Kant's Transcendental Idealism
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism.
Part of the Philosophy of Perception, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism takes the belief that an addition to the five senses being mind dependent, space and time are both functions of the human intuitions. Space and time do not exist outside the human mind, but are merely functions of the human mind to allow us to order and process the external world.
Watch as George and John explain the theory in depth and discuss the metaphysical challenges.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe “Philosophy of Perception” eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPL6P4
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPL6P4
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPL6P4
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPL6P4
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPL6P4
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPL6P4
- The Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Grab some Philosophy Vibe merchandise: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:31 - Direct Realism, Indirect Realism & Idealism recap
1:56 - Transcendental Idealism explained
3:52 - Appearances vs Things in Themselves
6:16 - Phenomena vs Noumena
8:29 - The continuity problem
11:22 - The Veil of Perception problem
#Kant #transcendentalidealism #philosophy #kantphilosophy
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe “Philosophy of Perception” eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QPL6P4
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QPL6P4
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QPL6P4
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QPL6P4
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QPL6P4
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QPL6P4
- The Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
But matter existed before humans. As we see galaxies that are older. but because they existed before us (key word before) there must have been a time (change) before us. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@ 10:22 , I would argue that, a portion of one’s mind has been dedicated to the action lighting said candle.
We are partially the makeup of our, ideas, actions, beliefs, experiences and then some.
One could argue that, you acting on the object, in a kind of way binds you to; via the exchange of energy between.
You had to light the candle, that action has become a part of you, it doesn’t change just because it has left the very limited awareness we possess.
The scope of these debates heavily rely on the bounds and definitions related to; I live for these kinds of discussions.
I appreciate the time you put into the project sir, thanks a ton.
12:00 by painstaking “marking” the silhouette, of “reality” never truly settling into certainty.
There comes a kind of spectrum of possibilities that if we consider alongside its dual opposition; reality often lays between two opposing views.
None holds the truth, but together they may uncover a little more of the actual
The problem with Kants idealism is that what he calls the noumena includes the mind of others as they are outside his own mind. So his subjective idea that others mind operate same way as his is refuted by his own argument. That’s why his idealism itself looses ground in the end.
Personally, I think that there’s one noumena, and then every beings perception is a different phenomena, so that means there a billions, and including animals, trillions, of phenomena. I think it’s evident that people perceive the world differently from each other.
A colourblind person would experience colour very differently from a non-colourblind person. But even among non-colourblind ppl, we have no way of knowing if we all perceive colours the same. If you have two children and a teacher, and the teacher says “this bush is green”, then the children will call whatever colour they perceive the bush to be “green”, but we have no way of knowing if they’re seeing the bush as the same colour. If they were able to look at the other’s perception, maybe they’d recognize the bush as their blue. I think this also goes into culture and social constructs.
Say you have three people, person A, person B, and person C. C is a 5’4 woman. Person A comes from a society where the average height of women is 5’7, while B comes from a society where the average height for women is 4’9. While C is the same height, A would perceive C as short, while B would perceive her as tall.
Or like I’ve found that I very much see the world, especially peoples faces, by shape. Like my moms face is made of triangles, my brothers is made of triangles and squares, etc. But my mom doesn’t see the world this way. She may recognize people and the world in a completely different way than I do. So if I went into her perception, would I recognize the world? Would I recognize my own face?
That argument about the candle and continuity actually just confirms Kant’s theory. If you leave a room and return, the changed appearance of the candle is not a testimony to the actual candle but your mind’s perception of the candle in time. Again, what you perceive is not the object directly.
Kant's theory of transcendental idelaism has really peeked my interest into philosophy even more since I was forced to write a research paper over it. Your comment provided some clarity to me on one of my questions. However, what about the question of causality? In which for an object to change through cause and effect, it requires time. I somewhat understand that through logical thinking that our mind is capable of interpreting time, which is what makes it a part of intuition.
Do you, by chance, have any more insight you could provide over Kant's transcendental idelaism theory in reletivity to causality, or is that juat covered in what you already said. CAUSE IM BIG DUMBIE.😆
Yes but it is only true when we perceive the candle or in other words the change we observed but what about the change we never observed before but it still happened? or the mentally challenged people who perceive themselves to be kid yet still age?
@@AminTheMystic
That "Something true" is what he called phenomena and the "whole truth" (as the things actually are) is what he called noumena.
Ok, even assuming this is true, how does this reconcile the following scenario:
I light a candle, leave my room, and when I come back a few hours later, the fire had already gone out, but the candle is still there. When I come back, my perception should be that the candle is already finished, if the candle only exists causally in my mind. Unbeknownst to me, my mom had snuffed out the candle because she was worried about it setting the house on fire. This could only happen if time and space are real and she could causally interact with it, since it exists outside my mind. Otherwise, she would be interacting with my mind, right?
