These lectures have been a great help to cement things as I read through the Prolegomena.

Great teacher. Thank you. Now following a course on Kant at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and it helps to see different experts talk about this topic. Also, your interaction with the students is very respectful. When students say something, you admit it when you do not know the answer, and you really use what they say.

I really appreciate all your annotations that clarify things (e.g. the actual meaning of the Transcendental "Aesthetic"). Much appreciated.

@stuarthicks2696

2 жыл бұрын

E man I’m

Thank you for helping me teach my class!

Your lectures are brilliant: to me your method seems to take a ladder approach to help us grasp hard ideas: give us an easy ladder (e.g. flower drawing), and the throwing away the false ladder (or training wheels) when we are at the top. How wonderful that I can watch as non-student amateur on the other side of the world.

Great stuff, love contrasting what I've learned in my own lectures with the way you describe things.

Professor, I know a lot of people have said this, but I would also like to display my appreciation of your lectures on KZread. They have helped me the last year or two while I work through Philosophy. I'm in my final semester at the University of Northern Iowa and I do like my professor's lectures, but they aren't always clear and I feel that I sometimes get lost along the way. Your no-nonsense relatable approach has been extremely helpful in clarifying and navigating through the philosophers. I hope you continue, especially if you teach other courses!

Thanks for posting these! Your lectures are great and extremely helpful! You explain everything so well.

Your class makes it very easy to grasp, I appreciate the work you do. Sometimes it's hard to learn from a professor who doesn't care. It can be stressful. Your videos reminds me philosophy is my passion. Thank you

Love this. Thank you so much

I’m president for the phil club at my Uni! I’ll be reaching out! 😍✨

Your lectures are great, I love how clear you are! Please keep on posting more videos. Thank you for all of the ones that you did post! I have one question: how would you explain Kant's argument that space and time are products of the mind? You said that if we started stripping all sense-qualities of our experiences, we would be left with time and space (as we can't imagine no space or no time), but why can't space and time simply be a feature that all empirical data share? That would explain why I can't imagine anything without them. So why can't those be products of experience as well? My concept of space could be a result of empirical evidence by observing that there's always a distance between all objects, and the sum total of all possible distances is space.

Thank you!

Great lecture.. thank you it’s very helpful

Mr. Rosenfeld, I do have trouble hearing some of the conversations happening between you and the students, and students to ask questions that matters. So, is there a way for you make the students' voices louder? By the way, very helpful videos.

@adamrosenfeld9384

5 жыл бұрын

I'm definitely looking into it. All attempts to increase the volume of the student microphones thus far have resulted in way too much ambient noise throughout the whole video. Perhaps someday I'll have the time and tools to sit down and mix multitrack audio for these videos. Thanks for the suggestion.

@karenjenkins2179

5 жыл бұрын

@@adamrosenfeld9384, maybe if you repeat the student's questions first and then answer it?? that might help?

What is the phenomena of a number?

I always interpreted his use of the term Copernican to describe his methodology or his way of describing his technique of shifting perspectives. Not him stating that he is ushering in a Copernican revolution in Metaphysics.

Aside from your wonderful exposition thank you for not mispronouncing Kant and apriori

27:19 bookmark

What is the difference between Kant's metaphysics of nature and metaphysics of moral?

@adamrosenfeld9384

5 жыл бұрын

Kant goes into this a bit in the Preface to his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (the text: www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf our class's discussion of that text: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gWqezLOyoqa-o7Q.html) Moral inquiry (whether pure or empirical) concerns that which can be otherwise due to human capacity for choice. Natural inquiry (pure or empirical) concerns all those things that fall outside of choice and freedom - or as Aristotle put it, that which cannot be other than it is. Metaphysics of nature handles the pure inquiry into questions about what "is/was/will be" the case. Metaphysics of morals handles the pure inquiry into questions about what "ought to be."

@user-xp9jc4gl3q

5 жыл бұрын

@@adamrosenfeld9384 this is a huge help, Professor Rosenfeld. Thank you so much for making me understand more about the difference of the two.

The body is noumena .. Surely.. The symbol should say mind or I

I'm struggling to grasp what it is about the pure intuitions that makes them synthetic. I can see how synthetic knowledge or concepts or mathematics can derive from the intuitions of space and time, but how are these intuitions themselves synthetic?

@adamrosenfeld9384

3 жыл бұрын

This is a really good question. I reckon I'd start answering it by noting that it seems even more difficult (for me, at least) to think of the forms of all outer & inner sense as *analytic.* Is there something about the very concept of outer-sense that requires it be organized spatially, the way that the concept of bachelor requires that a bachelor be unmarried? Is there something about the concept of inner-sense that requires it be organized temporally? My sense is "no," but I'd be very curious to hear the reasoning someone might offer for why we might think of these things as known analytically.

@kylenelson3391

2 жыл бұрын

@@adamrosenfeld9384 that helped to clarify my discomfiture! Really excellent lectures, Dr Rosenfeld, thank you

I hate it when lecturers assert something and then say, "I'm not going to explain this now" - so annoying! However other than that little quibble it's an interesting lecture series, so thanks.

@adamrosenfeld9384

5 жыл бұрын

I'm not so fond of it either. Unfortunately, we only have a semester, and there is a certain amount of content we're trying to cover in a limited amount of time. It's a balancing act of letting the discussion go where it organically goes and reigning it in to stick to the plan. Mentioning something that we'll discuss later is a way of priming the pump so that there's a bit of familiarity already when we are ready to dive deeper. And mentioning something that we never get around to digging deeper into gestures toward where students can continue independent study.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@@adamrosenfeld9384 Sure, it's just that I would have liked to hear your explanation regarding Kant's description of himself as an "empirical realist and transcendental idealist". No worries though. Thanks for the lectures, great work!

@adamrosenfeld9384

5 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 That's a fair enough criticism. I'll make a special effort to include a more thorough treatment of this in future versions. Thanks for the feedback.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@@adamrosenfeld9384 Thanks for the lectures :)

UPSC anyone??

Philosophy ended with Kant. Everything since has been navel-gazing.

@adamrosenfeld9384

7 жыл бұрын

Surely this is a wild exaggeration.

@JohnVKaravitis

7 жыл бұрын

Hey Adam. No, it's the honest-to-God's truth. In fact, if you think about it, all philosophy eventually devolves into nihilism. All Roads Lead To The Void.

@pjeffries301

6 жыл бұрын

John Karavitis may be employing a bit of hyperbole, but no one has come close to Kant in terms of influence. I find it so funny when reading a philosopher who has clearly never read Kant - it is so obvious, and inexcusable. Required reading. thx J.

@Oners82

5 жыл бұрын

@@JohnVKaravitis "No, it's the honest-to-God's truth." It's not the truth, it is just the opinion of a philosophically illiterate idiot who is trying to deny 250 years of philosophical progress. And even if for the sake of argument one accepts your cretinous assertion that all philosophy leads to nihilism, that in no way supports your assertion that philosophy ended with Kant. It is a blatant non sequitur.