Immanuel Kant introduced to us problems in science and in our point of view and I don't see the solution for it yet... I respect the science but this man is a fucking genius of all times
10 years later... Analytic-Synthetic distinctions have still been widely discussed in the analytic tradition and still cause controversy on the philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science. There are a lot of formal methods and new interpretations if you like: semantic, formal logic and how we construct theories in the sciences.
For clarification -space, time and also CAUSALITY are pre conditions of all meaningful experience, and all a priori - synthetic for Kant. Causality must be stable and predictable in order to experience the world in the first place.
Making philosophy accessible! I love listening to these lectures - clarification of difficult concepts coupled with comical anecdotes and even "Brownisms" - words that aren't in any traditional dictionary but really hit the mark. Bravo Brown!
Around 49:00 all you have argued is that there is some necessary cause behind the sensation of pain when putting your hand in the flames. However since you cannot experience the causal effect of the pain you create a correlation that might be reinforced. But you have essentially no idea of what the causal link was. So you might think the next time you put your hand in the fire you would feel pain, but suddenly you don't because the conditions have changed. You don't see a change but the causal effect is gone. You don't feel pain because it was not the fire which caused the pain but some other causal effect or a combination (hypothetically). Therefore the sensation of pain from fire is not A Priori it is A Posteriori. And that is the causal link also. Pain can come from many different causes and you have no idea which cause is causing the pain. In fact there are flames that do not cause pain. Also you don't know whether that causal effect will change or whether the causal link will. You can argue that if the exact conditions remain the same then the effect will too. However it is the same as saying that if you have a perfect circle in reality then curtain rules apply ultimately. However you have no way of knowing whether or not it is a perfect circle or if the conditions have changed.
However much I might disagree with Immanuel Kant (I am currently working on my critique of his Transcendental Idealism) I would suggest that you read his book "A Critique of Pure Reason".
Mikael Jensen I'm reading Sebastian Gardner's guidebook, called "Kant and the Critique of pure Reason". I had a very difficult time reading and understanding the Critique directly. I'm also watching as many video's and reading other articles on the Critique to help me get a better overall understanding. I've read a number of your comments, and your perspectives seems more in line with the Critique, as I understand it, then the lecturer in this video. Do you write articles, or books, about philosophy? You seem to have a very comprehensive understanding.
It seems to come to me intuitively. Is just understand philosophy on a fundamental level. Also when I try to understand arguments I see them as objects and lines connecting them. It somehow seems to make it easier to understand the underlining structure of an argument. You could try to draw it like that if you don't see it intuitively. But no I am not writing books yet (I am 20 years old) but I will at the moment when I do not have to spend so much time on my studies and education. Also I have to finish the Critique as well as other works from Baumgarten, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn etc. to form a comprehensive work on epistemology and science theory. Also I will at some point work with Ethics, Politics and Existentialism.
I was having tons of trouble with this too, but this video helped me figure it out. It's also helpful to look up the definitions of analytic and synthetic in this context (Kant). An analytic judgement is true because the predicate concept (unmarried) is contained by definition within the subject concept (bachelor). This is necessarily an a priori judgement. A synthetic judgement does not have the predicate contained in the subject, but Kant argues that this does not mean it cannot be a priori
yes, that is exactly what I said in my last comment...the issue is not whether we learn math from experience but is rather what the nature of a priori knowledge is...neither person is claiming that we learn math from experience as you have been suggesting...
Thank you for the clear explanation. I am reading the portuguese version of the book, but watching your videos even in english added a lot to my learning. Congratulations!
This is really going to help me pass my History of Philosophy exam at the end of the week! Very well explained. I didn't really like Kant before, this whole turning philosophy into a science thing was very off putting at first read for me. Now that I am starting to understand the concepts properly, I can see why it may have been the Copernican turn of contemporary philosophy! Thanks again :)
From a Buddhist point of view one could argue that space and time are not given apriori, but created and defined by the mind, through rational cognition, that perceives the object located in space and time. This means that space and time do not necessarily appear as exogenous elements that are independent of the object...like a stage that contains various objects. It's irrational to assume that the stage is independent. Because of this... we have that.
You should really keep in mind that Kant makes a sharp distinction between an a priori truth and a tautology. An a priori truth is one where the subject is contained within the predicate, a tautology is one where the statement is true by virtue of the meaning of the words. Kant considers tautologies empty, while a priori judgements are not empty for Kant. For example " all bodies exist in space" is a statement where the predicate is contained within the subject, but it is not tautologous because it tells us something non trivial about the nature of bodies. It's not a mere word game
Yes I know you mentioned Russell but that doesn't mean you are saying what he says. His objection is to Kant's theory of the a priori, which is basically that Kant can't capture mathematical necessity in the right way (which Kant denies that you can do anyway so it is not much of an objection)...that is very different than saying that it is all learned from experience (which, btw, would REALLY make it the case that some day 7+5 could be other than 12...but glad you are enjoying the videos...
Take the example of a triangle- the angle sum of a triangle is a straight line. This is necessary (therefore a priori) but also not contained within the definition of a triangle and thus adds extra information about the triangle (therefore synthetic). 2+2=4 is necessary and gives information about the numbers 2 & 4 => synthetic a priori etc...
Hi Tachampine, it isn't my conclusion but Kant's! His idea is that the only way to explain why our experience is regular in the way that it is (rather than random like experience in a dream) is that it is ordered by a necessary relation. Cause and effect is one of the pre-conditions that makes experience like ours possible in the first place.
Abstract numbers becomes concrete money only when you need to do something with it inside the spherical earth according to Kant. Important concept for international trade. Money would never work on another planet like Mars because the a priori are on a different plane with different preconditions.
Richard, what Bertrand Russell said I also believe. I read kant and at the end I chose Russell. When you study robots, it contains a virtual space-time 2-Dimensional program which create a 3-Dimensional interpretation projection towards the "external world". The research EXPERIENCE and deductive logic create such space-time VIRTUAL BINARY program machine. For analogy, computer scientist claim human brian should be similar. Language, arithmetic, geometry, computer, all comes from experience.
42:05 Richard Brown's mistake I: Geometry can in fact be considered as containing synthetic a priori knowledge, v. g., in the proposition "the shortest distance between two points is straight-line". That means that not only Arithmetics (time) but also Geometry (space) can be found to embody true synthetic and moreover not mere a posteriori knowledge.
Kant isn't making an epistemological claim, the "forms" of space and time are within us prior to experience. He's not talking about noumenal space and time, but the way we experience space and time as phenomena.
Interesting that Godel's incompleteness theorem supports Kant's view of mathematics and the synthetic a priori. Godel and Kant were intuitionists, whom upheld that mathematics is an exercise in synthetic thought. In other words, mathematics can be understood by only our natural faculties; our intuition of space and time (and concepts such as quantity, equality, subtraction, addition). They would not have agreed entirely on the modern construction of IQ tests , as they generally fail to take into account the temporal factor of mathematical thinking; the intuitive understanding of time-order. (This is contrast to the fact , that IQ tests do measure the spatial aspect of synthetic thinking (figural reasoning)). But only more recently a couple of Intelligence tests (the Woodcock Johnson and coGAT) have become exceptions to this, with the introduction sub-tests such as Equation balancing and Applied problems (as mentioned by jay parisi's post), both which demand a good sense of relational time order. And interestingly two independent factorial analytic studies, have revealed that both of these sub-tests correlate significantly higher with general intelligence than does fluid intelligence. So Western philosophers (or whoever is running the show) didn't listen to their own giants, and instead have always tried to hide Kant's temporal factor.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) - time duality. Absolute truth (Certainty) is dual to relative truth (Uncertainty). Rational is dual to irrational (mathematics) Rational is dual to empirical (philosophy) Noumenal (God) is dual to phenomenal (man) -- Immanuel Kant. Syntropy (association of ideas) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Truth is dual to falsity! Truth is a dual concept, all axioms are dual.