I’ve not actually studied the topic, so my questions might sound stupid.
@_-nexus-_6257 time does not exist outside of the mind. What is actually happening to the candle is change, can we perceive and make sense out of change using the sensation of time. It's a way of making sense of the world; the candle is now different therefore time has happened, but of course in reality time has not happened, the candle has merely undergone change.
This is so epic, love the debate part which really shows the educational nature of the video.
Thank you :)
Same here. Other channels just explain all the arguments for the idea. But I want the best arguments for and against the idea. Makes it so much easier to understand. Love this channel!
I only wish philosophers would use good examples for the support of their thoughts, like the candle!
Same. I think debates like this format are essential to further understand. It's essential.
Love the video! Just a small nitpick in the beginning: I don’t think Kant states that Space and Time do not exist outside the mind. He instead would point out that Space and Time are among the conditions of the possibility of OUR experience because it is impossible to know/experience anything without them. Our phenomena are Space and Time dependent; the noumena on the other hand can be of the same exact look and temporality-we just don’t know this because we necessarily are limited to our experience/perception. That’s what’s called the Veil of Perception or the Transcendental Problem: what is certain other than experience-itself and how can one express that the noumena exist when by definition we can’t know it?
Kant used determinism for example. One can rationalize that everything is causa and effect, but we cannot analyze the entire reality to realize that, due to our limitations of perceptions. Pure reason towards proving determinism is impossible. A sort of ‘belief reason’ on the other hand, which science needs to function, is all ok so long as we are conscious of our belief in such a noumenal reality and our condition of relegation to phenomenal reality. Why do we assume that the candle is still burning after we look away from it? Simply because we adopt a noumenal belief in the world outside of experience. Interestingly, babies who have not yet developed object permanence would find this unfathomable.
Many philosophers tried to solve the transcendental problem including Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Foucault; though as of right now I do think they just reorder logic and conceptions to hide the simple fact that experience is all that is ‘certain’. If you see a ghost, the ghost might not be ‘real’, but your ‘seeing image’ of the ghost is entirely ‘real’.
I do have to dive more into Kant’s work though. All with a grain of salt of course!
same thing with causality too right? in response to Humes
@@elijah6342 Yup! Causality is actually probably the better term to use here because causality implies a deterministic reality. I remember the three big ideas that Kant addresses with his theory are Causality, God, and Free Will. All noumenal, yet practically essential beliefs. There could be more, but those are what I remember from The Critique.
@@dinojoe1788 awesome. I'm learning about Hegel at the moment. very dense. cant say I'm a fan
No, he never says that they don't exist outside of the mind, but he does say that we can't know whether they exist noumenally. Space and Time cannot be given by sense perceptions, therefore they are provided by us to perceptions for there to be experience. He also rails against the Newtonian perspective of Space and Time as "things" that exist outside perception
There's this quote from the deduction where Kant says that the pure forms of intuition are synthesized by the pure transcendental operations of the mind from the material provided by original receptivity (sensibility). Seems to point as them being a function of the configuration of the senses
This is truly an amazing video. I was startled by how good it is made. The debate was spot on, and very accurate.
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed :)
amazing video. genuinely one of the most helpful explanations i have seen of anything, ever.
Thank you! Glad this helped :)
Best explanation of Kant’s transcendental idealism I’ve seen yet. Great job!
Thank you :)
It's always a bliss to read about KANT!! And you made it ease for me to understand his subtle terminology and Philosophy! Thanks mate 👍!!
A pleasure, thanks for watching.
Immanuel Kant was a Robot.Completely mechanical machine.He did not have feelings.This comes from me after doing my masters in political science.
Oh yeah i got it òn acid, we got gloves with degrees and the moon will come right up to you and sit in your backyard
@@mohitdalal9238 kinda agree with you. How the heck did he able to write 700 pages long book?
Ok here is my response:
I reconcile the time/space candle argument by the simple insistence that noumena have shape and motion. The human conception of time doesn't have to be real for objects to move, we need only see that movement is an object + two or more locations and see location as being the set of static distances from one object to all other objects
Therefore the candle melting is merely the noumena moving and thus changing shape, but time hasn't passed and there is no future or past, the 12 o'clock is only a clock arm having moved, the Sun setting is merely the motion of the Earth rotating, and the seasons changing is the motion of Earth revolving around the Sun, and so on.
For veil of perception, even a brain in a jar exist within a jar. "I think therefore I am" and existence necessitates a greater reality of some kind because something can't exist within itself, something exist within a reality. Even if we can not directly perceive things as they are (and science says we can't) things ARE simply because *nothing* can't (or should I say Kant?) *be.*
Let me know what you think.
