Dr. Darren Staloff, Kant's Copernican Revolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- You can find Critique of Pure Reason here amzn.to/3AkUqk5
This is the official UA-cam channel of Dr. Michael Sugrue.
Please consider subscribing to be notified of future videos, as we upload Dr. Sugrue's vast archive of lectures.
Dr. Michael Sugrue earned his BA at the University of Chicago and PhD at Columbia University.
Last time I was this early I could correct my clocks based on when Kant came by in his afternoon walk
No one has ever taught this class this understandability as Professor Stallof! Simply masterful. When I listen to Professors Sugrue and Stallof, I ask myself: will I ever be able to teach with this effectiveness? They are my ultimate inspiration when it comes to communicating knowledge from one mind to the other.
T😢 qfa688😂t5😢😢1 1Ft😢❤acfa😢 The 1. 1 5ttC1. 3😢 12th 😂t❤1 cca55xt1 tttq1ftt1 1xttteeeeeewwer43❤❤5❤😢5x6❤❤ 555351❤t❤xcz😢can 5q16😢5th 😂 day 5❤😂
00:01 Intro
Kant's epistemology, Critique of Pure Reason
Tries to build a logical foundation of what can and can't be known
Affected by David Hume
Synthesizes rationalist and empiricist traditions
Rationalist - knowledge comes from reason, the mind
Empiricist - knowledge of the world comes from our senses
Kant - both are correct
Can metaphysics be a science?
Three important metaphysical questions: God, freedom, immortality
06:30 How synthetic a priori propositions are possible and true
A priori knowledge - prompted by but not derived from experience. Example: all physical events are spatio temporal.
A posteriori proposition - purely derived from experience. Example: all US presidents are male.
Synthetic proposition - predicate is not contained in the concept of the subject. Example: all bodies are heavy (but it is possible that some bodies are not heavy).
Analytic proposition - predicate is contained in the concept of the subject. Example: all bodies are extended/takes up space (concept of body contains concept of extended), all bachelors are unmarried men.
Synthetic a priori proposition - tells us something new not derived from experience. Example: every event has a cause, we know this is true but not from experience. How are such judgments possible and true?
There is a large class of synthetic a priori judgments. Example: mathematics (7 + 5 = 12).
12:10 Kant's Copernican revolution in epistemology
Rather than have the mind correspond to objects in order to have truth, suppose objects have to correspond to our mind. This would make synthetic a priori knowledge of objects, possible.
The matter of our objective knowledge comes from sense experience, but the form is supplied by certain a priori concepts of the human mind. Thus the objects of our knowledge, the representations, are phenomena. They are not noumena (things in themselves).
14:25 We never experience the world as it is, in and of itself (noumena). We only experience the world as it is under our own representations of it (phenomena).
The form of phenomena (the form of our mental representations) which allows sense appearances (sensibility) is arranged in certain definite relations. These forms are supplied a priori by the human mind.
#1 TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC
15:10 There are 2 pure forms of sensibility - space and time
Their study is called transcendental (go beyond sense data) aesthetic (visual representations)
Hume: we never experience (sense) space or time (no color, flavor, texture), therefore they must be non-existent empirical phenomena or non-phenomena.
Kant disagrees: space and time are supplied by the mind. The mind orders all sense representations in a 3 dimensional grid before we are aware of it. Therefore space is not in the noumena realm, it is in the phenomenal realm.
This explains the possibility of geometry. The very form of space is part of the hardware of the human mind.
17:20 The mind also orders all sensual and internal representations of the conscious mind (thoughts) in terms of temporal sequence.
Time is not "out there", it is one of the ways your mind orders all representations.
#2 TRANSCENDENTAL ANALYTIC
18:15 Human knowledge is a combination of sensibility (sense data and two pure forms of transcendental aesthetic) and understanding (transcendental analytic or transcendental logic).
Transcendental logic, studies a priori concepts (categories) which are necessary conditions for an object to be thought rather than simply perceived.
Categories and judgments.
Categories function to synthesize the manifold phenomena into propositions, judgments and claims.
Therefore these categories have objective reference, because objects to be objects of our knowledge, must conform to them.
Categories = sense datum plus our own parsing (cookie cutting)
20:25 There are 4 fundamental sorts of categories.
1. Quantity - unity (thesis), plurality (antithesis), totality (synthesis)
2. Quality - reality, negation, limitation
3. Relation - inherence (accident, predicate) and subsistence (substance, subject), causality and dependence, community.
4. Modality - possibility and impossibility, existence and non-existence, necessity and contingency .
The 3 parts of each category are thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
22:55 Understanding is understanding or judgment.
