And pure a priori FORMS of intuition: transcendental conditions of the possibility of our (of a being like ours) experience (and of the possibility of knowledge of such experience). Space and Time (as pure a priori forms of intuition) are the way our thought receives/organises the manifold of intuitions. The forms that organise our passive reception of such a manifold, if you will. By 'pure a prior intutions' Kant means that Space and Time are not derivable either from the manifold of intuitions they help organise nor from thought as it actively organises itself. They are pure in the sense of 'underivable' (not pure as in 'pure entities' -but neither are Hegel's 'ideas' 'pure entities'), and as such they are the marks of our sensibility (that we are not merely conceptual beings, but that we are passively affected beings -even when it comes to thinking ourselves as the subject of thought) who 'organise' (forms) this passive reception side to our thought in a different way than we organise our thought in the thinking: determining of this manifold. All the errors for Kant (of rationalists and empiricists alike, and the scepticisms they spawned) derived from the inability to recognise that thoughts and intuitions while inseparable ('intuitions without concepts are blind, concepts without intuitions are empty') are not identical. The categories of the Understanding themselves would be mere logical categories (empty concepts) without the manifold of intuitions, and could never claim the status of pure a priori forms of knowledge/experience, or, indeed, the status of concepts of objects.
@user-sx6li9ph9i i couldnt find the original source for the supposed comment, while i found plenty of bad comments on Hegel by jung. Which i think is funny, guess your right in one sense, but not in an unconcious sense, as Hegel was influenced by kant himself, had plenty ideas on "the spirit", a individual aswell as collective Force, not to disimilar to the collective unconcious. Seems like jung did what most people do, hate the thing that they are too similar too, like Jordan Peterson and post-modernism today, jung dislike Hegel, despite that they share so much in common, obscurist language, a mechanism of collective Force, a historical conception of ideas, and an overrarching idea that seems unfalsifiable.
Get the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe3
Thanks for the video, I’ll use it for my lessons 👍🏻
Excellent :D
You guys are great 👍 thanks for the education 👍👍👍
On Kant, it's not that time and space are ideas (though they are as well of course). The point is that they are pure a priori intuitions
And pure a priori FORMS of intuition: transcendental conditions of the possibility of our (of a being like ours) experience (and of the possibility of knowledge of such experience). Space and Time (as pure a priori forms of intuition) are the way our thought receives/organises the manifold of intuitions. The forms that organise our passive reception of such a manifold, if you will. By 'pure a prior intutions' Kant means that Space and Time are not derivable either from the manifold of intuitions they help organise nor from thought as it actively organises itself. They are pure in the sense of 'underivable' (not pure as in 'pure entities' -but neither are Hegel's 'ideas' 'pure entities'), and as such they are the marks of our sensibility (that we are not merely conceptual beings, but that we are passively affected beings -even when it comes to thinking ourselves as the subject of thought) who 'organise' (forms) this passive reception side to our thought in a different way than we organise our thought in the thinking: determining of this manifold. All the errors for Kant (of rationalists and empiricists alike, and the scepticisms they spawned) derived from the inability to recognise that thoughts and intuitions while inseparable ('intuitions without concepts are blind, concepts without intuitions are empty') are not identical. The categories of the Understanding themselves would be mere logical categories (empty concepts) without the manifold of intuitions, and could never claim the status of pure a priori forms of knowledge/experience, or, indeed, the status of concepts of objects.
Great video. Do you think you guys will ever do a video on Karl Marx's material dialectics?
Thanks. Yes this is something we are looking to.
Society and tradition are deffinetly not shared ideas. Ask native Irish people excluded from "society".
I think the point is that society and tradition are shared ideas *among* those who are included in those concepts.
@@Conorize maybe.... or most people are demented and have no idea whats going on.
I'm happy to gamble on this one.
What the heck, this gave me autism, poggers C:
you make these conversations sound so boring. It just sounds like youre talking to yourself and not two different people arguing.
Sounds like Jungian archetypes
jung called himself a deciple of Hegel, edit: he didnt
@user-sx6li9ph9i i couldnt find the original source for the supposed comment, while i found plenty of bad comments on Hegel by jung. Which i think is funny, guess your right in one sense, but not in an unconcious sense, as Hegel was influenced by kant himself, had plenty ideas on "the spirit", a individual aswell as collective Force, not to disimilar to the collective unconcious.
Seems like jung did what most people do, hate the thing that they are too similar too, like Jordan Peterson and post-modernism today, jung dislike Hegel, despite that they share so much in common, obscurist language, a mechanism of collective Force, a historical conception of ideas, and an overrarching idea that seems unfalsifiable.