Been waiting for this. Thanks Charles and John...
Pleasure, hope you enjoyed :)
@@PhilosophyVibe you can bet I did. You guys have really added to my knowledge bank.
finally ! I was struggling through this very important idea
It's solved by causality
such a cool instructional video, thank you for making it make sense... subbed!
Thanks for the sub, glad you enjoyed!
Thanks for the upload .
A pleasure, thanks for watching.
best channel for western philosophers.... love from India...thanks a lot...
Thank you!!!
this is why I like Kant. A great video
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
This channel is so perfect, thank you
You're welcome, thank you for watching, glad you like the content.
The concluding remark raises a compelling point. After studying direct realism and indirect realism for some time, I've found myself to be an indirect realist. I've written about it quite extensively. I am drawn to this line of thinking from my contemplation on how information undergoes distortion as it traverses through the complexities of the mind, resulting in perceptions that may diverge from the actual object. The final assertion is a good point, as it holds true that our understanding seems confined to the veil and anything beyond that is mere speculation. Though, my own interpretation of indirect realism is that the outside world is totally unknowable, which I have since found that this is phenomenalism. I do hope that direct realism is true, but we can't seem to get away from the mind's interpretation of reality.
Furthermore, as a Christian, I'm compelled to consider how my worldview may apply to this. It's possible that my faith posits a direct perception of the world. Perhaps God would give us a direct view of his creation so that we can see it directly.
So, it is a hard one.
Thanks🙏 you made this very easy
About the question of the burning candle. When a person sees the burning candle, that candle exists in the real world, burning or not. It exists as a noumena, but that person sees only the appearance of the burning candle as a phenomena. Regardless of whether that person leaves the room or stays in it, the candle continues to exist burning. Thus, the human mind will see it burn as a phenomena if he stays in the room or it will continue to burn if he decides to leave. In either case, the unobserved burning candle does not invalidate Kant's Transcendental Idealism.
on saying you need time for causality:
the Nobel prize in physics 2022 was awarded to 3 scientists who show the universe is not locally real by 2 unrelated particles being affected by one another.
In other words, information can be shared at a distance without temporally restricted data like light and therefore time to bridge the gap.
In more other words, you can be affected by more than just your immediate, “real”, surroundings, giving credence to kants assertion that there exists a world of things in and of themselves that we cannot know, and we can only know what we perceive through the filter of intuition.
That was an awesome script, such a good debate :)
Thank you!
Excellent summary and the objections are very good and thorough.
Thank you!
I have a test on this tmr. im now fighting for my life to understand this bc my teacher does not explain it quite well. this channel is saving me
Great discussion; thank you!
Pleasure, glad you enjoyed.
You guys are live saver. Thank you!
Pleasure, thanks for watching.
My issue against Kant's epistemology is that it's foundationalist.
Please do a video on Fraassen's empirical stance.
I'm reading Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Although he can write with prolixity I love the challenge of extracting the germane and cogent arguments. This video explains a key concept of the book effectively and with clarity.
It's an interesting way to present. Feeling I'm not the one the speaker is speaking to. Thanks for the video!
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
Well done. Thanks!
You're welcome!
The problem with the continuity problem is it's supported by causation. For Kant, causation is a transcendental concept to UNDERSTAND what we have perceived and to make knowledge. Actually, it's into the subject, too.
But matter existed before humans. As we see galaxies that are older. but because they existed before us (key word before) there must have been a time (change) before us. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@@raz6630 You're right. However, the problem is not that matter exists (at any time), but rather how matter is, and why it is that way. And, to answer these questions, it's necessary to use transcendental concepts (which are not part of matter, but the subject uses them to give an explanation of matter). Causality is a transcendental concept, and any explanation about time that involves causality necessarily comes from the subject. In summary, in order to give an explanation of the material world, we need transcendental concepts, and by using them in matter, we no longer study reality in-itself, but rather reality for-consciousness, that is, a model of reality.
Very beautifully explained
Thank you!
The obviously stoned dude made a total turnaround later in the video, I'm impressed.
Fantastic work
Thank you!
On One hand I agree with Kant. Its true that we transcribe things in our mind when we doesnt see but just think about them. But on the other hand I dont agree with him that we never can know the noumenos. Because ıf we really couldnt know things themself we could not know they are really exist to. So thats why we couldn't know anything. Also I think doing ontology depends on accepting that the reality of things are knowable. By the way thanks for the video. Its really well-prepared and I really enjoy it.
Kant basically created a wall which no one manages to jump over but he claims that he jumped over
Nah, he just says it’s there. It’s a limiting principle
Schopenhauer claims to have jumped over it.
