Yet the touch aspect would work if the object were rectangular like a coffee table, since they have to go around the table to find all four sides to get the shape of the table. Or if the object was round, like an orange, then they have to hold the orange and roll it around in their hands to feel the roundness of the orange.
BTW I looked up perception and it not only means to observe aesthetics, but refers to intuitively recognize truth; especially mentally. Therefore reason is a perception because it is done in the mentally.
Well in my view, in order to understand 'Critique of Pure Reason', you have to read it alongside 'Outlines of Skepticism' by Sextus Empiricus because Kant is using a type of argumentation that is similar to Empiricus' style of argumentation; that style being comparing two thesis and deconstructing them to their constituent parts and examining their strengths and weaknesses before arriving at a consensus. If it sounds like Hegel, it's because Hegel also picked up from Empiricus who I recommend.
Another thing, going back to your original premise, does this mean you agree with Kant? That is when he states in 'Critique of Pure Reason' that "[a]ll knowledge begins with sense, proceeds thence to understanding, and ends with reason..."
Okay then, what if the only sense he had was touch and he had to use that sense to form the shape of objects with his reason to perceive it? Would he then be able to have perception? Also have you seen this video?: watch?v=Ti0Jczx-gMA If not, check it out, and then it's sequel. You have to watch both to get the point.
Not to mention it's important to have an understanding of the history behind Western philosophy in order to truly grasp it, or else one will not understand Western thought.
Can't believe you managed to speak German so well. You learned it during your adulthood? Echt prima gemacht. And what is the name of the last book you recommend - the one with the historical overview?
Vielen Dank! I only began to seriously study German a few years ago. I was also lucky enough to travel to Germany twice. It's an amazing thing to hear a language as spoken by native speakers. The book was "The Modern Voyage" by William F. Lawhead. It is part 3 of a series of books that give a brief overview of the history of philosophy. It was very useful for me when I began to study it. I reference it a lot when I make my videos about philosophy.
Kastanje47 Sorry for the late response. German studies are consuming my life at the moment. XD Yes, I would consider myself a religious person, but I do not consider myself a typically religious person. On a technical level, I identify as Episcopalian/Anglican. That's because I appreciate the style and liturgy of the Catholic tradition, but I also feel that the Catholic church is in many ways trapped in the past (for example, I am disappointed that the Catholic church does not condone gay marriage or the ordination of women, but I am pleased that the Anglican church does). It may sound silly, but I think that the primary motivation of true religion should be to promote love and caring, not necessarily dogma. That said, I hope this doesn't cheapen the content of my channel for you. I suppose it must seem biased for a Christian to talk about things like western philosophy and theology. Some say that to be a true philosopher, you must be completely neutral. But I personally believe that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," and that it is impossible to be completely neutral. But for the sake of teaching, I try to keep my Christian perspective in check, when necessary.
Are you sure that reason is not a perception? What if a person were blind, deaf and mute and all he has is reason to guide his theoretical imagination? Is that not perception?
It's not my fault that 'Critique of Pure Reason' is not in the layman since it was written more than 200 years ago, nor that Rand may not have read Empiricus to get Kant's context. I suggest you step out of the Objectivist bubble and start reading 'Outlines of Skepticism' alongside 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
How do you know that? Is it because Rand said so? If it is because Rand said so, then I call fallacy on that for I have never heard Rand give word on Empiricus, who inspired Kant, since she was too busy glorifying Aristotle and bashing Kant for no reason without looking into one of Kant's sources. Have looked into 'Outlines of Skepticism' as well? It is imperative to read said work to get Kant's method and all of Greco-Roman philosophy to understand modern philosophy or else it's foolish not to.
Kant is not against reason, for as I have stated, he compares the strengths and weaknesses of reason to experience and puts down Hume, Locke, Leibniz Descartes, Hobbes and many others for preaching dogma; which parallels Empiricus' criticism of Epicurus, Plato, Aristotle and many others of dogma. Also I find your second statement rather ridiculous; the English language is full of words that have ambiguous meanings; such as the word daemonic.
Thanks a million...
That was great! Thanks for sharing Phantom!
Yet the touch aspect would work if the object were rectangular like a coffee table, since they have to go around the table to find all four sides to get the shape of the table. Or if the object was round, like an orange, then they have to hold the orange and roll it around in their hands to feel the roundness of the orange.
Thanks for posting this! It helped me prepare for my final exam!!
