This description is excellent! I've been struggling with understanding this concept for the past 4 hours. Specifically, Kant's concept in contrast to Hume's. I wish I would have watched this video 4 hours ago.
He is definitely difficult to read. I can pick up someone's work and typically break it down after contemplative study, but with Kant, I need to read, reread, contemplate, get input, and read again. Then it's still not a guarantee that I'm following accurately.
I reduced the settings speed down to a lower level in this video so I can hear it at a slower rate to absorb the information better and allowing me time in between to think and compare to what is being said.
My 2 cents: This video, while good, is presented in isolation from all that Kant was saying in the Critique. With his Critique, Kant was objecting to Hume and Locke, whose explanations resulted in a totally constructivist world view, thus a totally subjective world view. Kant agreed that we see a constructed world view, but claimed we don't actively construct it, rather the brain/mind is set up in such a way - with filters and concepts built in - that what we see (world picture) is fated. Then, if there is a way to get beyond that fate, the way might be to find apriori synthetic stuff that helps reveal how the mind/brain bases it's construction of our world view. Then maybe we get closer to knowing things in themselves rather than just their attributes. Maybe apriori synthetics offer shortcuts to certainties. I think Kant would agree that any way we may get at certainties may not reveal ultimate reality, or it might, we won't know for sure, but merely cutting to the chase may be very useful in sorting things out. Apriori synthetic may be the most reliable knowledge that we can bank on.
And hats off to Scott Edgars, the people who put this whole series together, and whoever paid for it. Really helps dig through the inscrutable inscrutability of dense philosophy.
I haven't gotten this far into Kant yet but I actually understood this and have a greater understanding of what we have covered. Very well done, love Kant, TFS!
Kant was actually specifically using Euclid's definition, which strengthened his argument. Not only does he have his own logic but he's also essentially framing it as "either this universally held truth is wrong or I'm right." Kant was a badass.
@Stanko Glavinic4 Could be wrong but think you're looking at it in the wrong light - Falsifiability mainly pertains to science and observation i.e. empirical knowledge. But law of excluded middle still holds, I mean you can still prove that it's either this and not that or that and not this can't you..? Either way, 'ill-founded' is a poor choice of words for such a scrupulous cat as Kant.
My aren't we touchy. Seems the way you are using empirical, everything and anything is empirical - guess analytic truths are observations in that broad sense too. The shortest distance between two beings a straight line can never be superseded by future observation. There are some axioms that must be accepted for any progress to be made in any direction. The message I got from your choice of words was: 'pretentious dork pontificating', so yeah, suppose your message was clear.
No, that wasn't being used to support any argument, that was just a sidebar observation -- Now, seems you are using 'axiom' too broadly just like 'empirical'. A priori/logical axioms are not the same as scientific axioms. And even then so, those original axioms still need to be accepted in order to lay the groundwork for their future overturning.
@@IvyTeaRN Yes, it is superstition, because metaphysics is by definition unobservable and unknowable by humans. Assumptions, speculations, and superstitious beliefs are not knowledge, period. Kant is full of shit. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@MrGodofcar What religion ? Jesus, Einstein, and I believed in God, we do not believe in or follow any religion, any superstition, or any political agenda. God is not a religion, and neither is Jesus, Einstein, or I. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Thank you Sir, I hope everyone enjoyed the vedio , it is one of the most easiest look to understand Kant , I got 80% by the grace of ur this act , thank you once again... 👌👌👌👌
I don't see the fact that the angles of a triangle sum to 180° as a fact that is not contained in the definition of a triangle, "a three sided figure enclosed on a plane". Mathematical knowledge is discovered, not invented; analytic knowledge is not necessarily trivial.
***** Aren't we nonetheless dealing with an interrelation of analytic concepts? If so, I'm not sure how we could thus end up with synthetic statements.
***** But aren't analytic statements precisely those which are necessary? I'm not all too familiar with Kant anyways, let alone Hume -- you're talking at a level beyond me. :P
I'm of the impression that Frege didn't agree here and subsequently nor did Quine? However, I still think Kant is key to understanding the nature of knowledge in any deep way. Thanks.
I see comments assuming the converse of Kant’s claim is true; that because synthetic knowledge is ampliative, ampliative knowledge must be synthetic, the implicit assumption being that analytical knowledge can’t be ampliative. Thinkers disagreeing with Kant tend to claim that that is not true
Kant is confused. There is no such thing as knowledge by humans in the metaphysical reality. Metaphysics is by definition unobservable and unknowable by humans. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What is the current state of philosophy in accepting this idea about metaphysics? It seems to me that's falling out of favor for a few reasons, but mainly because science has begun to tackle metaphysics questions like free will, the arrow of time, and existence of time itself as an irreducible property of reality, and the need for causality relations. The metaphysical idea of locality and absolute time have already been tackled and found to not hold experimentally, which means that these metaphysical ideas cannot be a priori. That raises the question if any metaphysical ideas are a priori. It's also clear to mathematicians that definitions used in mathematics are arbitrary and in fact many varieties of mathematics exist which have been found useful in physics but where the set of those a priori axioms are different. I don't think we can take Kant's claim about the necessity and universality of a priori truths seriously anymore.
Please elaborate or direct those of us who can't see why we cannot take Kant's claim about the "necessity and universality of a priori truths seriously" to appropriate sources.
Not much has changed really other than that Kant's metaphysics of time and moral philosophy has been thoroughly refuted by evidence in modern science in favor of Hume's. Current science has also acknowledged that some things with irreducible properties cannot be analyzed purely by their quanta, and instead would be better understood by their processes. For math, it is true that many theories make use of a priori axioms that are different when applied in physics or engineering, and that most definitions are arbitrary. I don't think that indicates Kant's metaphysics no longer holds, but rather merely requires an addendum that goes beyond simple Euclidean geometry to explain a priori judgments or even to explain if it is the case that these judgments begin to break down at a certain point in investigation.
crucial to understand why science will never be able to disregard Kant’s metaphysic regardless how advancing it might be is because he differentiates between time/space as an empiristic observable and a transcendental one which (the latter) is only a general but necessary criteria in which the human brain (has to) categorize reality in its own mind while the former is responsible for describing what we practically experience.
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
2:57 can't we say that maths or a priori knowledge is also ultimately empirical knowledge as we know those truths only after having the empirical experience of our world? e.g., we know 7+5=12 only after having experienced such truth in our childhood. Whereas a stone or any other thing can't say that 7+5=12 simply because they can't experience it like we do.