42:11 Prof. Brown says that geometry we already know belongs in the Analytic A Priori category. But according to Kant's Prolegmena one of the main theses is that geometry is also, like mathematics, Synthetic A Priori. Under Mathematical judgements Kant writes: 'Just as little is any principle of geometry analytical. That a straight line is the shortest path between two points is a synthetical proposition. For my concept of straight contains nothing of quantity, but only a quality. The concept "shortest" is therefore altogether additional and cannot be obtained by any analysis of the concept "straight line."' Central to the intuition of the form of space as a precondition for our experience is the question 'How are Synthetic A Priori statements possible?' Kant's challenge is that the only answer heretofore is that the form of space is present in the mind or as the very structure of the mind. Geometry, then is merely a mapping out of this concept of space, not as something given in experience. [aomilligan@dmacc.edu] I have wondered then if the above is true what is meant by the idea that space came into being with a big bang if space is the precondition of our experience?
+Al Milligan someone else pointed that out a while ago...I don't know how I let that slip by me! I have added a note to the effect that this is a mistake...as for the big bang question it is interesting and I suppose I would say that it just means that before the big bang there was no possibility of experience as of objects, etc
Professor Brown, I'm really enjoying this series, but one of the culminating points by Kant here---that causation is synthetic a priori---seems an arbitrary rejection of Hume's skepticism about causation. You explained in the previous lecture on Hume that as Pavlov's Dog anticipated a causal relationship between the bell and the meat, but we know that relationship to be non-causal, so could our perception of cause/effect in the world be mistaken. We can't know whether the laws of physics will hold tomorrow as they hold today---this was Hume's position as per the previous lecture in this series. Matters of fact rest on an unjustifiable belief, according to Hume. So, now comes Kant saying that we CAN know that the laws of physics will hold tomorrow as they hold today, that the belief in matters of fact is justified, but with no reason why it must be so. It's easy to see why causation is classified by Kant as "synthetic"---the definition of "fire" does not contain within it the concept "causes pain when you stick your hand in it." But, it is not clear to me how Kant knows that fire must necessarily have that same property, "causes pain when you stick your hand in it" tomorrow as it did today. Kant does not appear to have any better evidence than Hume that the laws of physics are permanent and unchanging. And yet the knowledge of the permanence of nature appears to be one of Kant's crowning achievements. So, how does Kant know better than Hume that today's laws of physics will hold tomorrow, and that we're not all being duped like Pavlov's Dog? This crucial point is not clear to me at all after watching this lecture. From what you say here, Kant's explanation for his superior (to Hume) knowledge is that we live in a structured, ordered world where causation and the laws of physics must hold tomorrow as they held today. But, Hume's argument was that we can't know that causation and the laws of physics must hold tomorrow as they held today, despite the apparent structure and orderliness of the world today. Hume's world was no less ordered and no less structured than Kant's world. Hume, I've no doubt, lived his life assuming certain causal relationships in the world around him---he didn't stick his hand in the fire and so forth. And yet he couldn't know for certain that those causal relationships which he lived by must necessarily hold tomorrow. But, somehow Kant knows this? How?!? I'd love an explanation if you have the time!
Ha. I don't have time now, yet I will make a point of understanding Kant and responding to your question sometime within the next month. This is because I adored David Hume in college and (for whatever reason) Kant did not really fizz on me. However, it could have been my sporadic attendance and had nothing to do with Kant or Hume.
If some would like to disagree with this, go tell Euclid that all his work got done by merely analysing the concepts of certain figures in space. I wouldn't dare, tho.
If I live in another universe where 7+5=14, is a FACT of the universe, therefore a new sense-experience which in some way will allow me to create a new "math".
Experiences don't always have a spatial aspect, there are rare types of meditative states or drug induced states that are experienced without a notion of space, such as the immaterial jhanas.
+Leojorge Panegalli da Rocha Yes, and on top of that there is a disorder called Balint´s syndrome, in which object are seen without surrounding visual space has disappeared. But, of course, this is an anomaly that doesn´t support survival, so, it could not become the normal state. But it´s possible. Although there apparently still is some subphenomenal notion of space existing, because the obejcts are seen in different sizes i.e. the distance can be inferred from the size of the object.
I don't understand why the distinction between analytic a priori and synthetic a priori. Isn't the difference between these categories stages of a process? 7+5=12 like unmarried+man=bachelor. One concept is limited in its definition (bachelor) by the limits of language which can only break down the concept of bachelor into so many parts where '12' is quite limitless in ways it can be described. That doesn't mean 7+5 is any less a definition of 12 than unmarried+man defines bachelor.
I'm not sure that mathematics in its purely abstracted form, without any mapping to objects in reality, can add to our knowledge. And, in mathematics, everything really boils down to rigid definitions and manipulating how they interact. For instance, we understand the operation of addition and the concept of numbers like 1, 2, 3 and so on. So, is the result that they yield when combined like so really synthetic? I would say, we have just given them convenient names in the process, at best.
Kant's critique is the philosophical equivalent of Newton's physics wherein space and time are regarded as a priori (given) absolutes, not relative elements that interact with mass and gravity. These days, with the introduction of fractal geometry, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, one would be hard pressed to believe that anything essential is given a priori so that 'existence' can be based on the categorical separation of object and self. This is a illusion.
Just from listening to this lecture what i understand is kant doesnt know if the object exists but given the experience of the objects he knows time and space exists
But in supposing an object, you have precluded the questioning of time or space. Both are embedded in the basic definitions of objects, experience; indeed in our very act of questioning or reasoning. To imagine experience of an object, we implicitly state that time/space exists in discussing an experience or existence of any particular object.
If you have 5 ones and 7 ones, next to each other, you just have 5 ones and 7 ones next to each other. It takes something more to come up with the idea of 12, and that is related to our intuition of space and time. If math is not a direct exercise in synthetic thought, it is at least, the short-hand language for synthetic productions (because in retrospection of the course of our thinking, we can see that the end-products of math depend on the assumptions of intuition). Kant's idea is beautiful, but under-appreciated by many philosophers and cognitive scientists
It is 'under-appreciated' because Wittgenstein destroyed it. All mathematical propositions are mere tautologies. They tell us nothing about the world because they hold good for all possible cases. They are analytic propositions.
What is the most appropriate definition for synthetic judgement? 1 - It add to our knowledge 2 - It depends on the way the world is Because it might change some concepts put forward in this video.
+pragha1 Yes, he makes a huge mistake in understanding the nature of subjective experience, and the qualia it entails or consists of. You may put your hand into the fire a 1000 times, and every time it might feel different. And you might not feel pain at all if you train you mind/body in a certain way, like its done in some Eastern traditions.
Actually, the RUclips videos he makes. He uses the cheapest materials. I've seen better on RUclips. Also, he wasn't the first person by far to start teaching this way on the internet.
Bit late here but while the experience of pain may be posteriori, the causal relation of "fire CAUSES pain" as a universal cause is learned A priori. In the same way that I may need to learn about objects via experience and a posteriori, but knowing the universal law that objects are located in space is a priori.
If 7+5 is synthetic apriori, then why isn't "all bachelors are unmarried men"? Surely, at some point I had to find out what the word bachelor means in order to know it meant an 'unmarried man'. This, therefore, was added to my knowledge that I remember in the same way that 12 is the sum of 7+5.
I'm not sure I am analysing these correctly. Here's my try: For the bachelor example, it's like you define C = A+B, so going from either side of equation to the other side does not actually add to your knowledge. They are exactly identical concepts. You can see the learning of the meaning of the word 'bachelor' as the process of definition, of connecting the concepts of 'unmarried' and 'man' with a new word. Not actual learning of facts about the world.. While for 7+5=12, the concepts of all three stand independently. What is 12 does not depend on what is 7 or 5. 12 is not defined by what is 7 added to 5. You can know what is 12 without knowing 7+5 is 12. So getting from the left side to the right side actually gives you new information (even though you feel that you didn't learn anything new, because you already know it). But when you first learnt it, you learnt something new about what is 7+5. The maths example is perhaps less certain coz people may have different interpretations of numbers and stuff. But pretty sure the bachelor example is analytic. The statement assumes/depends on you already know what is 'bachelor' so the statement only explains the definition itself hope i'm helping rather than doing the opposite XD
You must read Wittgenstein on this. Mathematical propositions are mere tautologies. They tell us nothing about the world because they hold good for all possible cases. They are analytic or necessary propositions. Russell believed Kant was correct until he read Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Logical analysis illuminates the foundations of mathematics by showing how it could all be derived from logic by substitution of synonyms.
