Congratulations on creating such an incredible class that is so greatly demanded! I appreciate how you stress the ways in which Kant is not a mere epistemology, and how Transcendent Idealism is something entirely new. The fluency by which you discuss the subject is also a testament to your mastery of it.
Good lecture. The Prolegomena was actually published after the first edition of “The Critique of Pure Reason”. It was a way for Kant to make the ideas from the first critique more comprehensible.
Try this on for size. I am what outside the box sounds like. And no, you haven’t heard this before. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more… It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path. If you want to understand the modes - RUclips - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back. Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.
Crazy question I have. Why does it matter? Things are as they are and are going to be as they are… perception is subjective and And how the individual relates to things…🦋🕊
@@bradrandel1408 it seems to me, that it matters because, if the subject is solely psychological then there can be no science; the psychological subject is temporal, that is, empirical, but the logical subject is necessary and universal.
Thanks!
Thank you very much indeed! Just seeing this now 🙏🙏
Congratulations on creating such an incredible class that is so greatly demanded! I appreciate how you stress the ways in which Kant is not a mere epistemology, and how Transcendent Idealism is something entirely new. The fluency by which you discuss the subject is also a testament to your mastery of it.
KANT, fichte, SCHELLING, holderlin, and H E G E L . . . 😃
Our possibilities only grow from here!
Good lecture. The Prolegomena was actually published after the first edition of “The Critique of Pure Reason”. It was a way for Kant to make the ideas from the first critique more comprehensible.
Looking forward to it.
Thank you very much, Kyle! It will be great to have you again
refuting empiricism and rationalism? sounds cool!
Sounds fun!
Would be great to have you!
Try this on for size. I am what outside the box sounds like. And no, you haven’t heard this before.
I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this?
Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end.
Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more…
It keeps going round in circles. One has to look through the phenomenological lens if they want beyond this primitive, half developed monkey head paradigm but who’s really ready for that path.
If you want to understand the modes - RUclips - new paradigm fish by Yap. Stripping it right back.
Alternatively- read my work for free on medium. New paradigm fish Yap.
@@newparadigmfish pretty run of the mill reified materialism to be frank.
Thank you Johannes
Would you say that the subject for Kant is logical as opposed to psychological: that is, the logical makes experience possible?
Thank you, Bruce. Yes, indeed. Kant opposes traditional ontology and any contemporary psychologisation is also misguided.
Crazy question I have. Why does it matter? Things are as they are and are going to be as they are… perception is subjective and And how the individual relates to things…🦋🕊
@@bradrandel1408 it seems to me, that it matters because, if the subject is solely psychological then there can be no science; the psychological subject is temporal, that is, empirical, but the logical subject is necessary and universal.
The video glitches out at some tragically intriguing times.
But...but I love methodological empiricism...how COULD you!!!
Nothing wrong with empiricism. But it needs to be grounded in the categories first
Wasn’t Niederhauser a hegelian of the xix century?