I see a lot of comments saying that because a triangle always has a sum of 180 degrees at it's angles it needs to be analytic a priori knowledge. The way I see it is that analytic a priori knowledge defines something, in this case a triangle, in the most basic form necessary. For a triangle this wouldn't include saying the sum of the angles always makes 180 degrees, but saying it needs three sides touching eachother does. However, in this sense saying it always has three angles would also be synthetic a priori, because it doesn't need to be said to get the concept of 'triangle'.
+Mysteries From Beyond synthetic a priori, as i understand it, is a statement that yields a predicate not relating/contained in the subject of the statement (thats the synthetic part) and a prior since its not related to experience. I am trying hard to see how every substance is a subject every event has a cause could satisfy this. I feel that subject is tautologically related to substance and event is tautologically related to cause, unless i am missing something (I am a total novice so i may be missing something big here). In critique of pure reason, Kant claimed his Copernican revolution in philosophy, mainly by arguing the synthetic a priori claim, and the transcendental nature of the mind, and arguing that mind actively grasps and organizes experience. The mind is no longer a passive recipient. We could know in advance how we will experience the world tomorrow, not because we are certain the world will remain the same (it is unknowable according to Hume), but, contre Hume, we are certain our cognitive activities will continue to structure experience in its characteristic way. If an evil scientist tapes red colored contacts on our cornea, we would be certain that, tomorrow, although tomorrow is unknowable, tomorrow would still look red. This is tempting and presents an elegant escape from Hume's anarchistic consequence. I am, though, reluctant to accept Kant's premise/hypothesis. One of the examples of Synthetic a prior knowledge Kant brought up is mathematics, arithmetic, geometry and physics. in Euclidean geometry only one line can be drawn through a given point so that the line is parallel to a given line that does not contain the point. Kant's argument is that the definitions of a point, line, parallel do not include the concept of one parallel. I argue that it does, and that the concept of linearity, entailed in a line, necessitate the conclusion that only one parallel line emanates from an isolated point in a surface. It is true by "relations of ideas", by definition, and thus we cannot escape Hume.
Before 4:10 it is said that being necessary and universal are properties of a priori knowledge which to me seems to say that both are individually necessary conditions for sth to be a priori knowledge, but then it is said that if knowledge is necessary or universal then it's a priori, and if it's not (necessary or universal) it's a posteriori, so taken together an if and only if statement, which confuses me, because it sounds like the conditions are not individually necessary and now even individually sufficient
Are all empirical judgements are synthetic? Kripke noted that if x=y -> □x=y. When we discovered the Morning Star and the Evening Star were the same star, it means that the the two names were interchangeable as they picked out the same object. So it seems even though we discovered that empirically, any analysis of the two words would have to contain the other. Which would imply there are Empirical Analytic Truths.
To anybody who has doubts about the analytic\synthetic distinction, I highly recommend Sebastian Gardner's book "Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason". For instance, if you are not convinced that mathematical truths are synthetic, or if you think that a synthetic truth becomes an analytic one, by virtue of the expansion of definitions, you really, really should check the 3rd chapter of the book. You can find it for free online.
8:24 but could it not be argued that the concept of a triangle does contain the fact that the internal angles sum up to 180 degrees, but just our label of a triangle doesn't contain that fact?
Nice video, just a little comment. Kant's example of synthetic a priori knowledge is the mentioned example: 5+7=12. He says this is not analytic a priori: but synthetic a priori. So the example of the triangle, where the predicate says something IN ADDITION to the subject, holds for 5+7=12. Kant's reference to mathematics is, of course, very much disputed. Many would take mathematical truths as analytical truths. The point Kant wants to make against Hume's scepticism is, that knowledge is articulated within a transcendental frame of veridicality that cannot be put into question.
In 5:30 , the statement becomes synthetic but doesn't it still stay a priori? So that statement is a bachelor is happy-go-lucky is a synthetic a priori isn't it? For example string theory is all theoretical, and purely mathematical and there isn't any empirical experience involved - making it a priori, yet it is also synthetic as we are making claims. So string theory is synthetic a priori. Right?
Can someone please clear up this confusion that i have - i am getting a feeling that synthetic apriori is just saying that there are some undiscovered intrinsic properties of an apriori judgement that were not known when creating that apriori. So since we are talking about an undiscovered property of an apriori judgement, it is still an apriori. Hence the name "synthetic apriori". But doesn't that mean that synthetic apriori is just an emperical/synthetic judgement. It is discovered through experience, so why is it still an "apriori".
Thats great! Really helpful!! Willt you will you also do something about the transcendental analytic as well? ;) It would be really helpful, and Kant is so important to understand, for anyone wanting to study philosophy
Im really uncertain how Kants views are any different than Aristotle's and Aquinas, or even Plato's. All of them recognized the same thing, and argued that we come to knowledge about reality via 1) "The senses" and 2) "reason". It seems to me, modern philosophers merely replace "the senses" with the word "Empiricism" and "reason" with "aprori" and "ampliative" with what Aristotle understood as "universals (form) plus matter (the stuff) equals reality". Ive read a decent amount about classical philosophy recently, and now learning about the moderns, and to be honest it sounds like a less sophisticated understanding of the older stuff. Maybe that will change as i learn more.
Could a synthetic a priori to us just be empirical to an alien species that can intuitively sense that the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees?
Math was not a very helpful example...it's highly debatable. Aren't time and space generally given as examples of synthetic a priori? We necessarily interpret experience according to time and space (also cause-and-effect), but they cannot be intuited prior to experience. Meaning: we only discover the constructs of time and space through experience, but there is no way to experience reality without time or space. Synthetic (we know it through experience), a priori (necessarily true).
but is time and space a great example? Two distinct points of reference can produce two different results when measuring time and space. It does vary, depending on where you are in the universe and your velocity relative to everything else, as well as near by massive objects.
I would say that time and space are two very ridiculous examples, as both time and space are variable, and the perception of time and space area also variable. Therefore there is no set continuation of time and space. Even when you have a look at seconds .. pending upon the manufacturer, if the piece for measuring time is mechanically bound or electrically bound, there are possible variants to the measurement of a second. With space .. which is merely a slack and lazy way of saying the substance (unless there is no substance then it just becomes the nothing;) between these three vector points in either a cubed or triangulated, then it can be both something which is synthetic a priori as well as empirical for it is something which is capable of being measured. As for the concept in the theory or relativity .. the idea of being able to bend time space comes down to something which is complete nonsense in accordance with Nikola Tesla, as how can you bend something .. let alone two things which do not actually exist ??