Synthetic just means that the predicate contains a new concept. Analytic means it does not. What Kant means is that the word "bachelor" contains the concept of "unmarried man" in itself. For instance, I would not write in an English essay "The bachelor was an unmarried man" because you already knew that given the subject of the sentence. In contrast, to say that "The bachelor was blonde" would introduce something you did not know from just the subject, thus making it synthetic. In the example of 7+5, you could have gone your whole life without seeing 12 things but you would know without having to experience 12 that it must be the sum of 7+5. This is more obvious with larger numbers. You have never seen 1 billion objects but you know without experiencing it that the number must exist based on the smaller number of objects you have seen. That's my take.. It does not mean that you never had to call on experience at any point with regards to the subject so I think that's why it's confusing. Synthetic and analytic distinguish the predicate, not whether the subject required experience.
The answer is the "type of knowledge": When you say "what is a bachelor" or "what is an unmarried man"? you will still signify the same thing. You may argue that calling same thing with two (or more) different names should also be accepted as different type of knowledge; but Kant does not qualify this as a new type. Imagine you are learning a brand new word or concept. Let's say "jumping frogs are called jumogs". You can claim that you have a brand new knowledge of "jumping frogs have a designated name", but Kant says no: You only learned to call the same thing or phenomenon with a different name, that's all, and this activity does not count as having a new type of knowledge. It is a form of knowledge maybe, but "it does not add anything new about the jumping frogs" other than branding them with a new name, which you can do endlessly without disturbing their existential quality or position. What Kant accepts as a new type of knowledge would be if you learned that jumping frogs (or jumogs) are green, or on the grass, or big, or noisy etc. You can always insist that learning a new name adds to your knowledge, even though Kant will not agree with you. But I would agree with you: The knowledge of "unmarried men being called with a designated term" (bachelor) indirectly opens up our understanding: For instance, we now realise that this group of people (unmarried men) has some sort of a social status which is required to be specifically named by the given culture. If we check the etymology of this new word, we can even learn more. So yes, "implications" are there for the "possibilities" of new knowledge. But not directly: At this point I would agree with Kant: The statement of "bachelors are unmarried men" does not directly tell us anything new or extra. On the other hand, the function of addition makes number 7 and number 5 into number 12. This, Kant says, is a new type of knowledge: We now know that the number 12 contains, or consist of, number 7 and number 5. Here we do not give different names to same numbers, or we do not learn how they are called in another language, or how they differ in numeric (5,7,12) and alphabetic (five, seven, twelve). We learn a new relation or dimension about these numbers. Let's say previously number 12 was just a number to count certain things; but now we know that this number can be obtained through certain mathematical process called addition. So next time when we come across with number 12 we will be able to see the hidden numbers 7 and 5. I think the issue boils down to what is accepted as knowledge and/or qualitative difference between knowledge types. This is exactly what epistemology is all about. It is also possible to suspect that Kant's example wasn't a good one to address his point. But I disagree: The epistemology you have will control your way of thinking as well as your examples. Therefore, if I would suspect from something that would be Kant's understanding of what knowledge is/isn't rather than his choice of examples.
Keep in mind though that with this argument Kant was trying to refute philosophical skepticism about the external world. Although I would agree that he greatly expanded the definition of what it is to experience the world and how we experience it, he still did not provide any reason to believe that we can have knowledge of an independent, external world.
You can't separate the head from the body. In true experience, the body is the boss in all experience. Arrogant humans throughout time let their minds be "the boss". Right off the bat they are skewing their perspective of the reality of what's really happening. Remember that the purpose of the necktie was to separate thought from gut feeling. The mind has to be the "manager" as J Campbell used to say, not the ultimate boss. We live in a time where the masses of "intellectual dependents" live in a dream world of their own creation.
I think it depends on what the formula 7+5=12 is asserting... If it means: 7 and 5 individually can be the same as 12 than it is a synthetic truth. But if it means: the sum of 7 and 5 is the same as 12 (which I think it does ...) than it's an analytic truth
I have a question, why is it not considered an appeal to the senses by looking up a definition in the dictionary with our eyes or hearing it with our ears?
As a Wittensteinian, I wouldn't appeal to Kripke for a posteriori analytic but rather, perhaps On Certainty. But even bringing this up in the Kantian context just confuses a difficult subject.
Richard, to be honest, is Bertrand Russell argument against Kant. Frege also agree. But even the concept of space for a primitive man was first synthetic(sense-experience) and then became analytic(intuition-concept-kant). Of course what we call "matter" inside "space" is more complicated to understand and there is a sense never physics will be unified(synthetic a-priori). Arithmetic is analytic apriori, otherwise, a new theory shall arise soon proving 7+5= 14, and then 16,18,19..and so on.
What it means for '7+5=14' to be a fact, on Kant's view, is that our experience of 7 things and 5 things add up to 14 things. It is not 100% clear what Kant thinks about other kinds of experience like this (that is, whether they are possible or not) but this isn't an objection to Kant in the way that Russell wants it to be
Around 43:30 you argue that the result is not contained within the numbers and mathematical operations them selfs and i somewhat agrees. It is not in the numbers themselves that we arrive at the result but at the relation with one another and the that relation if through the mathematical operation "a sum". We have these different associations within the concepts that is not contained within the definition of itself. It arises from the relation between different concepts and therefore we can deduce from that relation. You can call that synthetic or analytic but it is not new knowledge but simply figuring out the consequences that follows from the definitions.
45:00 within the concept of 7 and 5 is contained a quantity. That very quantity means that it has a quantitative relation between it and every other concept from within which a quantity is contained. Thus we have a quantitative relation that we can deduce given we know what quantitative relation we are talking of and what concept we relate it to. Thus it is not contained with the definition itself but follow necessarily from it. We have to analyse the relations between the concepts before we can make a judgement but it is still contained within the concept, just not the definitions. I think that it justifies calling it synthetic but it isn't new knowledge.
+Mikael Jensen 7 + 5, when analyzed, gives you a 7, a 5, and the idea of summing two quantities, as well as a result of the summation. But analysis doesn't tell you what that result will be.
You are right. The idea "bio-algorithm" do not come from experience, but the intuition comes from experience. To work in that intuition maybe in our live time we will discover a new CONCEPT. I do not know what really "bio-algorithm" means, is just an INTUITION. There is not "pre-conditions" of experience.To think that way is "idealism", and that was clarified by Russell. Nature made BIO-ROBOTS which process information. And space-time are part of the bio-program, therefore a bio-algorithm.
Richard in my second comment I mencioned Bertrad Russell. I also leave the problem "open". If there is some independent reality attached to "matter", means Kant a priori pre-conditions are right. From such BIO-HARDWARE, the sensation of space and time should come as a priori pre-condition before experience. Looks to me quantum mechanics(counciousness entanglement) gives rigth to kant and Plato. You are doing a terrific job. See me like a modest sparring!!!..Bye.
If 7+5=12 were synthetic in old tradition, before Kant, to contradict that judgement coul be possible like 7+5=14, because would be another "a posteriori" statement. But 7+5=12 is a FACT of our EXTERNAL universe, even if we do not "have special pre-conditions of experience". It means 7+5=12 reflect an IDENTITY of our universe. It means 7+5 define tautologically number 12. The judgment all bachellors are single, on the other hand, is still analytic but 7+5=12 is analityc whether we think or not.
Thesis (universal, ideal) is dual to anti-thesis (empirical, measured) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Synthesis, solution = synthetic apriori knowledge, problem, reaction --> solution. Hegel's cat:- alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat. Being is dual to non being --> becoming (synthesis) or synthetic aprior knowledge. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Action is dual to reaction -- Newton. Space is dual to time -- Einstein Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- Heisenberg Philosophy is the study of duality!
According to Stuart Miller, 7+5=12 is true because you have a "a posteriori" and repetitive "arithmetic experience". If one day you wake up and a new experience tell you 7+5+14...OK, no problem. If another day a new experience tell you 7+5= 15...Ok, still no problem...because is a a posteriori TRUE statement or SYNTHETIC. Now, If Kant want to make a breaktrough and say ONLY 5+7=12 is a SYNTHETIC A PRIORI and the rest not, forcefully 7+5 define the number 12: It is a tautology, ANALYTIC.
