Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

good then I will start on the insane brother to try to explain cause pratik of pure reason in 45 minutes I have taught entire seminars here on Kant's critique of pure reason it is one of the most difficult works of Wall Street written I already mentioned that Richard Rorty said that Immanuel Kant's the person who turned philosophy animal profession because essentially you have to devote your life to the Dorian understand what it's up to and it's this work that is primarily responsible for that reputation the critique of Pure Reason is a very difficult work and Pugliese out there human is often described as transcendental idealism now he D himself uses back turn but also feels uncomfortable with the designation idealism there is a section of the creature reason in fact entitled the reputation of idealism and so we're gonna have to figure out today is what is cops field is he really an idealist if so what kind of idealist is an unusual kind and as we'll see it turns out that he draws a distinction that few philosophers have made up to this point but that everyone virtually takes for granted activist cost is really the person who started modern philosophy by drawing a set of distinctions and putting forth a position that everyone subsequently has had to respond to whether or not they're on caught sight of these issues so Emanuel come we've met before in the context of his ethical theory Clark was somebody who was a Prussian philosopher teaching at the university of königsberg never travelled more than 10 miles from the place of his birth nevertheless divested is highly distinctive philosophical views well how did he do it and what was the core idea he compares himself to Copernicus he says what he's doing his bringing about a tourniquet revolution in philosophy now who can tell me what Copernicus did in astronomy what was the core idea to Copernican revolution yes everything is in service well that's the solar system now what does that mean up to that point people thought of the Sun and the planets and the stars so whenever evolving around the earth we were in the center of the universe according to those earlier theories Copernicus had waited I can do a better job explaining the motions of the stars and planets if I assume not the weirdest and everything we're all good enough but that actually the Sun is the center of the solar system and be revolving around it well Claude sees himself as implementing a similar kind of revenue curve switching the place of subject and objects switching the place of who's the observer what's doing the revolving around what now is all explained in a home I think he's giving himself in a certain sense too much credit I think instead of implementing a Copernican revolution in philosophy is actually implementing a Ptolemaic revolution in philosophy because it turns out he's putting himself at the center of things but let's get to that in time here is his general idea the rationals up to this dick huh - Spinoza brought a variety of other things had been arguing that accounting for the universality and the necessity of some of our water our sorry so far knowledge required us to assume that we had knowledge of synthetic and opera truths that is to say that since experience is purely particular there's no way to get to the universal truths like scientific laws without the assumption of something that was really a priori something that eukaryotes from the particular to the University and the same thing they said it was true necessity laws have this special characters they seem to carry a force of necessity it's not just an accidental generalization that by but things go they all know they must fall there is a kind of law like necessity to that and what's responsible for that in experience all we meet with are contingent troops so alignment some of the reckless argue there must be something like Oh a principal say every event has a cause or laws actually govern things through a kind of necessity and everything is governed by scientific laws something maybe just that the future will resemble the past whatever the principle is there must be some synthetic operatory principle that underlies the universality and necessity of our knowledge and that gives us knowledge of the world independently of experience but that's a kind of shocking idea the thought that you could know something about the world without actually experiencing it of the empiricists of course challenge that says know that all of our knowledge of one comes from experience everything we know is really based on yes particular and yes contingent things would be experienced at least everything we know about the world everything that is isn't that truth the rest is all burbles is analytic now confident of this distinction he started out as a follower of violence in fact this teacher was a student of Leibniz and so caught thought of himself very much in that life - tradition but then he read read David Hume and he said you woke him from his dogmatic slumbers what did he mean by that Jim suddenly said well hold on a second there looks like all the knowledge I have to devote comes from experience and you're right that doesn't justify necessary truths it doesn't justify universal truth it doesn't give me anything about the world as opposed to an analytic truth on the basis of language that actually displays universality get necessity so where are those things coming from well lab that said said there must be something in reason something that is a synthetic a priori principle underlying them Hume said I think it's just custom I think it's happened it's a matter of human nature that we tend to think that the future will resemble the past that