Would you like to inspect the original subtitles? These are the user uploaded subtitles that are being translated:
1
00:00:00,470 --> 00:00:11,530
For thousands of years, renowned as a land
of poets and thinkers, among them Immanuel
2
00:00:11,530 --> 00:00:12,530
Kant.
3
00:00:12,530 --> 00:00:16,780
Ask yourself only what are the facts and what
are the truths that the fact bare out.
4
00:00:16,780 --> 00:00:24,300
The most important value you can bring to
the table is your integrity, your trustworthiness.
5
00:00:24,300 --> 00:00:30,579
Immanuel Kant – one of the most influential,
consequential, and ground-breaking philosophers
6
00:00:30,579 --> 00:00:37,540
in history – changed the way we think about
we’re all capable of.
7
00:00:37,540 --> 00:00:44,530
Each of us swim in the water of his philosophy
– politically, morally, culturally.
8
00:00:44,530 --> 00:00:47,010
He changed everything.
9
00:00:47,010 --> 00:00:52,620
The course of history, us, our ways of thinking
and acting.
10
00:00:52,620 --> 00:00:59,620
He saw that people had been pushed around
– by religious zealots, powerful leaders,
11
00:00:59,620 --> 00:01:09,100
and arrogant metaphysicians– and he wanted
to prove and show how we could think for ourselves.
12
00:01:09,100 --> 00:01:18,010
That in here, we had a powerful tool that
no-one had yet properly understood.
13
00:01:18,010 --> 00:01:23,490
That if we used it properly, we could begin
to strip away misconceptions, false opinion,
14
00:01:23,490 --> 00:01:32,890
all this fuzz, all of this confusion, all
of this complexity, and find within us pure
15
00:01:32,890 --> 00:01:33,890
reason.
16
00:01:33,890 --> 00:01:36,310
A big claim.
17
00:01:36,310 --> 00:01:42,090
He said that the Enlightenment – that 18th
century period of radical change in Europe
18
00:01:42,090 --> 00:01:50,260
- was ‘man’s emergence from immaturity’
– and reading him, when you really understand
19
00:01:50,260 --> 00:01:57,439
what he’s saying, really does have an effect
on the inner workings of your mind; you can
20
00:01:57,439 --> 00:01:59,620
feel the way you think changing.
21
00:01:59,620 --> 00:02:07,670
So we’ll look at both his ideas about rationality,
knowledge, and his philosophy of morality,
22
00:02:07,670 --> 00:02:16,110
and in doing so, we’ll try and find a peak,
a viewpoint, from which we can reliably view
23
00:02:16,110 --> 00:02:24,380
the world, a solid foundation to stand on,
from which we can find some tools, some guidelines
24
00:02:24,380 --> 00:02:34,620
for thinking and acting, a place we might
be able to find pure reason.
25
00:02:34,620 --> 00:02:41,819
This is also the story of a man, who, like
Kant, is attempting to find their way up a
26
00:02:41,819 --> 00:03:03,890
mountain, searching for something pure at
the top.
27
00:03:03,890 --> 00:03:11,570
Immanuel Kant – born in 1724 - wanted to
make us a truly scientific species – he
28
00:03:11,570 --> 00:03:20,800
wanted to bring together reason – how we
think - and experience – what we see, hear,
29
00:03:20,800 --> 00:03:30,349
touch through our senses - on a sure foundation
– one that scientific knowledge could be
30
00:03:30,349 --> 00:03:32,950
built on.
31
00:03:32,950 --> 00:03:38,709
He hoped to lay out what we described as a
‘cosmic’ idea of philosophy – one that
32
00:03:38,709 --> 00:03:47,910
followed in Newton’s footsteps when we discovered
the laws of motion and gravity – Kant wanted
33
00:03:47,910 --> 00:03:59,349
to layout the laws that governed human thought,
human experience, human action.
34
00:03:59,349 --> 00:04:05,390
In that, he said that how we think is central
in the three most important questions we can
35
00:04:05,390 --> 00:04:08,879
ask ourselves: What can I know?
36
00:04:08,879 --> 00:04:10,620
What should I do?
37
00:04:10,620 --> 00:04:14,739
And for what may I hope?
38
00:04:14,739 --> 00:04:22,990
His most important book is the monumental
Critique of Pure Reason – an 1000 page book
39
00:04:22,990 --> 00:04:31,440
published in 1781, written in technical philosophical
language, in winding impenetrable passages,
40
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:33,210
with no accepted interpretation.
41
00:04:33,210 --> 00:04:43,050
The goal of the book though is quite simple:
He’s asking What can we know objectively?
42
00:04:43,050 --> 00:04:44,050
Surely?
43
00:04:44,050 --> 00:04:45,960
With certainty.
44
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:47,630
About the world?
45
00:04:47,630 --> 00:04:48,630
About ourselves?
46
00:04:48,630 --> 00:04:53,810
And about the relationship between the two.
47
00:04:53,810 --> 00:05:03,270
He starts from a simple premise: if we look
around us, at the landscape, the universe,
48
00:05:03,270 --> 00:05:07,890
the weather, our health & bodies, our pursuits,
relationships, choices- how, if you really
49
00:05:07,890 --> 00:05:16,470
think about it, it seems incomprehensibly
complex, there’s just so much going on , it’s
50
00:05:16,470 --> 00:05:23,800
almost chaotic, has so many distinct parts,
can be approached in so many ways – how
51
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:29,520
is it possible that we make sense of it at
all?
52
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:39,350
Out of all of this, somehow, we do get meaning
– we get lives, routines, schedules, books,
53
00:05:39,350 --> 00:05:42,600
places to go and people to see.
54
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:52,980
He’s asking how , in the philosopher Yirmiyahu
Yovel’s words, we constitute a cosmos from
55
00:05:52,980 --> 00:05:55,680
chaos.
56
00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:59,590
Kant said that:
‘Two things fill the mind with ever new
57
00:05:59,590 --> 00:06:06,630
and increasing admiration and reverence: the
starry heavens above me and the moral law
58
00:06:06,630 --> 00:06:08,250
within me….’
59
00:06:08,250 --> 00:06:14,970
The starry world he calls an ‘unbounded
magnitude’ - worlds upon worlds, system
60
00:06:14,970 --> 00:06:21,840
upon systems – that unimaginable complexity
everywhere we look in the world– and the
61
00:06:21,840 --> 00:06:31,560
second, is the way that from that, I manage
to carve a path through it – I manage to
62
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:36,520
think and act.
63
00:06:36,520 --> 00:06:42,889
In all of that boundless complexity, we seem
to have some sort of compass, something that
64
00:06:42,889 --> 00:06:49,830
guides our thought, and guides our sense of
right and wrong.
65
00:06:49,830 --> 00:06:52,090
So, lets get going.
66
00:06:52,090 --> 00:06:56,760
I’m to avoid being technical as much as
I reasonably can.
67
00:06:56,760 --> 00:07:01,540
I’ll avoid going down the route normally
taken - a route you’ll recognise if you’ve
68
00:07:01,540 --> 00:07:07,400
looked at any introductory book or podcast
about kant – it’s the route of analytic
69
00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:14,660
a priori bachelors being unmarried men – and
I think it’s a confusing place to start.
70
00:07:14,660 --> 00:07:19,960
Because actually, I think the key to Kant
is actually quite simple – he’s asking
71
00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:27,380
how we create concepts – how we make our
ideas of the world – what’s happening
72
00:07:27,380 --> 00:07:29,400
when we do this?
