there must be a homogeneity between concepts from which we are able to subordinate lower concepts to higher concepts. It is easy to see how we are able to subsume the lower concept of a plate to the higher concept of a geometric circle but the problem arises when we try to figure out how the Pure concepts can be homogenous with empirical concepts. In the first critique the answer is pretty straightforward--time and space mediate the relation between concept and intuition. Another problem arises, however, when we consider the self-referentiality of judgement. Judgement must be able to render its own interior logical structures visible, otherwise, metaphysics becomes impossible. In the Doctrine of Method, this is the question that Kant is trying to tackle. Kant says that reason has the impulse to uncover the ground of our representations thereby expanding the manifold of cognition through systematization. Reason, then, has to see the Pure concepts as constituting a whole situated at the top of a hierarchy of concepts. That is, in order for judgement to reflect on its own internal structure, reason, as the power of conception, must posit various regulative ideas that allow us to make sense of this referentiality. Because of the hierarchy involved in systematizing this inevitably involves a sort of teleological aspect of judgment. The whole of nature then, as a product of our judgement, must be homogenous with the pure concepts of the understanding such that we can derive the constitutive principles of nature from nature itself. The problem at the heart of the third critique is the problem of the homogeneity of the interior concepts of judgement
You're right that this is how Kant frames the problem. I am admittedly reading Goethe and Schelling back into Kant's CoJ. They were critical of Kant's anti-realism as regards natural purposes, though they both appreciated the preliminary work Kant did in this area by making clear what would be required for a true science of life to be possible.
@@Footnotes2Plato I'm sorry but wouldn't that admission of yours require the correction and ultimately the reupload (or just taking down) of the video? I mean out of intellectual honesty to say the least. The whole thing is really misleading and does not represent the real problems of the third Critique accurately.
@@dirtyharry1881 Not necessarily. In philosophy, it's allowed, or even condoned, to often read *against* a philosopher rather than trying to get the correct exegesis.
@@galek75 You're basically saying that one can present a wrong interpretation of a text as the correct interpretation of said text and do so knowingly. And this is a good "philosophical" practice. Unfortunately you seem to be serious...
@@dirtyharry1881 Well people can emphasize or downplay certain aspects of their reading. I believe the philosopher Richard Rorty would call this a sort of "creative misreading."
How can I see the modules themselves & your presentation of them? Are they a part of your excellent German Idealism series? Thanks for this little & important video.
Yes, this is a supplementary lecture for an online graduate course I'm currently teaching at CIIS. I decided to make these supplements public, but at this point, the rest of the course is for enrolled students only (due to Department of Education privacy laws and tuition, etc.). I may share the longer module lectures at some later date.
but he was an agnostic and epistemological septic no? i.e. we canno't know noumenon. my impression was that he was only an idealist because he couldn't prove materialism.
I cannot express how helpful this is. The diagram is IMMENSELY helpful, thank you SO much!!
Very lucid presentation. The diagrams were also instructive. Thank you. Will be checking here again when I run up against more philosophers in my Syllabus. Cheers!
pls write my essay
A very instructive & convincing story on a famously complex / subtle philosophical Kants contribution to our self- understanding
My favorite is Kants 3rd, second half. This is really tough to understand but I think its a fundamental restatement of much of the start of the first Critique. I like the dialect between reason and understanding better than the one between noumenon and phenomenon. This is way harder to read than anything else by Kant but I think the effort is double worth it. I think when I understand about the first 40 pages on teleology I will understand Kant, but I'm probably wrong about that and I wonder if I will ever completely understand these 40 pages, or if anyone else claims to.
This was a great explanation, I've been working on this book intensely over the past month and this has confirmed my understanding and was explained at exactly the level I needed to hear it. I'm working on a video called "dialectic" and I illustrate the dialectic between reason and understanding in the physical world through a paradox in physics that is being "resolved" incorrectly all the time. Then I apply that dialectic to other domains to explain the nature of conflict empirically. Is and Ought fall naturally out of this dialectic.
This dialectic really explains all of Kant and many other things.
So what does anyone else think of what I said? Agree? Disagree?
which paradox?