24:10 I somewhat view this differently, I do believe that The word object, does include tautologically the concept of a space-time occupying entity. Therefore, object being in space is an analytic statement. whats your take on that? @richard brown
The problem with your view is that Kant's view of the object is split. The object both refers to the object in itself and its subjective appearance for us as creatures living in space and time. The phenomenon of the object does not (necessarily) correspond to the thought of it.
Space and time are necessary for us to experience (in the form of an object) is necessarily true, means there is only one thing to experience. It is not "one thing", but two, matter and fields. Every ONE has a DUAL. Every experience leading to some knowledge always have a dual.
True Infinity, in all aspects/dimensions, has no other. Imagine a "box/container" with no sides at all! A circle who's center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere!
This is why dividing by zero is a fallacy! The zero in the case of division is acting as "one-thing!" It is a place holder yes...but once a symbol is put on paper, it becomes ONE THING!
I am not talking about what I believe. I am talking about what Kant's view is, and in particular what it means to be synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori on his view. You made the claim that synthetic a priori truths are learned from experience and I have been explaining to you why that is a misunderstanding of Kant's view
For Kant, when something is a priori it is necessary and universal meaning it is always true and can't possibly be false...synthetic a priori knowledge is still *a priori* knowledge which means it is necessary and universal so even if arithmetic is synthetic a priori it will never be able to change...maybe you are confusing synthetic a priori with synthetic a posteriori?
Synthetic statement comes from experience. First must happen and then you said what happened. The predicate ALSO is not contained into the subject as analytic statement does". Analytic statement do not need experience, therefore "a priori". Just go to a dictionary and you will see what I mean. The novelty in kant is synthetic statement "a priori", because synthetic statement, before Kant, were only "a posteriori". My point: synthetic "a priori" is the same as ANALITIC or tautology.
Around 22:00. You are just assuming it is a priori without explaining why. The reason why we can only vision within space is because or impressions are placed within space. We have never had an impression that is not dependent of time and space and thus have no a posteriori basis for anything not related to either time or space. We have nothing to form an idea of something independent of space. We can however form perceptions of things independent of time by the same reasoning made by David Hume in Part 2 Section 3 of his Treatise. We only have a perception of time by the succession of impressions after one another. If there is no succession we have no perception. Imagining a table from the same angel and with no change at all is thus the idea of a table dependent of space but independent of time.
Also you continue to assume that just because you have no perception or idea of anything independent of space means that reality itself will be dependent of space. However we know that not to be true. A Black Hole is an entity in space which surrounds a singularity. That singularity is so dense that space it bend to such extremes that it no longer exist in the very place of the singularity.
23:25 the only thing you have shown is that space is a prerequisite of ideas. If we don't have a perception of things outside or independently of space we have no ideas of the abstraction from space.
You seem to think I am arguing against you but I am only trying to get you to see the issue clearly and what you are talking about here has nothing to do with the analytic/synthetic distinction...but I've done all I can at this point...
yes, yes, I get that you disagree with Kant about the foundations of a priori knowledge but that is a separate issue from whether they are synthetic or analytic...this should be obvious as someone could hold a post-Kantian view on which math was synthetic a priori but not because of our natures.
For instance, take the largest known number (if that is really even possible) and then add some other very large number to it. Now you have a totally new number that may have never been expressed before. But is that really new knowledge? The essence of the knowledge is in the pattern. More like an algorithm or process. So, to me, simply combining existing things and getting something that resembles existing things very much is not synthetic.
Would it be valid to say Synthetic a posteriori --> Synthetic a priori --> Analytic a priori --> Analytic a posteriori? (i.e. fire causes pain to me; fire causes pain for some humans; fire is something; we see things)
Hi bucles2000, not sure what the relevance of your claim is to Kant's argument...the sum is the same whether it is analytic or synthetic. The question is whether it is something like definitionally true or not. Kant claims that it is not because we actually need to do the addition to know the answer. All we know analytically is that there is some number or other which is the union of & and 5
is this synthetic or analytic? all ice is cold all fire is hot all light is bright all crows are birds but all ice melts all fire gives light all light brings heat all crows have wings i suppose all 4 of the 1st set are analytic and the next next set are synthetic.
Richard, I got to work. The judgment al bachellors are single should be synthetic a priori because it involve human experience, but 7+5=12 must be analytic a priori judgment because it does not involbe human experience.
The debate between Russell and Kant is different. For Russell math truths can be characterized purely formally (analytically) whereas for Kant they cannot. For Kant mathematical statements constrain the kind of experience that we can have. Russell complains that this means that there could be other kinds of experiences than ours (with different mathematical rules). Not sure why this is a problem for Kant but both claim they are a priori, so not learned from experience! (not what you are saying)
Kant's interpretation of the synthetic has been perverted through the centuries.; essentially neglecting the temporal feature of synthetic thought. It is very apparent, that arithmetic relies on the (time) order of operators and numbers. Yet cognitive theories of rationality, exclude tasks like applied problems as a form of reasoning, even though it's correlation with general intelligence is higher than fluid intelligence (number patterns).
perhaps you can clarify your conclusion. you say that by examining your experience, you learn that doing something in the exact same way in the exact same conditions, will produce the exact same effect. I don't see how you are escaping the problem of induction. in what way is not applicable?
I think this argument on pure a priori knowledge is reductionist. Kant was looking for an essential given that would form the ontological basis for the categorical existence of the object. It's like setting a stage... In mathematics it would be like defining a master set that is the source of numerous sub-sets, all of which are logically inter-related and defined by cognition a posteriori to experience. I don't think there are any givens.... or if so they cannot be defined.by language .
One last try: Synthetic a priori judgements don't come from experience, they are a priori and known independently of any particular experience. Neither are they tautological: that is the point of calling them synthetic. Someone with just the concepts in the subject couldn't know the predicate. So math statements aren't true by definition, don't come from having experience, and can never change. They structure our experience so it would be impossible for us to ever have an experience as of 7+5=14
Can I say that Kant's justification for the A priori concepts being that they are necessary for perception and therefore can't be derived from perception? What I got from your lecture is that Kant sees space and time as concepts necessary for the phenomena so they can't be perceived from phenomena. Is this good enough or am I missing some insight. Great lecture btw.
Immanuel Kant introduced to us problems in science and in our point of view and I don't see the solution for it yet... I respect the science but this man is a fucking genius of all times
Somebody gets it.
10 years later... Analytic-Synthetic distinctions have still been widely discussed in the analytic tradition and still cause controversy on the philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science. There are a lot of formal methods and new interpretations if you like: semantic, formal logic and how we construct theories in the sciences.
For clarification -space, time and also CAUSALITY are pre conditions of all meaningful experience, and all a priori - synthetic for Kant. Causality must be stable and predictable in order to experience the world in the first place.
This just got me through my Kantian Metaphysics exam...thanks!
Making philosophy accessible! I love listening to these lectures - clarification of difficult concepts coupled with comical anecdotes and even "Brownisms" - words that aren't in any traditional dictionary but really hit the mark. Bravo Brown!
Around 49:00 all you have argued is that there is some necessary cause behind the sensation of pain when putting your hand in the flames. However since you cannot experience the causal effect of the pain you create a correlation that might be reinforced. But you have essentially no idea of what the causal link was.
So you might think the next time you put your hand in the fire you would feel pain, but suddenly you don't because the conditions have changed. You don't see a change but the causal effect is gone. You don't feel pain because it was not the fire which caused the pain but some other causal effect or a combination (hypothetically).
Therefore the sensation of pain from fire is not A Priori it is A Posteriori. And that is the causal link also. Pain can come from many different causes and you have no idea which cause is causing the pain. In fact there are flames that do not cause pain. Also you don't know whether that causal effect will change or whether the causal link will. You can argue that if the exact conditions remain the same then the effect will too. However it is the same as saying that if you have a perfect circle in reality then curtain rules apply ultimately. However you have no way of knowing whether or not it is a perfect circle or if the conditions have changed.
