Thank you very much, it was lovely reading this. And indeed here's hoping these videos are helping people with their philosophical and ethical pondering.

there still is a cost vs benefit analysis when deciding to behave or not behave moraly, if you don't, you will feel guilty but have money, if you do behave moraly, your sens of guilt will not exist.

You're very welcome, so glad to hear these videos have helped you with your studies.

You're welcome, glad we could help.

Thank you!

My thoughts exactly. 1 + 1 = 2 is only known through previous experiences of objects, aka: sense perception. Therefore, all knowledge should be classified as experiential. However, the significance of the terms factor in when looking at subjective and objective realities. Subjective reality or reasoning is limited since we (humans) live and interact collectively. Therefore, a consensus of subjective realities is necessary in order to establish an objective reality (an objective reality being the vast majority of people sharing similar experiences). Some objective knowledge is easier to agree on than others. For example, most people see an apple being red, but some colorblind people experience it differently. It is only through the collective experiences that we establish an apple as being objectively red, as well as recognizing that colorblind people have abnormal visual color perceptions. (This is the easier version of an objective reality). The harder versions of objectivity pertain to ideas of justice, truth, freedom, etc. It is harder since most people individually vary widely in their conceptual understanding of these terms. One person may think a criminal paying a fine is justice, whereas another person believes a prison sentence sufficient. It is important to mention that Immanuel Kant, the one who presented the terms of a priori and a posteriori, believed that objective reality was impossible. While he may technically be correct, I would argue that since we do not live in isolation from other humans, that objective reality is real or possible. It is possible in that it is necessary for humans to agree on things collectively for our survival, communication, and continuation of society. It is when people, within a society, start valuing individual subjective senses over the collective subjective consensus that society begins to dissolve. Kant was right, but at what cost?

I’d say that it’s less about any “fallibility of the senses,” but it’s mostly about the limits of empirical/a-posteriori knowledge versus the certainty of rational/a-priori knowledge. Every a-posteriori judgment requires some form of empirical induction whereas a-priori judgements are purely deductive; i.e transcendental as Kant would say. A-priori knowledge is simply what’s necessary to our experiences. For instance, the a-priori conception of time is necessary in Kantian epistemology. This is because of how the human cognition understands the world through sequential order. Therefore this form of knowledge can never be refuted assuming that it really is necessary; i.e purely deductive. A-priori necessities cannot be possible in any sense whereas a-posteriori contingents can be. Ex: The proposition “There exist no such thing as a unicorn” is only contingently true; i.e dependent of experience. It may very well be the case that a unicorn is real, and we can simply conceive of such a possibility.

I had the same thought. Is it even possible to know anything without sensing it?

You're welcome, glad it was helpful.

You're welcome, glad we could help.

Happy to help :) best of luck in your essays.

Glad we could help :)

You're welcome, we're so happy these videos are helping.

So glad we could help :D

You're welcome, glad you found it helpful.

Thank you 😊

You're welcome.

You're welcome :)

Thank you!

Thank you

Glad we could help.

I completely agree and wrote something similar and then I found your comment that stated much the same thing. Any response?

@@dl1279 we are Both genius💪🧠

My thoughts exactly. 1 + 1 = 2 is only known through previous experiences of objects, aka: sense perception. Therefore, all knowledge should be classified as experiential. However, the significance of the terms factor in when looking at subjective and objective realities. Subjective reality or reasoning is limited since we (humans) live and interact collectively. Therefore, a consensus of subjective realities is necessary in order to establish an objective reality (an objective reality being the vast majority of people sharing similar experiences). Some objective knowledge is easier to agree on than others. For example, most people see an apple being red, but some colorblind people experience it differently. It is only through the collective experiences that we establish an apple as being objectively red, as well as recognizing that colorblind people have abnormal visual color perceptions. (This is the easier version of an objective reality). The harder versions of objectivity pertain to ideas of justice, truth, freedom, etc. It is harder since most people individually vary widely in their conceptual understanding of these terms. One person may think a criminal paying a fine is justice, whereas another person believes a prison sentence sufficient. It is important to mention that Immanuel Kant, the one who presented the terms of a priori and a posteriori, believed that objective reality was impossible. While he may technically be correct, I would argue that since we do not live in isolation from other humans, that objective reality is real or possible. It is possible in that it is necessary for humans to agree on things collectively for our survival, communication, and continuation of society. It is when people, within a society, start valuing individual subjective senses over the collective subjective consensus that society begins to dissolve. Kant was right, but at what cost?

Thank you :)

Indeed.

Glad we could help :)