73
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:36,770
In thinking about this we approach the peak
of pure reason because, conceptualising is
74
00:07:36,770 --> 00:07:43,260
what we do – in every moment, it’s the
foundation of all thought.
75
00:07:43,260 --> 00:07:51,800
In finding what’s pure, you can know what’s
reliable, what to most focus on, you can sharpen
76
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:52,800
how to think.
77
00:07:52,800 --> 00:08:03,800
Think about all the experiences you’ve had
in your life.
78
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:10,530
The things you’ve seen, felt, smelt, heard,
tasted.
79
00:08:10,530 --> 00:08:15,970
Now multiply that by all the people who have
ever lived.
80
00:08:15,970 --> 00:08:23,689
By the numerical extent of the world, of the
universe – what we know of it, what we don’t
81
00:08:23,689 --> 00:08:33,299
– add in all the things you’ve forgotten,
the experience of animals, plants, the processes
82
00:08:33,299 --> 00:08:36,728
of physics or chemistry, too.
83
00:08:36,729 --> 00:08:48,519
Look around right now: look at all the parts
of the room that you could focus on, but haven’t
84
00:08:48,519 --> 00:08:52,569
–
I could select this single quadrant out of
85
00:08:52,569 --> 00:09:00,040
all the others, and think about not just its
shape, but its color, not just its color but
86
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:08,579
its shade, not just its shade but its precise
texture – how it feels, what happens to
87
00:09:08,579 --> 00:09:17,749
it, how it smells - now zoom back out – how
do we choose what to select out of all of
88
00:09:17,749 --> 00:09:20,449
this?
89
00:09:20,449 --> 00:09:29,600
How do we get a comprehensible picture
of the world?
90
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:31,300
And that’ a single piece of dirt.
91
00:09:31,300 --> 00:09:42,689
That same problem applies to everything; what
we have for lunch, which word we choose next,
92
00:09:42,689 --> 00:09:46,389
our life plans.
93
00:09:46,389 --> 00:09:51,269
About half a billion photons hit the retina
every single second.
94
00:09:51,269 --> 00:09:59,300
And somehow we translate that into something
intelligible, something human, a picture,
95
00:09:59,300 --> 00:10:00,660
a focus.
96
00:10:00,660 --> 00:10:07,670
This is Kant’s fundamental question: How
do you get a structured, comprehendible idea
97
00:10:07,670 --> 00:10:11,739
of the world from all this stuff?
98
00:10:11,739 --> 00:10:17,170
The collection of perceptions, impressions
on the eye, on the skin, in the nose, on the
99
00:10:17,170 --> 00:10:24,119
ear drum – are like billions of artists
strokes each and every second – like the
100
00:10:24,119 --> 00:10:29,939
collecting of infinitesimal peas in a colossal
bag.
101
00:10:29,939 --> 00:10:36,639
What we have is what Kant called ‘content
without form’ – there is no organising
102
00:10:36,639 --> 00:10:41,470
factor, its just a mass, a mess, a chaos.
103
00:10:41,470 --> 00:10:49,249
So the first problem is the organisational
problem – how do we organise all of this?
104
00:10:49,249 --> 00:10:55,371
The second, is how is objective knowledge
possible in the face of all this?
105
00:10:55,371 --> 00:11:03,049
Out of all of those trillions of artists impressions
– so many have been wiped away, turned out
106
00:11:03,049 --> 00:11:10,829
to be mistaken, mis-strokes – how do we
know that the sun will continue to rise, that
107
00:11:10,829 --> 00:11:17,399
the laws of gravity will hold ten years from
now?
108
00:11:17,399 --> 00:11:22,589
Kant was responding to the influential Scottish
philosopher David Hume.
109
00:11:22,589 --> 00:11:24,660
Hume was an empiricist.
110
00:11:24,660 --> 00:11:30,839
He believed that all knowledge came from the
senses; that we learn about the world from
111
00:11:30,839 --> 00:11:32,730
what we absorb.
112
00:11:32,730 --> 00:11:43,259
From this, Hume made a radical claim: that
if we only know the sun rises and sets from
113
00:11:43,259 --> 00:11:48,819
experience, or from the experience of others,
from what we’ve been told – no matter
114
00:11:48,819 --> 00:11:55,689
how many times we watch it rise, no matter
how many times we’ve recorded it rising
115
00:11:55,689 --> 00:12:01,930
through history – there is no certain proof
that it will rise again tomorrow.
116
00:12:01,930 --> 00:12:09,530
We can only say that with each time we experience
something happening, the likelihood of it
117
00:12:09,530 --> 00:12:15,009
happening again increases.
118
00:12:15,009 --> 00:12:17,860
This deeply disturbed Kant.
119
00:12:17,860 --> 00:12:21,999
He said that awoke him from his dogmatic slumber.
120
00:12:21,999 --> 00:12:28,519
It disturbed him so much because it shook
the new scientific method that was emerging
121
00:12:28,519 --> 00:12:33,579
in Kant’s time from having any secure foundation.
122
00:12:33,579 --> 00:12:37,639
We might observe gravity working consistently.
123
00:12:37,639 --> 00:12:40,760
But it could change.
124
00:12:40,760 --> 00:12:46,749
Afterall, people believed many things throughout
history that turned out to be untrue.
125
00:12:46,749 --> 00:12:52,499
The second and related thing that disturbed
Kant was that, if Hume was right, that all
126
00:12:52,499 --> 00:12:59,429
of our knowledge came from outside of us,
from experience, through our senses, then
127
00:12:59,429 --> 00:13:05,040
we have no innate knowledge making capacity
for ourselves.
128
00:13:05,040 --> 00:13:13,870
If all comes from outside, we are just receptors,
‘passively driven by outside stimuli’
129
00:13:13,870 --> 00:13:19,079
as Yovel puts it.
130
00:13:19,079 --> 00:13:21,959
Kant felt intuitively that this wrong.
131
00:13:21,959 --> 00:13:28,779
That we have knowledge of our own, and that
some scientific truths – for example, that
132
00:13:28,779 --> 00:13:35,000
everything that happens has a cause – or
some mathematical truths – like 2+2=4 – are
133
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:47,029
true for us, for everyone, and doesn’t come
from outside – we just know it.
134
00:13:47,029 --> 00:13:57,160
Do we really have to go about searching for
mathematics in nature?
135
00:13:57,160 --> 00:14:03,929
From followers of Hume’s philosophy, surely
it follows that numbers had to be discovered
136
00:14:03,929 --> 00:14:06,350
one at a time.
137
00:14:06,350 --> 00:14:07,720
Counted out.
138
00:14:07,720 --> 00:14:12,790
Pythagoras could only find his theorem out
in the world, in the wild.
139
00:14:12,790 --> 00:14:19,999
This surely isn’t true – do we not have
an innate capacity for working through some
140
00:14:19,999 --> 00:14:34,649
mathematical and scientific claims ourselves,
independent of experience?
141
00:14:34,649 --> 00:14:40,379
As Roger Scruton puts it in his introduction,
Kant wants to know ‘How can I come to know
142
00:14:40,379 --> 00:14:46,119
the world through pure reflection, without
recourse to experience?’’
143
00:14:46,119 --> 00:14:52,089
This pure reflection is pure reason – the
root of all thinking.
144
00:14:52,089 --> 00:15:03,379
In short, again, how do we – in here - constitute
a cosmos out of chaos.