I was thinking the same thing, but your argument makes me feel much more confident in my assumption. Thanks
However much I might disagree with Immanuel Kant (I am currently working on my critique of his Transcendental Idealism) I would suggest that you read his book "A Critique of Pure Reason".
Mikael Jensen I'm reading Sebastian Gardner's guidebook, called "Kant and the Critique of pure Reason". I had a very difficult time reading and understanding the Critique directly. I'm also watching as many video's and reading other articles on the Critique to help me get a better overall understanding.
I've read a number of your comments, and your perspectives seems more in line with the Critique, as I understand it, then the lecturer in this video. Do you write articles, or books, about philosophy? You seem to have a very comprehensive understanding.
It seems to come to me intuitively. Is just understand philosophy on a fundamental level. Also when I try to understand arguments I see them as objects and lines connecting them. It somehow seems to make it easier to understand the underlining structure of an argument. You could try to draw it like that if you don't see it intuitively.
But no I am not writing books yet (I am 20 years old) but I will at the moment when I do not have to spend so much time on my studies and education. Also I have to finish the Critique as well as other works from Baumgarten, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn etc. to form a comprehensive work on epistemology and science theory. Also I will at some point work with Ethics, Politics and Existentialism.
@@cryptocoin5318 I have trouble understanding your argument. Could you reformulate it???
I was having tons of trouble with this too, but this video helped me figure it out. It's also helpful to look up the definitions of analytic and synthetic in this context (Kant). An analytic judgement is true because the predicate concept (unmarried) is contained by definition within the subject concept (bachelor). This is necessarily an a priori judgement. A synthetic judgement does not have the predicate contained in the subject, but Kant argues that this does not mean it cannot be a priori
yes, that is exactly what I said in my last comment...the issue is not whether we learn math from experience but is rather what the nature of a priori knowledge is...neither person is claiming that we learn math from experience as you have been suggesting...
Thank you for the clear explanation. I am reading the portuguese version of the book, but watching your videos even in english added a lot to my learning. Congratulations!
This is really going to help me pass my History of Philosophy exam at the end of the week! Very well explained. I didn't really like Kant before, this whole turning philosophy into a science thing was very off putting at first read for me. Now that I am starting to understand the concepts properly, I can see why it may have been the Copernican turn of contemporary philosophy!
Thanks again :)
"your grandma's there but doesn't look like your grandma"--great line; and a great lecture! many thanks!
Saul Kripkie was your professor! This is amazing!
From a Buddhist point of view one could argue that space and time are not given apriori, but created and defined by the mind, through rational cognition, that perceives the object located in space and time. This means that space and time do not necessarily appear as exogenous elements that are independent of the object...like a stage that contains various objects. It's irrational to assume that the stage is independent. Because of this... we have that.
You should really keep in mind that Kant makes a sharp distinction between an a priori truth and a tautology. An a priori truth is one where the subject is contained within the predicate, a tautology is one where the statement is true by virtue of the meaning of the words. Kant considers tautologies empty, while a priori judgements are not empty for Kant. For example " all bodies exist in space" is a statement where the predicate is contained within the subject, but it is not tautologous because it tells us something non trivial about the nature of bodies. It's not a mere word game
Yes I know you mentioned Russell but that doesn't mean you are saying what he says. His objection is to Kant's theory of the a priori, which is basically that Kant can't capture mathematical necessity in the right way (which Kant denies that you can do anyway so it is not much of an objection)...that is very different than saying that it is all learned from experience (which, btw, would REALLY make it the case that some day 7+5 could be other than 12...but glad you are enjoying the videos...
Take the example of a triangle- the angle sum of a triangle is a straight line. This is necessary (therefore a priori) but also not contained within the definition of a triangle and thus adds extra information about the triangle (therefore synthetic). 2+2=4 is necessary and gives information about the numbers 2 & 4 => synthetic a priori etc...
Very lucid lecture. Our philosophy chair teaches modern phil. and he and you both articulate and describe Kant in much the same manner.
Knowledge is dual if it can be dependent or independent of the observers perspective!
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Einstein.
Hi Tachampine, it isn't my conclusion but Kant's! His idea is that the only way to explain why our experience is regular in the way that it is (rather than random like experience in a dream) is that it is ordered by a necessary relation. Cause and effect is one of the pre-conditions that makes experience like ours possible in the first place.
See Don Hoffman
Abstract numbers becomes concrete money only when you need to do something with it inside the spherical earth according to Kant. Important concept for international trade. Money would never work on another planet like Mars because the a priori are on a different plane with different preconditions.
This is amazing,thanks for the lecture!
my favorite philosopher
Richard, what Bertrand Russell said I also believe. I read kant and at the end I chose Russell. When you study robots, it contains a virtual space-time 2-Dimensional program which create a 3-Dimensional interpretation projection towards the "external world". The research EXPERIENCE and deductive logic create such space-time VIRTUAL BINARY program machine. For analogy, computer scientist claim human brian should be similar. Language, arithmetic, geometry, computer, all comes from experience.
Math as Synthetic A Priori is so poetic!!! Beautiful!
42:05 Richard Brown's mistake I:
Geometry can in fact be considered as containing synthetic a priori knowledge, v. g., in the proposition "the shortest distance between two points is straight-line". That means that not only Arithmetics (time) but also Geometry (space) can be found to embody true synthetic and moreover not mere a posteriori knowledge.
Kant isn't making an epistemological claim, the "forms" of space and time are within us prior to experience. He's not talking about noumenal space and time, but the way we experience space and time as phenomena.
Interesting that Godel's incompleteness theorem supports Kant's view of mathematics and the synthetic a priori. Godel and Kant were intuitionists, whom upheld that mathematics is an exercise in synthetic thought. In other words, mathematics can be understood by only our natural faculties; our intuition of space and time (and concepts such as quantity, equality, subtraction, addition). They would not have agreed entirely on the modern construction of IQ tests , as they generally fail to take into account the temporal factor of mathematical thinking; the intuitive understanding of time-order. (This is contrast to the fact , that IQ tests do measure the spatial aspect of synthetic thinking (figural reasoning)). But only more recently a couple of Intelligence tests (the Woodcock Johnson and coGAT) have become exceptions to this, with the introduction sub-tests such as Equation balancing and Applied problems (as mentioned by jay parisi's post), both which demand a good sense of relational time order. And interestingly two independent factorial analytic studies, have revealed that both of these sub-tests correlate significantly higher with general intelligence than does fluid intelligence. So Western philosophers (or whoever is running the show) didn't listen to their own giants, and instead have always tried to hide Kant's temporal factor.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) - time duality.
Absolute truth (Certainty) is dual to relative truth (Uncertainty).
Rational is dual to irrational (mathematics)
Rational is dual to empirical (philosophy)
Noumenal (God) is dual to phenomenal (man) -- Immanuel Kant.
Syntropy (association of ideas) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Truth is dual to falsity! Truth is a dual concept, all axioms are dual.
42:11 Prof. Brown says that geometry we already know belongs in the Analytic A Priori category. But according to Kant's Prolegmena one of the main theses is that geometry is also, like mathematics, Synthetic A Priori. Under Mathematical judgements Kant writes: 'Just as little is any principle of geometry analytical. That a straight line is the shortest path between two points is a synthetical proposition. For my concept of straight contains nothing of quantity, but only a quality. The concept "shortest" is therefore altogether additional and cannot be obtained by any analysis of the concept "straight line."'
Central to the intuition of the form of space as a precondition for our experience is the question 'How are Synthetic A Priori statements possible?' Kant's challenge is that the only answer heretofore is that the form of space is present in the mind or as the very structure of the mind. Geometry, then is merely a mapping out of this concept of space, not as something given in experience. [aomilligan@dmacc.edu]
I have wondered then if the above is true what is meant by the idea that space came into being with a big bang if space is the precondition of our experience?
+Al Milligan someone else pointed that out a while ago...I don't know how I let that slip by me! I have added a note to the effect that this is a mistake...as for the big bang question it is interesting and I suppose I would say that it just means that before the big bang there was no possibility of experience as of objects, etc
*****
You are very kind for your response. I hadn't read all of the responses. Thanks.
+Richard Brown Yes, you corrected it with a very very small note.