the next time that I drop something it's actually going to fall I hold the car keys and let them go they fall and the first time pub just stuff happens - but after a while you get the sense oh it's not just that it tends to happen again and again it has to happen but where is that coming from Hume says it's coming from inside me it is based on my feeling of expectation it's a result of my own human nature responding to the world it's not agreeing that I found a necessity in the world itself what content Jews write about this I can't really justify the claim that without experience I can no fundamental truths about the world like every event has a cause where the world consists of substances and they have properties and they stand in relations or the future will resemble the past how do I know all tax if it's really about a world that is external to me remember the classic rationalist response as in Philo of Alexandria who said here's my to the skeptical difficulties I put forward I assumed that God stamps the world that stamps our bonds with the same stamp and so this round of the forms the plate of this fraud gives us the structure the world and the structure in the mud so I just reflect on the structure of the mind I know something about the world but Clark thought human was right but that's a pretty hook far out there explanation that won't do it all how would I know any of that well what would assure me the baton in the case now it's partly of course you might think it rests on a religious assumption but it isn't just that how would I know that even assuming there is a God and even assuming that God's ideas do the structure of the world and do structure my mind how would I know that God had done it that way why couldn't I assume an evil deceiver in a way that's the power of dead parts idea that God could instead be an evil deceiver what if God stamps our minds with the wrong stamp it would be like having a stamp of somebody's signature when I was blessed be cherubim I used to have up like this I still have it somewhere some stamp that just has my signature on so years before that of students when I first became a professor area especially on graduated student papers I frequently would take argument I didn't think worked and I would just write focus on the side with an exclamation point and so a student actually got me a stamp that's in focus yeah but anyway you might say what if what the stamp is a FaceCam what if our blacks don't have a structure that actually matches this structure really well human and look at that possibility and say I don't know how to water so Khan's idea is this use right that the source is inside us of necessity of universality but he's wrong that it's just custom that it's habit that it's based on feeling no law says it really is coming from us but it is on the other hand at this big heart life it's in the upper rascal so write about it really is something that is rational it is something built into the structure of our mind not just the structure of the heart you might say that feeling of expectation is it really just an emotional thing you start seeing this and it's just feeling that makes you think it's gonna happen again I suppose it would you know you might have an emotional reaction if I suddenly let it go just coming there in the air that becomes cool right emojis but most of the things like this we don't think of as a matter of feeling conscious no it's a matter of reason so here is the core idea of his Copernican revolution if I think that my job is to understand a world that is completely independent of me completely independent aligned then plus says basically the skeptic wins I don't see how justify the claim that I actually have knowledge of that world Descartes subject of the evil deceiver in effect Ares the dead there is no adequate response we can't talk about clear and distinct ideas or the other thing is a part of you - where are we getting our busting clear and distinct ideas after and so there's no way to get from inside our heads to the assurance that we're really describing a mind-independent world so it's called just a skeptic no he said here's the thing if we assume that my job is to match aligned independent world we can't solve the problem but if we assume that the worlds just to match my mom aha now that sounds insane what do you need the world's job is to match my mind but here's the idea my perceptual patterns visually smell touch taste so on those things actually structure the objects of my experience they are the things that take this massive experience and organize it into objects and then my mind my cognitive faculties are built in such a way to understand the world in a certain fashion in other words my mind structures the world so that I can understand them now what is the world really like independently of my experience of it I have no idea Claude calls that a thing in itself the noumenon but ok the things in themselves would ruin our plural who knows what their life may be and he thinks there really is something out there but we can't say anything about it the things we organize that we structure our knowledge around these objects that we talk about people tables chairs and so on even scientific constants all of those are things that were really products of the month so here's the way he explains the idea do our closets have the job of revolving around the objects of the world or do the objects of the world our concepts well that's sort of a shocking idea everyone up to this point in Western philosophy intended to assume well up until at any rate market had tended to assume that the job of the mind is to match the structure of the world but what if it's the other way around cut puts it this way it