Each judgment is in part the result of a category or a priori concept of the understanding.
How do you know which category to impose on a representation?
Imagination works as a mediator between sensibility (perception) and understanding, by producing schemata.
Schemata let us know which categories are applicable for a given appearance (perception)
A schema is a rule that specifies the production of images, and delimits a category to permit its application to appearances.
Example: category of substances.
25:25 Conceptual scheme = space and time + categories of understanding
Objective world = conceptual scheme + sense experience
#3 TRANSCENDETAL DIALECTIC
26:50 Conceptual schemes only apply to phenomena
But metaphysics tries to go beyond phenomena, what we can't sense
Why would humans make such an absurd mistake?
Metaphysics arises from a natural disposition of the human mind to apply our conceptual scheme transcendentally, beyond the realm of phenomena to the realm of noumena
Every human mind that is reflective has a desire to achieve overarching unities (completely consistent accounts), to throw every new thing into a big elastic bag.
Since our conceptual scheme is objective only for phenomena, metaphysics cannot give us knowledge about the way the world really is. Metaphysics is impossible, cannot give you truth about he world, we can never know noumena.
29:40 The pure transcendental application of metaphysics produces antimonies or paradoxes.
But it can still be useful - search for universal laws of nature, sense of self
The most important transcendental ideas - God, freedom, immortality - regulates morality.
36:25 Kantian transcendental philosophy after Kant
Since we never perceive noumena, and they have no explanatory function, what makes you believe in noumena (things in themselves)?
Absolute idealism - use Occam's Razor and remove noumena
Not all cultures have the same conceptual scheme, they don't believe in cause and effect
Language explains why different conceptual schemes exist
Ontology recapitulates philology
If conceptual schemes are not the result of mental hardware, they must be the result of mental software (language)
Kant is the forebear of all modern linguistic philosophy
Transcendental dialectic is not true but we should still believe in it because it is useful - pragmatism
Very well written
Thank You
thank you
This is brilliant and beautiful
All gratitude
Thank you very much for this!
I have been dying for any professional analysis or explaination of Kant on UA-cam for years. This is a godsend. Thank you.
This is definitely the most difficult lecture on this channel so far, but I am super grateful it is available. I will need to rewatch this one.
'The Critique' is a bear to wrestle with as well! If you break it down into bits, pause when needed, and most importantly gain a good understanding of the following 4 terms: "a posterior", "a priori", "synthetic judgement" and "analytic judgement". Hope that helps!
Kant is saying we can't know things in themselves but that compose the external world with our pre-existing mental pre-knowledge of the world. Some things are true by definition, e.g triangles, other statements are true with the human add-on, ie. Each angle of a triangle adds up to 180 degs
omg finally something of kant in this channel which isn’t just his ethical theories
i know, its terrible isnt it
This lecture lays the foundations for his ethical theories
I love how there are no real thumbnails to this content. Just a candid closeup of either one of these two dope ass professors.
If you know the content, you don't need a thumbnail to tell you what you're about to get. Free quality education.
40:20 Best part 🖤💮
39:00 closest part to my specialty 🖤
35:16 just mesmerizing 🖤
This is a gem of a lecture !
I really wish I saw this lecture when I tried to read the Critique of Pure Reason. I have seen probably 20 lectures on Kant and this is the best by far. You make these very complicated concepts much easier to understand. Thank you.
Well you watched it now, so you can go back and read it again!
Huge thank you for this 🖤💮
The channel that keeps on giving 💪🏼💪🏼
And watch to the end when he connects all this to what comes after, including the linguistic turn in philosophy with Quine. The analogy of how Kant treats a conceptual scheme or schemata as the hardware of the kind to treating it as software and thus you can get different conceptual schemes depending on language and culture. Excellent explanation!
This lecture is excellent! I agree with others, I wish I had had this when I took philosophy as an undergraduate!
Every unanswered metaphysical question, like "Should we believe it because it is useful to life?", always helps us as it keeps us morally awake and puts us on alert! Thank you!
I've been waiting for this! A fantastic lecture on one of the greatest and most difficult to understand philosophers.