145
00:15:03,379 --> 00:15:16,009
Kant wrote several influential books, but
whats referred to as the first critique – the
146
00:15:16,009 --> 00:15:20,299
critique of pure reason – is the central
one.
147
00:15:20,299 --> 00:15:25,949
Its where he answers that most fundamental
of questions – how do constitute meaning
148
00:15:25,949 --> 00:15:30,419
out of chaos – how do we create knowledge
ourselves, for ourselves.
149
00:15:30,419 --> 00:15:38,449
Ok, so first, what does reason mean for Kant?
150
00:15:38,449 --> 00:15:44,779
Broadly, it means the process of thinking
– the conditions, the rules, the operating
151
00:15:44,779 --> 00:15:47,720
system, for thinking itself.
152
00:15:47,720 --> 00:15:55,350
If Hume was right that everything comes from
outside of us, then the very act of thinking
153
00:15:55,350 --> 00:15:57,369
makes little sense.
154
00:15:57,369 --> 00:16:05,389
If we get everything from outside, do we get
the rules for thinking from outside too, like
155
00:16:05,389 --> 00:16:07,709
picking up someone elses cookbook?
156
00:16:07,709 --> 00:16:18,459
It Hume was right, it would like all the thinking
was done for us before it even gets to us.
157
00:16:18,459 --> 00:16:28,769
So in short, asking what reason is, is asking
what thinking is if it was emptied of all
158
00:16:28,769 --> 00:16:29,769
content.
159
00:16:29,769 --> 00:16:32,949
That’s why he says pure reason.
160
00:16:32,949 --> 00:16:36,859
Working out what this is could be unimaginably
powerful.
161
00:16:36,859 --> 00:16:42,699
To know how to build and program on a great
computer, of course you need to know how the
162
00:16:42,699 --> 00:16:44,559
source code works.
163
00:16:44,559 --> 00:16:49,769
Working this out is like finding the source
of knowledge stripped of everything else,
164
00:16:49,769 --> 00:16:52,649
a kind of meaning of life.
165
00:16:52,649 --> 00:16:58,879
Yovel writes that ‘reason’s interests
are inherent to it and not directed to any
166
00:16:58,879 --> 00:17:00,449
external goal.
167
00:17:00,449 --> 00:17:09,909
In other words, human rationality is a goal-oriented
activity, whose goal lies in itself rather
168
00:17:09,909 --> 00:17:12,329
than in anything other than itself.’
169
00:17:12,329 --> 00:17:25,888
Pure reason is a bit like this beaker, a cup,
or a measuring jug – it takes the data of
170
00:17:25,888 --> 00:17:33,759
the outside world as its content – but it
shapes it, defines it in its own way – and
171
00:17:33,759 --> 00:17:41,519
reason does that by formulating concepts – concepts
are how we see the world.
172
00:17:41,519 --> 00:17:48,769
As Kantian philosopher Paul Guyer puts it
‘The Critique of Pure Reason argues that
173
00:17:48,769 --> 00:17:55,130
all knowledge requires both input from the
senses and organization by concepts, and that
174
00:17:55,130 --> 00:18:02,460
both sensory inputs and organizing concepts
have pure forms that we can know a priori,
175
00:18:02,460 --> 00:18:08,169
thus know to be universally and necessarily
valid’.
176
00:18:08,169 --> 00:18:17,350
Ok, Kant uses that phrase a priori a lot – it
just means independent of experience, before
177
00:18:17,350 --> 00:18:29,760
all use, universal – it’s the elixir,
the holy grail, of pure thought.
178
00:18:29,760 --> 00:18:36,490
He says a priori means what is left when ‘one
removes from our experience everything that
179
00:18:36,490 --> 00:18:38,370
belongs to the senses.’
180
00:18:38,370 --> 00:18:44,140
He continues that ‘Every cognition is called
pure, that is not mixed with anything foreign
181
00:18:44,140 --> 00:18:45,140
to it.’
182
00:18:45,140 --> 00:18:56,890
Pure thought receives, organises, judges and
applies concepts to the raw data of experience.
183
00:18:56,890 --> 00:19:04,960
Kant also calls pure thought the understanding
because, well, it attempts to understand the
184
00:19:04,960 --> 00:19:06,570
world.
185
00:19:06,570 --> 00:19:12,139
Yovel writes that ‘the senses supply the
understanding with a crude element that is
186
00:19:12,139 --> 00:19:19,660
not yet a real object but only the material
for it; and the understanding, a spontaneous
187
00:19:19,660 --> 00:19:26,679
factor, must order and shape this material
according to its (the understanding’s) own
188
00:19:26,679 --> 00:19:28,750
iori modes of operation.’
189
00:19:28,750 --> 00:19:36,260
Kant’s responding to two traditions in philosophy
that were new at the time.
190
00:19:36,260 --> 00:19:44,140
The empiricists, as we’ve seen, like Hume
– who arguing all knowledge comes from experience,
191
00:19:44,140 --> 00:19:51,220
and the rationalists -people like Descartes
and Spinoza – who argued that reason is
192
00:19:51,220 --> 00:19:55,830
the way to secure knowledge like mathematics.
193
00:19:55,830 --> 00:19:58,340
Kant carves a path that requires both.
194
00:19:58,340 --> 00:20:05,750
It’s the mixing of them – and how that
happens that’s important.
195
00:20:05,750 --> 00:20:13,570
Famously he says: ‘Without sensibility – that’s
senses - no object would be given to us, and
196
00:20:13,570 --> 00:20:19,070
without understanding – that’s thinking
- none would be thought.
197
00:20:19,070 --> 00:20:32,529
Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions
without concepts are blind’
198
00:20:32,529 --> 00:20:36,559
Kant takes bewildering, complex, and difficult
to understand twists and turns towards his
199
00:20:36,559 --> 00:20:37,970
proof of this.
200
00:20:37,970 --> 00:20:41,799
He takes different pathways towards the same
goal.
201
00:20:41,799 --> 00:20:45,700
I’m going to focus on the three central
ones.
202
00:20:45,700 --> 00:20:50,169
From them, pure reason can be glimpsed and
understood.
203
00:20:50,169 --> 00:20:59,350
The technical names are: Transcendental aesthetic,
metaphysical deducation, and the transcendental
204
00:20:59,350 --> 00:21:02,929
deduction
But don’t worry about them sounding technical
205
00:21:02,929 --> 00:21:11,840
– just focus on that peak – and we’ll
meander our way towards it.
206
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:21,419
Ok, so what’s the first path?
207
00:21:21,419 --> 00:21:28,850
What is pure and necessary and fundamental
and universal and a priori to receiving any
208
00:21:28,850 --> 00:21:33,140
of that data from the environment from the
senses?
209
00:21:33,140 --> 00:21:38,710
Whats the first part of our pre-empirical
toolkit?
210
00:21:38,710 --> 00:21:41,899
Time and space.
211
00:21:41,899 --> 00:21:49,260
Kant is always asking this question: what
must be the case for this to be true?
212
00:21:49,260 --> 00:21:53,299
What are the conditions that make this possible?
213
00:21:53,299 --> 00:22:00,289
And the first thing Kant claims is that space
and time are the universal forms of all intuitions;
214
00:22:00,289 --> 00:22:09,320
time and space are the conditions for experience
– those inputs - to happen at all.
215
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:18,450
It doesn’t come from the senses; to even
have sensations in the first place we must
216
00:22:18,450 --> 00:22:24,210
have some intuitive framework.