is in there Truman assumed that all our knowledge must conform to the objects but all attempts to ascertain anything about those objects a priori independently of experience by means of the concepts and thus to extend the range of our knowledge have been rendered according this assumption so another is he saying well this skeptic just wins if my job is to understand on mind-independent world there is a gap between my mind and this world is completely independent of it that I can't be sure I'm crossing correctly in the end I cannot justify a claim that I have any knowledge at all if the job of the intellect but he says let's make an experiment let's see whether we may not be more successful in metaphysics if we assume that the objects must conform to our knowledge now it isn't the bizarre idea somehow the room has the job of revolving around me there is a really narcissistic way of reading caught so I owe my promise to a doctor reality I'm going to fail but well it's your job to watch me I mean it's obvious that that doesn't work right suppose I said get off hire this table being up here let's rather have a you know admittedly a well behavior report okay I don't want to be a bully around but wouldn't it be cool having you record instead so let it be so let this be a you know didn't happen stupid it's your job to match my cuts up well no that doesn't work right but the idea is that our minds are structuring the experience shaping it into objects so what counts as an author is something that is itself the product of my own mental activity so is this look I can make this same experience experiment with respect to the intuition of objects and he's using intuition here in the way that have a sin against it that is to say it really means just perception so we're talking about concepts we can also talk about percept things that I'm perceiving about the world he says it's the same thing I don't see how I can know anything about the world a priori if my perception has to conform to the way objects really are independently of the hood but if on the other hand object conforms to the nature of our Faculty of intuition that is to say perception I could then easily conceivable possibility of such a priori now what does he mean the objects have to conform to my Faculty of intuition to my perceptual faculties well have you ever noticed how the world goes by in time it's one thing than another I should I should have set this up to play you something from know our sax player history's absolute on fire well it's for that performance not awesome and it happens in time right music happens in time it's something that goes on the basis of a poem it takes place in time and in fact all of our experiences like that it's not just music it's not just finger clicks everything takes place in time so you might think well yes the world is somehow structured temporally or you could say I perceive things in topic and I've received them in space but actually it's the world really structured in a spatial and temporal fashion or is it that my perceptual faculties of organizing things for me and arranging them in space or ranging them in time I don't know whether the world as exists in itself is really in space and time or not God is saying but I know that I perceive it that way and so what yet that spatio-temporal factor of the world that feature of the world is coming from within my mind not from the actual nature or the optics himself so he says we fear proposed to do just what Copernicus did in attempt to explain the celestial moments when he found that he could make no progress by assuming that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the spectator he would burst the process it's quite the experiment assuming that the spectator evolved while the Stars remained at rest now maybe you can see why I said it's actually the opposite of this it's for like the Ptolemaic revolution because this is I mean Copernicus was saying hey it doesn't all revolve around us we revolve around it kanta saying what if our club steps don't revolve around the world what if the world revolves around our concepts so it's almost just the reverse of what Copernicus did but it's a similar shift in perspective now this has big implications if we assume that things go in the other direction that objects have to conform to my perceptual faculties and to my concepts instead the other way around it turns out we can know something about the world on trade or but of course about the world or input a priori the world asked me perceive I don't know whether the things in themselves for example are spatial or temporal in their organization but I know I proceeded that I know the objects of my experience or social structures and I can know that all three order so he says before objects are given to the operatory I must presuppose it myself laws of the understanding which were expressed in concepts upriver to all objects of experience must necessarily conform non-moving to be to be structured in space and time but they have to actually fit the club steps that are the concepts my mind is done with basically but thought is this my mind comes up already pre equipped with certain concepts and I organize the worlds into objects and then understand those objects in terms of you did it and so I have to actually structure it in a way that those concepts of web colleges giving us here maybe the most famous transcendental object in Western philosophy here's the general form of transcendental argument the idea is something necessary condition the possibility of something else so that thing is actually possible that this thing must necessarily be true so in general Q is a necessary condition of a possibility of Pete Pete wouldn't even be possible