His exposition is like wtf but it put the Imperative to the right ? As you mentioned it's a dialectic synthesis between faith and reason? Or temporal affirmation could be faith ? I just sit here.
i am an graduate student of philosophy currently working on a masterthesis concerning kants theoretical philosophy (to be more precise: his transcendental critique of "the" empirical conception of the mind (as elaborated by such diverse thinkers as Hume, Berkley, Locke but also the logical positivists).It seems to me that Kant was the first thinker in the history of philosophy to appreciate the fundemental normative essence of the mind (this is Brandoms reading with which you might be familiar). This all led me down a strang rabbit-hole. I saw systematic connections in the different critques, which I simply oversaw before. If you think of it: 1. Critique -> The transcendental grounds of epistemic normativity; 2. Critique -> The transcendental ground of practical normativitiy (i.e. instrumental and moral rationality). 3. Critique -> The transcendental ground of aesthetic normativity.
Anyhow, enough of my thoughts. This video was a clear and fresh reminder and I am truly amazed how able you are in breaking down these highly technical kantian notions.
Very helpful presentation.
I see that Kylo Ren has become a philosopher
excellent
Thank you sir.
Well done.
How Kant established synthetic apriori judgment in 3critique?
Thanks for these videos 🤘
I'm in love
Thanks mate.. I watched it multiple times but still could not fully understand it..I need to watch it like 125468 times
Thanks
I don't really agree with your interpretation of the third Crtique. I think the problem of teleology is not principally a problem regarding the causality of organism, rather it is a problem regarding the structure of judgement in applying concepts. Kant says in the schematism that in order for us to make a judgement, there must be a homogeneity between concepts from which we are able to subordinate lower concepts to higher concepts. It is easy to see how we are able to subsume the lower concept of a plate to the higher concept of a geometric circle but the problem arises when we try to figure out how the Pure concepts can be homogenous with empirical concepts. In the first critique the answer is pretty straightforward--time and space mediate the relation between concept and intuition.
Another problem arises, however, when we consider the self-referentiality of judgement. Judgement must be able to render its own interior logical structures visible, otherwise, metaphysics becomes impossible. In the Doctrine of Method, this is the question that Kant is trying to tackle. Kant says that reason has the impulse to uncover the ground of our representations thereby expanding the manifold of cognition through systematization. Reason, then, has to see the Pure concepts as constituting a whole situated at the top of a hierarchy of concepts. That is, in order for judgement to reflect on its own internal structure, reason, as the power of conception, must posit various regulative ideas that allow us to make sense of this referentiality. Because of the hierarchy involved in systematizing this inevitably involves a sort of teleological aspect of judgment. The whole of nature then, as a product of our judgement, must be homogenous with the pure concepts of the understanding such that we can derive the constitutive principles of nature from nature itself. The problem at the heart of the third critique is the problem of the homogeneity of the interior concepts of judgement
You're right that this is how Kant frames the problem. I am admittedly reading Goethe and Schelling back into Kant's CoJ. They were critical of Kant's anti-realism as regards natural purposes, though they both appreciated the preliminary work Kant did in this area by making clear what would be required for a true science of life to be possible.
@@Footnotes2Plato I'm sorry but wouldn't that admission of yours require the correction and ultimately the reupload (or just taking down) of the video? I mean out of intellectual honesty to say the least. The whole thing is really misleading and does not represent the real problems of the third Critique accurately.
@@dirtyharry1881 Not necessarily. In philosophy, it's allowed, or even condoned, to often read *against* a philosopher rather than trying to get the correct exegesis.
@@galek75
You're basically saying that one can present a wrong interpretation of a text as the correct interpretation of said text and do so knowingly. And this is a good "philosophical" practice.
Unfortunately you seem to be serious...
@@dirtyharry1881 Well people can emphasize or downplay certain aspects of their reading. I believe the philosopher Richard Rorty would call this a sort of "creative misreading."
How can I see the modules themselves & your presentation of them? Are they a part of your excellent German Idealism series? Thanks for this little & important video.
Yes, this is a supplementary lecture for an online graduate course I'm currently teaching at CIIS. I decided to make these supplements public, but at this point, the rest of the course is for enrolled students only (due to Department of Education privacy laws and tuition, etc.). I may share the longer module lectures at some later date.
Excellent. Needs new marker
Great video
Does a seed have thought????
Thanks, it was usefull
but he was an agnostic and epistemological septic no? i.e. we canno't know noumenon. my impression was that he was only an idealist because he couldn't prove materialism.
You have a nice smile you should smile more :)
volume
Am I naive to just dive into critique of judgment?
Have you read the Critique of Pure Reason yet?
@@Footnotes2Plato I haven't
@@marsyasian best to start with that
Intelligent design.
im in love with you
cute