This came for me at just the right time. For a long time I have struggled to put into words what my mind's eye could already see so clearly regarding objects of the world. From the quantum experiments regarding wave/particle duality--specifically the way consciousness seems to add form and locality to what is otherwise a diffuse wave of potential form--the best and most concise I could come up with was something like the following: the form of the human body is to each human what the letters of the alphabet are to each sound. Additionally, I am also very much a Jungian thinker, and Jung made a point of stressing that his theory of the mind would not be understood without understanding Kant. Dr. Staloff here does an excellent job of fleshing out the reasons why you could very well define consciousness as "that part of ourselves that imposes, or 'informs,' everything else." It is interesting to note the synonymous nature between Kant's notion of "schemata" and Jung's notion of "archetypes." In both cases these ideas seem to be that part of ourselves that is doing the imposing of form. My curiosity causes me to wonder what happens to consciousness when the mind attempts to impose form on the very thing that imposes form. Does this produce a kind of feedback cycle of amplification ad infinitum? And does this amplification give rise to our sense of metaphysics?
From what I understanded from the video, thinking about transcendental objects doesn't get us anywhere, at least in terms of logical knowledge, because these pure objects, being unbound by any empirical limit, can be extended until all their possible outcomes imaginable, thus resulting in antinomy and paradoxes. But this would not be the end, as this reasoning reflects our inherent drive to project certainty to our knowledge, providing not only useful, but even all possible understanding, as we need to establish a fixed point in space and time (the Ego, the I) in order to be able to willingly act in and change the world, thus “escaping” the empirical determinism of Hume's eternal constant conjunction.
It may not be possible to safely predict anything in the world, but I will act as if it is. This ultimately results in morality and pragmatism, and confirms that a priori synthetic judgments are possible. Although this makes it possible to establish objective, rational “rights and wrongs”, I still fail to see how this really escapes Hume's posits that morality is ultimately based upon convention.
Impressive style of delivering lecture!
Superb clarity, thank you.
I still struggled but that is more a reflection of me than the delivery. It was so easy on the ear and mind that to repeat until comprehension is no chore.
Another great lecture, thanks for posting!
Who are you and where are you?
i love the way he talks
There's something relaxing about these lectures
Thank you
T.L.
This is the hardest of the series until now, let me see if I got it straight: Kant's transcendental theory follows a hierarchy made by transcendental aesthetic, analytical, and dialectic. His ultimate question was “Are a priori synthetic judgments possible and true?”.
The 1st posits the very conditions for perception, space and time, which binds all possible experience to the form of our means of perception, as provided by our sensibility. Perception is limited by the observer's a priori pure form sensibility, and the object is “molded” by the subject.
The 2nd step would be what distinguishes us from other animals, as we can represent and actually understand the acquired sensory information, even before we become aware of it. We do this with schemata, which are a priori built-in (analytical/tautology?), logical categories by which we intuitively organize our representations. Without it, not only we would be bombarded with sensory data, as well by representations, not even knowing what is really happening, what was sensed and what was thought. We wouldn't be able to be agents in the word, but instead just passive subjects of “one damn thing after another”. Being able to think out our actions and infer possible outcomes, we can safely say that we know something, even if the knowledge is bound to the phenomenal world.
The 3rd and final step posits that thinking about transcendental objects doesn't get us anywhere, at least in terms of logical knowledge, because these pure objects, being unbound by any empirical limit, can be extended until all their possible outcomes imaginable, thus resulting in antinomy and paradoxes. But this would not be the end, as this reasoning reflects our inherent drive to project certainty to our knowledge, providing not only useful, but even all possible understanding, as we need to establish a fixed point in space and time (the Ego, the I) in order to be able to willingly act in and change the world, thus “escaping” the empirical determinism of Hume's eternal constant conjunction.
It may not be possible to safely predict anything in the world, but I will act as if it is. This ultimately results in morality and pragmatism, and confirms that a priori synthetic judgments are possible. Although this makes it possible to establish objective, rational “rights and wrongs”, I still fail to see how this really escapes Hume's posits that morality is ultimately based upon convention.
Finally, Kant's schemata would lay the groundwork for future philosophy of language, as our conceptual schemas are not “built-in” on us, but rather a product of our language (I see Vygotsky in here, maybe implications on Piaget's). I also see his unifying of the rational and empirical theories and his own theory being somewhat similar to Boss and Biswanger phenomenology, as objects, although being projected by ourselves, have intrinsic characteristics that appeal to our conceptual schemas, so noumena must exist, after all.
Please, forgive my mistakes, and I appreciate if one would point me to them.
Aa a former semiotics student I waa struck with a few notions after Staloffs Spinoza and now this lecture. 1st Spinoza said that we are all a soup of attributes and this affects how we perceive the world, nature, around us. Meaning our enviromental pragmatic reading of signs creates meaning, Lotmans semiosphere. 2nd how Kant reaches language and how our culture talks about the world is how our spirit, mind, interprets the world. So much the same. How we read signs through our pragmatic interpretation and create semantic meanings to the signs of our language itself. History is language forgotten. Current language use is what the world is around us. Giving way to also a sense of manipulation. What a body of power deems necessary to talk about, starts to change tje language around us, the next generation grows into it takes it as inherent semantic truth, a clash of generations over semiotic sign reading differences and childhood semantic truths being different, and so it changes the understanding.
