Immanuel Kant | Critique of Pure Reason | Philosophers Explained | Stephen Hicks
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 08. 2022
- Philosophers, Explained covers major philosophers and texts, especially the great classics. In each episode, Professor Hicks discusses an important work, doing a close reading that lasts 40 minutes to an hour.
In this episode, Dr. Hicks turns to Immanuel Kant and his 1787 second edition of Critique of Pure Reason, arguably the most foundationally influential work in modern philosophy. I focus on the Preface to that edition, famous for his conclusion that "I have therefore found it necessary to deny reason to make room for faith."
00:50 The text
01:23 The status of metaphysics
02:42 The status of logic
04:30 The status of mathematics and physics
10:20 "Metaphysics rests on concepts alone."
12:11 "Hitherto, it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform
to objects."
19:20 Conclusion: "...we can never transcend the limits of possible
experience..."
21:35 The value question
23:11 Space and time
26:26 We can have no knowledge of objects as things in themselves
28:50 Causality vs. free will
32:14 God, freedom, immortality
34:55 "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."
36:32 "All objections to morality and religion will be forever silenced."
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great, Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College, England, and Jagiellonian University, Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy
This channel is an absolute gold mine thank you Professor Hicks!
Objectivism didn't provide any reason as to how free-will can co-exist with causality in a deterministic universe.
The 30 in the first series include:
1. Immanuel Kant
2. Plato
3. Galileo Galilei
4. Ayn Rand
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
6. René Descartes
7. Jean-Paul Sartre
8. Socrates
9. Martin Heidegger
10. Thomas Aquinas
11. Arachne and Athena
12. Aristotle
13. Albert Camus
14. Friedrich Nietzsche
15. John Dewey
16. Sigmund Freud
17. G.W.F. Hegel
18. William James
19. Søren Kierkegaard
20. John Locke
21. Karl Marx
22. John Stuart Mill
23. Thales
24. Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
25. William Paley
26. C.S. Lewis
27. David Hume
28. John Maynard Keynes
29. Thomas Kuhn
30. George Orwell
I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical governance (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism is moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Oh, I have learned from you to Professor Hicks. I LOVE PHILOSOPHY. ❤️ You were the first I listened to on Kant. THANK YOU, SIR.
In that case you might want to read other sources because there are some egregious mischaracterizations here. No doubt due to Stephen being a follower of the Ayn Rand cult.
@@davemckagan635 I can can listen. I love Wes Cecil, Professor Sugre, Professor Rich Roderick, philosophy, ❤️ also. I LOVE Michael Parenti, Professor Richard Wolff, CHRIS HEDGES, SO MANY AND I READ MANY BOOKS.
@@davemckagan635 I too would call people part of a cult if I were a dishonest prick. Not that you are wrong about the followers of Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy having an axe to grind against Kant, Plato, etc.
@@davemckagan635
03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help to improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully-intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory!).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
Cont…
You can appreciate his work without agreeing 100% with his take on Kant, I disagree strenuously but with gratitude
Thank you for these lectures!
Excellent presentation. I followed it, due to professor Hicks guiding us clearly through Kant's concepts. Thank you.
Thank you so much for this class and for the others that are part of this collection.
In the long run, during my personal studies of this topic, I found that I could understand the beginning of the CPR (the forms of sensibility) by first finding out where Kant was going with this: his conclusions. This is what I, (small s) subjectively, put forth in my striving to understand this difficult topic. Empirical reality did not decide this method for me.
10:20 If reason is only instructed by the empirical realm via the senses, we would still believe that the sun and the stars, based on the evidence that nature provides to the senses, circle the Earth.
Reason, on the contrary, abstracts from the conclusions that the senses lead it to, and questions not only our natural predisposition to follow solely what our senses lead us to believe about the world around us, but also those governmental and scientific authorities who refuse to speculate beyond the data of the senses, and who refuse to allow speculation as to other possible conclusions. Such hypotheses led to charges of heresy.
Reason asks, "*What if* the universe doesn't always behave according to the evidence of the senses?" And here we come to the word "appearances" that Kant is famously known to use. It *appears* that the sun circles the Earth; but, what if this isn't actually the case? *What if*, instead, the Earth orbits the sun?
Although this hypothesis contradicts the evidence of the senses, it is not self-contradictory. In pure a priori logic, A still equals A.
Kant says that not only is it okay for rational, scientific hypotheses to conflict with the evidence of the senses, it is part of the method of science itself in its advancement from a more primitive state of knowledge. This method he terms "pure a priori," in that it abstracts from those conclusions that nature leads it to via our assumption that the senses have absolute authority over reason.