It's not really that debatable. Time and space are synthetic a priori concepts. However, that depends on how you define them. If your definitions are simplistic, as with space, by defining it as anything that makes possible any relation between any two points of any distance, then you could say it is an analytic judgment. The knowledge gained from the judgment follows from the definition; no new knowledge that comes genuinely without drawing from the definition. If you define space the way General Relativity does, as in the form of mathematics, then it is a synthetic a priori knowledge. Think about math in terms of how we visualize it. Who says "3" can be translated into anything but "the quantity of three"? Your own mind will fight you if you think "3" is "the quantity of four"? It is knowledge that is a priori. Your judgments that come after using that a priori knowledge on top of other a priori knowledge similar to it (e.g. other numerals) do not follow from the definitions of those pieces of knowledge. Hence, it is synthetic and a priori. 3+4=7, not because the + sign is telling you the answer, but because you followed the operation that + defined. 7 is new knowledge that did not follow from the definition of a fact, but rather from an operation that was defined as such. You did not draw the knowledge from the definition, but rather created and extended the knowledge, from without the definition.
If you start off with mere numerals, by determining them as synthetic a priori knowledge, then what more if you do so with abstract symbols, of which advanced pure and applied mathematics is rife with examples?
I haven't read Kant yet, excepts little bits here and there, but here's my question: if 'the thing in itself' cannot be known, how did Kant know there even is a 'thing in itself', since NOTHING can be known about it and since he was a human being like the rest of us and could not experience 'the thing in itself' either?
Luigi Pati - Good ! It seems that the more people read of Kant the less they understand! - Off the top of my head - Kant distinguishes between ( maybe we all do ) form and content - Maybe he is saying that the Form can ( must ) be 'known' but the Content cannot....Lets see
@@petrainjordan7838 , I disagree about people reading of Kant and understanding less. This is also what Schopenhauer said of him. He idolized Kant, and while criticized the obscurity of his language, said that 'even when he errs, much can be learned from him'. I still have not read Kant yet. Schopenhauer also wrote that the 'thing in itself' is the Will. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is very striking how much sense Schopenhauer makes, and yet no one talks about him. But in a way Kant was right: the 'thing in itself' is there, which is whatever it is that is NOT experienced by our human minds and consciousness. I refuse to believe that Kant did not think of my 'basic' questions: he was way smarter than I will ever be. I think Schopenhauer explains it all in more simple terms. I bought a new Cambridge version of his works and it is really excellent.
@@luigipati3815 Hi - Thanks for the reply. I have not read and have no present intent to read Schopenhauer...I have made attempt to lay the groundwork for a more detailed reading of Kant - by sketching his use of analogies...maybe such an approach could be of some use to others...
I'm a bit confused. In the statement "The interior angles of a triangle add up to 180°" isn't the subject the interior angles of the triangle and not the triangle itself? The idea that the interior angles of a triangle are equal to 180° is contained in the concept of the interior angles of a triangle, so if "the interior angles of a triangle" is the subject and not "a triangle" isn't the statement analytic a priori? I'm not sure if this makes sense or its just a bit of logical/linguistic sleight of hand. Great video other than this btw.
but at one point someone counted and said that 7+5 is 12 now this is empirical evidence that we don't think about anymore since it had been in our practice for so long. my question is if scientific knowledge is analytic how come maths is apriori
Bc it's an abstraction of a universal and necessary truth. When the caveman grunted and observed 7 rocks, and then 5, rather he understood it or not, he was observing a concept that must eternally be true and universal. However when 7 birds flew over head, then 5 more, the same truth is there, but also a contingent truth. The 12 birds didn't have to fly over head, and may never do so again. The event was neither a necessary or universal truth. Same empirical evidence can lead to different kinds of truth
Is there another example of synthetic a priori knowledge? Not all triangles add up to 180 degrees such as those on a sphere add up to something greater. And I don't see how you can figure this out by non-empirical means.
Ha ha! Clever. Was that intentional? So not all triangles add up to 180 degrees. What you say is a synthetic a prior knowledge in itself. It doesn't negate the truth that 'all triangles add up to 180 degrees' either. You missed the important key meaning that a 'synthetic a prior knowledge' is not TRUE by definition, so it implies that it is subjective knowledge in contrast to empirical meaning that which is observed and knowledge from the physical senses.
Wonderful video. Very interesting. As for the triangle having 180 degrees being synthetic apriore, because the definition of a triangle (a three sided figure) doesn’t inherently contain that its internal angles will sun to 180 degrees. Isn’t this just a definitional issue. Aren’t we saying that if all triangles angles equal 180 degrees that we therefore have that as part of its definition? If it were not part of its definition, then we can have triangles that do not contain 180 degrees worth of angles. Or am I missing something.
So triangle is a figure with three sides which means that triangle is a priori and analytical? (If we only take 3 sides into consideration and not 180 degrees)
if red is red is an example of a priori knowledge then i have question in my mind. red is red becuase we see it, and because we are seeing it as red we are using our senses, doesnt that make it dependable on our senses?
It's garbage. How impressive is it to 'reason' which comes next, 21, 3, 6, 36, x, when you never (empirically) invented the set in the first place. The beauty of empiricism is that people are free to create systems, even abstract objects, as physicists (atoms, superstrings, ect) and mathematicians (circles, infinity) do, for which they reason upon.
It's not as brilliant as you think. Kant uses math to try to show examples of synthetic a priori knowledge, but all of his mathematical arguments can be shown to be incorrect with actual math. His first example is 7+5=12. He claims this must be synthetic because he doesn't think it's true by definition. However, Kant has failed to actually analyze the definitions of the terms. Seven is defined as sssssss0 (where s means "the successor of") in Peano arithmetic, five is sssss0, and twelve is ssssssssssss0. Addition has a recursive definition in terms of the successorship function. Using the axioms of Peano arithmetic (which just define what successorship, natural numbers, and "equals" mean), it can be proven by definition that 7+5=12. Thus, 7+5=12 is analytic knowledge, not synthetic. Kant's other example, that the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180°, is not a priori knowledge at all. In fact, it's not even correct. There are places in our Universe where spacetime is warped, meaning that the angles don't add up to 180°. That's because our Universe, while close to being Euclidean, is not actually Euclidean. The correct a priori statement to make would be "All triangles IN A EUCLIDEAN SPACE have angles that add up to 180°." However, this is an alytic judgement, since it can be proven from the axioms of Euclidean geomery that the angles add up to 180°, and the axioms of Euclidean geometry are part of the definition of a Euclidean space.