So now I need a semiotician to respond and tell me why do we have a school of semiotics at all, if the basis for it is still just philosophy. Or is it just a practical separation, where the sciences get so overwhelmed that we just create subdivisions, mich as it was with metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics.
What a wonderful service you are doing for God and man . I have a lifelong interest in philosophy and find Aquinas's philosophy the only radically complete and sound understanding of reality. .especially final causality and how it is built into our natures.,, why we are literally moved by beauty , truth and goodness, .. God as Pure Actuality.. BEING the Personal It as a professor at U of T used to name God.
But I have always had the challenge of my undetailed responses to Hegel, Kant etc although I have over the years had the central problems addressed.
Thank you so much for the wonderful instantiation of what the word education means.... e - ducare ... to lead out. I'm looking forward to hearing Dr Sugrue on Aquinas and Aristotle. Cheers and many many thanks.
"With what I have seen, all I have written is straw."
-Aquinas
I've been waiting so long for this, thank you!! :D
Perfect lesson
Brilliant lecture! Thank you
Incredible
Fantastic
This is excellent, and Kant is ... wow!
best intro lecture on Kant ive ever seen
Dr. Sugrue, would it be ok for me upload some of your fascinating lectures on a Chinese-based platform? They will direct to your channel and videos. More people need to see your lectures!
Yes, you have my permission
what platform may I ask? @BrandonMA
I hate American ones
that cardigan is v nice
Yes
I have come to believe that space is our sense of masculinity, and time our sense of femininity, since space is structural, rigid, and unchanging, whereas femininity, changes, flows and progresses towards growth and improvement. This idea is the thesis for a book I am writing.
Existe algún canal o fuente que dobla estos videos al español?
Kant was obviously brilliant, but I feel like he made things unnecessarily complicated. Schopenhauer cleans it up.
🕺
I was having trouble with understanding what was meant by "The things in themselves". I think I understand now. It sounds like he's saying that because of the way the brain is structured, it produces a bias in our perception. Am I understanding correctly?
What he’s saying when he says things in themselves is the direct thing. For example, a desk would be the thing in itself, and a concept of a desk wouldn’t
The thing-in-itself is actual reality that we will never directly experience.
3 word summation: perception is subjective
Okay, I wanted to listen to this one about Kant again. I wanted to leave a comment. I listened intently, and it came to the end. I don't know the button to push on this cellphone. Dr, Staloff said we were going to Dr. Sugre. I guess to find it somewhere in my cellphone. I still follow up on the one philosopher that one likes to have met . Both of them chose 10, and mine will be Spinoza on the last lecture, and both were sharing their thoughts. This will take me all day long. Who cares? I will find it somehow. I have to respond to Kant again, and now Spinoza. There was a group of us on chat this morning on "Let's Talk Religion"
Now I have listened 4 times, I think. I have been pushing buttons with photos on my cellphone. Also, this has been going on for quite some time. I did listen thoroughly, and I have the capability of doing two at once. Time now to allow myself to respond to Dr. Staloff.
I also may add this lengthy, Kant is quite a tackle, but I propose to write about "The Critique of Pure Reason."
I will not have the time to go intoxicated to the following:
1.Transcendental Esthetic
2.Transcendental Analytic
3. Transcendental Dialectic
4. The Critique of Practical Reason
5. On Religion and Reason
6. On Poltics and Eternal Peace
7. Criticism and Estimate
One has understood this took Kant his entire lifetime, a commitment all the way to its end, and he lived to be 80 years old. He did do quite a bit of walking through his woods and small town.
"The Critique of Pure Reason, " this a mouthful, it blows my mind. Critique is not precisely a ciritism, but a critical analysis, in one of the many philosophers books I have on this.
Kant is not attacking "pure reason" except at the end to show its limitations ; rather, he hopes to show its possibility and to exalt above it impure knowledge which comes through the distorting channel of sense.For "pure" reason is to mean knowledge that does not come through our senses, but is independent of all sense experience, knowledge belonging to the inherent nature and the structure of the mind.
Take that one in, and the very outset, then Kant flings down a challenge to Locke and the English school: knowledge is not all derived from our senses. Hume thought he had shown there is no soul and no science; that our minds are nothing but ideas and association; and our certainties but probabilities in perpetual danger of violation. These false conclusions say Kant is the result of false premises: you assume all knowledge comes from separate and distinct sensations; naturally, these can not give you the necessity or invariable sequences which you may be forever certain; and naturally you must not "see" your soul, even with the eyes or the internal sense.