Professor Brown, I'm really enjoying this series, but one of the culminating points by Kant here---that causation is synthetic a priori---seems an arbitrary rejection of Hume's skepticism about causation.
You explained in the previous lecture on Hume that as Pavlov's Dog anticipated a causal relationship between the bell and the meat, but we know that relationship to be non-causal, so could our perception of cause/effect in the world be mistaken. We can't know whether the laws of physics will hold tomorrow as they hold today---this was Hume's position as per the previous lecture in this series. Matters of fact rest on an unjustifiable belief, according to Hume.
So, now comes Kant saying that we CAN know that the laws of physics will hold tomorrow as they hold today, that the belief in matters of fact is justified, but with no reason why it must be so. It's easy to see why causation is classified by Kant as "synthetic"---the definition of "fire" does not contain within it the concept "causes pain when you stick your hand in it." But, it is not clear to me how Kant knows that fire must necessarily have that same property, "causes pain when you stick your hand in it" tomorrow as it did today. Kant does not appear to have any better evidence than Hume that the laws of physics are permanent and unchanging. And yet the knowledge of the permanence of nature appears to be one of Kant's crowning achievements.
So, how does Kant know better than Hume that today's laws of physics will hold tomorrow, and that we're not all being duped like Pavlov's Dog? This crucial point is not clear to me at all after watching this lecture. From what you say here, Kant's explanation for his superior (to Hume) knowledge is that we live in a structured, ordered world where causation and the laws of physics must hold tomorrow as they held today. But, Hume's argument was that we can't know that causation and the laws of physics must hold tomorrow as they held today, despite the apparent structure and orderliness of the world today. Hume's world was no less ordered and no less structured than Kant's world. Hume, I've no doubt, lived his life assuming certain causal relationships in the world around him---he didn't stick his hand in the fire and so forth. And yet he couldn't know for certain that those causal relationships which he lived by must necessarily hold tomorrow. But, somehow Kant knows this? How?!?
I'd love an explanation if you have the time!
Ha. I don't have time now, yet I will make a point of understanding Kant and responding to your question sometime within the next month. This is because I adored David Hume in college and (for whatever reason) Kant did not really fizz on me. However, it could have been my sporadic attendance and had nothing to do with Kant or Hume.
You have clearly not read the book, don't blame you, it's a bitch.
If some would like to disagree with this, go tell Euclid that all his work got done by merely analysing the concepts of certain figures in space. I wouldn't dare, tho.
Great lecture. Very informative and concise. Helped with understanding Kant's material a little better. Thank you.
If I live in another universe where 7+5=14, is a FACT of the universe, therefore a new sense-experience which in some way will allow me to create a new "math".
Experiences don't always have a spatial aspect, there are rare types of meditative states or drug induced states that are experienced without a notion of space, such as the immaterial jhanas.
+Leojorge Panegalli da Rocha Yes, and on top of that there is a disorder called Balint´s syndrome, in which object are seen without surrounding visual space has disappeared. But, of course, this is an anomaly that doesn´t support survival, so, it could not become the normal state. But it´s possible. Although there apparently still is some subphenomenal notion of space existing, because the obejcts are seen in different sizes i.e. the distance can be inferred from the size of the object.
I don't understand why the distinction between analytic a priori and synthetic a priori. Isn't the difference between these categories stages of a process? 7+5=12 like unmarried+man=bachelor. One concept is limited in its definition (bachelor) by the limits of language which can only break down the concept of bachelor into so many parts where '12' is quite limitless in ways it can be described. That doesn't mean 7+5 is any less a definition of 12 than unmarried+man defines bachelor.
I'm not sure that mathematics in its purely abstracted form, without any mapping to objects in reality, can add to our knowledge.
And, in mathematics, everything really boils down to rigid definitions and manipulating how they interact. For instance, we understand the operation of addition and the concept of numbers like 1, 2, 3 and so on. So, is the result that they yield when combined like so really synthetic? I would say, we have just given them convenient names in the process, at best.
Kant's critique is the philosophical equivalent of Newton's physics wherein space and time are regarded as a priori (given) absolutes, not relative elements that interact with mass and gravity. These days, with the introduction of fractal geometry, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, one would be hard pressed to believe that anything essential is given a priori so that 'existence' can be based on the categorical separation of object and self. This is a illusion.
Just from listening to this lecture what i understand is kant doesnt know if the object exists but given the experience of the objects he knows time and space exists
But in supposing an object, you have precluded the questioning of time or space. Both are embedded in the basic definitions of objects, experience; indeed in our very act of questioning or reasoning.
To imagine experience of an object, we implicitly state that time/space exists in discussing an experience or existence of any particular object.
If you have 5 ones and 7 ones, next to each other, you just have 5 ones and 7 ones next to each other. It takes something more to come up with the idea of 12, and that is related to our intuition of space and time. If math is not a direct exercise in synthetic thought, it is at least, the short-hand language for synthetic productions (because in retrospection of the course of our thinking, we can see that the end-products of math depend on the assumptions of intuition). Kant's idea is beautiful, but under-appreciated by many philosophers and cognitive scientists
It is 'under-appreciated' because Wittgenstein destroyed it. All mathematical propositions are mere tautologies. They tell us nothing about the world because they hold good for all possible cases. They are analytic propositions.
What is the most appropriate definition for synthetic judgement?
1 - It add to our knowledge
2 - It depends on the way the world is
Because it might change some concepts put forward in this video.
when the subject and its predicate are independent
I'm glad he pronounces A Priori correctly (Latin form, not English form)
Why did Richard Brown say that, the statement 'fire causes pain' is an example of synthetic A PRIORI? Isn't it A POSTERIORI?
+pragha1 Yes, he makes a huge mistake in understanding the nature of subjective experience, and the qualia it entails or consists of. You may put your hand into the fire a 1000 times, and every time it might feel different. And you might not feel pain at all if you train you mind/body in a certain way, like its done in some Eastern traditions.
+pragha1 Because it's youtube and youtube is a joke. Consider Salman Khan, whose videos took youtube to a new low.
+Mysteries From Beyond What videos of Salman Khan are you referring to?
Actually, the RUclips videos he makes. He uses the cheapest materials. I've seen better on RUclips. Also, he wasn't the first person by far to start teaching this way on the internet.
Bit late here but while the experience of pain may be posteriori, the causal relation of "fire CAUSES pain" as a universal cause is learned A priori. In the same way that I may need to learn about objects via experience and a posteriori, but knowing the universal law that objects are located in space is a priori.
If 7+5 is synthetic apriori, then why isn't "all bachelors are unmarried men"? Surely, at some point I had to find out what the word bachelor means in order to know it meant an 'unmarried man'. This, therefore, was added to my knowledge that I remember in the same way that 12 is the sum of 7+5.
that's a good point...
I'm not sure I am analysing these correctly. Here's my try:
For the bachelor example, it's like you define C = A+B, so going from either side of equation to the other side does not actually add to your knowledge. They are exactly identical concepts. You can see the learning of the meaning of the word 'bachelor' as the process of definition, of connecting the concepts of 'unmarried' and 'man' with a new word. Not actual learning of facts about the world..
While for 7+5=12, the concepts of all three stand independently. What is 12 does not depend on what is 7 or 5. 12 is not defined by what is 7 added to 5. You can know what is 12 without knowing 7+5 is 12. So getting from the left side to the right side actually gives you new information (even though you feel that you didn't learn anything new, because you already know it). But when you first learnt it, you learnt something new about what is 7+5.
The maths example is perhaps less certain coz people may have different interpretations of numbers and stuff. But pretty sure the bachelor example is analytic. The statement assumes/depends on you already know what is 'bachelor' so the statement only explains the definition itself
hope i'm helping rather than doing the opposite XD
You must read Wittgenstein on this. Mathematical propositions are mere tautologies. They tell us nothing about the world because they hold good for all possible cases. They are analytic or necessary propositions. Russell believed Kant was correct until he read Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Logical analysis illuminates the foundations of mathematics by showing how it could all be derived from logic by substitution of synonyms.