💀
Me when I never read Kant but lazily make an opinion anyway
All is mind
Excellent presentation.
Thank you!
" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day.
One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?”
He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.”
A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.”
The woman asked, “About what?”
He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.”
The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing.
It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same.
One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.”
But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.”
The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.”
He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."
The causation argument is an interesting critique of transcendental idealism, but seems to me to be answered by Kant’s theory itself. After all, if time and space are sensory tools that generate the perception of the Ding an sich or thing-in-itself, then it is necessarily the case that we would perceive a temporal change in the essential object by perceiving it through the temporal sense, for that is the very mechanism by which the temporal sense generates perception: temporally. In other words, the argument that the Ding-an-sich must change because we perceive a change is simply the argument that there is no distinction between noumenon and phenomenon: there is no metaphysical binary, and I know this because I experience the phenomenon and know it to accurately reflect the noumenon. Well, how? How can you know that your perception is, in fact, reality? We might as well say the sky IS blue, as though that were an essential property of the sky simply because we perceive it as blue. But to a colour blind person with an inability to see blue the sky is grey. Their perception of the sky is different to mine, and yet they still have a perception of the sky regardless of its lack of blue-ness. Similarly many creatures who see colours beyond the range of human perception will perceive the objects of the world quite differently to us in terms of their colour properties, and yet those objects continue to be perceived by us as one colour. We call the perception of different frequencies of light blue or red or green, etc. but that does not make them that perception, they are simply frequencies of light and we might think of an alien species that hears sound frequencies as colour and sees light frequencies as variations in pitch. Would that fundamentally change the Ding an sich? No; it has not changed, only the perception has changed.
In the same way when we think of the aliens in Arrival who experience time very differently to us, that does not mean that the universe is essentially different because of their existence, it merely reminds us that our temporal perception is not reflective of the intrinsic properties of the essence of the universe. As you say, modern science’s theories of time dilation (and we might also think of quantum theory and the idea of cause and effect not displaying the kind of relationship we expect) support the idea of transcendental idealism. It is not that temporality has no validity as a sense: just as the eye senses frequencies of light so the temporal sense senses cause and effect relationships. But cause and effect relationships are not themselves time. Time is the meaning we construct out of the information relayed to our mind by the temporal sense, and no more proves that time as we perceive it is accurate as the existence of an eye and the perception of a colour proves the accuracy of colour perception.
I would add one further point which is that we tend to assume that because our perception is consistent (i.e. the unclouded sky is always blue or the candle always burns down whether I watch it or not) that therefore the object is consistent. This does not follow. Consistency of perception is necessary to the construction of meaning and therefore any perception we have is necessarily going to be consistent. We miss the point here in the same was as when we ask: why am I so special to have this gift of consciousness? No non-conscious thing can ask this, so the special quality we believe ourselves to have is fallacious because it *requires* consciousness to ask the question in the first place. Similarly we ask: how can the world not be consistent if we consistently perceive it as consistent? When any perception in order to be meaningful has to be consistent as opposed to random and chaotic. Perception itself is an ordering and meaning-imbuing process so naturally it makes the world appear consistent.
Ergo, we do not know anything about the true essence of anything that requires perception to perceive it, and to use perceptions as evidence of essence does not strengthen the realist argument but undermines it.
As for the pure idealism argument of how do we know the Ding an sich exists at all - yes, this is a much stronger question and its logical conclusion is, according to Žižek, the vanishing mediator that brings us to the absolute idealism of Hegel: Kant’s metaphysics are not wrong per se, but they are incomplete and require Hegel’s theory of Spirit (reason coming to know itself as reason which makes Being absolute) in order to make the existence of the Ding an sich consistent with the theory of idealism.
You present the two criticisms as both valid, and yet the causation argument of Hume is what Kant was responding to, whereas it is the limitations of Kant’s transcendental idealism that lead to the absolute idealism of Hegel, so the two critiques of Kant are not equally valid as causation is not a critique of Kant but a problem that Kant endeavours to solve with this very theory.
Well said.
Forget this obssession with "true essence". There's no ontological difference between the "true nature/essence" (wesen) of a thing and its appearance (schein). The truth of an object is in its coming-to-be, a paradoxical intermediate state between being and nothing.
God sent 🥰😍thank you soooo much guys kant confused me but you guys made me understand his concepts
Glad we could help 😀
3:53 Time is a tool made to describe an observation, not a consequence of an observation. We observed that moment's pass and decided to keep track of that and call it time and develop the system to measure it. How does a day fit within 24 hours? We defined a day as 24 hours. We could have measured it or counted it any other way we wanted to. This reminds me of the puddle who finds himself in a pothole and says this pothole perfectly fits me. It must have been made for me.