Kant himself is hardly intelligible to the beginner because his thoughts are insulated with bizarre and intrinsic terminology, and I agree that Wallace 's Kant in the Blackwood Philosophical Classics. Heavier and more advanced is Paulsen's Immanuel Kant 2 volumes ; New York, 1914 is interesting, and digressvive. I also have those. A good criticism of Kant may be found in Schopenhauer's world as Will and IDEA. Books may papa left me.
But what if truth is we have knowledge that is independent of sense experience? Knowledge is whose truth is certain to us even before experience - a priori? Then absolute truth and absolute science would be possible, would it not? One then may ask, this may be the problem of the first Critique. Then the question may be, we can only hope to achieve with reason when all the material and assistance of experience are taken away. The Critique becomes a detailed biology of thought, an examination of the origin and evolution of concepts, an analysis of the inherited structure of the mind . This is, as Kant believes, the entire problem with metaphysics . Exegi monumentum are perennius! With such egotism, nature spurs on to creation.
I am skipping a bit, but for the mind of man( and here is at last is the great thesis of Kant) is not passive wax upon the experience and sensation write their absolute and yet whimsical will; nor is it an abstract name for the series or group of mental states; it is an active organ which mouldes and coordinates sensations into ideas, an organ that is chaotic multiplicity of experience into the order unity of thought.
I want you to understand that I am not a great writer, but I can understand what I read when I take my time and go over and over and over it.
Thank you for your lectures. It helps me tremendously to grow and analyze more.❤️
I think the young professor Stallof was the inspiration for that scene in Good Will Hunting where the longhaired, arrogant intellectual is pit against Will the protagonist.
Thaht Kant boy’s wicked smaht
@@wormwoodcocktail them apples.
34:59 Is this like the Buddhist idea of “no self”? We have an impulse to unify our ideas and memories into a single thing, a self.
19:00
Darren, when it comes to Immanuel I simply Kant.
LMFAO.
Kant believed morality was all about intention. My fav Kant joke is upon getting dumped by his gf, Kant replies “I never meant to hurt you.” 💀💀
*sips coffee*
U know One of my friend got crush on him after listening 😀😀...
He looks like a 1980s stock villain
Socrates had a Daemon. I have never seen that disputed or even questioned, is that noumenon or phenomenon?
A lot of people have no issue believing that God spoke to Moses and Abraham. Is that noumenon or phenomenon?
The Angel Gabriel to Muhammad?
I read a big heap of bullshit this morning, an analysis of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. I can tell you now, it was a discourse with his soul but most people can't relate to that, they interpret it within the parameters of their cognition, but they know, they know everything.
Nietzsche's writing style, the same, only not with the same personal clarity because his ego was too big. Let's not forget he was on opioids for his illness. A big factor but one to which most academics can't relate.
Wittgenstein said hard drugs and philosophy go hard in hand, why? Does noumena become phenomena?
Socrates Daemon, what sense organ was involved in that sensory experience? His hearing? That would mean there was a sixth sense, would it not. If we can agree that the brain, or at least a part of it , if not two parts are used for sense perception, how will that affect our interpretation of reality?
I would say it would make you an ensorb
Stoic mindfulness at a whole new level. Beyond Kant's appearances, knowledge of things in themselves, starting with the concept of " I " and the concept of mind. The concept of the Soul. How many know their soul? How many have a soul? Would this not be "knowing thyself". Not some bullshit narrative written up by a psychologist.
Holy mackerel! This one was a doozy. Tough nut to crack. A real mind-twister and brain-bender. Yikes!
lol
I don’t know why exactly but I can’t stand listening to this guy. I can listen to Sugrue all day
The older I get the more I realize what narcissistic hucksters "philosophy" professors are.
A clown. 😂
Me, a mystic, having non-spatio-temporal experiences all the time: "What the fuck is this joker talkin about?..."
Meth is crazy, eh?
Ha, ha, ha....I cannot hear what this pony-tail clown is saying. Does he sound as pretentious as he looks?
No need to listen if you've already judged on appearance. Very efficient. 👍
@@BarackLesnar did you listen to him? Is he as pompous as he looks?
@@peterholy953 I'm sure you don't care about my opinion. You don't even know what I look like
@@BarackLesnar I listened to him and he is full of himself and full of it. He sounds exactly like he looks.
@@peterholy953 that wasn't so hard was it. I knew you could do it