217
00:22:24,210 --> 00:22:30,320
This idea is the first stone laid in Kants
transcendental method.
218
00:22:30,320 --> 00:22:37,429
Speaking of stones, For me to even experience
an object – whether I see, hear, touch it
219
00:22:37,429 --> 00:22:46,110
- I must be able to place it in space -separate
from other objects, and importantly, as distinct,
220
00:22:46,110 --> 00:22:53,100
in space from myself -as something separate
from my consciousness.
221
00:22:53,100 --> 00:23:01,250
We have to have what Kant calls pure intuition
– a framework of space and time – that
222
00:23:01,250 --> 00:23:05,769
the experience can happen in.
223
00:23:05,769 --> 00:23:13,020
Kant says “Space is not an empirical concept
that has been drawn from outer experiences,”
224
00:23:13,020 --> 00:23:17,990
because “in order for certain sensations
to be related to something outside me... the
225
00:23:17,990 --> 00:23:21,450
representation of space must already be their
ground”
226
00:23:21,450 --> 00:23:28,690
In other words, our experience of space is
not something we learn empirically.
227
00:23:28,690 --> 00:23:35,050
It’s presupposed to even have empirical
experiences at all.
228
00:23:35,050 --> 00:23:42,220
Because in order for us to even say something
is over there, the ‘overthereness’ is
229
00:23:42,220 --> 00:23:45,480
is assumed in the judgement.
230
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:53,759
When I say this is over there, the very quality
of thisness must be recognised as something
231
00:23:53,759 --> 00:23:57,540
I’ve carved out in space.
232
00:23:57,540 --> 00:23:59,429
What am I doing when I say this?
233
00:23:59,429 --> 00:24:09,789
I’m delimiting this as a thing in space,
separate from me, relative to other things.
234
00:24:09,789 --> 00:24:12,179
Time functions in the same way.
235
00:24:12,179 --> 00:24:20,370
For me to even understand that one thing follows
another, for me to say ‘something happened
236
00:24:20,370 --> 00:24:30,679
after something else’, before and after
are assumed in the thingness – we have to
237
00:24:30,679 --> 00:24:41,760
have carved out a period of thisness in time
-a moment, separate from other moments.
238
00:24:41,760 --> 00:24:49,000
And so space and time are ‘pure’ intuitions
– they’re the sea that everything else
239
00:24:49,000 --> 00:24:50,000
swims in.
240
00:24:50,000 --> 00:24:54,559
But we can learn something else from this,
something radical.
241
00:24:54,559 --> 00:25:03,220
That this pure intuition is about being able
to perceive particulars within a totality,
242
00:25:03,220 --> 00:25:10,669
about being able to recognise, carve out,
select, pick-out , designate a particular
243
00:25:10,669 --> 00:25:20,360
unit of space – the stone – or a particular
unit of time – now, then, when.
244
00:25:20,360 --> 00:25:25,269
Again, a particular in a totality.
245
00:25:25,269 --> 00:25:45,999
Yovel writes that
246
00:25:45,999 --> 00:25:52,860
For us to perceive the world at all, we must
have an innate grasp of what us inside of
247
00:25:52,860 --> 00:26:00,769
us and outside of us, what is here and there,
without which everything would be everywhere
248
00:26:00,769 --> 00:26:10,240
at once, and an innate grasp of succession,
of something following another thing in time,
249
00:26:10,240 --> 00:26:14,910
without which everything would happen at once.
250
00:26:14,910 --> 00:26:21,030
What this assumes, to be able to distinguish
points on these spectrums, is that we can
251
00:26:21,030 --> 00:26:30,080
splice them up, that I can locate, isolate,
analyse, focus on single particular points.
252
00:26:30,080 --> 00:26:36,779
And this leads to another radical implication,
a consequence of this.
253
00:26:36,779 --> 00:26:41,090
That carving out units is the basis of mathematics.
254
00:26:41,090 --> 00:26:48,549
Once I can say one rock or one moment of time,
I can conceive of there being another unit,
255
00:26:48,549 --> 00:26:55,690
then another, then I can add them, times then,
subtract and divide them.
256
00:26:55,690 --> 00:27:05,429
So Kant says the very idea of mathematics
is presumed in having any experience at all.
257
00:27:05,429 --> 00:27:11,249
Yovel writes simply that ‘The number 5 is
the product of a construction that adds the
258
00:27:11,249 --> 00:27:17,980
basic numerical unit to itself and stops at
the fifth place.’
259
00:27:17,980 --> 00:27:26,159
Mathematics is transcendental, a priori, universal,
pure thought, that does not come from out
260
00:27:26,159 --> 00:27:28,649
there, from experience.
261
00:27:28,649 --> 00:27:34,889
Again, it means that Pythagoras did not have
to go around the world with a magnifying glass
262
00:27:34,889 --> 00:27:37,960
searching for his theorem in the wild.
263
00:27:37,960 --> 00:27:52,620
The question is whether he could have imagined
it with no sensory input at all.
264
00:27:52,620 --> 00:28:03,840
Ok, so Space and time are ‘pure forms of
intuition,’ through which we are connected
265
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:06,980
to the objects of empirical experience.
266
00:28:06,980 --> 00:28:14,879
But this is still something passive – it’s
the common landscape of the universe – something
267
00:28:14,879 --> 00:28:19,070
we swim in, swim through.
268
00:28:19,070 --> 00:28:29,740
Kant also needs to prove that we bring something
to the table – that on this landscape, we
269
00:28:29,740 --> 00:28:31,879
do something.
270
00:28:31,879 --> 00:28:38,840
And In short, that something, is the forming
of concepts.
271
00:28:38,840 --> 00:28:47,759
We do this by categorising.
272
00:28:47,759 --> 00:28:53,549
Kant calls the “metaphysical deduction”
a mere “clue to the discovery of all pure
273
00:28:53,549 --> 00:29:01,470
concepts of the understanding,” It’s the
second pathway up towards pure reason, before
274
00:29:01,470 --> 00:29:05,929
we get to the third and main path.
275
00:29:05,929 --> 00:29:11,049
First, what is a concept?
276
00:29:11,049 --> 00:29:24,970
A concept is an abstract idea – the way
we hold something in thought.
277
00:29:24,970 --> 00:29:32,139
Concepts are everything – in fact, they’re
the only access to the world outside of us
278
00:29:32,139 --> 00:29:34,070
we have.
279
00:29:34,070 --> 00:29:42,850
I have a concept of water, for example – what
it like, what it does, where it is, and so
280
00:29:42,850 --> 00:29:43,850
on.
281
00:29:43,850 --> 00:29:52,379
I can’t see the other side of this bottle
– but I have an idea of it nonetheless.
282
00:29:52,379 --> 00:29:57,980
Concepts are the way we focus on the parade
of experience around us, they’re the way
283
00:29:57,980 --> 00:30:02,820
we experience, select, and organise it.
284
00:30:02,820 --> 00:30:09,920
Without some way of focusing, the parade of
experience is just that – a parade, passing
285
00:30:09,920 --> 00:30:11,990
us by.
286
00:30:11,990 --> 00:30:23,210
We need something that focuses on what of
the parade floats.
287
00:30:23,210 --> 00:30:29,789
Exactly how we do when we do watch a parade
– we change our focus, move our necks, and
288
00:30:29,789 --> 00:30:34,690
suddenly a whole different perspective is
within view.
289
00:30:34,690 --> 00:30:39,440
So what’s going on when we do this?