we put went through the queue but wait a minute P is true P is possible in fact using the our confessionals P is the case that's why it's possible we don't accident therefore human must be the case so here's how it goes we could not understand the world we could not have experience we could not certainly have a priori knowledge of the world unless we have AA priori constants and laws that we understand okay those are necessary conditions of the possibility of experience but experience is obviously possible I'm having an experience right now right so it's possible I'm having an experience it's actual so yeah it's possible for me to have experience but that would be the case only if my mind were actually organizing the various phenomena of the world presents to me and structures them in a certain kind of way using these opry concepts of laws so there are a priori concepts and there are laws of the understanding now if you don't find that very convincing because so far we really haven't talked a lot of a possibility to experience just think about the possibility of universal and necessary knowledge that is something that would be impossible unless the mind were supplying something here cop thinks that Lyman's has given us crucial arguments we could not get universality of necessity of experience they're coming from something else and so universal knowledge necessary not any knowledge of laws those would be impossible unless we have a priori concepts of law on the understanding there were structuring in the world in such a way that those things actually pulled universally and necessary now this Phoenix does have a sweeping compute which is partly a skeptical conclusion this places limits on my knowledge I can go BA priori only what my mind places in things so in other words do I know things in themselves I know what the world is really like is the world really structured spatially temporally causally I don't know I have no idea I know the objects of my experience are structured cosmic I know that they come to me in space and time but as for the things of themselves are they really like that or these things that are only being supplied by my mind to a reality that's not like that all he says I have no idea I have no way of knowing so I can only know a priori the things that pipeline is placing in things that means that the laws that govern the realm of experience things like every event has a cause those are things that apply to the objects of experience but do they apply to the world in itself do they apply one thing in itself something that would really be independent of mine talk to spider so we can know things la priori that only as our mind structures only as they're experienced by us we cannot know the thing in it so somebody says hey look I'm sorry cause I think there really is a world out there I think it is really external to us it's really independent of the mind and it's our job to magic and cuts of what you may be right in fact I have reasons for the you are right that we need to talk about a world out there a thing in itself but he says I have no way of knowing anything else I know how it presents it to my confidence I know how I perceived back to Paul I can know what is it really like independently of my perception of it independently you might think I don't let's go back to the structure of the trends and then our data has to do with what is a necessary condition of something now we're gonna see next time actually Hegel another German philosopher who fall are not too long at the clock say wait a minute wait a minute this world out there thing in itself I mean what good is it actually you're admitting you know I think that so he has this idea if your philosophy contains something you can't know anything about not only do you don't know anything about but you really cannot know anything about then it can't play any role in your theory and so Hegel says just get rid of it's not doing any work for you eliminated now caught things you can't do that actually it's important that he talk about the thing in itself why well he does have this section of the critique they calls the reputation of idealism and the argument he gives is what we're going to look at in more detail next week but I think of it as the missing explanation are things it basically goes like this my mind is presented with all sorts of stuff and it is not under my control I can say what the team will become a unicorn and it doesn't have I can say I am tired of this chair the rust car I want it to be live and breathe doesn't have I can think what I would like to be rich and famous oh nothing captain right no zeros were added to my bank account these crews full of that which so reality seems beyond my control and in fact it also seems to display a lot of irregularities I mean look at this you're all here and they're sitting in these chairs and I turn around you're still here Wow okay that's amazing now you would think wait a minute if my mind is making all this up and indeed the way that caught thinking of this you might almost think of it this way my mind is just like projected and it's projecting the world around me well if that's what it's doing it's doing it in an awfully predictable it's doing something in a way that actually you know has kind of coherence to it I can't make it project something different I also can't just suddenly change I can't think I wished you were conducting class you know by the backs on a set in Paris we're still not right we're not suddenly transform I can't control those things and Claude said why can't I why are these regularities why are the these features experienced that seemed resistant to my will and not only to might will really to you might say okay but