Fantastic summary of Kantian Metaphysics. Beautifully concise, clear and penetrating - thank you for increasing my understanding of Kant significantly, who's work I have struggled with for years :)
@Krónika This view is in alignment with the 2-worlds interpretation that was popular from the 1960s. This school was led by Strawson whose interpretation of Kant strayed from the original massively to compensate for potential criticisms that the thing in itself and conceptual noumena. Henry Allison's 2-aspect interpretation solves these issues while adhering to many of Kant's principles. Check out his 'Transcendental Idealism' to see how he tackles the 2-world interpretation.
@@sturmgewehr4471 Ok genius then how would you explain people developing their own new thoughts in places heavily influenced by another particular thought? 😂 No, let’s go back even further. How would you explain the first people who developed these thoughts arriving at them to begin with? Your view on this matter creates an infinite regression, which as I’m sure you know is impossible. Wake up to the fact that a priori knowledge is a real thing.. your minds rejection of infinite regression is itself an evidence of that.. or don’t and just stay irrational, totally your call buddy.
I like to explain this as an input/output model. The noumena is the input, "computed' by conscious, and then the output is phenomena. And it only goes one way, input to output.
Isn't it true that one thing we _can say_ about the noumenal world (i.e., the reality that is really out there) is that it must correlate pretty well with our phenomenal experiences (i.e., our perceptions) as we apparently are able to function pretty well in it?
I think, as the prof seems to, you are conflating noumena and thing in itself. The noumena appears to perception - but perception humans don’t have. Thing in Itself is as it appears without .. any.. perception. Seems to be the case that this is missed in a lot of Kant discussions despite it being plainly clear in the CPR
I really enjoyed this... very clear... a thing I don't get is that if we are inseparably unable to know anything about the nuonemal world... why does it matter or make any difference... why can't we just ignore it... in other words isn't this just a complex way of prioritising the phenomenal world. Nevertheless I do find the explanation enchanting and enlarging.
I think, for the time being, the closest we come to the noumena is by and through the conceptual; certain concepts, for instance, such as the formless, god, absolute chaos or disorder, absolute freedom, the eternal, infinity, permanence, the constant, so on and so forth, all suggest something beyond the phenomenal world, something that the phenomenal world is not. The noumena is unreality, no-thing-ness; it can be 'experienced' only indirectly by and through phenomena. Kant had it, bang-on.
I think Kant does deny that they exist in the noumena. This is a belief in reaction to Newton and Leibniz. The former believes they were real substances, where's the latter believed they were mere relations of things. Kant believes time and space are intuitions, necessary and a priori, that we need to have in order to have experiences.
Are you intentionally conflating ding-an-such and Noumena? I think that conflation will stymie understanding of Kant greatly if so - if not, it seems quite unclear where you place the Noumena in the system - not synonymous with ding-an-sich…. But…. What?
Where does God come into Kants philosophy? Would Kant have argued something like that God is found in the Noumenal world? That the transcendental categories were "designed" by God, that because of the order and seeming meaningfulness of things are Gods doing? (some form of the ontological argument). Thank you, and God bless.
Nietzsche once angrily complained that Kant was "dry as dust" and (paraphrasing from memory) was able to say in a book what Hume was able to say in five sentences.
I thought Kant's noumenal world as being more like mathematics in that you cannot have a direct experience of it, because there is no smell of the number one, no taste, no sound, no texture it is simply an abstract. But even though the noumenal world cannot be directly experienced or evidenced, in the sense that I cannot evidence the actual number one by manifesting the abstract concept itself into existence, I can only provide relative representations or images or symbols of it. But mathematics is useful, and we can learn from it, which is how we use it in science. The noumenal world, I thought, was simply the universalized abstract information about things, especially the way in which things interact, rather than things in and of themselves. A more spiritual approach to something similar to the noumenal would be the concept of the Tao. It is conceived as simply the negation of all things; thus, all one may say about the Tao is that it is *not* this, and *not* that. But it is not a vacuum; it is not Nothingness. It simply is beyond existence and beyond empiricism; it is transcendent to physical reality.
