Respect, dude. I've been previewing several different lectures on the Groundwork to find a supportive resource for my dad. Your treatment of the preface is much better than the other options I've found so far and clearly indicates you know what you are talking about.

@MatthewLampert

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, thanks very much for that! I tend to feel like Kant is one of the best challenges one can find, for teacher and reader alike.

Thank you so much ! You explain eloquently and concisely ! I'm looking forward to more videos .

Best video on the Preface to the Groundwork, hands down.

Well done, very helpful

This is great!

Thx. That was very helpful indeed 👍

Thanks this is great! Do you have a video in chapters 1-3 as well?

@MatthewLampert

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, thanks! I have posted two videos about the first section (chapter 1). They are here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/m6xqtZWMlNuWgMY.html (Focuses on the first sentence of section 1) kzread.info/dash/bejne/pWmlpbNykq_Nj9I.html (Overview of the main argument of section 1) And I'm hoping to have some videos on the second section up over the next few weeks!

I hate Ethics so much but this video makes it a little more bareable

@barbaradonohue4822

2 жыл бұрын

Right there with you.

This might be a stupid question, and if you answered it in the video please forgive me as this was despite it being well explained a bit complicated. But why does Kant think ethics or the laws of freedom have to contain an a priori part? What proof does he provide for this claim? Thanks for your time, and have a great day!

@MatthewLampert

3 жыл бұрын

It's not a stupid question at all--and you're right, it's not one that really gets answered in the Preface! Kant will spend a lot more time on that issue in the book itself (and therefore I'll spend more time on it in my videos on Sections 1 and 2), but in brief, let me put it this way: You can't determine what OUGHT to happen empirically. All that you can ever observe is what DOES happen. And just because it's true, doesn't mean it's (morally) good--and just because it's morally good, doesn't mean it's true! If it makes sense to put it that way, then ethics will HAVE to have an "a priori" part. But the "proof," then, as you say, is strictly transcendental/philosophical--it's a matter of making sense of what we mean when we talk about ethics...

@MrHippyskater

3 жыл бұрын

@@MatthewLampert thank you do much for your answer, it makes more sense now. Have a good day

But what is the end that Kant sees in the universal law? ?? To me it seems to be just fine life in society.

@MatthewLampert

3 жыл бұрын

He really doesn't get into it much--especially here in the preface. I personally tend to think that, if taken seriously, Kantian morality has the potential to really shake up the status quo (and so it's not simply a call to live a "normal life" in society, the way that classical stoicism was). But I think that a more important way to answer your question might be like this: The "end" or "goal" of universal law isn't OUTSIDE (in the world; "fine life in society"), but is rather INSIDE. It's moral perfection; living up to "who I ought to be." It's my humanity, my rational nature, that is the "end in itself"; not society or even happiness.

"pure cocaine", thanks!

To me it seems “All cats are mammals” is an analytic a priori judgment, not empirical. Which is to say that the concept “mammal” is contained within the concept “cat”. We know that the judgment is true simply by understanding what the word “cat” means, not by reference to some particular state of affairs in the world. I think “A cat is a lizard” is much like “A circle is a polygon” - inconceivable. A better example for an empirical judgment would be something like “All cats have black hair”. We would need to check the world to see whether it’s true or false. Am I wrong here?

@MatthewLampert

Жыл бұрын

Ah! Thanks for this--it's a great question! What you've said certainly explains why, if somebody said to you that they thought cats were reptiles, you might say, "I don't think you really understand what a cat is!" But here are a couple of important things: First off, we haven't just declared cats to be mammals by fiat or by definition; how do we KNOW that cats are mammals? There are empirical grounds for this claim--in other words, that cats, the animals we actually encounter in the world, have the right features to be (correctly) classified as mammals. That said, once we've identified some such species (felis catus), the question "Is this thing in front of me 'a cat'?" IS a matter of applying a pre-given category/identifier, in much the same way that "Is this shape in front of me a circle?" is. But UNLIKE the case of cats, "circles" have no empirical BASIS. A true circle is a geometic definition; everything we can know about circles is something we can learn just by studying the IDEA of a circle. Everything we know about the mammalian nature of cats, by contrast, is something we have had to discover within some actual creature in the world. Does this make sense of the distinction? It's a great question, thanks!

@tylerhulsey982

Жыл бұрын

@ Matthew Lampert thanks for the reply. I see the distinction you’re making. I just thought analyticity was about the meaning of concepts and not necessarily their origin. No doubt everything we know about cats has an empirical origin. But I would say the same holds true for “bachelors” in the classic example of an analytic a priori judgment “All bachelors are unmarried men”. The content of this judgment has an empirical basis, the institution of marriage and actual creatures in the world (i.e. men), yet it is still not justified empirically. Even if all men were to have gotten married yesterday, the judgment about bachelors would still be true. Likewise, if all cats were to have died yesterday, the judgment “All cats are mammals” would still be true. The point I’m trying to make is that once a concept is formed (empirically), we can arrive at its definition a priori just by drawing out what’s contained within it. And you will find “being a mammal” included in most dictionary entries for “cat”. Am I completely off base here?

@MatthewLampert

Жыл бұрын

@@tylerhulsey982 This is great, and you're not off base here at all! The simplest answer to your question is that Kant has a very restrictive (and, ultimately, not completely thought-out) understanding of "analytic" judgments. The meaning of "unmarried male" is contained within "bachelor" in a way that "mammal" isn't contained in "cat"--this is to say that, if you don't know that a bachelor is an unmarried male, then you just don't understand the word "bachelor." But if you don't know that a cat is a mammal, it's not clearly the case that you just don't know what a cat is! The slightly longer answer to your question, though, is that you've hit upon (I think) exactly the thread which, if followed, starts to unravel the "analytic/synthetic" distinction completely. Because if science is helping us to identify properties of objects in the world, then the claims of science seem to be true about those objects in a way that isn't merely "accidental." So, for example, you could say: "Well, if you don't know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (at sea level), then you don't really know what water is!" And in this way, you can watch analytic (which should be to say: a priori) judgments slowly consume ALL scientific (which should be to say: empirical) knowledge...

@tylerhulsey982

Жыл бұрын

@Matthew Lampert Okay I’m now seeing where I went wrong in my thinking. Thanks for the detailed responses. I really appreciate your videos.