Kant does not say that space and time do not exist outside of experience. He says that we cannot know for sure. Huge difference.
Wow this is good, I'm watching this at 1a.m
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!
You're welcome!
This was great 👍
Thank you!
loved it
Thanks!
Thanks a lot for the videos! Really helps for preparing to my final exams.
You're welcome. Good luck in your exams.
great video!
Thank you.
Nice little channel to stumble upon
Hope you enjoy the content.
The world beyond our perception or the veil of perception can be theorized if it is a fact that time and space are apriori intuitions. Which Kant proved to be the case. It wasn’t something he garnered from looking at the outside world, it was the opposite. Looking at internal facts surrounding our experience of space and time
yes the candle is burning, so maybe there is some sort of continuity, or even some noumenal form of time, but a lot of our relationship to time is how we perceive it. For example, if you’re having fun, you experience time slower than you would if you were bored. So if two people lit a candle, and then the first person went partying with friends while the other person sat in a room and watched paint dry, and then in an hour they both came back to the room and the candle had melted half way, they both would have perceived that hour differently. For the first person, the hour went by very quickly, and therefore, the candle melted very quickly. For the second person, the hour went by incredibly slowly, and therefore, the candle melted incredibly slowly.
I also rly like @gensoustudio4703 ‘s comment
To help understand Kant then P D Ouspensky addresses this in his book Tertium Organum which is far easier to read and grasp than Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he introduces Transcendental Logic. Ouspensky's examples of the various dimensions is interesting. He also mentions the 4 stages of consciousness from the ancient indian school vendantin which lists
Tiyari (ecstasy), Deep sleep (wiithout Dreams), Sleep (dream State) and A waking state (our normal awake mode). We exist as part of a higher level (eg 4D) but are only able to experience a 3D world due to the limitations of our senses. What we see are only surfaces and a section of what in reality is multi dimensional which we perceive as Absurdities and Phenomena.The simplest analogy is Plato's allegory of the cave. If you can visualise yourself as the cave dwellor how would you react and how would see the world outside the cave. The culture shock would be intense, frightening, the stuff of nightmares, so you cannot or will be unable to pass over to another dimension(s) without being 'prepared' hence why all the ancients participated in rituals especially when folks were close to death. Our world is a construct (finite) but reality is infinite. Our life is just a section making birth and death the transitions, hence space and time are illusuary as there is only now.The big question is where do we go and from where. What are the forms and what if there are options what would they look like. Are we simply choosing vacation experiences or are we going through a school? Running Simulations? , and if we are reincarnating as some people theorise would you want to remember a past life especially if it was horrific?
Have a nice day everyone, Enjoy life and try to be the best version of your self. Each day is a brand new canvas and never fear the end as it is only a transition to something new.
The continuity problem is basically not accepting Hume's problem of induction. Also, existence is out of the topic, it is not an ontological issue but an epistemological one. You simply can't be sure that the canndle will melt to very last part of it, as it's possible that the flame goes out. Even if you insist with the term "Law", you'd just face the problem of induction again.
Both of these "issues" can be answered with the Neglected Alternative argument.
It's common to not see the impact Hume's work have on Kant's, i'd say it is that much of an impact that it basically enables him to go on and develop TI.
Great video
Thank you :)
Transcendental didn't mean going beyond, as this video claims. The traditional word for that was transcendent. The best book on transcendental idealism is the book on Schopenhauer by the great Brian Magee. The first two chapters. Magee was also a writer of novels and poems and he can take you really far into philosophy. Magee also warned that no one really understood Kant. Magee was friends with Karl Popper and he wrote in his autobiography that Popper told him that even he (Popper) didn't understand Kant. Good look!
What is the name of the book ?
Terence meckena when taking mushroom the mushroom told him” what u call man we call time” and Hindus knew it long before Kant
U guys saving me fr
Glad we could help.
I think that since you started the candle, you created that continuity in your mind; since that is where time and space exist, you deposited that scenario and made it something real and continuous...if that makes sense
Beautiful presentation of ideas.
Problem here is multiple perceptions. If I started a candle and then left the room, then you went in and saw it melted, did I start that continuity in your mind? And if that’s true, then every action of every individual ever is continually starting continuities in everyone’s minds; so we’re basically all a strange hive mind? Unless we’re effectively in a computer simulation, where the unknowable things are the actual codes and assets of said simulation, then this theory just doesn’t make sense.
Cause and effect perhaps need not be temporal except in the mind, but could still be real as an eternal “happening”.
Amazinggggggg thank youuuu
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Continuity is an aspect of our experience of whatever noumena is. If I stayed and watched the candle, in the end it would look the same as it would if I left and later came back to it. Cause and effect is how we experience things in themselves, but that doesn't mean that things in themselves are independent of what we experience as time. In other words, time is how we participate in their actual existence, and it's no surprise that there is consistency.