thought that there must be something there must be something that is actually affecting my sense organs in such a way as to give me this experience in the world the problem is I can't say anything about and in fact if you see Hegel's argument is at heart look the way you set up your categories you can't even officially say there must be something you can't say it exists you can't say anything about it and so you're in this odd position of saying I think we can't do without reference to a world that is really independent of money nothing in itself but I also don't see how I can say anything at all about and that's a good yeah [Music] yes good good good there are two arguments that we've encountered in discussing skepticism that are really close to this position and one is a gustin's idea that I may not know that that's really sweet but I know it tastes sweet to me and so agustin you could say looking back on it it's really drawing a distinction like this Kanta saying yeah I don't know what the world's really like out there but I know how it appears to me and not just at this moment it appears in an awfully regular way not just to me but to all of us so he's basically saying I not only know how it appears to be right now I know in general how it appears to us and guess what it appears to us in similar ways because we have similar faculties of perception and we have similar minds that are structured conceptually in similar ways and so exactly it's making that idea of agustín's and really running with it and forming a baby picture of the universe out of it the other idea from the history of skepticism this is really close to his findings argument from comparison remember Philemon said I don't know how things are themselves I just know how they relate to other things and in particular how they relate to me so I know something about the relations among things but I don't know what the things in themselves are I know something about how I perceive them I don't know what they're really like in themselves and that too is really similar to the distinction conscious drawing so yes I think if you look back at the history of skepticism you can see we're contes getting the idea already Philo agustin head may move something like this but they were talking about particular cases consciousness the whole world all the time for all of us and and we have enough in common but it isn't just this quirk of mine that that tastes sweet or that I see things in space and time it's our human nature is something that does this because of the structure of money so yeah excellent absolutely I was just wondering it is the reason why I can't affect it it's kind of like similar to the solar system how regardless of what to the center or what's not it can't be compared away oh that's a good point if you think about the Copernican idea it doesn't really matter in a sense when the earth the center of the solar system or not you still have observations and things are still moving around in a way that's independent of you and so similarly here you might think yeah no matter what's going on with these objects of experience they are moving in a way that's independent of my will for the most part not entirely I think I pad rise it does move it so some things I can affect but you're right it's in a way not surprising given the astronomical example it's nothing controlled by me even I mean it would be a silly objection of the Ptolemaic theory to say of course the university doesn't revolve around huge yes you know it does make the Sun stop I can't do that now here is a little bit more subtle because the idea behind needing this video yourself is really to try to explain something about how experience not only how our minds are set up to expect regularities and experiments but why it actually gets them imagine being in a world which really just was randomly generated the world doesn't appear that way to us but I think I can the situation where he does and I'm gonna have a hard time actually perceiving it as a bunch of objects standing in relations it's going to be just this weird swirl of random stuff and in that case you could say yeah the world has have some contribution to explaining why it seems regular to us well let's take a look at the larger picture I've already mentioned this in fact I should move this up earlier space and time are things that structure the world for us but they are a matter of perception contra the distinction between sensibility understand basically between perception and concepts and space and time he sees as the forms of sensibility they are a priori forms I know that an object is going to be given to me in space and time and to see that that really does have a kind of universality and necessity suppose I were to write a short story and I'm going to say jump well it's hard to write such a short story because I can't really but I'll try John walked into the classroom he looked around and he saw so it was unlike anything he'd ever seen it wasn't dinner it wasn't outside it wasn't a puzzle it wasn't below in fact it wasn't in space and time did he see it after he walked into the room well though did he see it before he walked into the room as he walked into the room no it wasn't in time and now I'm thinking I don't understand the story okay not if you have he imagined something if you thought oh he was thinking about the number-3 but he perceived he perceived it but it wasn't about or below or outside inside and it wasn't before after during I don't know what you're talking about and cops would say look that's Jones us that space and time are a priori forms of sensibility it's not just that objects happen most of the time to be in space in time no they have to be in space in time to be