Hi, Donovan, thank you for your explanation, but I'm still having a hard time here; I'm ok with the definition of analytical/synthetic, but as for the examples that Kant gives in Critique of Pure Reason, they seem very confusing. He uses "all objects are extended" as an example of analytical judgement, and as to that "great, I got it, of course, it's part of the definition an object to have extension", but then he goes to say that "all objects are heavy" is synthetical and then I'm completely lost because specially in Newtonian Physics (which Kant takes as a given). an object is anything that has a limited mass and occupies a limited place in space, so I would take "all objects are heavy" as analytical too. What am I missing here? Is it because space and time are absolutes for Newton? Thanks in advance.
Thanks for this video, Donovan. In my effort in understanding what Kant is saying with this, would I be right in concluding that Kant is asserting that synthetic a priori knowledge is innate and contained within us? That is, as it is a judgement that can tell us of the world but we do not require experience for its verification as a truth, synthetic a priori knowledge is based within our 'laws of the understanding'?
I don’t believe it would be based on the functions of our understanding, rather it would be based on the relationship between synthesis and the pure relationship of space and time which are give to us a priori. From this, the laws of the understanding are formed through what Kant calls ‘a priori synthesis’, but synthetic a priori judgements cannot be based on the laws of the understanding as the laws of the understanding only provides the rules for the organizing of experience
Hi, Donovan, thank you for your explanation, but I'm still having a hard time here; I'm ok with the definition of analytical/synthetic, but as for the examples that Kant gives in Critique of Pure Reason, they seem very confusing. He uses "all objects are extended" as an example of analytical judgement, and as to that "great, I got it, of course, it's part of the definition an object to have extension", but then he goes to say that "all objects are heavy" is synthetical and then I'm completely lost because specially in Newtonian Physics (which Kant takes as a given). an object is anything that has a limited mass and occupies a limited place in space, so I would take "all objects are heavy" as analytical too. What am I missing here? Is it because space and time are absolutes for Newton? Thanks in advance.
Thanks for this video, Donovan. In my effort in understanding what Kant is saying with this, would I be right in concluding that Kant is asserting that synthetic a priori knowledge is innate and contained within us? That is, as it is a judgement that can tell us of the world but we do not require experience for its verification as a truth, synthetic a priori knowledge is based within our 'laws of the understanding'?
I don’t believe it would be based on the functions of our understanding, rather it would be based on the relationship between synthesis and the pure relationship of space and time which are give to us a priori. From this, the laws of the understanding are formed through what Kant calls ‘a priori synthesis’, but synthetic a priori judgements cannot be based on the laws of the understanding as the laws of the understanding only provides the rules for the organizing of experience
You need to learn to speak with concision.
Very underwhelming and unprofessional with a kid yelling.
Maybe your judgement will be more insightful after becoming a father.
@@m.vleugels554 I have 3 young children, I would never make content with them yelling
@@canadianamateurfilmdude Good luck!