Very impressive.
Thank you :)
What was this animated in? It's gorgeous.
How about ideal realism: what we perceive are other minds. One subjectivity perceives another subjectivity as an external object, but what exists in and of itself is only subjective experiences. But one could experience nothing were there not other existent mental states. The things in themselves are other existent mental states. An interface of mind(s).
I like the fact this is just two geezers discussing philosophy. makes it far more accessible as you use ordinary language to describe your thoughts
1:53 Subject and Object spreate is our basic knowing form , that's it is Idealism , The world as our representation and as ourselves, it's like when we look at ourself in the mirror.
PERFECT
Thank you!
Saying the time and space "stop existing" after we die is to say there is an after. Non existence has to exist never, and nowhere.
Great video, thank you, note to self(nts) watched all of it 12:43
Thank you, glad you enjoyed :)
FINALLY
I'm not a philosophy expert or even a formal student... just an average person watching these videos trying to learn about these different philosophies.
If I was to live my life as a transcendental idealist, what would it look like? I i.e. what is sleeping then? the will to get out of bed and go to work. How do I perceive my Job, family... By perception, I would also include, how would I be interacting with the space and objects around me?
One of my favorite philosophical channels. Honestly the idea of T Idealism remains me of Solipsism. They both sound interesting but kind of absurd
well, I don't think TI is absurd honestly.
It's essentially just setting out the necessary preconditions of experience that prevent epistemology from falling into Humean empiricism. Theses about things-in-themselves being unknowable just kind of follow from that.
Solipsisim is just a skeptical thesis about the existence of other minds. I'm not sure any real/significant philosophers endorsed it metaphysically.
@@2tehnik they’re both the same though by placing the mind primary and doubting anything else. Although idealism was disprove.
@@Darkloid21 > they’re both the same though by placing the mind primary and doubting anything else.
wdym doubting everything else? TI and Kant's project is very much anti-skepticism.
To somewhat repeat myself, it's about how the transcendental apparatus can secure to us firm knowledge regarding all possible experience in a way that evades Humean skepticism.
If anything I'm pretty sure a part of TI is supposed to show how Newtonian physics is a priori since it follows from intuitions and categories that are a priori.
So saying that it "doubts everything" just because it thinks mind/experience independent bodies are incoherent is extremely reductive.
> Although idealism was disprove.
How?
@@2tehnik reductive but accurate. Sounds to me like you’re splitting hairs with this one.
It doesn’t evade skepticism, it still falls prey to it. So long as everything is filtered through our senses (that includes reason and logic) it’s not out of skepticism.
So...yeah, they’re the same. I’m glad we don’t follow Kant on this.
@@Darkloid21 > It doesn’t evade skepticism, it still falls prey to it
wdym by skepticism?
> So long as everything is filtered through our senses (that includes reason and logic)
Where do you get this idea?
The whole point of the first critique is in part to establish the necessity of a priori elements for experience.
Kant *is not* an empiricist.
Kant is a brilliant
The problem with Kant is this: he takes the famous laws of nature for granted, especially the belief that they are constant. However, he does not demonstrate this hypothesis, which is based on common sense, and from it he builds his system. Therefore, his system is not consistent.
Regarding the continuity problem: i haven't read kant, but the explanation to this one is that time as we perceive it - a univrrsal, linear sequence of events - isn't actually what's happening. Which is actually correct, as per the theories of relativity.
What we call time is just a product of our senses, but the fact that things take place based on cause-and-effect, is not.
So basically, bro predicted the theory of relativity, at least going purely on what i understood as kant being presented as saying in this video lol
Phenomenal! Super easy to follow, and in a fun, engaging format too :) Thanks !!
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
Kant's idealism collapses because he tries to make the subject/object distinction metaphysical which it is not- it's a human perspective. Within one reality...both the external world and our perceptions ( physical interactions ) are objects.
I read Kant on my own many years ago without really understanding him...this video has simply made me understand him more clearly...yes, I think the object in itself which we cannot know as we only know what appears to be to us, cannot exist without space in itself...so contrary to Kant, space and time exist in the physical world outside of and we have inner and outer sense a priori within our minds as well by which we intuit time and space...am I right?
Thus is fascinating! Thank you! I can't help but wonder: Is there a theory of causality which claims causality is also a result of perception? And, when we record the history of the world and when we discover laws of physics do they refer to the phenomena or the noumena?
