Introduction to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

It might appear self evident how we humans interact in the world of objects, but this is exactly what Kant questions in his Critique of Pure Reason. For how do come to know the objective world? What does Kant mean when he claims that we need pure a priori intuitions to be abele to see the world in the first place, and that we need categories of the understanding to "think" objects? This and more will be discussed in this video.

----Contents of this video ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0:00 - Intro
1:14 - Part I: Pure Reason
12:40 - Part II: Structure Makes Perfect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[alfonso]

Speaking from my "experience" you are good at condensing philosophical subjects into digestible format without misconstruing them which what usually happens in yt, would also like a vid on heidegger and deleuze.

[LTDsaint]

A wonderfully constructed intro to Kant! Congratulations and thank you very much!

[Nrandonom]

This is an excellent introduction! You have earned yourself a new subscriber!

[deadmeme]

By god you need way more subsriber, this stuff is so good it's unfair.

[jacobfranco]

You really are on a roll with these videos. Good job man. Bless

[legendsplayground]

thanks, it's simple to understand this way, God bless ya

[felixfilipi]

Great video, I've drowned and cant figured out any of kant's message when I delve into the book, your video help me a lot thanks!!

[pratikgore]

I love your videos, and deserve more views.

[lutherantwoord]

I'm reading this book because the protagonist in a Murakami book I read, was reading it and it is rough!

[michaelmacisaac]

Beautiful presentation… does the explication of categories and conditions for human knowledge presuppose an agent with basic analytic tools to conduct the analysis, ie Plato’s third man? Are all circles fatal? Is it turtles and wave functions all the way down?🐣

[kadaganchivinod]

Is there any particular reason starting KANT after Lacan?

[markrockliff]

Kant would have been perplexed by both the theory of Cosmic Foam and the theory of the three Enneagram laws, the law of one, the law of three and the law of seven. It is obvious he focused much attention on the structures of mind but making the law of three within and becoming receptive to Divine Mercy or Intuition of a spiritual order eluded his attention. Pore Kent, he would never have realised gravity was linked to Cosmic Foam and Universal Intelligence between all things.

[hippodino]

An time goes by, now (5+7=12) is analytic statement.

[ulfberht]

If you Can’t understand Kant then you Can’t comprehend Kant and you Can’t be Kant.

[EsatBargan]

Lopez Kevin Young Deborah Thomas Brenda

[asyetundetermined]

There’s a reason philosophy is not considered a serious science. Even an historical giant in the field like Kant influences nothing outside of the field itself. Philosophy goes one way, then perhaps the next. No matter, life carries on, fully independent of these masculine diary entries.

[marcliotta]

Anyone who writes such childish nonsense simply doesn’t have the intellectual sophistication to understand the refutation. Sad and true…..

[christofthedead]

Your pronunciation of "Kant" is delightfully obscene