Uncommonly clear explanation of Kant which many academics seem to struggle presenting. Thank you for this.

This analogy with the projector helped A LOT. I was almost there, and now, I think I get it.

as a philosophy instructor myself i find your energy and excitement for the content so refreshing and inspiring - thank you for sharing !

Former grad student, David Hildebrand, here, Dan. This was a really great lecture and it sounds like you had a cold. Heroic levels of energy and clarity throughout. I really enjoyed it.

How in earth you don't have more followers? Please don't stop making videos. You are a fantastic teacher.

Thank you. Finally I think I understand. I was waiting for it, waiting, thought I’d finally get the answer I have been looking for, and then get a question mark. Brilliant!

I love these so much. I feel like a criminal watching them for free. Thank you so much!

Very clarifying, thank you! Also I’d like to say your intonation and speech style leaves me imagining that Jeff Goldblum is explaining Kant 😂

Hey dude, you are really amazing, you are the master of teaching !

Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the clear interpretation and demonstration of Kant and his project.

Kant is great philosopher. Thank for the video lecture

2:11 Copernicus 3:10 Kant, similar to Copernicus, in the idea of being a world changer Induction, Evidence, (Reason, Logic) 6:42 Concepts revolving around Objects, or Objects revolving around Concepts 12:46 The Mind, The Mirror of The World. A Projector? Structure can give understanding of what will be inside that structure 15:00 (Sounds like a Transcendental line of logic) Innate Ideas, The Categories Laws of Understanding Appearance, Experience 19:32 Necessary Factor to Have a Possibility You have to have a projector to have a projection experience 22:39 To Know The Real World? 23:44 Mind --> Thought of a shape --> Recognition of the shape (access to a form of triangle) Idea of Triangle, A-priori Concept, Mind Projects Shape? Projection of Prior Experience Phenomena - Appearances, Objects of Experience Shape, Motion - Sensed and Actual Color, Texture - Sensed but phenomenal ?

An alternative way to understand the phrase "Copernican Revolution", is that before Copernicus, people believed the Earth was stationary. It sat there passively as the rest of the universe moved around it. And Copernicus revealed that it is the Earth which moves. It is an active element in the universe. In the same way, people before Kant believe that the mind passively receives impressions from the world which acts on it. But Kant showed that the mind actively constructs those impressions. It is an active element in perception.

This is wonderfully lucid! Thank you.

Thank you so much for uploading this valuable content. It is so nice to adopt different perspectives on the world.

Very clear Dr. Bonevac, thank you.

Kant was ahead of his time

Dr. B for the win as always! Astoundingly clear explanation for my undergrad ears.. So many thanks!!

12:04 You've explained this in such simple terms. Thank you!

Thank you for your work

This was a treat and invaluable explanation of kant's contribution compared to others , thank you professor .

Thank you for such a nice explanation.

Excellent. I think that Hegel gave the answer. Through work one can transform the real world by using apriori knowledge. Then our present knowledge moves towards thing in itself.🙏

Very good explanation!! I was enlightened by this video..

Amazing! Thank you

This is magnificent lecture

Beautifully presented.

Thanks for the insight.

Thank you!! The most concise Kant video on YT

Great video, great lecturer, thank you and your team for these videos.

God i love your pedagogy

For some reason I just took 'Copernican Revolution' to mean paradigm shift, but I've always missed the point about the change placing the mind at the centre of the world view. Thanks for this.

You are great sir 🌼👌

I think a key component to Kant's theory that has been lost to modernity due to science and now postmodernism veiling its existence, is Noumenon. It's his unchanging realm around the world of phenomenon. It's the realm beyond Hegel's geist. I find that in presentations like this one and most contemporary writers on the subject seem to downplay his emphasis on "metaphysics", giving it the position of a kind of broad psychology. But I think of it as a true metaphysics--a physics which includes transcendent realities, those objective AND numinous elements of the noumenon. The realm of phenomenon is all we accept today and thus, using Hegel's dialectic magic, have had to alchemize our language and theory to create a kind of synthetic noumenon. I've heard a lot of talk about a return of the logos, which I think has been encaged by Hegel's geist. But I think of this less in Greek or gnostic terms as much as in Kantian terms (with some Otto and Jung and others), in that we have lost our connection to Noumenon while chasing the synthetic. While Kant argued we can only know things subjectively, he argued for the existence of an unchanging realm. Maybe I'm not understanding this well and drawing connections where they shouldn't be

