The Metaphysics of Immanuel Kant Explained Simply | Kant Vs. Hyperianism

The Metaphysics and philosophy of Immanuel Kant is notorious for being difficult to understand. But we’re going to break down and explain his major ideas into easy to understand concepts as well as show where his philosophy went wrong and how to complete his system. Let’s leave the human domain of the senses behind and venture beyond, into the noumenal domain of the mind.

Kant splits all reality into two domains: The phenomenal and the noumenal. The phenomenal domain is reality as we experience it. This is the everyday world you’re familiar with and includes everything we can observe, including space, time, and the laws of physics. The noumenal domain is reality as it is itself apart from our empirical experience of it. He is known for his Critique of Pure Reason. According to Kant's transcendental idealism, the noumenal domain is completely unknowable by us, without the use of faith. Is this true? Let's contrast this view with Hyperianism, rationalism, and ontological mathematics to find out.

---

Support Morgue:

---

Follow Morgue:

[morgueofficial]

What do you guys think of these more technical and in depth videos? Would you like to see more of them?

[susanmitchell]

This is one of your best videos. You've taken difficult material and explained it in simple terms, making it easy for people to understand. I would hope that people would want more of these types of technical videos.

[maximuscas]

I'm amazed how easy you explain complex concepts.

[rruff]

Excellent! what a concise and incisive analysis of Kant's fundamental stance. I look forward to more presentations like this - thank you!

[Mistress_Angelica]

🤯🤯🤯 Your videos are getting better. Can’t wait for this to go public.

[honestinsky]

Hi my friend Morgue, I'm a new sub to your awesome channel, and so far this is your best video I've seen. You are a tremendous talent, and it's an honor and privilege to watch your great videos. Thank you so much for taking the considerable time, energy, and expense to create your quality videos, much appreciated bro. I'm going to watch the Hyperian movie now. Have a very good and peaceful day mi amigo, fist bump : )

[shelbyhiggins]

I have talked about Kant's philosophies with a retired teacher I know and I love the idea of perception, it's one of those pools that has a bottomless deep end. Good lesson Morgue, and love the pin you were wearing Ad Astra

[ArcaneInkTattoo]

It's almost like every single video you produce, I saw in my breakthrough DMT trip. It would be interesting to hear you speak about the breakthrough trip experience and how that is waking people up to higher states of consciousness and wisdom.

[karenchiavazzo]

YOU SAVED ME. I have an upcoming oral Test about Locke, Hume and Kant. I couldn’t really understand Kant until I watched your video. Thanks <3

[nostalgia]

Good video. And besides Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive: objective, Imperceptible and measurable.

[uilium]

Yes! People sure do mix up form and content but mathematics is content as well. You can't experience mathematics unless it's conceptual.

[blakeblack]

Awesome video morgue. Kant was a genius!

[Dr.Jekyll_]

That's a great explanation. I thank you.

[Freespeech]

What are your thoughts on derealization or depersonalization? Do you have any videos on this?

[robsin]

Another great video from Morgue. Keeps getting better

[GwenWittig]

Basing world views and perspectives on mathematics is honestly the single most likely way that we as a collective group are going to be able to come together and solve our problems and evolve..

[blablblaaaaaaaaa]

i did not know kant but it is pure Genius, this is what the esoteric science said all along, i love how your making what once was only spiritual scientific, so many other kinds of people will be able to understand this wisdom because of your work !

[chrismartelle]