perceived by us we can't even imagine what it would be like to proceed something outside of space and time and that tells us this really does carry the kind of necessity too so it really is something that is a form of sensibility the idea that perceptible objects exist in space and time that everything we experience we experience in space and time those are things that are off priori truths but they are not things that are true just by definition they are real things about the world anything you perceive you perceive in space anything you perceive you perceive in time those are things that he says are universal they're necessary they're not something we derive from experience they are something that underlies our experience there's something that actually tells us what the countries of experience have to be like yeah so in order to be some basically that supporting okay well if we postulated something that exists outside of space and time then you might say yes that would be evidence for its being really mind independent would not be just an object of experience we can't imagine what it would be like from spirit in such a thing but on the other hand there could be such a thing I mean it could mean that the entire world's outside space seems not actually a clap many people about everyone who adheres to the classical conception of God but many people think of God as existing outside space and time so the idea of something existing outside space and time is not observing a clock would say what's absurd is the idea of experiencing something perceiving something outside space of time and even if you think of a traditional religious picture where you let's say die and go to heaven and come face-to-face with God you have to think of it is happening in time instead of you think of I can't start to think oh yeah the peace of God but that didn't happen after I died or before I died like all of a sudden my brain goes like I don't know I can't imagine that didn't move over right and according to that we just did some look that you can't really imagine heaven so or or maybe what we know it's real perceiving it's not exactly like perceiving in the way we do now many things you can say there's no absurdity in the idea but as soon as I try to combine my reception my concept and perception I am from this world with the encounter with something totally outside space and time he doesn't work suddenly I can't do yeah yeah okay how can there be synthetic knowledge of the world if the objects are just oh okay good yeah right how is it possible to really have universality and necessity if the world's adjusting itself to me that isn't the way in which it adjusts gonna change might it be different for me and for you and so on these are all points that Henry will make next time convicts know the way all this happens is universal that is to say our perceptual faculties Gary some of us have better eyesight than others better hearing than others and so on so however they all person we all perceive things in space and time they all structure things in terms of space and time we all agree and suddenly different cultures might have different concepts they used to understand the world but the end every culture thinks of things existing in some sort of temporal order thinks of things existing in space thinks of things that structured causally so some things cause other things and tagamet saying those are just Universal Universal features of the human mind those are not finished at Barry so we don't have to worry that they'll stop being true as long as we're human beings we're going to be doing that those are absolutely universal Hegel will come along and say I don't see why I assume anything in the structure of human mind is universal and necessary in case but Cobb thinks it is unchanging and I think his response that angle would be something like bench 5.2 history and show me a culture where if nobody believed in Kazi where people didn't think of things as existence space and time within a lot of translate to rely on or between or inside come on there's no such culture and so cop would say those things really are universal beyond any specific set of concepts play specific way in which people perceive things everybody has those features become so in that way you could say our experiences and our ways of thinking about things can vary some way plus saying yes time is something that as far as we don't anything it's man-made it's something that our perceptible faculties are inducing whatever the sheep talk about things existing in space now see I run into this I can't just walk through but things happen in time and that's something that our faculties of perception are really supply they're forcing things to be presented to us in time are they really temporal and bounces I don't know now further I then nothing me up responsible you might say for things be in time but now I have this task of mental time and so how do I do that and here's a place often when people say the kind of thing you've just said what they really need is not to refer to Kant's point but to the point that in a wait so we're possible how do you actually structure the time and if you stop and think about from the way in which we do it it's a little bit bizarre I mean notice other things have a kind of decimal character too but how many seconds are in a minute 60 how many minutes in an hour 60 how many hours of it day 24 right how many days in here during the 65 like that oh you know about what 40 years ago there is this attempt to get the United States on the metric system but we failed but what if somebody said hey what if we do a metric system for time I'm caught there should be 10 seconds in a minute and 10 