Right, I'd agree that causality is nothing more than a conception; nonetheless, certain conceptions suggest something beyond themselves, something that such a conception is not.
1)why cant i say that space is not generated by the mind but is in the "real world" and thats why i dont have and cant imagine any experience without space and time? 2)for example i can imagine myself closing my eyes and smelling something. its a sensible feeling but it doesnt depend on space or time. so theres a feeling that doesnt have to be in space or time?
Okay, the last point here is just wrong. Kant is far less a solipsist than, say Hume or Locke. In the Prolegomena you find the argument about Empirical Judgments - Judgments of Experience vs. Judgments of Perception. Here he is arguing FROM objectivity to the Categories.
That's exactly what I'm saying -- not even a remnant of them can be found in perception or experience -- therefore such concepts suggest something beyond themselves. I don't believe we'll ever be able to truly grasp such concepts.
"Analytic & A posteriori- truths which are true by definition but also discovered by experience" 'Kant denied that there were any such truths"' What about "All electrons are negative; and all protons positive?
Andre Gaudreault If an electron was positive, my understanding is that it would then be called a positron, so I think that would be analytic and a priori.
We can only experience the phenomenal world, yes. Because all we can ever experience is within our subjective phenomenal experience, by definition. All living being live inside our own personal subjective phenomenal bubble - it simply cannot be any other way. Thus, we are "doomed" to be inside our phenomenal enclosure, which cannot be escaped - ever. Although the phenomenal world is always strictly subjective, we have enough common ground with, say, other human beings due to similar sense organs and the noumenal world, which is objectively the same for all of us. Because the noumenal cannot be experienced, we cannot know what could or could not be said about it, if it could be experienced.
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä So, saying that it cannot be described because our language is made for describing only the phenomenal world - although it is true that the language is made for and within the phenomenal - is incorrect. Why? Well, yes, it might be the case is like Kant argues. BUT hypothetically, it could also be that some of our concepts are valid for describing the noumenal, but we cannot know, because we cannot know it by experience.
Well, honestly, I've never read his work so I don't really have an interpretation of it. However, I'm not too sure, for the time being, whether or not the data in the senses is caused by something entirely independent from the perceiving subject, even though I'd lean this way instead of otherwise. And, although I'm not sure whether or not the data in the senses is caused by something entirely independent from the perceiving subject, the data and the "object" seem inherently linked in one way or
Just like things can't be thought without time and space it seems like time and space can not be thought without the relationship of things and their endurance (change). We cannot think empty space or timeless time. Space comes into my experience by my first experience of things as in relationship to other things. Mommy is distinguished from daddy. Time comes into my experience through duration of things in relation to me. I get hungry and mommy brings me milk every hour. My experience is the experience of the world the way it really is. (Though I am often mistaken.) Does Kant need to posit a noumenal world? He says time and space are but forms of the mind and we can not know them as they are in themselves. But that seems to be saying something you couldn't know if you can't know anything about the noumena. At least you can know that that you can't know it.
Kant never referred to a Copernican revolution. The only time he refers to him is in the preface of the 2nd ed., and then as copying his first cause, as inspiration. Common error.
I cant wrap my head around this. You speak if the thing itself, the noumena is the transcendental Subjekt but that cant be, can it? Because than we would know what it is but we cant.
Brad Mott Buddhist thinkers have it easy, they "intuit" the noumenon in their meditation; rational beings (e.g., Kant) by 'objectifying' phenomena in "space and time" perceive them as 'caricatures' of reality, seeing only their contours, while losing a great % of them, and, thus, being completely oblivious of their intrinsic noumenal characteristics. Animals, by living in the instant, do not "objectify" reality and perceive their portion of it as a unified noumenon ―I know, they are constantly telling me ....
If Berkeley idealism is true than we must conclude that he did not exist coz everything outside "MY" mind does not exist. How can someone say that material objects does not exist? I must have understood something wrong.
How can it be the case, it makes no sense. The prove that material objects exist is that fact that different people can see and experience the same material object together or separately in space and/or in time.