History itself provides evidence to the contrary of Hicks' contention: reason has authority over the senses. And reason has authority over those who would attempt to limit reason to the senses, and even, in extreme cases, burn at the stake those great thinkers who dare to disagree.
40:00 Kant implied that idealism is also injurious universally. Is Kant really bashing his own theory of transcendental idealism?
It's beginning to look like this: if you had rejected traditional Rand and her take on Kant early in the beginning of your career, you might've concluded that postmodernism is a reaction against Kant and the Enlightenment project. And that postmodernism is following a negative tradition that began during the Enlightenment even before Kant's time. It's not even demanding a return to kings or religious authority. It's demanding a return to complete primitivism.
I don't think it is possible to understand this text without examining it in contrast to Hume's philosophy, which is what Kant was reacting to when he wrote this. Faced with Hume's radical empiricism, there was no room for certain knowledge, and Kant was actually trying to get back to the state where knowledge could be certain (unsuccessfully IMO).
There seem to be some misinterpretations of what Kant was saying. For example, Kant's rejection of knowledge of "the thing in itself" is sound. He wasn't advocating subjectivity. He was just saying that If all you have is experience, all you can do is come up with models and speculation of what the thing is that are consistent with your experience. (basically he was accepting that Hume was right).
For example, you cannot know if there are actually atoms, all you have is a model of what an atom might be, which explains your experience. All physicists will agree that we don't know if atoms are really how we describe them (little balls of protons and neutrons in the middle with electron balls circling around). The model of an atom is just a useful tool for explaining our experiences. (Note: This doesn't make it subjective. models are objective to the extent that they do a good job explaining experience - independent of who is the observer)
There are many other flaws in Kant's philosophy but I don't think this is one of them. (e.g. His sneaking of god and free will into the realm of "things in themselves" is just silly. His list of categories are completely made up, and his advocacy of any knowledge being a-priori to experience is also nonsense.)
How are those things flaws, besides your idea that they are silly or made up or whatever.
Thank you professor Hicks. Now I know what I don't like about Kant's Critique. It's the precursor to post modernism.
Prove it.
@@Mal1234567 Can you please be more specific as to your apparent objection here?
@@donaldclifford5763 Kant doesn't lead to Adorno. They are exact opposites.
@@Mal1234567 In what way? More to the point, Hicks details the progression from Kant to the pathology of leftist Woke culture.
@@donaldclifford5763 Kant argued for direct objective knowledge of phenomena. Adorno argued that such knowledge is indirectly mediated by power structures. Objective knowledge, if possible at all, can only be achieved by opposing the power structures that get in the way of objectivity.
For Kant, the mind is just the way it is. For Adorno, our concepts are controlled by power structures that need to be overcome.
For Kant, knowledge is a product of the individual mind. For Adorno, knowledge is a social product.
I'm a novice with this so bear with me. Is Kant looking for a "perfect & complete" knowledge of an object in order to say that he would only then know it? The implication being that the imperfectness and incompleteness of the senses is what denies us this knowledge. Then, by his lights, only God could have that complete and perfect knowledge of reality. Is he defining "reality" as what would be complete and perfect?
I guess I'm in the same novice boat. I reject the idea that just because one cannot know an object absolutely(how could we?) hence we cannot know anything at all (conceptually) about objects. Put another way, although our knowledge of an object is not exhaustive, that doesn't imply what we know is not necessary(as an attribute of that object).
@@Nexus-hh1lx
03. PHILOSOPHY & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician/philosopher/logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help to improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-educated peer of the House of Lords in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully-intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory!).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
Cont…
10:40 "Kant is in this sense close to the rationalists." Not really. He is explaining what metaphysics is; he is not taking sides on the empiricist/rationalist question.
I'd say he's doing both: He's re-assessing the status of metaphysics, especially as, as he argues midway through, both empiricism and rationalism have reached dead ends.
@@StephenHicksPhilosopher Well, he's making an assessment of the current (in his time) status of metaphysics in its attempts to make progress as a science, especially in comparison to other fields of inquiry. Physics works with intuitions and postulates grounded in the empirical; mathematics is applicable to intuitions, or at least its self-evident axioms are. But metaphysics was not grounded in any empirically induced postulates. It attempted to found metaphysics itself on postulates not grounded in the empirical. But nobody could decide what those postulates should be. Induction did not apply to establishing metaphysical postulates because it is the attempt to establish general principles based on an examination of specific instances. What then are the specifics of metaphysics upon which to induce its general principles? The difficulty is that the questions often transcended the limits of empirical observation. Metaphysicians took upon themselves the task of answering questions brought up by reason alone (pure reason) in the absence of the empirical, such as the nature of being itself (e.g., Platonic forms or Aristotelian substance), or the existence of God.