Logic is the reason for all our problems.. when we left our hearts and got stuck in our heads we broke ourselves. When you try to understand how something works or try to recreate what was created perfectly already we break it . Matter of fact anything man touches we break. Meaning anything we try to control we break. If we love for what something is not isnt and dont try to understand how something like touch healing, farming, walking water whatever if we just agree and believe it just is its not special or anything amazing to do these things its just who and what we are and what we do. Its like a bird thinking it's performing magik by flying irs just how it was made we can fly or will ourselves to die whatever we believe IS... this world is now performing perfectly for them.. we live in our phyical logical side of our brain now and thats the only time we can die is when were vibrating at 741hz chaos frequency, opposed to 528 love heart frequency were our eye is open time doesnt exsist . Same feeling as when you 1st meet a inlove partner if we can stay in that not work not SLAVE our life force away. Not be sucked dry of life from these screens and technology if your eyes werent broken you could see the RED stream of your energy being sucked out into these objects thats why 12 yr olds look 20 and ppl age so so fast. When we focus on other ppl plants or animals we engage in symbiosis we feed each other life force energy stay young stay calm relaxed everything's perfect when we focus on these tablets and phones and computers are energies going into it but nothing's coming back what they do to keep you using these is when you touch the touch screen what it does is it actually gives you a small electrical shock just like trying to mimic actual conversation happening but it's a totally different kind of energy that our bodies do not like and it harms us greatly but I don't want to talk for the next 3 years this is supposed to be a comment talking about I don't know something negative or cool dude or something but felt like sharing a little information that might help somebody else out there

[Teddylandclub]

Unfortunately, one can see that there is a strong lack of understanding on the part of the video uploader what Kant's philosophy regarding epistemology actually says. First of all Kant does *NOT* say that reality conforms to our thoughts. On the contrary. Kant makes a very strict distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. The former is actually only a product of our brain, namely how we subjectively perceive things through our five senses. The latter, the noumenon, that is what the actual, objective reality is. And this noumenal domain exists completely independently of us (the only noumenon we really can experience is actually our consciousness itself), so that we cannot influence it at all. This means... Yeah, we could possibly trick our mind to see a pencil way longer than it actually is, but in objective means we didn't influence it at all and thus still has the same length than before. Even other people who would watch it, would notice no changes. We would have to access the very fabric of reality, the noumenal domain, to actually cause an "objective" influence. However, it is not possible for us that our "mind" could access this noumenal domain in such a way that it could influence things objectively. Instead, we can use our mind to use our physical body to create physical tools such like hammer, nails, machines, etc. and so forth. This is the only indirect way our mind can influence reality. Other than that, there's nothing more.


Back to the problem about noumenal and phenomenal. An example would be a pencil. What we see from the pencil is not really existing outside of us. But the fact that our senses are affected, i.e. addressed and neccessitated to perceive this pencil, means that there is an unknown cause (noumenon) that neccessitates us to see this pencil. Another mistake here is that the physical laws we think into things do not automatically mean that the forces behind them are only products of our mind or do not exist at all. It is also absolutely wrong that Kant supposedly draws the conclusion that there is no mind-independent reality. In fact, the noumenal domain disproves exactly that! Kant showed precisely, that reality as we perceive it (phenomenal domain) is a product of ourself, but that there are still several factors that our mind cannot influence, such like the necessity to perceive something if an unknwon cause in the noumenal domain affects our senses. That is objective reality.


Your "Hyperianism" unfortunately does not solve any problems here and the criticism against Kant is also very vague. Just because Kant can talk about the noumenal domain does not mean that it must therefore be accessible to us in experience. It is true that we cannot experience the noumenal world, but we can think and talk about it. However, we cannot deduce its specific properties, in no case would this be possible. Even the "ontological mathematics" that you so highly praise does not solve the problem, because you contradict yourself. For even mathematics is only a construct, an entity that we have created from our experiences in the phenomenal world. Furthermore, electromagnetic waves are also part of the phenomenal world, not the noumenal world, but the cause for the existence of electromagnetic waves is in the noumenal world. You are right that the phenomenal world must be derived from the noumenal world and therefore must be of the same substance. It is precisely because of this that we are able to think about the noumenal world. But the "things in themselves" remain accessible only by thinking about it, we cannot experience them in any other way than this. So "things in themselves" are transsensual. They do not fall into our horizon of experience and do belong to the noumenal world. But we can think and talk about them, because they are not transgnostic. If they were transgnostic, then we wouldn't even know they existed. So Kant was absolutely right. The noumenal world continues to remains unknown to us for our senses, even if we know that it exists (and must exist). There is no way around that. I am sorry. But nice video though of at least presenting Kant short and quick (even if there were a few errors in there). Not many are able to do that.

[HRTK]

Why is the mirror in the background broken ?