290
00:30:39,440 --> 00:30:46,750
Once again, Kant asks, what must be the case
for this to be possible?
291
00:30:46,750 --> 00:30:54,499
Concepts are something like empty containers
for our experiences to fit into – containers
292
00:30:54,499 --> 00:30:58,809
that are ours – that are part of pure thought.
293
00:30:58,809 --> 00:31:06,629
They are innate – but they have no content
of their own, because they need something
294
00:31:06,629 --> 00:31:16,890
to fill them before they are anything at all
– some way of understanding experience.
295
00:31:16,890 --> 00:31:23,889
Concepts are the way we understand the world,
and we judge what we see so as to categorise
296
00:31:23,889 --> 00:31:25,279
it with concepts.
297
00:31:25,279 --> 00:31:34,369
In fact, all thinking is judging, all thinking
is understanding, and all thinking uses categories.
298
00:31:34,369 --> 00:31:41,049
its the job of our pure ‘understanding’
to organise that data we receive, too judge
299
00:31:41,049 --> 00:31:44,820
where it fits, to recognise patterns.
300
00:31:44,820 --> 00:31:48,330
If it doesn’t do this, what job would it
have?
301
00:31:48,330 --> 00:31:55,039
We’d be placid receptors just soaking everything
in.
302
00:31:55,039 --> 00:32:00,100
He calls the understanding discursive which
he gets from the Latin, ‘running through’
303
00:32:00,100 --> 00:32:04,879
-we run through experience.
304
00:32:04,879 --> 00:32:09,690
And when we run through we make judgements.
305
00:32:09,690 --> 00:32:16,190
Let’s imagine I was born yesterday – which
some people say is true – and this leaf
306
00:32:16,190 --> 00:32:25,690
is the first thing I see – I recognise certain
qualities – its green, it has a shape, its
307
00:32:25,690 --> 00:32:30,029
found on the ground or on a tree, its light.
308
00:32:30,029 --> 00:32:36,470
But its singular – I’ve carved it out
in space & time.
309
00:32:36,470 --> 00:32:46,340
Now, I come across another object, it looks
similar, I recognise it too has this quality
310
00:32:46,340 --> 00:32:55,419
of greenness to it – that’s two instances
– its shape is different but similar too.
311
00:32:55,419 --> 00:33:04,129
Now, I see the grass as green, but its different
to a leaf, it has a difference shape, its
312
00:33:04,129 --> 00:33:05,830
found elsewhere.
313
00:33:05,830 --> 00:33:16,100
I find another leaf, this time on a tree – in
a different place but it looks, feels, smells
314
00:33:16,100 --> 00:33:17,730
very similar.
315
00:33:17,730 --> 00:33:19,549
What’s happened here?
316
00:33:19,549 --> 00:33:26,980
I’ve identified an object as separate from
its surroundings, I’ve judged it to appear
317
00:33:26,980 --> 00:33:34,080
to have a certain quality that differs from
other parts of the environment – greenness,
318
00:33:34,080 --> 00:33:37,840
softness, lightness, this shape.
319
00:33:37,840 --> 00:33:48,110
I’ve focused on each of these properties
– drawing them out from the leaf, then I’ve
320
00:33:48,110 --> 00:33:55,999
unified them back into the concept of a leaf,
for me to recognise again.
321
00:33:55,999 --> 00:34:02,239
Philosopher Jill Vance Buroker writes that
‘Judgments are acts in which the understanding
322
00:34:02,239 --> 00:34:10,750
unifies diverse representations into a single,
more complex, representation of an object.’
323
00:34:10,750 --> 00:34:19,520
The judgement splits the world up into different
parts, analyses it, then unifies it again
324
00:34:19,520 --> 00:34:24,230
into a representation of an object.
325
00:34:24,230 --> 00:34:34,449
I see this tree – I split into colours,
shapes, bark, leaves, - I might later include
326
00:34:34,449 --> 00:34:41,928
its roots – or scientific knowledge about
photosynthesis, or ideas about where the tree
327
00:34:41,929 --> 00:34:50,560
came from, or its different species – but
ultimately, I unify it into a concept of a
328
00:34:50,560 --> 00:34:51,859
tree.
329
00:34:51,859 --> 00:34:59,630
Conceptual thinking unifies distinct representations
of the world by making judgements about them.
330
00:34:59,630 --> 00:35:04,130
This is one of the roots of all thinking.
331
00:35:04,130 --> 00:35:11,400
Everything – whether its objects like leaves
and trees or ideas like democracy or love,
332
00:35:11,400 --> 00:35:15,200
looks for the distinct parts that make up
the concept.
333
00:35:15,200 --> 00:35:21,910
Philosopher Paul Guyer writes that ‘The
premise of Kant’s argument is that all cognition
334
00:35:21,910 --> 00:35:28,490
involves the combination of concepts into
judgments, which in the first instance subsume
335
00:35:28,490 --> 00:35:43,420
more particular concepts under more general
ones.’
336
00:35:43,420 --> 00:35:59,829
Now the question becomes, what are the rules
that govern this process?
337
00:35:59,829 --> 00:36:04,069
How do we unify representations?
338
00:36:04,069 --> 00:36:06,790
How do we combine?
339
00:36:06,790 --> 00:36:09,880
What rulebook are we judging by?
340
00:36:09,880 --> 00:36:12,480
Kant’s answer is the categories.
341
00:36:12,480 --> 00:36:13,480
Bear with me here.
342
00:36:13,480 --> 00:36:15,040
The core of the metaphysical deduction is
that we think in categories.
343
00:36:15,040 --> 00:36:21,190
That all thinking is judging by applying the
categories.
344
00:36:21,190 --> 00:36:29,380
Like time and space, the categories are the
conditions for having any understandable experiences
345
00:36:29,380 --> 00:36:30,380
at all.
346
00:36:30,380 --> 00:36:37,359
Now, this next bit gets a bit technical so
don’t worry too much, but there are four
347
00:36:37,359 --> 00:36:42,079
main categories, each with three subcategories.
348
00:36:42,079 --> 00:36:48,480
Philosophers have criticised Kant here for
various reasons, but it’s the idea of these
349
00:36:48,480 --> 00:36:57,060
rough set of categories that is important
for us:
350
00:36:57,060 --> 00:37:02,650
The four main ones are quantity, quality,
relation, and modality.
351
00:37:02,650 --> 00:37:06,030
Don’t get bogged down in this.
352
00:37:06,030 --> 00:37:14,599
But it’s the way we judge particular representations
and unify them into concepts.
353
00:37:14,599 --> 00:37:19,520
It works like this:
Quantity of judgements is either universal,
354
00:37:19,520 --> 00:37:21,690
particular, or singular.
355
00:37:21,690 --> 00:37:28,510
It’s just the way we can carve up units
and say all of them, some of them, or one
356
00:37:28,510 --> 00:37:29,710
of them.
357
00:37:29,710 --> 00:37:38,780
For example all leaves come from trees, or
some leaves are green, or a leaf is in my
358
00:37:38,780 --> 00:37:45,480
pocket – universal, particular, single.
359
00:37:45,480 --> 00:37:50,589
Quality is the affirmation of some predicate
than an object has.
360
00:37:50,589 --> 00:37:54,950
quality is the ‘are’ in ‘Some leaves
are green.’
361
00:37:54,950 --> 00:38:06,319
It’s our ability to recognise that some
unit is different in quality from for example,
362
00:38:06,319 --> 00:38:12,780
the air or ground that surrounds it.