To sum up, the status of metaphysics in Kant's time was that it had not even been able to induce and establish its most general postulates and establish a consensus with other metaphysicians with regard to accepting them, much less to make any progress beyond them. This is contrasted with the status of physics (natural science) and mathematics which had long held general postulates, a positive consensus with regard to them in their respective fields, and moved far beyond those postulates to make further progress in those fields.
Also, I should add, the same goes for logic as a science that establishes the structure of thought itself.
Thus there was, inevitably, a certain degree of (small s) subjectivism and personal interpretation in the field of metaphysical inquiry. And while the arguments to establish postulates in the field of metaphysics were logical in themselves, they tended to be, not so much arbitrary, insomuch as the subjective and personal isn't necessarily arbitrary, they were the products of contemplating concepts understood as they are in themselves.
Oh wow, this is a gross misreading and adulteration of Kant's work. First of all, by _critique_ he means an essay on pure reason, he is not criticizing reason, much for the contrary, he is studying reason and how we can achieve much more with it. Secondly, you omitted the entire preface of the first edition, which the preface of the second edition is a continuation of. For instance, at 1:38 the "such knowledge" he is referring to is the understanding of metaphysics (the foundation of mathematics and logic), that contrary to popular belief cannot be proven by mere empiricism.
Perhaps you will notice that both of those points are covered, explicitly and with emphasis, in the discussion.
@@StephenHicksPhilosopher I think not covered accurately, for example, you claim that Kant is denying objectivity when he explicitly stated that is possible to even have a priori knowledge of objects, like Copernicus assuming that the planets couldn't really move in epicycles as perceived from Earth. Relying on empiricism alone that is subjective.
@@SuperFinGuy I detect in Kant a strawman argument, criticising easy targets in the field, while conveniently missing the larger point. It's a long winded case for apologetics, making room for the God of the Gaps dilemma.
@@donaldclifford5763 What do you mean the larger point? Kant is trying to explain metaphysics (the non-contingent) with reason, not with God. Actually he thought that God was one of the transcendental ideas that cannot be explained in our scope. I personally disagree with him there but that is beside the point.
@@SuperFinGuy The larger point eludes him as he attempts to minimize reason and find something unexplainable, opening the door for post modernism., the ultimate expression of anti-reason. Aristotelian philosophy, logic, and resoning stands against this and other worn out attempts to find ways around it, but always fail.
Explained through an Objectivist filter.
What a poor and clownish writer Kant is! If he wrote clearly, he'd realize he had nothing to say. Reason accurately and reliably comprehends reality -- no matter what Kant claims.
I laugh whenever anyone talks about "a priori" knowledge. There's no such thing. Do they mean that reason and logic exist independently and outside the universe? But they don't.
Reason doesn't exist in the universe.
When's the last time you found logic under a rock to be empirically examined?
Perhaps you should have so much as an introductory understanding of philosophy before the arrogance.
@@lawrence2992 Reason exists inside the mind of living creatures only. It helps them understand rocks and other parts of reality. What do you think you're using to show "Reason doesn't exist in the universe"?
@@ClassicalLiberalWarrior I’m not sure what you mean by “inside,” as if there’s some strict four-dimensional origin when it comes to mental phenomena. Can you find, “reason,” in a brain scan-as well as concepts themselves? If you locate the neuro-morphological locus where reason ostensibly emanates, say the prefrontal cortex, is that “reason,”? Can you put “reason,” in a bottle? Can you find abstract objects like the experience-qua-experience of pain?
This physical reductionism you propound is silly. It is a perverse form of empiricism which results in monism and eliminative materialism. It means that youll not understand Kant’s very wise idealistic distinction between mind/matter in which much of reality is contingent on the mind itself. As for a priori knowledge, “there is no such thing as a married bachelor” is a great example of reason being sufficient beyond the empiricists inductive modus operandi of surveying every single bachelor to double-check that they are, in fact, unmarried.
@@ClassicalLiberalWarrior The p-zombie thought experiment debunks your physical reductionism. Consciousness is a unique, further fact experience which is ineffable to any form of scientism.
@@lawrence2992 Definitions aren't a priori knowledge. The rest is pretentious gibberish. If you had anything to say, you'd write it in an essay.
Garbage 😊