Thanks professor! Greetings from Sweden. I enjoy following your lectures while doing part-time jobs, to boost my philosophical work and studies in the rest of the day. My school even use some of your books for a few smaller courses. To anyone watching and/or reading this, I can highly recommend Roger Scruton's introductory book on Kant (Oxford University Press). Also, at least reading Prolegomena (a few times) will greatly help you to understand Kant. I think professor Bonevac does a brilliant job of laying out all the important stuff here, but would like to stress, that one ought to resist any relativist/subjectivist/strong antirealist notions misleading one to construe Kant as meaning that we somehow construct the world willfully and that that construction would be infinitely malleable (like the intersectionalists/constructivists believe). To a very small degree, in some circumstances we may play some part, and we may be able to affect things through our attitudes, add or modify our beliefs, either willfully, or by negligence/ignorance, and so on, but it's one thing to speak of the world as a product of our minds (for us as humans, human condition, pre-sets, possible experience, essentially still retaining objectivity within our collective human framework etc.) and something entirely different to claim that the world fundamentally is, ontologically speaking, merely a case of constructivism. Sadly, many believe and actively promote that line of thinking (especially within sociology, while having zero grasp of philosophy, let alone metaphysics, even of their own subject). This difference we can see in the contemporary political battles. I think anyone clever and sharp enough knows what I mean. I love Kant and Wittgenstein, properly understood (the resolute reading), is a great continuation of the Kantian project of a synthesis between modest realism and modest antirealism.

thank you!

Oh, interesting, Kant's view sounds like a view in neuroscience I've been hearing about called predictive coding or predictive processing. From what I understand it's the view that perception is the result of negotiation between top down understandings of the world (priors) and raw sense data (evidence). There was an experiment done where participants were shown anomalous playing cards such as a black four of hearts. Given a brief exposure, they usually identified the cards without noticing anything was wrong. The black four of hearts was sometimes identified as a four of hearts or a four of spades; it was automatically fit into one of some predefined perceptual categories. Perhaps you could even say that logic was responsible for mediating between the different possible perceptions, since I don't believe it would have been identified as a four of diamonds. Maybe the brain was running some kind of deductive process starting with card color (resulting in a perception of a spade) or starting with suit (resulting in a perception of hearts).

❤

Kant was absolutely right in the transcendental aesthetic. The two-capacitor paradox proves it in time, Gabriel's horn proves it in space - you cannot have enough paint to paint the surface area but can have enough to fill its internal volume, so you could pour out the paint and have half the surface area covered. It doesn't have the implications people believe and is widely misunderstood. It doesn't make Kant a solipsist. He proves the Berklian view as absurd and apparently does the same thing with Leibniz, I don't quite understand the proof against Leibniz, but the case is clear but not conclusive IMO. Reading Allison clarifies Kant, although many books on the deduction are excellent. I wonder if there is anything post-Kantian on the philosophy of mind that is as good?. I wonder if there is such a thing as an honest academic - Kant has enemies and is hated. The category of quality has been a hard point for me. Comments?

"critique critiquing itself" or as Ramana Maharshi used to say "is using a thorn to remove a thorn".

Not all Kants are created equally. I nearly understood this.

Bruh, this was a sick ass explanation of some dppe ass concepts. On the real though, I appreciate kants willingness to say "absolute truth is out of humans scope." I think in some ways mans awareness of the gap between phenomena and the minds constructed interpretation of an object has driven so much of what we call progress. Whenever we find a phenomenena that does not conform to our existing priori were driven AF to create a better interpretation. I also think its a trip how humanity as an entity has created tools of observations which in themselves interpert natural phenomena into an observable constructions ala the projector. So a simple example would be infa red or radio waves. These phenomena exist, but are unobservable by human "Intuition." So obvi humans can't TRULY see or hear these phenomena, but we observe a constructed interpretation. And once you can see some shit, you can use it, in some instances manipulate it. E.g.. we make radio signals. Whats got me hyped recently is out ability to see gravity. Look that shit up if you haven't heard about it. But we've begun detecting gravitational waves through their minute distortion of space time. Think about what we'll be able to do with that!