363
00:38:12,780 --> 00:38:20,040
There’s also relation – if some thing
happens, some thing else happens – if, then
364
00:38:20,040 --> 00:38:26,250
statements - We always find the leaf by the
tree, for example.
365
00:38:26,250 --> 00:38:28,420
If tree, then leaf.
366
00:38:28,420 --> 00:38:30,490
Or we might find non-relation.
367
00:38:30,490 --> 00:38:36,200
There are no trees in the sky – so its either-or.
368
00:38:36,200 --> 00:38:43,200
And then there’s modality – statements
about existence - or whether something is
369
00:38:43,200 --> 00:38:47,700
asserted – held in the mind or not.
370
00:38:47,700 --> 00:38:55,349
In this, we also have the idea of possibility
– this might be right, might not, this is
371
00:38:55,349 --> 00:39:01,840
here, now, this is not.
372
00:39:01,840 --> 00:39:15,130
Ok, but back to the path, the particulars
with the categories aren’t too important
373
00:39:15,130 --> 00:39:24,609
– but what is is that we have a universal,
a priori, pre-experience, transcendental set
374
00:39:24,609 --> 00:39:32,990
of categories, that we use to run through
experience, judge it, understand it, and organise
375
00:39:32,990 --> 00:39:42,339
it into sets of ideas – what we have, if
Kant is right, is quite incredible: its the
376
00:39:42,339 --> 00:39:56,650
foundation of knowledge itself.
377
00:39:56,650 --> 00:40:01,781
This is the heart of Kant’s philosophy,
the third path up to the peak.--- It’s here
378
00:40:01,781 --> 00:40:09,809
that Kant argues that the concepts – like
quantity & quality - apply to experience,
379
00:40:09,809 --> 00:40:17,790
synthesise experience spontaneously, and that
through them experience becomes our own experience,
380
00:40:17,790 --> 00:40:25,240
that the whole process requires an identity
that’s persistent through time.
381
00:40:25,240 --> 00:40:31,960
---Like the previous two paths, he’s asking
what must be true for thought to happen at
382
00:40:31,960 --> 00:40:32,960
all?
383
00:40:32,960 --> 00:40:36,130
What is transcendental?
384
00:40:36,130 --> 00:40:45,930
He starts from a simple premise: ‘what are
the conditions of the possibility of the “I
385
00:40:45,930 --> 00:40:51,599
think” itself ?’
It’s really a common-sense question.
386
00:40:51,599 --> 00:40:57,660
If we were just receiving experiences like
Hume thought, what would the ‘I think’
387
00:40:57,660 --> 00:40:58,660
even mean?
388
00:40:58,660 --> 00:41:04,599
After all, we’d just be passive – we’d
have no way of distinguishing our representations
389
00:41:04,599 --> 00:41:07,130
of the world from the world itself.
390
00:41:07,130 --> 00:41:32,579
We’ve receive the world but we wouldn’t
have concepts like cup, walking, cloud, life.
391
00:41:32,579 --> 00:41:41,330
In having a representation of an object – in
thinking about this apple – its redness,
392
00:41:41,330 --> 00:41:48,820
its sweetness, its location, of turning it
and remembering what the side I cant see looks
393
00:41:48,820 --> 00:41:55,589
like, in remembering what the inside smells
like from a previous experience - I’m obviously
394
00:41:55,589 --> 00:42:02,620
aware that what I’m thinking about is an
apple that is my idea of the apple – that
395
00:42:02,620 --> 00:42:06,609
I’m constructing a concept of it in real
time.
396
00:42:06,609 --> 00:42:11,080
Let’s go back to that empirical chaos.
397
00:42:11,080 --> 00:42:17,020
Kant starts with that simple premise: that
all of my representations of the world are
398
00:42:17,020 --> 00:42:25,030
‘inherently complex’ - a ‘whole of compared
and connected representations’ – the world
399
00:42:25,030 --> 00:42:33,920
– any snapshot of is, is seemingly irreducible
– full of objects and impressions and sense
400
00:42:33,920 --> 00:42:40,420
data that could be cut up in a dizzying and
infinite number of ways.
401
00:42:40,420 --> 00:42:46,069
This doesn’t just apply to space – to
a snapshot of the world around us, but to
402
00:42:46,069 --> 00:42:47,359
time to.
403
00:42:47,359 --> 00:42:49,740
Pause a moment.
404
00:42:49,740 --> 00:42:52,880
Listen to and look at your surroundings.
405
00:42:52,880 --> 00:42:55,339
The speed of things vary.
406
00:42:55,339 --> 00:43:08,349
The bird song comes and goes, the water flows,
maybe quickens, the clouds move, hunger appears,
407
00:43:08,349 --> 00:43:16,430
some things are large and steady, others small
and fleeting.
408
00:43:16,430 --> 00:43:21,770
Kant says “they must all be ordered, connected,
and brought into relations”.
409
00:43:21,770 --> 00:43:31,760
If I’m trying to understand the apple or
the leaf or the tree, I’d watch them over
410
00:43:31,760 --> 00:43:38,859
the course of a year, through the seasons,
as the leaves shed and the fruit falls, and
411
00:43:38,859 --> 00:43:47,970
find something new to add to my understanding
of their concepts.
412
00:43:47,970 --> 00:43:53,119
Now the key to this is synthesis.
413
00:43:53,119 --> 00:44:01,869
It’s only in spontaneously recognising the
world in its parts, breaking them down, the
414
00:44:01,869 --> 00:44:09,319
unifying and synthesising them back together
that I do any thinking at all.
415
00:44:09,319 --> 00:44:12,750
Synthesis of apprehension in intuition (selecting
from chaos)
416
00:44:12,750 --> 00:44:19,900
This is the carving out units in space and
time that I talked about earlier.
417
00:44:19,900 --> 00:44:27,709
Take a look at this pillow – it has so many
colours, shapes, intersecting parts, threads
418
00:44:27,709 --> 00:44:31,530
– how to you decide where to focus?
419
00:44:31,530 --> 00:44:43,039
In the very act of focusing – through looking,
touching, smelling, hearing even – we synthesise
420
00:44:43,039 --> 00:44:49,720
either a part or all of it, into a unity.
421
00:44:49,720 --> 00:44:56,010
Its also true that space and time can be cut
up infinitely – even more so today with
422
00:44:56,010 --> 00:45:03,220
microscopes and hearing equipment - I can
look at a part of an apple – its hard in
423
00:45:03,220 --> 00:45:10,829
some place, soft in others, its found on a
tree but can be picked up, it can be cut up
424
00:45:10,829 --> 00:45:12,460
into many parts.
425
00:45:12,460 --> 00:45:20,300
The number of shades it has is immeasurable,
the feel of the stalk, the inside, the outside
426
00:45:20,300 --> 00:45:21,880
are different.
427
00:45:21,880 --> 00:45:29,640
To experience, the stalk say, I’ve synthesised
its parts – brownness, roughness, shape
428
00:45:29,640 --> 00:45:35,400
– into one unity and excluded the rest of
the apple.
429
00:45:35,400 --> 00:45:41,190
The key is, we separate into parts, into units,
and then synthesise into wholes.
430
00:45:41,190 --> 00:45:45,440
Synthesis of reproduction in the imagination
(the selection mechanism)
431
00:45:45,440 --> 00:45:49,580
But again Kant goes further.