Synthetic just means that the predicate contains a new concept. Analytic means it does not. What Kant means is that the word "bachelor" contains the concept of "unmarried man" in itself. For instance, I would not write in an English essay "The bachelor was an unmarried man" because you already knew that given the subject of the sentence. In contrast, to say that "The bachelor was blonde" would introduce something you did not know from just the subject, thus making it synthetic. In the example of 7+5, you could have gone your whole life without seeing 12 things but you would know without having to experience 12 that it must be the sum of 7+5. This is more obvious with larger numbers. You have never seen 1 billion objects but you know without experiencing it that the number must exist based on the smaller number of objects you have seen. That's my take.. It does not mean that you never had to call on experience at any point with regards to the subject so I think that's why it's confusing. Synthetic and analytic distinguish the predicate, not whether the subject required experience.
The answer is the "type of knowledge": When you say "what is a bachelor" or "what is an unmarried man"? you will still signify the same thing. You may argue that calling same thing with two (or more) different names should also be accepted as different type of knowledge; but Kant does not qualify this as a new type.
Imagine you are learning a brand new word or concept. Let's say "jumping frogs are called jumogs". You can claim that you have a brand new knowledge of "jumping frogs have a designated name", but Kant says no: You only learned to call the same thing or phenomenon with a different name, that's all, and this activity does not count as having a new type of knowledge. It is a form of knowledge maybe, but "it does not add anything new about the jumping frogs" other than branding them with a new name, which you can do endlessly without disturbing their existential quality or position. What Kant accepts as a new type of knowledge would be if you learned that jumping frogs (or jumogs) are green, or on the grass, or big, or noisy etc.
You can always insist that learning a new name adds to your knowledge, even though Kant will not agree with you. But I would agree with you: The knowledge of "unmarried men being called with a designated term" (bachelor) indirectly opens up our understanding: For instance, we now realise that this group of people (unmarried men) has some sort of a social status which is required to be specifically named by the given culture. If we check the etymology of this new word, we can even learn more. So yes, "implications" are there for the "possibilities" of new knowledge. But not directly: At this point I would agree with Kant: The statement of "bachelors are unmarried men" does not directly tell us anything new or extra.
On the other hand, the function of addition makes number 7 and number 5 into number 12. This, Kant says, is a new type of knowledge: We now know that the number 12 contains, or consist of, number 7 and number 5. Here we do not give different names to same numbers, or we do not learn how they are called in another language, or how they differ in numeric (5,7,12) and alphabetic (five, seven, twelve). We learn a new relation or dimension about these numbers. Let's say previously number 12 was just a number to count certain things; but now we know that this number can be obtained through certain mathematical process called addition. So next time when we come across with number 12 we will be able to see the hidden numbers 7 and 5.
I think the issue boils down to what is accepted as knowledge and/or qualitative difference between knowledge types. This is exactly what epistemology is all about.
It is also possible to suspect that Kant's example wasn't a good one to address his point. But I disagree: The epistemology you have will control your way of thinking as well as your examples. Therefore, if I would suspect from something that would be Kant's understanding of what knowledge is/isn't rather than his choice of examples.
Great lecture, even better when accompanied with some Bonobo.
Keep in mind though that with this argument Kant was trying to refute philosophical skepticism about the external world. Although I would agree that he greatly expanded the definition of what it is to experience the world and how we experience it, he still did not provide any reason to believe that we can have knowledge of an independent, external world.
You can't separate the head from the body. In true experience, the body is the boss in all experience. Arrogant humans throughout time let their minds be "the boss". Right off the bat they are skewing their perspective of the reality of what's really happening. Remember that the purpose of the necktie was to separate thought from gut feeling. The mind has to be the "manager" as J Campbell used to say, not the ultimate boss. We live in a time where the masses of "intellectual dependents" live in a dream world of their own creation.
I think it depends on what the formula 7+5=12 is asserting... If it means: 7 and 5 individually can be the same as 12 than it is a synthetic truth. But if it means: the sum of 7 and 5 is the same as 12 (which I think it does
...) than it's an analytic truth
Equation I mean
think about the former example as man +single=bachelor which we agree is analytic
Sir, your videos are amaizng, great lectured. Thank you
I have a question, why is it not considered an appeal to the senses by looking up a definition in the dictionary with our eyes or hearing it with our ears?
As a Wittensteinian, I wouldn't appeal to Kripke for a posteriori analytic but rather, perhaps On Certainty. But even bringing this up in the Kantian context just confuses a difficult subject.
Richard, to be honest, is Bertrand Russell argument against Kant. Frege also agree. But even the concept of space for a primitive man was first synthetic(sense-experience) and then became analytic(intuition-concept-kant). Of course what we call "matter" inside "space" is more complicated to understand and there is a sense never physics will be unified(synthetic a-priori). Arithmetic is analytic apriori, otherwise, a new theory shall arise soon proving 7+5= 14, and then 16,18,19..and so on.
Explained crystal clear, truly amazing, great video!
What it means for '7+5=14' to be a fact, on Kant's view, is that our experience of 7 things and 5 things add up to 14 things. It is not 100% clear what Kant thinks about other kinds of experience like this (that is, whether they are possible or not) but this isn't an objection to Kant in the way that Russell wants it to be
Around 43:30 you argue that the result is not contained within the numbers and mathematical operations them selfs and i somewhat agrees. It is not in the numbers themselves that we arrive at the result but at the relation with one another and the that relation if through the mathematical operation "a sum". We have these different associations within the concepts that is not contained within the definition of itself. It arises from the relation between different concepts and therefore we can deduce from that relation. You can call that synthetic or analytic but it is not new knowledge but simply figuring out the consequences that follows from the definitions.
45:00 within the concept of 7 and 5 is contained a quantity. That very quantity means that it has a quantitative relation between it and every other concept from within which a quantity is contained. Thus we have a quantitative relation that we can deduce given we know what quantitative relation we are talking of and what concept we relate it to. Thus it is not contained with the definition itself but follow necessarily from it. We have to analyse the relations between the concepts before we can make a judgement but it is still contained within the concept, just not the definitions. I think that it justifies calling it synthetic but it isn't new knowledge.
+Mikael Jensen 7 + 5, when analyzed, gives you a 7, a 5, and the idea of summing two quantities, as well as a result of the summation. But analysis doesn't tell you what that result will be.
Actually it does. Because within the idea of summation lies the specific summation of 7 and 5.
Mikael Jensen Which, specifically, is some number.
Well yes.
Finally I understand Kant!!
You are right. The idea "bio-algorithm" do not come from experience, but the intuition comes from experience. To work in that intuition maybe in our live time we will discover a new CONCEPT. I do not know what really "bio-algorithm" means, is just an INTUITION. There is not "pre-conditions" of experience.To think that way is "idealism", and that was clarified by Russell. Nature made BIO-ROBOTS which process information. And space-time are part of the bio-program, therefore a bio-algorithm.
I am so.. like, digging on this, dude. awesome lecture. many, many thanks!
Richard in my second comment I mencioned Bertrad Russell. I also leave the problem "open". If there is some independent reality attached to "matter", means Kant a priori pre-conditions are right. From such BIO-HARDWARE, the sensation of space and time should come as a priori pre-condition before experience. Looks to me quantum mechanics(counciousness entanglement) gives rigth to kant and Plato. You are doing a terrific job. See me like a modest sparring!!!..Bye.
Clearly explained. Thank you!
Great explaining here. Thank you
priori maxim in itself purportionate value, if relativity is interrelational?
If 7+5=12 were synthetic in old tradition, before Kant, to contradict that judgement coul be possible like 7+5=14, because would be another "a posteriori" statement. But 7+5=12 is a FACT of our EXTERNAL universe, even if we do not "have special pre-conditions of experience". It means 7+5=12 reflect an IDENTITY of our universe. It means 7+5 define tautologically number 12. The judgment all bachellors are single, on the other hand, is still analytic but 7+5=12 is analityc whether we think or not.
Thesis (universal, ideal) is dual to anti-thesis (empirical, measured) -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Synthesis, solution = synthetic apriori knowledge, problem, reaction --> solution.
Hegel's cat:- alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat.
Being is dual to non being --> becoming (synthesis) or synthetic aprior knowledge.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Action is dual to reaction -- Newton.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- Heisenberg
Philosophy is the study of duality!