I still think I'm missing something. For example, if I am holding an apple in my hand, Berkeley thinks that this apple does not exist or this apple is not material? If it is not material, where my experience with the apple is coming from?
Pablo Guida the experience is from God. you can not be sure that the experience is from dream or illusion or evil genius. but when you pin that on God he said it solves the puzzle.
@ConsciousnessOnline @Indemonstrable Aren't both of your guys interpretations based on translations; both of your interpretations could be so far off from what Kant himself was expressing. lol...
this man must be erased from human history all his lectures. his grave his books. and his followers must be arrested and reeducated. it should be against the law to mention kant or any of his ideals. or to teach his philosophy. just as japan banned Christianity. the us and other nations must ban kant philosophy.
I disagree completely with your interpretation of the noumenal vs. the phenomenal. This dichotomy (as Kant called it) has the purpose of making the noumenal into a conceptual place-holder. This "zero" Kant, later on in the Critique, fills with Ideas of Pure Reason. So your analysis is not transcendental at all, it is empirical in the sense that you locate the noumenal "out there" when this not only defeats Kant's purpose for it but denies his transcendental distinction. Since your interpretation is empirical, you have not sufficiently summed up Kant's Transcendental Idealism in this video.
That's not very generous; you don't think by "out there" he just means "not generated by thought/experience and not just one of its conditions"? In otherwords, he means to point out that the noumenal is not a part of experience nor a merely a form or function of exprerience. He explicitly says that "we can't say anything about it at all" and that Kant thinks "we shouldn't waste our time thinking and talking about these things that can't be thought or talked about." Now, the question of whether Kant actually makes the positive claim that there is the noumenal is of course debated. However, the interpreting presented in this video is a very plausible one endorsed by many professional Kant scholars. For that reason alone the presentation is valuable. If you disagree with this standard interpretation, you ought to say why rather than blithely assert that the discussion here is worthless.
We can't say anything positive about what the thing-in-itself is, only about what it is not. The thing-in-itself is not an appearance, nor is it even a possible appearance. These are just two broad metaphysical ideas about the universe. But it is necessary to keep in mind that these ideas are only representations. So there is no physical "thingness" to an appearance. The long-range goal of the Aesthetic is to create a new logic which Kant termed "Transcendental Logic." As for what professional Kant scholars say, I am interested in reading all about it. However, they will be subject to MY criticism, and I do not simply bow to their authority just as they do not bow to mine.
bobgibson7 Sorry Bob. But I know my Kant and I know he's using a particular interpretation common to the non-Germanic view. I had a long email conversation with a German philosophy professor about this a long time ago.
I've heard dozens of lectures on this topic. This lecture is the best.
Fantastic summary of Kantian Metaphysics. Beautifully concise, clear and penetrating - thank you for increasing my understanding of Kant significantly, who's work I have struggled with for years :)
I never studied philosophy until now but this is the conclusion I came to by myself I just didn’t know how to word it.
@Krónika This view is in alignment with the 2-worlds interpretation that was popular from the 1960s. This school was led by Strawson whose interpretation of Kant strayed from the original massively to compensate for potential criticisms that the thing in itself and conceptual noumena.
Henry Allison's 2-aspect interpretation solves these issues while adhering to many of Kant's principles. Check out his 'Transcendental Idealism' to see how he tackles the 2-world interpretation.
you didnt come to this conclusion by yourself lmao its just that youve lived in a world heavily influenced by kant
@@sturmgewehr4471 Ok genius then how would you explain people developing their own new thoughts in places heavily influenced by another particular thought? 😂
No, let’s go back even further.
How would you explain the first people who developed these thoughts arriving at them to begin with?
Your view on this matter creates an infinite regression, which as I’m sure you know is impossible.
Wake up to the fact that a priori knowledge is a real thing.. your minds rejection of infinite regression is itself an evidence of that.. or don’t and just stay irrational, totally your call buddy.
What a great job. Thank you so much for your time and effort
This reallly has just got me through my Kantian Metaphysics exam
Thanks a lot for that well structured lecture. It helps me a lot while studying Kant. ❤
I am so happy i have come across this video, thanks.
