6 Concepts, Judgment & Deduction of the Categories - Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Dan Robinson)

Dan Robinson gives the 6th lecture in a series of 8 on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Empiricists have no explanation for how we move from "mere forms of thought" to objective concepts. The conditions necessary for the knowledge of an object require a priori categories as the enabling conditions of all human understanding.

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, the audio has been improved.

#Philosophy #Kant #Epistemology

[billlampshade]

Thank you! Very clear and useful video

[worldgeographer]

12:01 who the hell ass blasted during the Kant lecture

[vgzvusr]

13:06 Object-oriented philosophical argument)

[JavierBonillaC]

Categorize and so on, is a product of culture. Parents teach you: apples are green, the grass is green. Yes that thing is the grass. No you don’t call that an apple, those are apples. If space is a prefabricated box a priori, you could argue that there has to be an a priori a priori that allows you to build the category of space and so on. It is impossible, to know what is a priori. Your retina shrinking when receiving much light is a priori. Your body shaking when it’s cold is a priori. The capacity to see is a priori. 2+2 = 4 is a fact of life that you learn. Babies clearly has no sense of depth when they are days old. I saw my sons develop that skill looking at their hands as they brought it to their mouth and then took it away without taking their eyes of it. Frankly, Kant would have done well to study people that didn’t see and gained sight after a surgery. Or people that suffered strokes. Kant could say that dialing my cell phone has an a priori capacity of looking at a keyboard. It is the category called “cell phone keypad” category. Another category called “body parts”. Other category for interpreting incorporeous phenomena (like fire), another category for recognizing computer icons. A baby left in a dark room from birth to age 6 would loose his ability to see, hear and interpret space or whatever else. Maybe time he would sense.
Evolutionary psychology has done more for the understanding of man in 30 years that philosophy in 2400. Now the video was most interesting. Thank you.

[Donteatacowman]

I got rankled at the Oxford-student thing, so I paused and tried to translate. I was wrong but hey, I tried.

The actual sentence: All the manifold of intuition should be subject to conditions of the original synthetic unity of our perception.
My version: For the term "intuition, " we need to understand that the context depends on the whole (gestalt) that perception initially assumes.
The version as explained: All of intuition regards the act of a person putting together different parts of perception, which is how we impose an idea on a physical object.

I think I was most wrong with how I interpreted "original, " where the translated Kant means it as "self-originating" and I thought it meant "initial."

[vgzvusr]

25:52 If there was a some kind of race contest Descartes made second with a more than a twelve hundred years handicap.

[markuslepisto]

Blaablaablaa but the FACT that your sensation of the seweetness of the honey doesn't even claim that it is actually my sensation of the sweetnes of the honey rather it claims ONLY that your sensation of the sweetness of the honey is certain kind... which SIMPLY means THATS exactly the kind of sensation YOU have also for me..in other words.. IT IS ONTOLOGICALLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH that you have such an.. epistemologically subjective experience..

[vgzvusr]

25:08 You can look at Gospel by John and have perseptual ground for epistemic claims about God. Because, in short, "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). Ha, ha.
Although you still need a schema, in Kant's sense, to understand the Bible in such a way that will make God proud.

[vgzvusr]

30:02 "Aristotle is a humian" is an example of the Grandpa paradox.

[vgzvusr]

25:52 If there was a some kind of race contest Descartes made second with a twelve hundred years handicap.

[vgzvusr]

17:11 Only now i have noticed that there was no blackboard used or is there any all.

[josephmariealba]

Does the dog see a tree? Yes. Does the dog experience the tree? Of course. The dog raises his leg and naturally waters the tree.