I like the 25 people in the room thing. I might steal that.
According to Stuart Miller, 7+5=12 is true because you have a "a posteriori" and repetitive "arithmetic experience". If one day you wake up and a new experience tell you 7+5+14...OK, no problem. If another day a new experience tell you 7+5= 15...Ok, still no problem...because is a a posteriori TRUE statement or SYNTHETIC. Now, If Kant want to make a breaktrough and say ONLY 5+7=12 is a SYNTHETIC A PRIORI and the rest not, forcefully 7+5 define the number 12: It is a tautology, ANALYTIC.
24:10 I somewhat view this differently, I do believe that The word object, does include tautologically the concept of a space-time occupying entity. Therefore, object being in space is an analytic statement. whats your take on that? @richard brown
The problem with your view is that Kant's view of the object is split. The object both refers to the object in itself and its subjective appearance for us as creatures living in space and time. The phenomenon of the object does not (necessarily) correspond to the thought of it.
Space and time are necessary for us to experience (in the form of an object) is necessarily true, means there is only one thing to experience. It is not "one thing", but two, matter and fields. Every ONE has a DUAL. Every experience leading to some knowledge always have a dual.
I agree that ONE has a dual. However, ALL does NOT! Matter, I believe, is simply energy "slowed down."
True Infinity, in all aspects/dimensions, has no other. Imagine a "box/container" with no sides at all! A circle who's center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere!
This is why dividing by zero is a fallacy! The zero in the case of division is acting as "one-thing!" It is a place holder yes...but once a symbol is put on paper, it becomes ONE THING!
Jason Johannes Infinity IS the answer, and is True.
Jason Johannes
Please explain "all does not".
according to Kant it DOES involve human experience that is why the Russell objection isn't really any good...but like I said, enough is enough
I am not talking about what I believe. I am talking about what Kant's view is, and in particular what it means to be synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori on his view. You made the claim that synthetic a priori truths are learned from experience and I have been explaining to you why that is a misunderstanding of Kant's view
For Kant, when something is a priori it is necessary and universal meaning it is always true and can't possibly be false...synthetic a priori knowledge is still *a priori* knowledge which means it is necessary and universal so even if arithmetic is synthetic a priori it will never be able to change...maybe you are confusing synthetic a priori with synthetic a posteriori?
Synthetic statement comes from experience. First must happen and then you said what happened. The predicate ALSO is not contained into the subject as analytic statement does". Analytic statement do not need experience, therefore "a priori". Just go to a dictionary and you will see what I mean. The novelty in kant is synthetic statement "a priori", because synthetic statement, before Kant, were only "a posteriori". My point: synthetic "a priori" is the same as ANALITIC or tautology.
So synthetic a priori judgement is just another word for conditions for possibility?
Around 22:00. You are just assuming it is a priori without explaining why. The reason why we can only vision within space is because or impressions are placed within space. We have never had an impression that is not dependent of time and space and thus have no a posteriori basis for anything not related to either time or space. We have nothing to form an idea of something independent of space. We can however form perceptions of things independent of time by the same reasoning made by David Hume in Part 2 Section 3 of his Treatise. We only have a perception of time by the succession of impressions after one another. If there is no succession we have no perception. Imagining a table from the same angel and with no change at all is thus the idea of a table dependent of space but independent of time.
Also you continue to assume that just because you have no perception or idea of anything independent of space means that reality itself will be dependent of space. However we know that not to be true. A Black Hole is an entity in space which surrounds a singularity. That singularity is so dense that space it bend to such extremes that it no longer exist in the very place of the singularity.
23:25 the only thing you have shown is that space is a prerequisite of ideas. If we don't have a perception of things outside or independently of space we have no ideas of the abstraction from space.
Even if Kant was able to see this presentation, he would have better understood his own theory ;)
You seem to think I am arguing against you but I am only trying to get you to see the issue clearly and what you are talking about here has nothing to do with the analytic/synthetic distinction...but I've done all I can at this point...
yes, yes, I get that you disagree with Kant about the foundations of a priori knowledge but that is a separate issue from whether they are synthetic or analytic...this should be obvious as someone could hold a post-Kantian view on which math was synthetic a priori but not because of our natures.
For instance, take the largest known number (if that is really even possible) and then add some other very large number to it. Now you have a totally new number that may have never been expressed before. But is that really new knowledge? The essence of the knowledge is in the pattern. More like an algorithm or process. So, to me, simply combining existing things and getting something that resembles existing things very much is not synthetic.
Would it be valid to say
Synthetic a posteriori --> Synthetic a priori --> Analytic a priori --> Analytic a posteriori?
(i.e. fire causes pain to me; fire causes pain for some humans; fire is something; we see things)
Kris Vang No. First of all, analytic a posteriori is not possible at all. Also, "fire causes pain to som humans" would be synthetic a posteriori.
Hi Manuel Vidal, thanks for catching that!
Hi bucles2000, not sure what the relevance of your claim is to Kant's argument...the sum is the same whether it is analytic or synthetic. The question is whether it is something like definitionally true or not. Kant claims that it is not because we actually need to do the addition to know the answer. All we know analytically is that there is some number or other which is the union of & and 5
is this synthetic or analytic?
all ice is cold
all fire is hot
all light is bright
all crows are birds
but
all ice melts
all fire gives light
all light brings heat
all crows have wings
i suppose all 4 of the 1st set are analytic and the next next set are synthetic.
Very clear and concise. Many thanks.
I love your videos! Keep up the good work.
Very helpful explanation. Thanks a lot!
Richard, I got to work. The judgment al bachellors are single should be synthetic a priori because it involve human experience, but 7+5=12 must be analytic a priori judgment because it does not involbe human experience.
The debate between Russell and Kant is different. For Russell math truths can be characterized purely formally (analytically) whereas for Kant they cannot. For Kant mathematical statements constrain the kind of experience that we can have. Russell complains that this means that there could be other kinds of experiences than ours (with different mathematical rules). Not sure why this is a problem for Kant but both claim they are a priori, so not learned from experience! (not what you are saying)
I am not sure that the claim made here, "human beings are irrational" by Hume is right. Causation is subjective, yes....
Amazing lecture. Thank you very much.
Thanks, this is helpful for writing a paper!
Kant's interpretation of the synthetic has been perverted through the centuries.; essentially neglecting the temporal feature of synthetic thought. It is very apparent, that arithmetic relies on the (time) order of operators and numbers. Yet cognitive theories of rationality, exclude tasks like applied problems as a form of reasoning, even though it's correlation with general intelligence is higher than fluid intelligence (number patterns).
7 + 5=12 is Analytic Apriori. if you find a space where the sum is 14, please let me know.
base 8
perhaps you can clarify your conclusion. you say that by examining your experience, you learn that doing something in the exact same way in the exact same conditions, will produce the exact same effect. I don't see how you are escaping the problem of induction. in what way is not applicable?
not sure what kind of shaving foam you use!
Great Lecture!
I think this argument on pure a priori knowledge is reductionist. Kant was looking for an essential given that would form the ontological basis for the categorical existence of the object. It's like setting a stage... In mathematics it would be like defining a master set that is the source of numerous sub-sets, all of which are logically inter-related and defined by cognition a posteriori to experience. I don't think there are any givens.... or if so they cannot be defined.by language .
Glad to hear that you like Russell but you haven't been saying what he says!
One last try: Synthetic a priori judgements don't come from experience, they are a priori and known independently of any particular experience. Neither are they tautological: that is the point of calling them synthetic. Someone with just the concepts in the subject couldn't know the predicate. So math statements aren't true by definition, don't come from having experience, and can never change. They structure our experience so it would be impossible for us to ever have an experience as of 7+5=14
Can I say that Kant's justification for the A priori concepts being that they are necessary for perception and therefore can't be derived from perception? What I got from your lecture is that Kant sees space and time as concepts necessary for the phenomena so they can't be perceived from phenomena. Is this good enough or am I missing some insight. Great lecture btw.
a great lecture, thank you
What woud have to b true.... ? ... There is a film never expected to telL that story. Coz guide says run in case of encounter.
Since b.toothless ancint knoledge on alien relativity
Thanks so much, lifesaver!