432
00:45:49,580 --> 00:45:56,599
He makes the point that for us to even begin
to construct a concept out of experience we
433
00:45:56,599 --> 00:46:00,440
also need memory and imagination.
434
00:46:00,440 --> 00:46:07,609
He writes ‘apprehending identifiable objects
requires reproducing in imagination the previously
435
00:46:07,609 --> 00:46:11,170
apprehended parts.’
436
00:46:11,170 --> 00:46:16,430
We have to recall the parts of the apple,
even if it was just milliseconds before, to
437
00:46:16,430 --> 00:46:20,319
syntheses those parts into a single concept:
apple.
438
00:46:20,319 --> 00:46:29,660
We can’t see the back, we have to remember
where
439
00:46:29,660 --> 00:46:32,430
we found it, what it tasted like.
440
00:46:32,430 --> 00:46:37,010
And this applies to everything we experience.
441
00:46:37,010 --> 00:46:46,010
Previous representations have to be recognised
as related in some way to present representations.
442
00:46:46,010 --> 00:46:50,760
---This is true for exclusion too.
443
00:46:50,760 --> 00:46:58,829
It’s only in recognising that the redness
of the object I just looked at is different
444
00:46:58,829 --> 00:47:05,710
from the brown branch and the green leaves
that I’m now looking at that I recognise
445
00:47:05,710 --> 00:47:12,280
that the red quality of the apple, along with
its other qualities, makes it something to
446
00:47:12,280 --> 00:47:16,420
focus on and conceptualise at all.
447
00:47:16,420 --> 00:47:25,020
This doesn’t just apply to simple objects,
like apples, but every thought we have, every
448
00:47:25,020 --> 00:47:26,349
concept we have.
449
00:47:26,349 --> 00:47:33,369
Democracy, mountaineering, love, friendship
– they all require breaking phenomena into
450
00:47:33,369 --> 00:47:42,710
parts, unifying them into a concept, recalling
separate parts to do it – this is the basis
451
00:47:42,710 --> 00:47:45,710
of thought, fundamental for pure reasoning.
452
00:47:45,710 --> 00:47:50,440
Synthesis of recognition in the concept
Kant now brings the categories back into the
453
00:47:50,440 --> 00:47:51,440
picture.
454
00:47:51,440 --> 00:47:58,789
To do any of this – to synthesis, use our
memory and imagination to recognise how our
455
00:47:58,789 --> 00:48:08,200
different experiences are related – we must
use the categories – we have to count, recognise
456
00:48:08,200 --> 00:48:12,510
quality, exclude parts, and so on.
457
00:48:12,510 --> 00:48:14,589
We must make judgements.
458
00:48:14,589 --> 00:48:29,349
This has been called the ‘embyro’ of Kant’s
philosophy, the core, the centre, the proof,
459
00:48:29,349 --> 00:48:31,940
the nucleus, the summit.
460
00:48:31,940 --> 00:48:40,590
The terrifyingly titled ‘transcendental
unity of apperception’ is the bringing of
461
00:48:40,590 --> 00:48:42,530
it all together.
462
00:48:42,530 --> 00:48:52,080
Kant synthesises it all into a “unity of
consciousness that precedes all data of the
463
00:48:52,080 --> 00:48:58,950
intuitions” or a “pure, original, unchanging
consciousness”
464
00:48:58,950 --> 00:49:05,380
Applying the categories – counting through
the world, recognising qualities, affirming
465
00:49:05,380 --> 00:49:14,410
and denying – requires a thoroughgoing thread
– a consistent self-same unity that is required
466
00:49:14,410 --> 00:49:18,240
for experience to happen at all.
467
00:49:18,240 --> 00:49:24,609
He writes ‘We are conscious a priori of
the thoroughgoing identity of ourselves with
468
00:49:24,609 --> 00:49:30,839
regard to all representations that can ever
belong to our consciousness’
469
00:49:30,839 --> 00:49:37,299
Remember that phrase – discursive – that
running through – well its central – its
470
00:49:37,299 --> 00:49:46,220
at the centre – it’s the me taking those
routes up the mountain – it’s the I synthesising
471
00:49:46,220 --> 00:49:56,099
the world
He says “The I think must be able to accompany
472
00:49:56,099 --> 00:50:02,030
all my representations; for otherwise something
would be represented in me that could not
473
00:50:02,030 --> 00:50:08,740
be thought at all, which is as much as to
say that the representation would either be
474
00:50:08,740 --> 00:50:13,910
impossible or else at least would be nothing
for me”
475
00:50:13,910 --> 00:50:21,760
This unifying can only be done by some singular
activity of a unified independent consciousness,
476
00:50:21,760 --> 00:50:28,151
which one becomes aware of through the process
of understanding – through judging, through
477
00:50:28,151 --> 00:50:38,859
time, through fabricating our ideas of the
world, through counting, we construct, build
478
00:50:38,859 --> 00:50:44,500
up the world ourselves, and in doing so we
also become self-aware and self-conscious
479
00:50:44,500 --> 00:50:49,000
of the world as my experience of the world.
480
00:50:49,000 --> 00:50:55,619
Kant writes that ‘we can represent nothing
as combined in the object without having previously
481
00:50:55,619 --> 00:51:03,500
combined it ourselves, and that among all
representations combination is the only one
482
00:51:03,500 --> 00:51:10,890
that is not given through objects but can
be executed only by the subject itself, since
483
00:51:10,890 --> 00:51:13,730
it is an act of its self-activity.’
484
00:51:13,730 --> 00:51:20,690
Again, this requires the categories because
to judge and organise any experience at all
485
00:51:20,690 --> 00:51:31,579
I must be able to ‘carve out’ a unit to
judge, compare it other units, recognise quality,
486
00:51:31,579 --> 00:51:33,050
and so on.
487
00:51:33,050 --> 00:51:38,700
Buroker says that I then judge that each of
these judgements belong to me.
488
00:51:38,700 --> 00:51:45,750
And I find I can ‘can make judgments about
one representation, some representations,
489
00:51:45,750 --> 00:51:48,970
and all my representations.’
490
00:51:48,970 --> 00:51:56,230
What he’s saying is that, in the very act
of recognising a representation of the world
491
00:51:56,230 --> 00:52:05,970
– in sight say – in carving out, in needing
the phenomenon of time to, say exclude a different
492
00:52:05,970 --> 00:52:15,630
part, or vsynthesise another part – we’re
doing something not given in experience –
493
00:52:15,630 --> 00:52:28,809
we’re doing something that’s mine – the
power to unify that can only be processed
494
00:52:28,809 --> 00:52:38,520
by a single unity – a thread, a core, a
single me – and that cannot be given to
495
00:52:38,520 --> 00:52:45,240
us by experience – that is the summit of
pure reason.
496
00:52:45,240 --> 00:52:49,750
This unity centres everything.
497
00:52:49,750 --> 00:52:56,610
Space and time are the vessel, judgement,
synthesising and understanding are the process,
498
00:52:56,610 --> 00:53:03,280
and the categories of splitting up, counting,
recognising qualities and so on and the tools,
499
00:53:03,280 --> 00:53:10,799
the rules, along using our imagination and
our memory to do so – to survey everything
500
00:53:10,799 --> 00:53:22,279
– this is the center of Kant’ s project
– a priori, universal, required, from which
501
00:53:22,279 --> 00:53:29,900
everything else can be experienced.
502
00:53:29,900 --> 00:53:36,740
But remember, Kant says experiences are required
too.