Whenever you try to check a rationalist by reminding them Kant was wrong, you are bound to get the notorious ad hoc defense. The fact is, that Kant believed in our intuition of space and time was how he believed the world really was - but with the empirical overthrow of Euclidean geometry, he was proved to be completely wrong.
Yes its pure bovine manure. A priori knowledge is a false assumption....a dishonest medium to run away with his idealistic ideas. All roses are roses is a statement based on the logical absolute of identity. Logical rules, principles and criteria are based and verified EMPIRICALLY. This logical conclusion is what the empirical world teaches us about the world. if we lived in a world that the dna structure of flowers cells were constantly changing....this "truth by definition" would be...true. now on math. In order to understand the relations of mathematical symbols, you first need to train your self with...... your fingers(remember our first years in school). So this "a priori knowledge" is nothing more than mental representations of relations of physical things in the empirical world. Now some points about the abuse of the word "truth". The math example the "claim" 7+5=12, is true because we follow the "rules" of math and the value of the symbols that we have given to them. There isn't any metaphysical knowledge produced since the relations of the symbols are included and visible in the formula. Yes we don't need to perform a real life experiment in order to define the truth value of the "claim" since the mathematical equation is designed on the same empirical rules with those used when adding physical things in the real world. Mathematics was developed as a descriptive tool for nature's empirical regularities....not the other way around.
@@plasmaballin interesting, but are you using the law of non contradiction to establish that? And are there any people (minds) in a non euclidean space? thanks
+Todd Koons "Being aware of being aware". Most people don´t realize being aware all the time, until they stop and verify it empirically from subjective experience. It´s also analytical, ´cause "being aware of being aware" is true by definition. But it´s also a priori, ´cause I have to be aware in the first place to become aware of being aware. It´s also synthetic, because most of the people haven´t made that non-phenomenal recognition of being aware all the time, so it gives us new knowledge in most cases, at least. So, as I see it, it´s all the possible combinations of knowledge. And as such, it´s unique.
The alternative is to believe. Jesus promised all those who believed in him may ask for anything in his name, and shall receive in the glory of God. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
you lost me at 9:42. you said metaphysical knowledge is supposed to expand your knowlrdge, and is therefore ampliative. so i went back to look at your definition of ampliative and it seems you define it as something which is not constantly true. A Priori knowledge is always universally true so no 1 piece of information can be both, it would contradict itself. so how is metaphysical knowledge also synthetic knowledge?
I don’t really understand how a triangle having three sides and a triangle having interior angles that sum to 180 degrees are not the same kind of a priori definitional information. It seems like both are just self-contained features of the triangle, by definition. Help!
Not really, if you draw a driangle on oaper with a ruler you get 3 sides and that is a triangle, it will have 3 angles as well but without measuring the angles you wouldn't know that. Children can know what a triangle is but not know about the measurement of angles
Kant is simply confusing. Kant says, "Experience is cognition of objects", but cognition of objects is not cognition, because cognition is not experience which is cognition of objects.
I am not sure that the example of the triangle really works. Since the definition of a triangle is a joined 3 sided figure on a plane and since it is impossible to have a joined 3 sided figure on a plane which is not a triangle, if we say there is a triangle we are actually also saying there is an object whose interior angles add up to 180 degrees, just like when we say there is a bachelor we are also saying there is an unmarried man. That would make the concept that the interior angles of a triangle add up too a 180 degrees an analytic apriori not a synthetic. Thoughts? The fact that we didn't know until we measured what the angles added up too is only new information in the sense that we didn't know the full definition of a triangle, we could also describe a triangle as a three figure object on a plane whose interior angles add up too a 180 degrees.
Meta physics is like flowing water. When we as individuals start to experience the flowing water effect, and also allowing the effects to effect us, in the mind, this is the way to enlightenment.
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Problem of Skepticism [HD]](/img/n.gif)
This description is excellent! I've been struggling with understanding this concept for the past 4 hours. Specifically, Kant's concept in contrast to Hume's. I wish I would have watched this video 4 hours ago.
i have been struggling for the past 4 weeks to understand what he means, and how it makes sense
This video did a great job of explaining the complexities of Kant. He's a difficult read.
It was a wonderful explanation . I want to hear more from yhis guy.
Very stodgy reading indeed
He is definitely difficult to read. I can pick up someone's work and typically break it down after contemplative study, but with Kant, I need to read, reread, contemplate, get input, and read again. Then it's still not a guarantee that I'm following accurately.
Agree. My brain cells were diluted just reading a 10 minute Kant.
I guess you could say that you Kant even read it? (but seriously, some of his works are difficult to understand, I agree)
I reduced the settings speed down to a lower level in this video so I can hear it at a slower rate to absorb the information better and allowing me time in between to think and compare to what is being said.
I didn't slow the video down because I didn't slow the video down.
@@personinaroom It makes sense because it makes sense.
I thought I was the only one
I did that and the guy sounds high or drunk now
Thanks ....
this is a great video, very concise and to the point- makes it easy to understand Kant's transcendental idealism
You’re a lifesaver man, I’ve been stuck reading Kant for the last 2 hours trying to understand him and this is what really got me to understand it.
2 hours?! Damn, you're lucky.
Yo this video is synthethicc
kingcrimson250 That was a very bad pun.
i appreciate this
good meme
mmm... yes, quite ampliative
But only a posteriori
My 2 cents: This video, while good, is presented in isolation from all that Kant was saying in the Critique. With his Critique, Kant was objecting to Hume and Locke, whose explanations resulted in a totally constructivist world view, thus a totally subjective world view. Kant agreed that we see a constructed world view, but claimed we don't actively construct it, rather the brain/mind is set up in such a way - with filters and concepts built in - that what we see (world picture) is fated. Then, if there is a way to get beyond that fate, the way might be to find apriori synthetic stuff that helps reveal how the mind/brain bases it's construction of our world view. Then maybe we get closer to knowing things in themselves rather than just their attributes. Maybe apriori synthetics offer shortcuts to certainties.
I think Kant would agree that any way we may get at certainties may not reveal ultimate reality, or it might, we won't know for sure, but merely cutting to the chase may be very useful in sorting things out. Apriori synthetic may be the most reliable knowledge that we can bank on.
One of the best explanations on Kant's metaphysics. Thank you for this explanation
And hats off to Scott Edgars, the people who put this whole series together, and whoever paid for it. Really helps dig through the inscrutable inscrutability of dense philosophy.
