I am starting with the most influential analytic philosophers and working out form there. I hope to, once this series is finished, include choosing a persona as an option if you donate 10 dollars a month or more on Patreon.
6:05 I got to disagree with kant. I don't how much about the history of mathematics Kant was familiar with, but humanity didn't have an a priori knowlage of arithimatics. Without experiencing the world the human mind alone wouldn't be able to comprehend notions like numbers or operations. Math is something we invented, like the laws of logic or languages. It is in part abstractions about objects and their relations, plus derived knowlage through deductive logic. Of course we need experience to learn tht 2+3=5. Either someone teach us math, or we will have to learn it by observing the world, learning to count and put stuff together, like the Indians did.
Not all math concepts can be learned through experience. For example, calculus existed in Academia for at least a century before it ever found a use. As an unusable concept it had to be learned prior to being understood. The whole idea being that we "discover" math. Later down the line we often come to find that experience, through the scientific method, finds results which agree with what before only existed in theory. I think Kant only used the addition example to show that addition could be discovered a priori. I don't think he was making the claim that all people everywhere found addition that way. More to the point, if logic couldn't build without physical objects to guide us by experience then we could never construct quantum physics or topology or whatever out there cutting edge math or science you want to choose. Innovation requires intuitions about more than just sensory experience. Hence pure reason is real. However, Kant was concerned about how we throw logic out the window when it comes to concepts of pure reason. He wanted to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and thus the gap between Descartes and Hume.
@@dellh86 Maybe I wasn't clear with what I said. Let me try again. What I was trying to say is that our mathematical knowledge is based on our experience on a fundamental level. Meaning, we wouldn't be able to develop mathematical ideas without interacting with the world. Calculus was a particularly bad example, because it was developed in the context of the study of motion and change, both by Leibniz and Newton, as physical phenomenon. Particularly Newton's formulation was very concrete, involving moving lines, circles, secants and tangents. That being said, I get your point. There are things in phisics and math that is counter intuitive or that is based on physical phenomenon that we don't experience on a day to day basis. To that I say: all math is fundamentally rooted not only on language but on set theory and number systems, which could not be developed a priori. I will give kant one thing: his idea that our notions of space and time might be a priori. But even them, even though we didn't get them directly through experience, we, as a species, got them probably from evolution, which is dependent on our ancestors interaction with the physical world. Moreover, even though we don't experience quantum mechanics on our day to day basis, physicists experience them through, well, experiments and observations. They deduced quantum mechanics from the data they collected. Or rather, they proposed a lot of ideas (some of them wrong), but the data said only some of them were able to predict actual experiments and natural phenomenon.
how does “2 and 3” (or “2 + 3”? or “ ‘2’ and ‘3’ ”?) not contain the meaning of “5”? or do you mean to say that each part does not exclusively contain the other? or it’s the kind of meaning independent of quantity?
The meaning of bachelor contains the words unmarried adult male. So these are contained int eh term. The definition of 5 does not contain "is the sum of 2 and 3". Therefore, bachelors are unmarried adult men is an analytic truth, while 2+3=5 is a synthetic truth, according to Kant.
we could have another rule for the sum...eg : what it is already contain in 3 ( 3 has 2 inside ) it is not to be add ...it means 2+3 = 3 ( 2+ 1, 1 it is the part that it is not commune ) , it means that the 5 it is not compulsory the SUM of 2 + 3 , 5 it is reached by our Intuition ...Intuition put IN TIME 3 sticks after the 2 sticks ...but think that the rule of SUM it is that on a drawing we draw 2 points and another 3 points and we are making the rule that the SUM it is...THE DRAWING ...look the SUM , the Drawing of 5 Points...
Tanks. I'm from Argentina but I could understand all the video. However the subtitle have some mistake. I know is a intelligence artificial and isn't you work, but is a joke when you said " kant " always translate in differents forms like "can coud cold" .
Kant had many problems, and he was certainly deeply racist. That said, the arguments that have been made attempting to link him to the Nazis are based on deeply flawed and inaccurate interpretations of his work. David Gordon's piece here (www.unz.com/print/Inquiry-1982sep-00039) has a strong argument as to why.
Love this series. So informative
Nicely summarised. Revisited Kant after a while. ^_^
Thanks!
Thus comes the attitude: "If I'm wrong, let God strike me dead right now on this spot." Repeat until causality is certain.
You should tackle some less well known philosophers too.
Like Miguel De Unomuno , Francisco Sanchez, Alan Watts, etc.
Would really be cool of you.
I am starting with the most influential analytic philosophers and working out form there. I hope to, once this series is finished, include choosing a persona as an option if you donate 10 dollars a month or more on Patreon.
Another video about this
I would love to see a video about Wittgenstein! Could you imagine making one?
It is on the list... whenever I get back to making this series consistently.
