Thank you so much! And congratulations on graduating! 😄

Are you watching a movie?

Maybe you simply need to learn more physics, as the subject (and the critical physiological dependence) is addressed far more rigorously and intelligently in physics. To the "metaphysical" aspect that is not addressed by physics, Kant does not introduce anything remotely new, as this was contemplated throughout antiquity. Worse yet, Kant's "synthetic a priori" is a self-impressed word game that hopes you will be confused enough to agree.

Thank you so much! Happy to hear that our work helped you in some way 😄

Hey thanks for your comment and your helpful advise!😁

Thank you so much! 😄

Very welcome! 😄

I really do! And will do! 😄

@Marc van den Boogaard 🤝🤝

Yes that's it. We only know the appearance and representation of our selves, but not our self as thing in itself. Bridging to psychoanalysis we could say that we do not "know" the unconscious (thing in itself), yet we act as if "we" (the appearance) controls our actions.

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant in that respect. Do "things" even exist is the question. If there is no "thing" and that is what nothing really means and that is, there is no nothing, meaning there is always something, the "I" as Schopenhauer elaborates, the "I" is all there is and that it is not a thing, so what I think follows is since things are only concepts so by default they cannot be known in themselves because in reality they do no exist and that which does not exist cannot be known. One could argue as you said our actions are driven by our unconscious which is very real but I don't know how that relates to this veiled reality underneath. Maybe. Maybe I'm not understanding. In other words I don't see how it relates to this veiled Platonic sphere of ideas. I think Sartre argued that and said, existence precedes essence. Maybe. Maybe not. But I need to read up further on Kant my apologies. I think he did say time does not exist and that it's just how our minds make sense of the world and that is the sequence of things in the past, the present and the anticipated future. This is very interesting. I appreciate your reply. Anyway, again, real quick, I was just confused when you brought up the unconscious. I thought it was an entirely different subject. But maybe I wasn't understanding something.✌️

@@eversbrothersproductions1476 I think what you meant by the unconscious has to do with our lives and kidneys functioning and employing extremely complex tasks that our rational minds aren't even able to conceive. David Bohms, Implicate and explicate order is another example of that and that is, the unfolding in the movement itself. Simpler examples are mosquitoes or bed bugs. A mosquito doesn't premeditate flying towards an area that conceals it once we try to kill it, it just does it. Bed bugs too are never felt and difficult to catch in action and they too don't "think" and it's all unconscious. However, I do agree with Schopenhauer and that Kant was wrong in a sense that there are no things in themselves. Everything is just one "thing" for lack of better words and it cannot be known. Truth cannot be known.

Space and time need minds to exist.

@@Nature_Consciousness simply repeating kants argument doesn't challenge my conclusions. so your house doesn't exist until you come home to it? im saying thats impossible.

@@raviolihog4002 That is idealism, where objects in the world are only objects if there is a mind to perceive them.

@@Nature_Consciousness ok ok, i apreciate what ur saying cause that's wild and i didnt understand. however idk how true that actually is, but again im just trying to understand haha

@@raviolihog4002 I am currently not an idealist, since I think minds need a world beyond them, but lately I have been debating whether it is actually true or not. In this video series, there is someone defending it and it might be very interesting to you. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rshnhZmVsbfJn40.html