I haven't gotten this far into Kant yet but I actually understood this and have a greater understanding of what we have covered. Very well done, love Kant, TFS!
Fantastic work breaking this down. Please do more of these!
Fun fact: for non-flat geometries there can be triangles which angles sum up to more or less than 180 degrees.
Kant was actually specifically using Euclid's definition, which strengthened his argument. Not only does he have his own logic but he's also essentially framing it as "either this universally held truth is wrong or I'm right." Kant was a badass.
Sure, but that doesn't make it any less badass at the time.
@Stanko Glavinic4
Could be wrong but think you're looking at it in the wrong light - Falsifiability mainly pertains to science and observation i.e. empirical knowledge.
But law of excluded middle still holds, I mean you can still prove that it's either this and not that or that and not this can't you..?
Either way, 'ill-founded' is a poor choice of words for such a scrupulous cat as Kant.
My aren't we touchy.
Seems the way you are using empirical, everything and anything is empirical - guess analytic truths are observations in that broad sense too. The shortest distance between two beings a straight line can never be superseded by future observation. There are some axioms that must be accepted for any progress to be made in any direction.
The message I got from your choice of words was: 'pretentious dork pontificating', so yeah, suppose your message was clear.
No, that wasn't being used to support any argument, that was just a sidebar observation --
Now, seems you are using 'axiom' too broadly just like 'empirical'. A priori/logical axioms are not the same as scientific axioms. And even then so, those original axioms still need to be accepted in order to lay the groundwork for their future overturning.
This is incredible! This is the best explanation of Kant's synthetic apriori knowledge. Thank you so much!
It is called superstition, not knowledge. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@jwu1950 Your religion is superstition.
@@jwu1950 no
@@IvyTeaRN Yes, it is superstition, because metaphysics is by definition unobservable and unknowable by humans. Assumptions, speculations, and superstitious beliefs are not knowledge, period. Kant is full of shit. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@MrGodofcar What religion ? Jesus, Einstein, and I believed in God, we do not believe in or follow any religion, any superstition, or any political agenda. God is not a religion, and neither is Jesus, Einstein, or I. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
I've just discovered your channel and I'm more than happy! Great job!
Thank you Sir, I hope everyone enjoyed the vedio , it is one of the most easiest look to understand Kant , I got 80% by the grace of ur this act , thank you once again... 👌👌👌👌
Wow this channel is perfect. Just what I was looking for. Thanks for the graphics and explanation of every technical term.
I don't see the fact that the angles of a triangle sum to 180° as a fact that is not contained in the definition of a triangle, "a three sided figure enclosed on a plane". Mathematical knowledge is discovered, not invented; analytic knowledge is not necessarily trivial.
Math is the discovery of order within our universe within the means of systems that we create so it yeah
nickj3ds so it is both created and discovered simultaneously
+TheGerogero Please see my discussion with Mysteries from beyond. great comment.
***** Aren't we nonetheless dealing with an interrelation of analytic concepts? If so, I'm not sure how we could thus end up with synthetic statements.
***** But aren't analytic statements precisely those which are necessary? I'm not all too familiar with Kant anyways, let alone Hume -- you're talking at a level beyond me. :P
I'm of the impression that Frege didn't agree here and subsequently nor did Quine? However, I still think Kant is key to understanding the nature of knowledge in any deep way.
Thanks.
The last minute is gold! Thanks a lot!
All other lectures make this distinction seem to be pointless.
Great, but shouldve included a few more examples/spent more time on the last portion explaining synthetic apriori
I see comments assuming the converse of Kant’s claim is true; that because synthetic knowledge is ampliative, ampliative knowledge must be synthetic, the implicit assumption being that analytical knowledge can’t be ampliative. Thinkers disagreeing with Kant tend to claim that that is not true
Best explanation of Kant I've seen (because it is understandable and confirms what I thought Kant meant...)
Kant is confused. There is no such thing as knowledge by humans in the metaphysical reality. Metaphysics is by definition unobservable and unknowable by humans. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What is the current state of philosophy in accepting this idea about metaphysics? It seems to me that's falling out of favor for a few reasons, but mainly because science has begun to tackle metaphysics questions like free will, the arrow of time, and existence of time itself as an irreducible property of reality, and the need for causality relations. The metaphysical idea of locality and absolute time have already been tackled and found to not hold experimentally, which means that these metaphysical ideas cannot be a priori. That raises the question if any metaphysical ideas are a priori. It's also clear to mathematicians that definitions used in mathematics are arbitrary and in fact many varieties of mathematics exist which have been found useful in physics but where the set of those a priori axioms are different. I don't think we can take Kant's claim about the necessity and universality of a priori truths seriously anymore.
Please elaborate or direct those of us who can't see why we cannot take Kant's claim about the "necessity and universality of a priori truths seriously" to appropriate sources.
Stanko Glavinic thanks m8
Not much has changed really other than that Kant's metaphysics of time and moral philosophy has been thoroughly refuted by evidence in modern science in favor of Hume's. Current science has also acknowledged that some things with irreducible properties cannot be analyzed purely by their quanta, and instead would be better understood by their processes. For math, it is true that many theories make use of a priori axioms that are different when applied in physics or engineering, and that most definitions are arbitrary. I don't think that indicates Kant's metaphysics no longer holds, but rather merely requires an addendum that goes beyond simple Euclidean geometry to explain a priori judgments or even to explain if it is the case that these judgments begin to break down at a certain point in investigation.
crucial to understand why science will never be able to disregard Kant’s metaphysic regardless how advancing it might be is because he differentiates between time/space as an empiristic observable and a transcendental one which (the latter) is only a general but necessary criteria in which the human brain (has to) categorize reality in its own mind while the former is responsible for describing what we practically experience.
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day.
One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?”
He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.”
A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.”
The woman asked, “About what?”
He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.”
The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing.
It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same.
One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.”
But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.”
The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.”
He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
2:57 can't we say that maths or a priori knowledge is also ultimately empirical knowledge as we know those truths only after having the empirical experience of our world?
e.g., we know 7+5=12 only after having experienced such truth in our childhood. Whereas a stone or any other thing can't say that 7+5=12 simply because they can't experience it like we do.
I see a lot of comments saying that because a triangle always has a sum of 180 degrees at it's angles it needs to be analytic a priori knowledge. The way I see it is that analytic a priori knowledge defines something, in this case a triangle, in the most basic form necessary. For a triangle this wouldn't include saying the sum of the angles always makes 180 degrees, but saying it needs three sides touching eachother does.