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day and 10 days in a month and 10 months in a year and then we'll just adjust all the you know we'll translate that matter what it is now why don't we do that I don't know but that's one indication that things are really bad fade me your structure and all of this and in fact there's a fascinating history two clocks to the ways in which people tried to something like on calendars keep changing clothes the centuries because people set up calendar system works pretty well and then something you find the winters arriving in the middle of March should you say yes calendar so in short well I'm speaking here from the perspective of someone into northern atmosphere but anyway that's the sort of thing that makes you suddenly think yeah the way in which we do all this is something we certainly to us now is time itself something that's a human construction competent as far as we know yeah so it's not just those concepts of time those particular ways of measuring time etc it's really just time itself that is also a community okay now there are clock says certain basic categories in the mind how do we find out what these basic concepts these are priori concepts that the light is building and doesn't get more experience what are those concepts he says look you want to know what they are look at model look at the logical structure of our experience so for example we categorize things in terms of quantity sometimes we refer to one thing so the idea of unity and the concepts of an object a thing of something unified oh this bat doc but those other things that are really built into the structure of the line we divide singular from floor one from many and so chlorella tea is also one's a basic concepts in the most cynical totality Oh every each all of these things which are basic concepts of luck he says are really basic categories of the life those are things we're not getting from experience those are things were bringing to experience we use them to organize our experience there are also things involving quality so what he means by that is roughly the difference between yes and no between something being true and false there are things that we think are the case so is yes true those are things that we bring to experience the same thing is negation not fun okay in false no all of those things are things that we grin to experience we are the ones who say yes that's the way it is no it's not well you know to some extent etc etc all of those are categories we supply then there are categories of relation so these are things like well not only is in a different sense now is something is let's say I am wearing a new shirt I'm talking about quality there is a quality that adheres in be the distinction between a substance a quality or property relation the idea of something exhibiting something else exemplifying something else all of these the idea an example in instance all of those are things that are built into the structure of the line the same thing with causation is then this because that this causes that this is an effect of we're a result of that all of those are things that are really built into the structure of a month and then finally yeah give community of if anomia of things going together but not this thing causing bad thing without being causing distant but the two moving in tandem so things like parked and hole and and or blessed yeah the aggressive prosody all of those are things that were coming might say from that structure of the bike itself well then their mobile chemicals things like possibility and impossible actuality and long actually non-existence necessity contingency those are things again we don't find in experience we bring them to experience the mind organizes things as possible or impossible necessary or continuum we don't find those things in the world well now are there other categories both word the basic categories of law in costs time and in fact Compton is lectures on logic said projects will those beautiful disciplines that you know everything will ever know about it has been known and has been more must stable ever since at our school and then within 50 years George Boole totally transform logic and created modern logic in a mathematical form but there are lots of things that now magicians might want to have a dis list things like many and few or infinitely many utterly many hip things like tenses of verbs things like other sorts of relations something being near or far be closer than B greater than B equal to maybe other kinds of modalities like should or ought or typically or normally itself anyway I don't want to go into a lot but here's the idea Claude says we put these a priori concepts together in ways that actually structure our experience of the world so what are some of these synthetic operatories judgments we get out this all of mathematics first of all 7 plus 5 is 12 this is example but really all of that is synthetic enough for you says how about things like this the world consists of objects they stand in relations to one another every event has a cause everything relates to everything else these are things he says that we aren't getting from experience they are things that are built into the very structure of the mind itself so there is a basic distinction here between phenomena the objects of our experience arak priori knowledge does apply to those but then Lumina the things in themselves that are independent of the mind those are things we cannot know anything about all the categories do not

Channel: Daniel Bonevac

Views: 33,014

Rating: 4.891892 out of 5

Keywords: Immanuel Kant, Transcendental Idealism

Id: 2yiOHqzUSBo

Length: 45min 57sec (2757 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 29 2017