1 Just What is Kant's "Project"? - Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Dan Robinson)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2021
- Dan Robinson gives the 1st lecture in a series of 8 on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
All 8 lectures: • Kant's Critique of Pur...
Both sense and reason are limited. Kant must identify the proper mission and domain of each, as well as the manner in which their separate functions come to be integrated in what is finally the inter-subjectively settled knowledge of science.
This series looks at German Philosopher Immanuel Kant's seminal philosophical work 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. The lectures aim to outline and discuss some of the key philosophical issues raised in the book and to offer students and individuals thought provoking Kantian ideas surrounding metaphysics. Each lecture looks at particular questions raised in the work such as how do we know what we know and how do we find out about the world, dissects these questions with reference to Kant's work and discusses the broader philosophical implications. Anyone with an interest in Kant and philosophy will find these lectures thought provoking but accessible.
This is series of lectures was given in 2011 at Oxford. Note, audio has been improved.
#Philosophy #Kant #Epistemology
Source: podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/kant...
What a fantastic speaker - clear, concise, and passionate. Very impressed.
this is an underrated channel
I’m going to watch this entire series a second time! I have a strong inclination to understand Kant’s First Critique. What Kant is dealing with is just so profound and fundamental that it’s difficult to even begin to take notice of the conceptions he is trying to bring to light. But the more I read the Critique itself along with the Prolegomena and listen attentively to lectures and other secondary sources in print the more I stand in awe of his philosophical prowess. The heights and depths of Kant’s abstract reasoning capacity is more than humbling. I stand meekly before the Critique of Pure Reason hoping to extract even a basic understanding of it’s profundity. I find this series of lectures by Robinson to be the most illuminating to me.
well-said, sir.
I think the proper way to read philosophy is to read it, read commentaries or watch lectures, read it again, read commentaries or watch lectures, read again, etc. I’m gonna TRY do this with the Bible, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Whitehead, Heidegger, Michel Henry, and maybe Foucault and Derrida.
@@elel2608 You have a long and arduous path ahead.... but certainly very rewarding at the same time :v
Actually I’m swayed be Steven hicks summation of Kant.
@@edwardrueda9424I think you should not waste time with the objectivists
Good Heaven's, what a great teacher and lecturer! This whole lecture series is a treasure. Thank you, Dan Robinson, for your clarity and good humor and genius as a teacher.
Usually I find philosophy lectures very hard to endure. I like this guy though because he makes a lot of specific points, articulates them clearly, and though he might seem a little wordy at times, but he really isn't... compared to most lecturers on any subject, he's pretty efficient at delivering the information. It's a difficult subject matter, yet he never strays far from making a meaningful and coherent point. It might be the first time that I ever felt I was learning something useful from a philosophy lecture.
This lecture series is actually profoundly good for anyone interested in Kant's "First Critique," or even anyone simply interested in epistemology in general! I have listened to this series over and over and over, and somehow it never gets old or tiring to me. . . I consider Prof. Dan Robinson to be nothing less than "the cat's meow," and I wish I had had him for philosophy when I was in school - his specific choice of words to describe delicate and finely separated concepts is profoundly masterful and effective. His explanations are very down-to-earth and accessible. Let's hear it for Professor Robinson!!!
Dan Robinson's lectures are so amazing. He know what he talking about.
With ease and clarity beautifully elaborated.
Excellent! Dan Robinson is a person to be cherished and remembered!
I struggled for almost 18 years to know and understand Marx, whose scientific system I finally grasped around 2020. As a result it was much enjoyable and exciting (and easier of course) to follow Kant's critique as expounded by Prof. Dan Robinson's.
This is as GOLD as it gets.
Beautifully presented.
Robinson stroke me as pretentious at first but I've grown to appreciate his animated and character-like style of lecturing and I enjoy what he puts into it
Rest in peace
Turns out he's pretty straight. I remember hearing he got his position only bc of Russian interference.
It is passion
A wonderful and exciting lecture
The principle of non-contradiction can be proven through reductio, because attempts to deny it lead to logical incoherence.
Very good, thank you.
Even if i Kant agree with cant's metaphysical worldview, pls Keep up this good job posting great philosophical tradition.
I appreciated your pun 😊
9:50 objective of Kant's projects
20:50
Hey, question for the channel or anyone who follows: does this lecture series run side by side with certain readings of the text? & if so does anyone know what they are? Perhaps I could run ahead and discern from future videos but I am wondering because if that’s the case I would like to try to follow along.