However, in this sense saying it always has three angles would also be synthetic a priori, because it doesn't need to be said to get the concept of 'triangle'.
This video is just amazing. Thank you.
So far the best video I’ve watched on this topic. Thank you professor! Now, back to making cooking videos.
0:35 what's its nature
Spot the typo. too, it said *it's* not *its* .
I see that this is restricted to the realm of math, however, is there any other examples of synthetic a priori knowledge? I cant fathom any.
is that the only example? I find myself thinking that every "event has its cause (event"er") is quite true by Hume's relation of ideas.
+Mysteries From Beyond
synthetic a priori, as i understand it, is a statement that yields a predicate not relating/contained in the subject of the statement (thats the synthetic part) and a prior since its not related to experience. I am trying hard to see how every substance is a subject every event has a cause could satisfy this. I feel that subject is tautologically related to substance and event is tautologically related to cause, unless i am missing something (I am a total novice so i may be missing something big here).
In critique of pure reason, Kant claimed his Copernican revolution in philosophy, mainly by arguing the synthetic a priori claim, and the transcendental nature of the mind, and arguing that mind actively grasps and organizes experience. The mind is no longer a passive recipient. We could know in advance how we will experience the world tomorrow, not because we are certain the world will remain the same (it is unknowable according to Hume), but, contre Hume, we are certain our cognitive activities will continue to structure experience in its characteristic way. If an evil scientist tapes red colored contacts on our cornea, we would be certain that, tomorrow, although tomorrow is unknowable, tomorrow would still look red. This is tempting and presents an elegant escape from Hume's anarchistic consequence. I am, though, reluctant to accept Kant's premise/hypothesis. One of the examples of Synthetic a prior knowledge Kant brought up is mathematics, arithmetic, geometry and physics. in Euclidean geometry only one line can be drawn through a given point so that the line is parallel to a given line that does not contain the point. Kant's argument is that the definitions of a point, line, parallel do not include the concept of one parallel. I argue that it does, and that the concept of linearity, entailed in a line, necessitate the conclusion that only one parallel line emanates from an isolated point in a surface. It is true by "relations of ideas", by definition, and thus we cannot escape Hume.
+Mysteries From Beyond I appreciate your insight and examples btw.
Before 4:10 it is said that being necessary and universal are properties of a priori knowledge which to me seems to say that both are individually necessary conditions for sth to be a priori knowledge, but then it is said that if knowledge is necessary or universal then it's a priori, and if it's not (necessary or universal) it's a posteriori, so taken together an if and only if statement, which confuses me, because it sounds like the conditions are not individually necessary and now even individually sufficient
Are all empirical judgements are synthetic? Kripke noted that if x=y -> □x=y. When we discovered the Morning Star and the Evening Star were the same star, it means that the the two names were interchangeable as they picked out the same object. So it seems even though we discovered that empirically, any analysis of the two words would have to contain the other. Which would imply there are Empirical Analytic Truths.
Thank you for this video, it was exactly what I was looking for.
This video is great! Wonderful explanation. Thanks for publishing it.
To anybody who has doubts about the analytic\synthetic distinction, I highly recommend Sebastian Gardner's book "Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason". For instance, if you are not convinced that mathematical truths are synthetic, or if you think that a synthetic truth becomes an analytic one, by virtue of the expansion of definitions, you really, really should check the 3rd chapter of the book. You can find it for free online.
8:24 but could it not be argued that the concept of a triangle does contain the fact that the internal angles sum up to 180 degrees, but just our label of a triangle doesn't contain that fact?
The concept in and of itself includes that, but YOU don't necessarily know it. How do you reach that knowledge?
Nice video, just a little comment.
Kant's example of synthetic a priori knowledge is the mentioned example: 5+7=12. He says this is not analytic a priori: but synthetic a priori. So the example of the triangle, where the predicate says something IN ADDITION to the subject, holds for 5+7=12. Kant's reference to mathematics is, of course, very much disputed. Many would take mathematical truths as analytical truths. The point Kant wants to make against Hume's scepticism is, that knowledge is articulated within a transcendental frame of veridicality that cannot be put into question.
Excellent summation.
In 5:30 , the statement becomes synthetic but doesn't it still stay a priori? So that statement is a bachelor is happy-go-lucky is a synthetic a priori isn't it?
For example string theory is all theoretical, and purely mathematical and there isn't any empirical experience involved - making it a priori, yet it is also synthetic as we are making claims. So string theory is synthetic a priori. Right?
Great video. Suggest you put lots of soft stuff in your room to stop the echo - hard to listen.
Awesome. Thank-you. The best explanation of a priori knowledge I have seen.
Beautiful explanation.
Can someone please clear up this confusion that i have - i am getting a feeling that synthetic apriori is just saying that there are some undiscovered intrinsic properties of an apriori judgement that were not known when creating that apriori. So since we are talking about an undiscovered property of an apriori judgement, it is still an apriori. Hence the name "synthetic apriori". But doesn't that mean that synthetic apriori is just an emperical/synthetic judgement. It is discovered through experience, so why is it still an "apriori".
Thank you
These videos are excellent
beautifully described, it's such a complex topic to read through the text. Thanks :)
such a great video and helped understand kants philosophy
Thank you man! Very easy to grasp. Good job!
Really good explanation of a very complicated idea.
Thats great! Really helpful!! Willt you will you also do something about the transcendental analytic as well? ;) It would be really helpful, and Kant is so important to understand, for anyone wanting to study philosophy
best explanation on the topic that i had ever heard. thank you
Very helpful video. Thanks.
Only the individuals experience in meditation can determine the value of metaphysics. Kant was a master of words and math, so we got a triple wammy.
Flawlessly explained
Thank you so much for this video. This wasn't very clear when my professor taught this but now I feel like I will get an A on my paper.
Glad it was helpful!
Im really uncertain how Kants views are any different than Aristotle's and Aquinas, or even Plato's. All of them recognized the same thing, and argued that we come to knowledge about reality via 1) "The senses" and 2) "reason".
It seems to me, modern philosophers merely replace "the senses" with the word "Empiricism" and "reason" with "aprori" and "ampliative" with what Aristotle understood as "universals (form) plus matter (the stuff) equals reality".
Ive read a decent amount about classical philosophy recently, and now learning about the moderns, and to be honest it sounds like a less sophisticated understanding of the older stuff. Maybe that will change as i learn more.
Well done Mr. Edgar.
This was really good. Thank you
Beautifully done.
that's really was helpful. Thank you so much!
8:40 wrong!