Kant's own phrase, "Conditions of the possibility of experience" - that is what Kant seeks.
Great teacher, great channel, don't stop.
Hey man. Thanks for uploading these lectures. They were very useful.
Excellent
Great videos on philosophy of kant
I like to explain this as an input/output model. The noumena is the input, "computed' by conscious, and then the output is phenomena. And it only goes one way, input to output.
Where is the evidence for noumanea?
Isn't it true that one thing we _can say_ about the noumenal world (i.e., the reality that is really out there) is that it must correlate pretty well with our phenomenal experiences (i.e., our perceptions) as we apparently are able to function pretty well in it?
@Marc van den Boogaard You forget to add, falling water with _light waves passing through them._
I think, as the prof seems to, you are conflating noumena and thing in itself. The noumena appears to perception - but perception humans don’t have. Thing in Itself is as it appears without .. any.. perception. Seems to be the case that this is missed in a lot of Kant discussions despite it being plainly clear in the CPR
I really enjoyed this... very clear... a thing I don't get is that if we are inseparably unable to know anything about the nuonemal world... why does it matter or make any difference... why can't we just ignore it... in other words isn't this just a complex way of prioritising the phenomenal world. Nevertheless I do find the explanation enchanting and enlarging.
I think, for the time being, the closest we come to the noumena is by and through the conceptual; certain concepts, for instance, such as the formless, god, absolute chaos or disorder, absolute freedom, the eternal, infinity, permanence, the constant, so on and so forth, all suggest something beyond the phenomenal world, something that the phenomenal world is not. The noumena is unreality, no-thing-ness; it can be 'experienced' only indirectly by and through phenomena. Kant had it, bang-on.
Noumena senses and understanding elements of mind unknown remote that generates experiences and phenomena.
Exactly, we don't know if space and time exists. We know our experience of them. But Kant is not denying they exist.
I think Kant does deny that they exist in the noumena. This is a belief in reaction to Newton and Leibniz. The former believes they were real substances, where's the latter believed they were mere relations of things. Kant believes time and space are intuitions, necessary and a priori, that we need to have in order to have experiences.
Are you intentionally conflating ding-an-such and Noumena? I think that conflation will stymie understanding of Kant greatly if so - if not, it seems quite unclear where you place the Noumena in the system - not synonymous with ding-an-sich…. But…. What?
Where does God come into Kants philosophy? Would Kant have argued something like that God is found in the Noumenal world? That the transcendental categories were "designed" by God, that because of the order and seeming meaningfulness of things are Gods doing? (some form of the ontological argument). Thank you, and God bless.
I kant understand this
+Cameron Worsham i know right? i want to stop thinking about philosophy but i just kant
Try reading Immanuel!
Nietzsche once angrily complained that Kant was "dry as dust" and (paraphrasing from memory) was able to say in a book what Hume was able to say in five sentences.
Does phenomena/noumena world come first or understanding/sensibility of mind first?
I thought Kant's noumenal world as being more like mathematics in that you cannot have a direct experience of it, because there is no smell of the number one, no taste, no sound, no texture it is simply an abstract. But even though the noumenal world cannot be directly experienced or evidenced, in the sense that I cannot evidence the actual number one by manifesting the abstract concept itself into existence, I can only provide relative representations or images or symbols of it. But mathematics is useful, and we can learn from it, which is how we use it in science. The noumenal world, I thought, was simply the universalized abstract information about things, especially the way in which things interact, rather than things in and of themselves.
A more spiritual approach to something similar to the noumenal would be the concept of the Tao. It is conceived as simply the negation of all things; thus, all one may say about the Tao is that it is *not* this, and *not* that. But it is not a vacuum; it is not Nothingness. It simply is beyond existence and beyond empiricism; it is transcendent to physical reality.
You say that the noumenal is "Some kind of something out there"? You've just located it in space,
I'd agree with that, the conceptions I'd mentioned before are everything that the phenomenal world is not.
Thank you for the posting!