This series generally concerns the critique of pure reasoning, along with Prolegomena both written by Kant. As for the textbook, Daniel Robinson wrote a book that is related to this Oxford series on Kant that is named "Is nature possible? The project of Kant's first critique" you can find it for free in z-library. Daniel examined the early philosophical books that came before Kant; specifically The Inquiry By David Hume, and on human understanding by John Locke, and the works of Christian Wolff, and many othera. He's also suggested reading the common sense by Thomas Ried
Great 👍
Notes for myself-
"How is nature possible?" - 20:51
great
4:40 to 4:50
35:00
46:24 "... in which the unique perceptual and cognitive principles we bring to bear on the situation..."
Cognitive principles are not uniquely human. According to Kant, they are universal to all rational beings everywhere. The principles of sensibility are unique to humans.
The sentence does not say that perceptual and cognitive principles are unique to humans.
The point is that the way perception and cognition as functions of the mind are principled in humans is unique.
@@FrameworkProject-vc8fm It’s an exact quote from the lecture. And the cognitive principles are not unique to humans. They are universal to all rational beings.
46:41 “…even granted that what we bring to bear is distinctly human.”
Wrong.
Animals can be observed to have awareness of causality.
💗💗💗💗💗
The tragedy of prof Dan n Robinson is he really is onto something but alas he didn’t take the kirgekardian leap into the super sensible worlds through imagination inspiration intuition he could of been on his way to total freedom transcending the 73 categories of ahh perception as the Buddha would have it RIP Daniel
18:32 If Kant scholars are going to scream over this, then they need to argue against the idea of a transcendental ego as inferred although not experienced.
37:00 What? I thought Kant could read English ¿?
It's doubtful that the name Kant is of Scottish origin. The name is Germanic for "edge" or "border."
perhaps by scottish 'scots' is meant. scots is just a dialect of english which is germanic.
Edit other peoples Identity, that is the projected idealism of pure reason, but only submitted on my behalf. It's in the form of a letter, or process in transcdental educational systems, not a thought adjustment process, behavior or dialectic process.
Reid saying it’s common sense stupid is not an argument. Show me the steps.
Existence of a knowledge itself indicates that there is a likeness between mind and the extramental reality of which it is the knowledge. Extra-mental in that it is more than the individual mind, and knowledge as not only knowledge of something( for knowledge is relative expression) but also knowledge as neither real nor illusory( for illusory knowledge and real knowledge would not make any difference as long as they are forms of knowledge). If there wasn't a link between the mind and extramental reality then we would have no knowledge at all, as there would be no contact between mind and the things that the mind
( but evidently we do. As we think, talk and argue and do not grow old like vegitables which seem to not know anything. That knowledge might be illusion or not makes no difference hetr. Illusory knowledge of something and non-illusory knowledge of something are still knowledge of something, and indicates to some contact between mind and non-mental realities to facilitate that mind possessing this knowledge.
Knowledge is a relative term, like father( for father is father of the son), as knowledge is knowledge of something or other( the knowable).
Extra-mental because knowledge the mind posseses is not of itself ( what knowledge of the mind itself do we have?) but of things other than the mind. Mind is not a thing with any character of it's own save the ability to presume the form of extra-mental entities that it encounters while literally not becoming those things themselves ( mind knows the form of the fire but does not itself become fire).
It's not "common sense" as vulgar point of view from which the public begin their judgments but rather another perspective than that of Kant and their followers. But it does give a impression of lack of common sense, as after all that time and effort studying people failed to grass what even men of no special training easily grasp.
In the end Kant's philosophy is a view that conceives the concept of "mind" in a special manner space is an "intuition" and not extramental reality by which sensible beings manifest and become subject to sense perception.
Besides Prof. Robinson, Prof. Wolff is also an authority on Kant. The former is dead while the latter is too old. I am willing to replace them, hahahaha 😂, joke, hahaha 🤣😂
Dr. Arthur F. Holmes?
I've gone through both and I prefer Wolff's as he distills Kant without the snarky undertones that Robinson is known for. Wolff also has anecdotes, but they are relevant, such as when Wolff met Bertrand Russell. Wolff's anecdotes are direct experiences with famous philosophers like Quine where as Robinson's are not.
@@vp4744 Well, nice attempt on both Wolff and Robinson but as far as I know there is no final authority when it comes to the interpretation of Kant.
@@czarquetzal8344 I doubt if you're capable of telling one authority from another, much less a final one.
@@vp4744 as I said, the obscurity of Kant impedes anybody to be the authority on his teachings. I'm not claiming I am capable of naming who has the final word on Kant.