What happens when the categories of the mind are applied to the categories of the mind? Is that what gives rise to our sense of metaphysical reality in constview or in any other philosophers view?

Hi Daniel. I would appreciate any help with understanding Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of space and time and would appreciate some clarification on the metaphysical implications of Kant’s view of space and time, especially as someone who isn’t familiar with Kant’s ideas (even though I am interested). From what I know, Kant claims that both space and time only exist in the mind. As far as I understand, space and time wouldn’t exist for Kant if it was not for the human mind - it has no external mind-independent/objective reality. Am I right or wrong about this? (Is Kant only making an epistemological claim and not an ontological one? If this is the case, space and time would be incoherent without our mind, but space and time would still have some type of existence independent of our mind - maybe it would be chaotic?) If my assessment of Kant’s doctrine on space and time are valid, I was wondering then is there no objective reality that exists for Kant? If so, what is it, if it does not include space or time? Also, is Kant’s doctrine on time compatible with the growing block metaphysical theory of time (the past and present exist, but the future doesn’t exist) in contrast to both presentism (the present is real but the past and future are not real) and eternalism (past, present and future all equally coexist with one another)? Thanks for any response with these questions! 😃 I also apologise for my ignorance regarding Kant

Isn’t the question that Kant hasn’t maybe asked, how can he know this? His experience is one of growing in a place where he had these concepts given to him as he grew up. They were implanted in him, albeit unknowingly, as he developed. Outside input was teaching him things that he assumes are a priori. To then think that this knowledge is a priori he would need to study someone who hadn’t ever had human contact or any external feeding of information. Our experience conforms to the objects and our a priori knowledge isn’t a priori, it’s learnt. Instinct is a different value to understanding

How did Helen Keller’s synthetic apriori intuition inform her about the objects of experience?

The last half of his 3rd belongs at the end of his 1st.

19:25 using modal symbology: P1) P -> q P2) p C1) q +++++ Proof A1) ¬q; Assume C1 is false. P3) P; P2, Axiom T P4) q; P1, MP P5) False; A1, P4 Contradiction C1) q ; A1-P5, Proof by contradiction

21:11

Is saying an object will reflect light, or vibrations, sound waves etc a kind of a-priori knowledge of the thing itself?

May be If there is a cause there will be effects

When asked my political opinion - I start talking about a Carrot, On a Plate, On a table.

This reminds me somehow of the way stereotypes shape how we perceive others. But it is weird to think we come into this world preequipped with concepts without which we couldn't make sense of the world. Let's take a chair. I know what a chair is because I was repeatedly exposed to chairs in my life and soon developed an understanding of what it is used for. This would be a realist's view. Kant would say I identify the chair and know everything about it (?) because I have a priori knowledge of it. When I see a chair for the first time in my life I will naturally sit down on it. But why do cultures without chairs not immediately understand the use of a chair? For example Aborigines before European contact. If the fixed (?) inventory of concepts is culture-specific, then is it impossible for Aborigines to acquire knowledge about the use and design of a chair? Clearly not, but how does Kant explain creative processes that make necessary the acquisition of new concepts?

so good 2023 Huh kyung young Eternal milk Kerygma

Enter Shopenhauer

The sun will rise

If Kant doesn't blow your mind you do not understand what he states.

Questions are dual to answers. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Deductive inference (a priori) is dual to inductive inference (a posteriori) -- Immanuel kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy, chance, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, predictability, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non-being) -- Schrodinger's or Plato's cat. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality -- The Yoda Metaphysic.

This lecture convinces me much philosophy is mytifying speculation. Tricks played by language, rhetoric, metaphor. Of course, some philosphy is sometimes a demystification; but way too little of it.

In conclusion ,Emmanuel kan't ,but at least Emanuel tried

Quantum mechanics

according to metaphysics he might be right

I understand nada....

The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Neil deGrasse Tyson

The problem with this guy is that he has his own philosophical vocabulary. He doesn’t take the text as it presents itself. Instead he has a style of argument that he imposes in the text. So if you try to read the texts he’s talking about, you would have no idea. Because this guy thinks he’s smart, and he is, but he won’t help you learn about all the philosophers he’s talking about.

Kant is a bad philosophy.