Right, I'd agree that causality is nothing more than a conception; nonetheless, certain conceptions suggest something beyond themselves, something that such a conception is not.
1)why cant i say that space is not generated by the mind but is in the "real world" and thats why i dont have and cant imagine any experience without space and time?
2)for example i can imagine myself closing my eyes and smelling something. its a sensible feeling but it doesnt depend on space or time. so theres a feeling that doesnt have to be in space or time?
Great video..thanks a lot..any recommended books for understanding Kant?
The Prologomena is a simplified version of the Critique (kind of). Might help.
Okay, the last point here is just wrong. Kant is far less a solipsist than, say Hume or Locke. In the Prolegomena you find the argument about Empirical Judgments - Judgments of Experience vs. Judgments of Perception. Here he is arguing FROM objectivity to the Categories.
That's exactly what I'm saying -- not even a remnant of them can be found in perception or experience -- therefore such concepts suggest something beyond themselves. I don't believe we'll ever be able to truly grasp such concepts.
Already saying too much about noumena to be honest! Love that comment.
there is no really here! also, all of the great works state that imagination is a good thing! I love my mind! Thank you God.
"Analytic & A posteriori- truths which are true by definition but also discovered by experience"
'Kant denied that there were any such truths"'
What about "All electrons are negative; and all protons positive?
Andre Gaudreault If an electron was positive, my understanding is that it would then be called a positron, so I think that would be analytic and a priori.
You reply to My Webld's comment, isn't that the truth?
Protons aren't positive. They're just "less negative" compared to electrons. That is to say, they're 'relatively' positive.
We can only experience the phenomenal world, yes.
Because all we can ever experience is within our subjective phenomenal experience, by definition. All living being live inside our own personal subjective phenomenal bubble - it simply cannot be any other way.
Thus, we are "doomed" to be inside our phenomenal enclosure, which cannot be escaped - ever.
Although the phenomenal world is always strictly subjective, we have enough common ground with, say, other human beings due to similar sense organs and the noumenal world, which is objectively the same for all of us.
Because the noumenal cannot be experienced, we cannot know what could or could not be said about it, if it could be experienced.
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä So, saying that it cannot be described because our language is made for describing only the phenomenal world - although it is true that the language is made for and within the phenomenal - is incorrect.
Why?
Well, yes, it might be the case is like Kant argues. BUT hypothetically, it could also be that some of our concepts are valid for describing the noumenal, but we cannot know, because we cannot know it by experience.
Kant even kant understand the nouemena how we suppose to do
this can't be understood from the first time
IT'S HARD SHIT
Fantastic videos, but why only 2 on Kants metaphysics?
Well, honestly, I've never read his work so I don't really have an interpretation of it. However, I'm not too sure, for the time being, whether or not the data in the senses is caused by something entirely independent from the perceiving subject, even though I'd lean this way instead of otherwise. And, although I'm not sure whether or not the data in the senses is caused by something entirely independent from the perceiving subject, the data and the "object" seem inherently linked in one way or
Just like things can't be thought without time and space it seems like time and space can not be thought without the relationship of things and their endurance (change). We cannot think empty space or timeless time. Space comes into my experience by my first experience of things as in relationship to other things. Mommy is distinguished from daddy. Time comes into my experience through duration of things in relation to me. I get hungry and mommy brings me milk every hour. My experience is the experience of the world the way it really is. (Though I am often mistaken.)
Does Kant need to posit a noumenal world? He says time and space are but forms of the mind and we can not know them as they are in themselves. But that seems to be saying something you couldn't know if you can't know anything about the noumena. At least you can know that that you can't know it.
Kant never referred to a Copernican revolution. The only time he refers to him is in the preface of the 2nd ed., and then as copying his first cause, as inspiration. Common error.
I cant wrap my head around this. You speak if the thing itself, the noumena is the transcendental Subjekt but that cant be, can it? Because than we would know what it is but we cant.
6:21 bookmark
This distinction already buddha had made long long time ago [phenomenon & noumenaon].
Exactly. Read the Diamond Sutra and tell me Buddhist thinkers didn't get there first. And with less obfuscation.