Its angles BY DEFINITION sum to 180 degrees.
Can you conceive of a triangle that doesn't??
Thanks for such an awesome video
Could a synthetic a priori to us just be empirical to an alien species that can intuitively sense that the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees?
+Id Anima Yes, it could:)
Math was not a very helpful example...it's highly debatable. Aren't time and space generally given as examples of synthetic a priori? We necessarily interpret experience according to time and space (also cause-and-effect), but they cannot be intuited prior to experience. Meaning: we only discover the constructs of time and space through experience, but there is no way to experience reality without time or space. Synthetic (we know it through experience), a priori (necessarily true).
daledheyalef .. but why always the bachalour! :D
but is time and space a great example? Two distinct points of reference can produce two different results when measuring time and space. It does vary, depending on where you are in the universe and your velocity relative to everything else, as well as near by massive objects.
I would say that time and space are two very ridiculous examples, as both time and space are variable, and the perception of time and space area also variable. Therefore there is no set continuation of time and space. Even when you have a look at seconds .. pending upon the manufacturer, if the piece for measuring time is mechanically bound or electrically bound, there are possible variants to the measurement of a second.
With space .. which is merely a slack and lazy way of saying the substance (unless there is no substance then it just becomes the nothing;) between these three vector points in either a cubed or triangulated, then it can be both something which is synthetic a priori as well as empirical for it is something which is capable of being measured.
As for the concept in the theory or relativity .. the idea of being able to bend time space comes down to something which is complete nonsense in accordance with Nikola Tesla, as how can you bend something .. let alone two things which do not actually exist ??
It's not really that debatable. Time and space are synthetic a priori concepts. However, that depends on how you define them. If your definitions are simplistic, as with space, by defining it as anything that makes possible any relation between any two points of any distance, then you could say it is an analytic judgment. The knowledge gained from the judgment follows from the definition; no new knowledge that comes genuinely without drawing from the definition. If you define space the way General Relativity does, as in the form of mathematics, then it is a synthetic a priori knowledge. Think about math in terms of how we visualize it. Who says "3" can be translated into anything but "the quantity of three"? Your own mind will fight you if you think "3" is "the quantity of four"? It is knowledge that is a priori. Your judgments that come after using that a priori knowledge on top of other a priori knowledge similar to it (e.g. other numerals) do not follow from the definitions of those pieces of knowledge. Hence, it is synthetic and a priori. 3+4=7, not because the + sign is telling you the answer, but because you followed the operation that + defined. 7 is new knowledge that did not follow from the definition of a fact, but rather from an operation that was defined as such. You did not draw the knowledge from the definition, but rather created and extended the knowledge, from without the definition.
If you start off with mere numerals, by determining them as synthetic a priori knowledge, then what more if you do so with abstract symbols, of which advanced pure and applied mathematics is rife with examples?
This video is really amazing
I haven't read Kant yet, excepts little bits here and there, but here's my question: if 'the thing in itself' cannot be known, how did Kant know there even is a 'thing in itself', since NOTHING can be known about it and since he was a human being like the rest of us and could not experience 'the thing in itself' either?
Luigi Pati - Good ! It seems that the more people read of Kant the less they understand! - Off the top of my head - Kant distinguishes between ( maybe we all do ) form and content - Maybe he is saying that the Form can ( must ) be 'known' but the Content cannot....Lets see
@@petrainjordan7838 , I disagree about people reading of Kant and understanding less. This is also what Schopenhauer said of him. He idolized Kant, and while criticized the obscurity of his language, said that 'even when he errs, much can be learned from him'. I still have not read Kant yet. Schopenhauer also wrote that the 'thing in itself' is the Will. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is very striking how much sense Schopenhauer makes, and yet no one talks about him. But in a way Kant was right: the 'thing in itself' is there, which is whatever it is that is NOT experienced by our human minds and consciousness. I refuse to believe that Kant did not think of my 'basic' questions: he was way smarter than I will ever be. I think Schopenhauer explains it all in more simple terms. I bought a new Cambridge version of his works and it is really excellent.
@@luigipati3815 Hi - Thanks for the reply. I have not read and have no present intent to read Schopenhauer...I have made attempt to lay the groundwork for a more detailed reading of Kant - by sketching his use of analogies...maybe such an approach could be of some use to others...
Clear and simple! Thank you!
Thank you. Very well done.
I'm a bit confused. In the statement "The interior angles of a triangle add up to 180°" isn't the subject the interior angles of the triangle and not the triangle itself? The idea that the interior angles of a triangle are equal to 180° is contained in the concept of the interior angles of a triangle, so if "the interior angles of a triangle" is the subject and not "a triangle" isn't the statement analytic a priori? I'm not sure if this makes sense or its just a bit of logical/linguistic sleight of hand. Great video other than this btw.
this was actually a very well explained video that has helped me understand the concept so much better in one go. very well made, thank you.
Nice explanation
Subrb ....best way to understand kant's theory. ...so helpful...Please make some more videos on Hegal, Fichte Grotius etc
but at one point someone counted and said that 7+5 is 12 now this is empirical evidence that we don't think about anymore since it had been in our practice for so long. my question is if scientific knowledge is analytic how come maths is apriori
Bc it's an abstraction of a universal and necessary truth. When the caveman grunted and observed 7 rocks, and then 5, rather he understood it or not, he was observing a concept that must eternally be true and universal.
However when 7 birds flew over head, then 5 more, the same truth is there, but also a contingent truth. The 12 birds didn't have to fly over head, and may never do so again. The event was neither a necessary or universal truth.
Same empirical evidence can lead to different kinds of truth
Thankyou...
Great video and explanation. Still, it makes me want to lay down in a corner and cry myself out of existence.
Good explanation
Is there another example of synthetic a priori knowledge?
Not all triangles add up to 180 degrees such as those on a sphere add up to something greater. And I don't see how you can figure this out by non-empirical means.
Ha ha! Clever. Was that intentional?
So not all triangles add up to 180 degrees. What you say is a synthetic a prior knowledge in itself. It doesn't negate the truth that 'all triangles add up to 180 degrees' either. You missed the important key meaning that a 'synthetic a prior knowledge' is not TRUE by definition, so it implies that it is subjective knowledge in contrast to empirical meaning that which is observed and knowledge from the physical senses.
Wonderful video. Very interesting.
As for the triangle having 180 degrees being synthetic apriore, because the definition of a triangle (a three sided figure) doesn’t inherently contain that its internal angles will sun to 180 degrees. Isn’t this just a definitional issue. Aren’t we saying that if all triangles angles equal 180 degrees that we therefore have that as part of its definition?