Physics is the map, not the territory, although people confuse the two (or fail to distinguish which they're referring to) basically 99% of the time. You can call physics the territory if you want, but then what is the map? The necessity of distinction is easier to understand in the case of mathematics: Math either refers to the language, or the relations therein referred. Personally I believe it's ignorant to even discuss the nature of the territory, outside of fun. Science in general makes no capital T truth claims, but rather evolves theories (models for nature) who's veracity is tested to various degrees and in various ways. Any discussion of what truly is is a matter of ontology, which is a metaphysic, not a physic.
And to your first point, yes, but then what caused perception if not causality itself, or perhaps perception itself, e.g., getting us nowhere.
I think Hume thought causality is a result of perception. That is, that the experience of causality is constructed by our minds.
@@anywallsocket I think the end of this video made the same point, that it's ignorant to even discuss or try to think about "things in themselves". It's an idea that is, by definition, permanently outside of any understanding, thus not a valid concept. They demolished the entire basis of Kant's philosophy in this video. And since the noumenal world is "a far reaching fantasy", there is no necessity of distinction. We can just dismiss it, along with other non-ideas like "the void".
@@davidste60 that’s a respectable and pragmatic take, with which I don’t fully agree. Firstly, it’s an old irony within philosophy to gripe about what can’t be known - ironic because it’s precisely the JOB of philosophy to articulate that border and its nuances. Secondly, one cannot simply ‘dismiss’ Kant’s transcendental idealism, since it’s an idealism after all, we won’t simply forget about it. And by “it” I of course mean the epistemological edge, and what may or may not lie beyond. It’s in our nature to wonder if we haven’t cornered ourselves, with words and definitions, rather than running into an ‘actual’ dead end.
Moreover I can think of at least one utility here off the cuff, namely in computer science and formal logic there is the notion of the ‘oracle’ which knows what cannot pragmatically be known. Coupled with Gödel’s ‘improvable truths’, there has been much theoretic progress in what these concepts mean about the topology of logic and its limits.
@@anywallsocket I didn't mean dismiss the idea of neumenons in the sense of forgetting about the theory, but in the sense of considering it invalid. To wonder about the limits of our minds is natural, to try to think about supposed things that are forever ungraspable by definition is closer to mental illness.
Casualty is not a product of perception. Perception is a product of casualty.
It would be better if you do your brilliant videos with subtitles..
The object the left guy made about idealism does work. According to general relativity, space time is always changing. We detected gravitational waves and observed gravitational lensing. If space changes shape while we are not looking, then how you explain it existing only in our minds?
great video, helped me out a lot. However, I did not understand justification of that space and time are human intuitions. You said because they are not thing in themselves and part of something else. Must they be like these not to be human intuitions?
Man, I love that coffee maker. Anybody have any idea what make it is? I'd like to buy one.
Great video! I always knew Kant was somehow wrong , now I have arguments😂
Staying along the lines of computers as an analogy we can see that the continuity issue isn’t actually an issue for Kant. Here’s the analogy: what we see on a computer screen is a phenomenon and the computing of ones and zeros is behind the scene noumena. A status bar showing the status of uploading a file would be analogous to a burning candle.
Say you’re uploading a large file to your computer and you see the status bar moving on your screen. Say you turn off the monitor and wait ten minutes and turn it back on to see that the bar has moved. No issues with the situation IMO.
But the time itself must exist in both, the phenomenon and noumena. Ones and zeros are operating in the field of time. Anything that is operating, is operating at the field of time. If the noumena world is not stuck in it's place forever, it's experiencing time. Even if we saw that the noumena world would be stuck and nothing ever changed while we was not looking at it, it wouldn't still be stuck as we can see anything, because the light is travelling. It's impossible to get rid off time. (because getting rid off it, is also action that happens in time)
This is true. However the main argument against Kant on the continuity problem is of Kant's claim that time and space are constructs of the mind. If so, the continuity must also be a construct of the mind. Yet if it is so, it should only exist when the mind is perceiving it. Yet, if the mind stops perceiving a burning candle in a locked room, it still continues. Or the computer, still continues to move the progress bar. How then, can Kant say that time and space is constructs of the mind? wouldn't that too be part of things in themselves - is the argument.
@@zincoxide7484 I mean the idea is that turning off the monitor is akin to not looking at the burning candle. Even with a monitor off, background computation is still active in such a way that “would have produced a specific visual effect even if it’s not actually being looked at.”
The movement of electricity on a circuit board I would say is fundamentally different than the movement of a bar on a screen. If you look at a circuit board directly you see no movement at all. The visual effects of the monitor are completely a construction of the monitor.
@@zincoxide7484 another way of saying it is.. visual light progression is a construct of a monitor. There is no visual light progression on a circuit board.
Tables and chairs don't necessarily exist in the external world. Only noumenon or the thing in itself exists. Our minds make the tables and chairs. He also wouldn't call them physical objects, or even objects at all.