Brad Mott Buddhist thinkers have it easy, they "intuit" the noumenon in their meditation; rational beings (e.g., Kant) by 'objectifying' phenomena in "space and time" perceive them as 'caricatures' of reality, seeing only their contours, while losing a great % of them, and, thus, being completely oblivious of their intrinsic noumenal characteristics. Animals, by living in the instant, do not "objectify" reality and perceive their portion of it as a unified noumenon ―I know, they are constantly telling me ....
If Berkeley idealism is true than we must conclude that he did not exist coz everything outside "MY" mind does not exist. How can someone say that material objects does not exist? I must have understood something wrong.
How can it be the case, it makes no sense. The prove that material objects exist is that fact that different people can see and experience the same material object together or separately in space and/or in time.
I still think I'm missing something. For example, if I am holding an apple in my hand, Berkeley thinks that this apple does not exist or this apple is not material? If it is not material, where my experience with the apple is coming from?
This is where Berkeley said God comes in
Pablo Guida the experience is from God. you can not be sure that the experience is from dream or illusion or evil genius. but when you pin that on God he said it solves the puzzle.
isn't Kant's argument on the existance of the noumena the same as descarte's cogito?
No.
But we can know that there are things we don't know
This strikes me as slightly tweaked Platonism. Buried under difficult vocabulary and an opaque style.
+Brad Mott Plato located the forms "out there," Kant located them "in here."
Anyone from India????..... preparing for civil services 🙄
anyone fancy helping me write a uni essay on this?
I hate to break it to you but Copernicus was wrong
@ConsciousnessOnline @Indemonstrable Aren't both of your guys interpretations based on translations; both of your interpretations could be so far off from what Kant himself was expressing. lol...
he sounds like he is eating
this man must be erased from human history all his lectures. his grave his books. and his followers must be arrested and reeducated. it should be against the law to mention kant or any of his ideals. or to teach his philosophy. just as japan banned Christianity. the us and other nations must ban kant philosophy.
Garbage in
Garbage out
I disagree completely with your interpretation of the noumenal vs. the phenomenal. This dichotomy (as Kant called it) has the purpose of making the noumenal into a conceptual place-holder. This "zero" Kant, later on in the Critique, fills with Ideas of Pure Reason. So your analysis is not transcendental at all, it is empirical in the sense that you locate the noumenal "out there" when this not only defeats Kant's purpose for it but denies his transcendental distinction. Since your interpretation is empirical, you have not sufficiently summed up Kant's Transcendental Idealism in this video.
That's not very generous; you don't think by "out there" he just means "not generated by thought/experience and not just one of its conditions"? In otherwords, he means to point out that the noumenal is not a part of experience nor a merely a form or function of exprerience.
He explicitly says that "we can't say anything about it at all" and that Kant thinks "we shouldn't waste our time thinking and talking about these things that can't be thought or talked about."
Now, the question of whether Kant actually makes the positive claim that there is the noumenal is of course debated. However, the interpreting presented in this video is a very plausible one endorsed by many professional Kant scholars. For that reason alone the presentation is valuable. If you disagree with this standard interpretation, you ought to say why rather than blithely assert that the discussion here is worthless.
We can't say anything positive about what the thing-in-itself is, only about what it is not. The thing-in-itself is not an appearance, nor is it even a possible appearance. These are just two broad metaphysical ideas about the universe. But it is necessary to keep in mind that these ideas are only representations. So there is no physical "thingness" to an appearance.
The long-range goal of the Aesthetic is to create a new logic which Kant termed "Transcendental Logic."
As for what professional Kant scholars say, I am interested in reading all about it. However, they will be subject to MY criticism, and I do not simply bow to their authority just as they do not bow to mine.
+Mysteries From Beyond I think he's just trying to explain it in a way his students can understand
bobgibson7 Sorry Bob. But I know my Kant and I know he's using a particular interpretation common to the non-Germanic view. I had a long email conversation with a German philosophy professor about this a long time ago.
***** So you think it's a translation problem? Would you advise against reading Kant in English?