You're very welcome!
BTW I looked up perception and it not only means to observe aesthetics, but refers to intuitively recognize truth; especially mentally. Therefore reason is a perception because it is done in the mentally.
Great thanks for the upload!
Well in my view, in order to understand 'Critique of Pure Reason', you have to read it alongside 'Outlines of Skepticism' by Sextus Empiricus because Kant is using a type of argumentation that is similar to Empiricus' style of argumentation; that style being comparing two thesis and deconstructing them to their constituent parts and examining their strengths and weaknesses before arriving at a consensus. If it sounds like Hegel, it's because Hegel also picked up from Empiricus who I recommend.
Another thing, going back to your original premise, does this mean you agree with Kant? That is when he states in 'Critique of Pure Reason' that "[a]ll knowledge begins with sense, proceeds thence to understanding, and ends with reason..."
What about dreams? Would not dreams be a form of perception since it is within the mind? Or that of reason?
Okay then, what if the only sense he had was touch and he had to use that sense to form the shape of objects with his reason to perceive it? Would he then be able to have perception? Also have you seen this video?:
watch?v=Ti0Jczx-gMA
If not, check it out, and then it's sequel. You have to watch both to get the point.
Interesting altercation that took place down here... anyways thanks for the video. :)
Not to mention it's important to have an understanding of the history behind Western philosophy in order to truly grasp it, or else one will not understand Western thought.
Can't believe you managed to speak German so well. You learned it during your adulthood? Echt prima gemacht. And what is the name of the last book you recommend - the one with the historical overview?
Vielen Dank! I only began to seriously study German a few years ago. I was also lucky enough to travel to Germany twice. It's an amazing thing to hear a language as spoken by native speakers.
The book was "The Modern Voyage" by William F. Lawhead. It is part 3 of a series of books that give a brief overview of the history of philosophy. It was very useful for me when I began to study it. I reference it a lot when I make my videos about philosophy.
Du bist ja ein wunderkind.
Kastanje47 Es freut mich, dass du so denkst, aber ich bin kein Wunderkind. Deutsch finde ich oft schwer zu lernen.
You forget to answer the question concerning your religious background.
Kastanje47 Sorry for the late response. German studies are consuming my life at the moment. XD
Yes, I would consider myself a religious person, but I do not consider myself a typically religious person. On a technical level, I identify as Episcopalian/Anglican. That's because I appreciate the style and liturgy of the Catholic tradition, but I also feel that the Catholic church is in many ways trapped in the past (for example, I am disappointed that the Catholic church does not condone gay marriage or the ordination of women, but I am pleased that the Anglican church does). It may sound silly, but I think that the primary motivation of true religion should be to promote love and caring, not necessarily dogma.
That said, I hope this doesn't cheapen the content of my channel for you. I suppose it must seem biased for a Christian to talk about things like western philosophy and theology. Some say that to be a true philosopher, you must be completely neutral. But I personally believe that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," and that it is impossible to be completely neutral. But for the sake of teaching, I try to keep my Christian perspective in check, when necessary.
Are you sure that reason is not a perception? What if a person were blind, deaf and mute and all he has is reason to guide his theoretical imagination? Is that not perception?
You shouldnt call him a c word
On another note, are the senses always reliable?
i need some books to read kant as a boring man he influenced me too much. i have all his books but i need overviews by German philosophers
It's not my fault that 'Critique of Pure Reason' is not in the layman since it was written more than 200 years ago, nor that Rand may not have read Empiricus to get Kant's context. I suggest you step out of the Objectivist bubble and start reading 'Outlines of Skepticism' alongside 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
How do you know that? Is it because Rand said so? If it is because Rand said so, then I call fallacy on that for I have never heard Rand give word on Empiricus, who inspired Kant, since she was too busy glorifying Aristotle and bashing Kant for no reason without looking into one of Kant's sources. Have looked into 'Outlines of Skepticism' as well? It is imperative to read said work to get Kant's method and all of Greco-Roman philosophy to understand modern philosophy or else it's foolish not to.
Kant is not against reason, for as I have stated, he compares the strengths and weaknesses of reason to experience and puts down Hume, Locke, Leibniz Descartes, Hobbes and many others for preaching dogma; which parallels Empiricus' criticism of Epicurus, Plato, Aristotle and many others of dogma.
Also I find your second statement rather ridiculous; the English language is full of words that have ambiguous meanings; such as the word daemonic.