Dude, your videos are just great! Keep them coming!!!

Great lecture professor. Thank you.

Just great!

Great lecture! Thank you!

Wouldn’t it be simpler to analyse how objective judgements are made by explaining that subjective, stand-alone, true from my point of view, particular cognitions need a pure cognitive concept in order to attain objective value? This is how Kant is laying it out in the book.

Reminder for myself: 55:00 ,the thinking self

At 12:15 i think you mistakenly say transcendental instead of transcendent as the opposite of imminent. At least in the translation of the Prolegomena that I own, imminent is defined as whatever stays within its jurisdiction and transcendent as whatever oversteps it’s boundaries and becomes over-empirical. The term transcendental is saved for the characterisation of the project of the book, as the acknowledgement of the existence of things in themselves and their simultaneous dismissal because even our logical concepts only work to complete our cognitive concepts, which are rooted in experience and the inner workings of our mind.

Why do perceptions have to be causally connected to noumena at all (ie why must noumena exist for phenomena to be percieved / how can we say anything meaningful about their existence or non-existence)? Wouldn't the answer to this question be presupposing that the concepts of experience are applicable to noumena transcendentally, a sort of claim which Kant denies has any meaning?

Thank you! Very helpful discussion.

Thank you so much for this! Helped me a lot

Is someone else annoyed when that one student says "like" for the thousandth time every other word?

I really wish this Professor held questions to a very minimum. They really don’t help and just confuses things. Some students just say things to sound smart.

Empirical realism and transcendental idealism: What does it mean? 11:00

When you answered the lady around the 54 minutes, you have used logic as a concept to attribute equal value to a "mind of the same kind". So, unless logic can also be "noumenic", there is no way to determine whether Kant or Descartes has a better proposition. I still have to go through the book, but for me it seems like Kant was answering to someone's short judgement (Hume's) other than enlightening the world with the Newest Copernican Revolution. I find it strangely necessary to confirm the world itself is full of "atomism"... but at the same time, just knowing this, won't resolve problems as they are. If anything, this could paradoxically find us more "problematic" in the universal state of things (noumenologically or phenomenologically). In fact, maybe, our brain, this ultimate systematically prepared phenomenological apparel is like the deadest of ends.

@alexpalomino8947

3 жыл бұрын

Pls, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Kant has an invalid proposition.