And I think kant uses transcendental deduction to arrive at the conclusion that noumenon logically exists, though we can say nothing about it.
Cause and effect happen with a positive continuity of time (time continuing from a known point in the past into the future). To say time exists independent of the mind is implying time is eternal or there is no "before time" and if this is the case, there can be no cause and effect as we get to present time by successive additions and cause and effect happen with time that continues from a possible point in the past.
Time is best accounted for in reality with the velocity of celestial bodies (planetary oscillation) and the locomotion/action of sentient beings. This is to say cause and effect give time its seeming realness.
Not really. Also to say time is independent of the mind doesn’t mean it is eternal, that’s wrong. It began at a point well beyond our beginning and will also end.
No one said time was eternal and it existing out of your mind doesn’t make it so. This sounds like a straw man.
Also if space and time were mind dependent then your wouldn’t exist, not to mention you still haven’t proven mind to exist so how can something exist yet require the very thing it generates to exist.
Cause and effect are real and do exist. Otherwise nothing would happen. Even if time was eternal there would still be cause and effect. Your point is wrong.
@@Darkloid21 Hmmm 🤔
In a deterministic world, causes imply effects directly, and vice versa. In principle, effects don’t have to play out over time for them to be knowable. If you knew the exact position and momentum of every particle in the universe at one snapshot in time, and you had enough computational power, you could see what every other snapshot would have to be. Would this help the continuity problem?
No, because you can't determine the exact position and velocity of one particle at the same time. It is called the the uncertainty principle. That is why it is impossible for particles to reach absolute zero temperature. If they did, they would stop vibrating, and their position could be known exactly.
@@Alkis05 I know and I was thinking that as I wrote it but don’t physicists say QM is ultimately deterministic?
I personally don’t think there’s an issue with not seeing things in themselves and still pursuing science. Let’s take computers for example as an analogy. One’s and zero’s are the noumena behind the scenes. However most computer programmers (scientists by analogy) don’t program directly using ones and zeros. They use whatever programming software they chose (Java, C++, or whatever), which are analogous to phenomena. As long as we can program functional computer programs using these programing softwares, it doesn’t matter if we never actually see or deal with the ones or zeros.
Not only that, we can mold how robots interpret sensory input to generate their world view. For example we could make them have a 2-d representation of the world, instead of 3-d, like a rumba. In a rumba's mind, it is a flatlander. In a similar manner, evolution could have wired us with intuitions that are propriate for a savana, but not for other regions in the planet or the universe.
Honestly I think the objections to this idea far outweigh the idea itself, especially in the modern era where chemistry can be measured at specific rates, regardless of observation, on end states only and reliably. (Sure, even these are subject to confidence intervals due to statistics) so it cannot be proven. (Which is ultimately the entire problem) the interface between realism and idealism relies on that confidence interval, it would take infinite measurements to confirm it.
no space and time is not inside my mind, my mind is inside the mind of all space and time
How time dilation supported kant
🖤🖤🖤
The way I conceptualize kant's transedental idealism of space, is like in a game engine, where different objects are defined by a set of properties, but the game engine renders a 3d representation of of the data. In the real world of the source code, objects are actually only points that move around. But they are later rendered in 3d to us by the graphic systems. The object is probably sitting still in a memory die, with some values changing. But the 3d render there is movement and
even physics imo agrees. quantum entanglement, the whole universe is just one particle. consciousness collpases the wave function to "render" one event from an infinite singularity superposition
You should do a video on dialectical idealism of Hegel and (vs) dialectical materialism of Marx
Thank you for the suggestion, we will look into this.
@@PhilosophyVibe Awesome. CZcamsrs NonCompete and Luna Oi are translating a Vietnamese textbook on Marxism and dialectical materialism as well as historical materialism. May be a worthwhile resource but cannot say for sure since it's not out yet but coming out very soon.
So everyone can collectively be having different understandings of the same things visually ,and otherwise 🤔?
Can you please make a vedio on phenomenology...
in my opinion, kant is important as a step in philosophy towards the disproving of idealism and the triumph of materialism. Minds and thought are just as illusory as space and time. the primacy of thought is the fundamental error in idealist Philosophy
"Illusory" is a term that can be misunderstood.
Are you by using this term to contrast it to the material? I.e.: material = real, mind/thoughts = illusory?
@@SunAndMoon-zc9vd yes
Maybe the candle continues to burn down (despite time being only a mental concept) because time does not necessitate change or movement. Change or movement is the progression of what ever the material thing is from one form to another. To the object, it is immaterial how long it took to happen.
What do you think is the role of time then
@@jazmauroos5452 maybe time is a hermeneutic tool used by us humans to make sense of change.