Introduction to Kant's Incredible Critique of Pure Reason (see text box for recommended readings)

In loving memory of Lawrence Pasternack (1967-2024): a great teacher, person, and Kantian Scholar.
This video combines 4 of my videos I created many years ago so the viewer can have complete access to the introduction to Kant's Critique.

Recommended Books (Amazon Affiliate/paid Links) As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Recommended Books (Amazon Affiliate Links)
I would start the study of Kant with a relatively short introduction in

I. Philosophy for beginners
I recommend starting (or continuing) your study of philosophy with the following three clear, entertaining, accurate, and insightful books.

II. Good Introductions to Ethics
(buy an earlier and chapter edition)

III. Some Great Books

IV. Logic

[muhiptezcan]

the way you explain Kant is just phenomenal

[andrewrivas]

So glad I found this video. Thank you!

[adnansheikh]

Thankyou so much for the video and the book recommendations,
for a beginner like me it is certainly a life saver

[ctsykyp]

> green spectacles

We all have a nose, but usually we [sub]consciously ignore it. It takes an effort to see it.

> idea of space and time

There are things we call space and time. Maybe they are not how they seems to be (non-Newtonian), so what? It is useful so it kinda mirror the world.

> we cannot know reality in itself

We cannot fully know it, but we can get closer and closer to it (as in parabola graph).

> we can never transcend our spectacles

Why? We use simple signals to reconstruct complex things. As in computer - 0 and 1, as in language - just 26 letters.

> they aren't real or ultimate knowledge

They are proximate enough to work. "If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?"

> divided

It seems better to see it as seeing multiple objects through muddy glass. You see the picture, but not in a details.

> objects conform to the mind

Again: we see smth in Universe, and separate this part as an object. Separation may be wrong, but it is part of the world, one way or another.

So object belongs to the world, even if borders of it is made by us.

> looking at spectacles

Ultimately, it is memory. Take it away - and you get an animal, there wouldn't even been an understanding of mortality.

> space and time must be a priori intuition

But we have relativity theory. We became transcendent? If we use spacetime other way than neanderthals?

> 10:05 "How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?"

"I can separate my senses to channels and compare it to previous memory to see the patterns and name them properly"?

> 11:00 Forms of experience

Eyesight and hearing are forms of experience. Space and time are the world properties. Sometimes processes seems longer or shorter, so we relate on a clock. Same with space - we need metric system, it is not not built-in.

Maybe, there an idea of possible space and time? Maybe, but where is the proof? What if we learned it as a children? As gravity for example?

> they must be in the spectacle

"I cannot imagine other ways of thinking". Experience shape our knowledge. If there was a child switched in a matrix in early age, we can create a human being without space and time ideas. Or, otherwise, with many different spaces and times. Why not?

Type, for eg, "Guugu Yimithirr language" to see guys who know no right and left. _pick up that item with your west-facing hand_

Again: may be Kant is right, but is it "real ultimate knowledge", or just another hypothesis?

> implies representation of space

Representation of a dog is an a priori knowledge. Cause if we know dogs on a previous experience, it implies we already separate dog experience and non-dog experience.

Otherwise: we see patterns in our sight, they go bigger and smaller. When we start to crawl and then walk, we see things get bigger when we move to them. It includes separation "world" and "me", but everything other follows. Space starts as a relation and ends as a concept.

> we cannot think of an absence of space

I cannot imagine endless space either. So what? Is it "basic fundamental real knowledge"? Maybe just lack of imagination, which is not even slightly changes usual experience?

> 12:00 So space is the condition

Non sequitur fallacy - it does not follow. I cannot imagine my non-existence, and easily imagine my corpse after my death - so does it really mean I have an immortal soul and afterlife?

> psychological ... transcendental

One way OR another.

> how to have objects without space

How to see married bachelors? It presupposed for idea of an object. But if I ask: where is internet located? On which atom your conscious starts?

Or: I have a JSON object on a flash, it takes space on device, but is it really "space"?

If we take idea of space as a possibility of something to be, a room - it means just possibility, variations. I can even find a name of an article "The American Public and the Room to Maneuver: Responsibility Attributions and Policy Efficacy" - in this sentence space (room) means... Time!

In fact, physical space is what we can change while time is what we destined to move forward.

> but not all cars have to be in one big car

If space is a possibility of an object... Yes, possibilities can be added or multiply - to get a common probability.

> within itself

Russell's paradox? If something is (un)imaginable, is it true?

> I can always extend

Spherical geometry. There is maximum length of a straight line on a sphere. Why are you so sure? What if Universe is not flat?

> left and right

Great philosopher! Transcendental knowledge.

> if intuition is necessary to experience

No, it is not. How we see the Mercury orbit, if we did not know space-time relations? We just see it, and then came with the theory. Ok, too much for me!

* * *

I had a cat. When it got bigger, it liked go outside or sit on a window inside the kitchen. But I would never forget the time of spring, when I just opened the window and throw it down. It was a first floor... And revelation: it goes five times through door and window and door again... World you see in window and world outside the door - they are connected! It is the same space!

* * *

Thanks for your video, but Kant is definitely sucks.

[saodome]

it is very useful and I am really grateful for that but I think if words are typed rather than handwrite is better

[briandavid]

your video attempts a good representation of a representation of understanding kant.
However, to get at an intuitive understanding of Kant's transcendental idealism, one must necessarily read Kant himself.

[leoyuanluo]

I think Kant is actually intuitive. Time is an arbitrary man-made table of change. It’s kind of absurd to claim that time is anything outside of our mind.