If it were not part of its definition, then we can have triangles that do not contain 180 degrees worth of angles. Or am I missing something.
0:29 "its nature"*
Super helpful, thanks!
So triangle is a figure with three sides which means that triangle is a priori and analytical? (If we only take 3 sides into consideration and not 180 degrees)
can i get its transcript?
Very good.
if red is red is an example of a priori knowledge then i have question in my mind. red is red becuase we see it, and because we are seeing it as red we are using our senses, doesnt that make it dependable on our senses?
The theory of synthetic a priory knowledge is brilliant. I think he's right about this.
It's garbage. How impressive is it to 'reason' which comes next, 21, 3, 6, 36, x, when you never (empirically) invented the set in the first place. The beauty of empiricism is that people are free to create systems, even abstract objects, as physicists (atoms, superstrings, ect) and mathematicians (circles, infinity) do, for which they reason upon.
It's not as brilliant as you think. Kant uses math to try to show examples of synthetic a priori knowledge, but all of his mathematical arguments can be shown to be incorrect with actual math.
His first example is 7+5=12. He claims this must be synthetic because he doesn't think it's true by definition. However, Kant has failed to actually analyze the definitions of the terms. Seven is defined as sssssss0 (where s means "the successor of") in Peano arithmetic, five is sssss0, and twelve is ssssssssssss0. Addition has a recursive definition in terms of the successorship function. Using the axioms of Peano arithmetic (which just define what successorship, natural numbers, and "equals" mean), it can be proven by definition that 7+5=12. Thus, 7+5=12 is analytic knowledge, not synthetic.
Kant's other example, that the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180°, is not a priori knowledge at all. In fact, it's not even correct. There are places in our Universe where spacetime is warped, meaning that the angles don't add up to 180°. That's because our Universe, while close to being Euclidean, is not actually Euclidean. The correct a priori statement to make would be "All triangles IN A EUCLIDEAN SPACE have angles that add up to 180°." However, this is an alytic judgement, since it can be proven from the axioms of Euclidean geomery that the angles add up to 180°, and the axioms of Euclidean geometry are part of the definition of a Euclidean space.
Whenever you try to check a rationalist by reminding them Kant was wrong, you are bound to get the notorious ad hoc defense. The fact is, that Kant believed in our intuition of space and time was how he believed the world really was - but with the empirical overthrow of Euclidean geometry, he was proved to be completely wrong.
Yes its pure bovine manure.
A priori knowledge is a false assumption....a dishonest medium to run away with his idealistic ideas.
All roses are roses is a statement based on the logical absolute of identity.
Logical rules, principles and criteria are based and verified EMPIRICALLY.
This logical conclusion is what the empirical world teaches us about the world.
if we lived in a world that the dna structure of flowers cells were constantly changing....this "truth by definition" would be...true.
now on math. In order to understand the relations of mathematical symbols, you first need to train your self with...... your fingers(remember our first years in school).
So this "a priori knowledge" is nothing more than mental representations of relations of physical things in the empirical world.
Now some points about the abuse of the word "truth".
The math example the "claim" 7+5=12, is true because we follow the "rules" of math and the value of the symbols that we have given to them. There isn't any metaphysical knowledge produced since the relations of the symbols are included and visible in the formula.
Yes we don't need to perform a real life experiment in order to define the truth value of the "claim" since the mathematical equation is designed on the same empirical rules with those used when adding physical things in the real world.
Mathematics was developed as a descriptive tool for nature's empirical regularities....not the other way around.
@@plasmaballin interesting, but are you using the law of non contradiction to establish that? And are there any people (minds) in a non euclidean space? thanks
Is an anylitylic judgement a tautology?
does that also mean that there are types of Empirical analytical knowledge as well? and if so what are examples of that?
+Todd Koons "Being aware of being aware". Most people don´t realize being aware all the time, until they stop and verify it empirically from subjective experience.
It´s also analytical, ´cause "being aware of being aware" is true by definition.
But it´s also a priori, ´cause I have to be aware in the first place to become aware of being aware.
It´s also synthetic, because most of the people haven´t made that non-phenomenal recognition of being aware all the time, so it gives us new knowledge in most cases, at least.
So, as I see it, it´s all the possible combinations of knowledge. And as such, it´s unique.
According to Kant, there is no such thing as a analytic a posteriori judgement (analytic emprical, as you put it).
So this is true, if we're expressions of Source (consciousness) and our thoughts come from who we really are. What's the alternative?
The alternative is to believe. Jesus promised all those who believed in him may ask for anything in his name, and shall receive in the glory of God. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
you lost me at 9:42. you said metaphysical knowledge is supposed to expand your knowlrdge, and is therefore ampliative. so i went back to look at your definition of ampliative and it seems you define it as something which is not constantly true. A Priori knowledge is always universally true so no 1 piece of information can be both, it would contradict itself. so how is metaphysical knowledge also synthetic knowledge?
great video
I don’t really understand how a triangle having three sides and a triangle having interior angles that sum to 180 degrees are not the same kind of a priori definitional information. It seems like both are just self-contained features of the triangle, by definition. Help!
Not really, if you draw a driangle on oaper with a ruler you get 3 sides and that is a triangle, it will have 3 angles as well but without measuring the angles you wouldn't know that. Children can know what a triangle is but not know about the measurement of angles
Kant is simply confusing. Kant says, "Experience is cognition of objects", but cognition of objects is not cognition, because cognition is not experience which is cognition of objects.
Superb!!
Thanks a lot!
I am not sure that the example of the triangle really works. Since the definition of a triangle is a joined 3 sided figure on a plane and since it is impossible to have a joined 3 sided figure on a plane which is not a triangle, if we say there is a triangle we are actually also saying there is an object whose interior angles add up to 180 degrees, just like when we say there is a bachelor we are also saying there is an unmarried man. That would make the concept that the interior angles of a triangle add up too a 180 degrees an analytic apriori not a synthetic. Thoughts? The fact that we didn't know until we measured what the angles added up too is only new information in the sense that we didn't know the full definition of a triangle, we could also describe a triangle as a three figure object on a plane whose interior angles add up too a 180 degrees.
Very well done!
Very cool video
thank you
What if the definition of the triangle was incomplete?
Great Job!
Meta physics is like flowing water. When we as individuals start to experience the flowing water effect, and also allowing the effects to effect us, in the mind, this is the way to enlightenment.
"Its" is misspelled. First impression.