I'm looking forward to it! Thanks :)
Great work :)
6:05 I got to disagree with kant. I don't how much about the history of mathematics Kant was familiar with, but humanity didn't have an a priori knowlage of arithimatics. Without experiencing the world the human mind alone wouldn't be able to comprehend notions like numbers or operations. Math is something we invented, like the laws of logic or languages. It is in part abstractions about objects and their relations, plus derived knowlage through deductive logic.
Of course we need experience to learn tht 2+3=5. Either someone teach us math, or we will have to learn it by observing the world, learning to count and put stuff together, like the Indians did.
This
Not all math concepts can be learned through experience. For example, calculus existed in Academia for at least a century before it ever found a use. As an unusable concept it had to be learned prior to being understood. The whole idea being that we "discover" math. Later down the line we often come to find that experience, through the scientific method, finds results which agree with what before only existed in theory. I think Kant only used the addition example to show that addition could be discovered a priori. I don't think he was making the claim that all people everywhere found addition that way. More to the point, if logic couldn't build without physical objects to guide us by experience then we could never construct quantum physics or topology or whatever out there cutting edge math or science you want to choose. Innovation requires intuitions about more than just sensory experience. Hence pure reason is real. However, Kant was concerned about how we throw logic out the window when it comes to concepts of pure reason. He wanted to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and thus the gap between Descartes and Hume.
@@dellh86 Maybe I wasn't clear with what I said. Let me try again.
What I was trying to say is that our mathematical knowledge is based on our experience on a fundamental level. Meaning, we wouldn't be able to develop mathematical ideas without interacting with the world.
Calculus was a particularly bad example, because it was developed in the context of the study of motion and change, both by Leibniz and Newton, as physical phenomenon.
Particularly Newton's formulation was very concrete, involving moving lines, circles, secants and tangents.
That being said, I get your point. There are things in phisics and math that is counter intuitive or that is based on physical phenomenon that we don't experience on a day to day basis.
To that I say: all math is fundamentally rooted not only on language but on set theory and number systems, which could not be developed a priori.
I will give kant one thing: his idea that our notions of space and time might be a priori. But even them, even though we didn't get them directly through experience, we, as a species, got them probably from evolution, which is dependent on our ancestors interaction with the physical world.
Moreover, even though we don't experience quantum mechanics on our day to day basis, physicists experience them through, well, experiments and observations. They deduced quantum mechanics from the data they collected. Or rather, they proposed a lot of ideas (some of them wrong), but the data said only some of them were able to predict actual experiments and natural phenomenon.
how does “2 and 3” (or “2 + 3”? or “ ‘2’ and ‘3’ ”?) not contain the meaning of “5”? or do you mean to say that each part does not exclusively contain the other? or it’s the kind of meaning independent of quantity?
The meaning of bachelor contains the words unmarried adult male. So these are contained int eh term. The definition of 5 does not contain "is the sum of 2 and 3". Therefore, bachelors are unmarried adult men is an analytic truth, while 2+3=5 is a synthetic truth, according to Kant.
we could have another rule for the sum...eg : what it is already contain in 3 ( 3 has 2 inside ) it is not to be add ...it means 2+3 = 3 ( 2+ 1, 1 it is the part that it is not commune ) , it means that the 5 it is not compulsory the SUM of 2 + 3 , 5 it is reached by our Intuition ...Intuition put IN TIME 3 sticks after the 2 sticks ...but think that the rule of SUM it is that on a drawing we draw 2 points and another 3 points and we are making the rule that the SUM it is...THE DRAWING ...look the SUM , the Drawing of 5 Points...
Hail Kant!
Tanks. I'm from Argentina but I could understand all the video. However the subtitle have some mistake. I know is a intelligence artificial and isn't you work, but is a joke when you said " kant " always translate in differents forms like "can coud cold" .
Haha! That's funny. I am always worried about what the subtitles will come out as, much less what they will translate as. Thanks for watching!
Immaneul kan't
Immaneul kannot
Immaneul henceforth i am unable to kan
Immaneul henceforth i am unable to not kannot
Pls... don't use blue words against red background
Disharmony?
MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT IDEALISM!! :D
Yeah, there are quite a few metaphysical positions that I have never covered here. I will get to them eventually.
Carneades.org Whats your view on idealism Carnades? I think it refutes skepticism doesn’t it?
Good
What if everybody
To think is to generalize
like numero 1!!!!
He certainly was influential.
No Kant-can't pun :p
I thought about it, but I said "I just Kant bring myself to do it". :p
I'm just here to say that this dude's theories in spired the nazis.
Kant had many problems, and he was certainly deeply racist. That said, the arguments that have been made attempting to link him to the Nazis are based on deeply flawed and inaccurate interpretations of his work. David Gordon's piece here (www.unz.com/print/Inquiry-1982sep-00039) has a strong argument as to why.