503
00:53:36,740 --> 00:53:44,500
So now we should be in a better position to
understand that famous phrase: ‘Thoughts
504
00:53:44,500 --> 00:53:54,730
without content are empty; intuitions without
concepts are blind’
505
00:53:54,730 --> 00:54:04,710
Kan’t wrote a lot.
506
00:54:04,710 --> 00:54:15,270
We’ve covered, as much as we can, the first
critique of pure reason.
507
00:54:15,270 --> 00:54:23,339
He went on in later texts, to apply this to
practical reason – how pure reason informs
508
00:54:23,339 --> 00:54:28,230
how we go about the world, how we choose what
to do, what political systems we use, what
509
00:54:28,230 --> 00:54:30,230
we find beautiful.
510
00:54:30,230 --> 00:54:41,510
He began this in his 1785 Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals.
511
00:54:41,510 --> 00:54:47,230
His starting point is this: if what we’ve
discovered at the summit is the only thing
512
00:54:47,230 --> 00:54:55,430
that is universally guaranteed, a priori,
from which all else is surveyed, then it must
513
00:54:55,430 --> 00:55:07,810
bee highest good, the only thing we can absolutely
rely on, what he calls an end in itself.
514
00:55:07,810 --> 00:55:13,720
Kant wants to unleash reason that we had within
us.
515
00:55:13,720 --> 00:55:18,079
He said famously in the essay What is Enlightenment?
516
00:55:18,079 --> 00:55:23,859
That Enlightenment was man’s emergence from
self-incurred immaturity.
517
00:55:23,859 --> 00:55:30,660
That immaturity was not using the reason we
are endowed with.
518
00:55:30,660 --> 00:55:37,619
And just as Kant wants to find pure reason
stripped of all experiential content, something
519
00:55:37,619 --> 00:55:45,549
that is ours, to rely on, he wants to find
a moral code that is pure too, one that doesn’t
520
00:55:45,549 --> 00:55:48,210
rely on anything outside of us.
521
00:55:48,210 --> 00:55:55,599
He called Hume’s philosophy a ‘wretched
anthropology’ – if we reduce morality
522
00:55:55,599 --> 00:56:03,960
to just what we experience, what we see people
do, well, people do some pretty horrible things
523
00:56:03,960 --> 00:56:05,020
to each other.
524
00:56:05,020 --> 00:56:12,380
It seems that many people don’t care about
morality, and it doesn’t seem that nature
525
00:56:12,380 --> 00:56:19,339
gives us too many clues, so morality must
come from elsewhere.
526
00:56:19,339 --> 00:56:27,200
As Kenneth Westphal writes ‘By definition
pure practical reason omits all corporeal
527
00:56:27,200 --> 00:56:35,890
desires, motives, urges, inclinations or preferences
and all consideration of the agent’s capacities
528
00:56:35,890 --> 00:56:38,859
and resources for achieving ends.’
529
00:56:38,859 --> 00:56:45,589
Kant is in search of a moral compass that
is cleansed and stripped of any help from
530
00:56:45,589 --> 00:56:49,660
anything outside of itself – that could
sway it.
531
00:56:49,660 --> 00:56:56,799
Because if, as Hume thought, our morality
comes from our feelings, our sympathies towards
532
00:56:56,799 --> 00:57:03,859
others – not from reason – then how do
we ever condemn those that have no feelings
533
00:57:03,859 --> 00:57:10,730
towards others – those that don’t care,
that are selfish, psychopathic even – how
534
00:57:10,730 --> 00:57:18,540
can we say anyone is ever in the wrong.
535
00:57:18,540 --> 00:57:26,930
Reason and Freedom, Ends in itself
For Kant, reason is so important that we have
536
00:57:26,930 --> 00:57:35,339
a duty to it, because having the ability to
reason implies something else, freedom.
537
00:57:35,339 --> 00:57:41,890
He writes “If only rational beings can be
an end in themselves, this is not because
538
00:57:41,890 --> 00:57:45,930
they have reason, but because they have freedom.
539
00:57:45,930 --> 00:57:51,289
Reason is merely a means”
David Misslebrook writes that Kant started
540
00:57:51,289 --> 00:57:57,089
with the fact that ‘mankind’s distinguishing
feature is our possession of reason.
541
00:57:57,089 --> 00:58:04,010
Therefore, it follows that all humans have
universal rational duties to one another,
542
00:58:04,010 --> 00:58:08,290
centring on their duty to respect the other’s
humanity.’
543
00:58:08,290 --> 00:58:14,300
In a later work – the metaphysics of morals
– KAnt says ““what characterizes humanity
544
00:58:14,300 --> 00:58:21,789
(as distinguished from animality)” is the
“capacity to set oneself an end – any
545
00:58:21,789 --> 00:58:28,609
end whatsoever” Humans can set goals and
use reason to meet them.
546
00:58:28,609 --> 00:58:32,579
It is this that makes us human.
547
00:58:32,579 --> 00:58:38,869
What this means is that we shouldn’t use
people, treating them as means to our goals,
548
00:58:38,869 --> 00:58:41,000
without their consent.
549
00:58:41,000 --> 00:58:47,789
We should respect their capacity to reason
for themselves, to set their own ends, as
550
00:58:47,789 --> 00:58:49,339
Kant called it.
551
00:58:49,339 --> 00:58:56,240
He famously writes that ‘“So act that
you use humanity, whether in your own person
552
00:58:56,240 --> 00:59:04,890
or in the person of any other, always at the
same time as an end, never merely as a means”’
553
00:59:04,890 --> 00:59:10,900
Each of us only had access to the outcomes
of our reasonable thinking.
554
00:59:10,900 --> 00:59:14,790
We set goals and reason how to achieve them.
555
00:59:14,790 --> 00:59:20,869
I might freely set a goal to come down the
mountain, and you can tell me one way is better
556
00:59:20,869 --> 00:59:28,099
than an other – but if you force me down,
against my wishes, you’ve gone against the
557
00:59:28,099 --> 00:59:35,500
reason of another, the only thing we can all
trust absolutely – each person sets their
558
00:59:35,500 --> 00:59:41,079
own in ends – each person is an end in themselves.
559
00:59:41,079 --> 00:59:49,859
This belief is the grounds of what Kant called
the Categorial Imperative.
560
00:59:49,859 --> 01:00:02,530
Reason, for Kant, was the path to morality
because all other things – love, sympathy,
561
01:00:02,530 --> 01:00:10,150
friendship, charity – can wax and wane,
be felt one minute and gone the next – instead
562
01:00:10,150 --> 01:00:16,960
, we should rely on reason and duty to do
what reason commands.
563
01:00:16,960 --> 01:00:23,910
He said ‘nothing is left but the conformity
of actions as such with universal law, which
564
01:00:23,910 --> 01:00:31,640
alone is to serve the will as its principle,
that is, I ought never to act except in such
565
01:00:31,640 --> 01:00:37,170
a way that I could also will that my maxim
should become a universal law’
566
01:00:37,170 --> 01:00:45,029
He called the result a categorical imperative:
categorical meaning unconditional – always
567
01:00:45,029 --> 01:00:51,039
true – and imperative – meaning something
that we know we ought to follow.
568
01:00:51,039 --> 01:00:53,549
So how would this work?
569
01:00:53,549 --> 01:01:01,109
First, we should formulate a maxim - a test
to see if something is moral or not – a
570
01:01:01,109 --> 01:01:09,079
maxim is a principle for acting: I will give
this change to charity, I will drop this litter
571
01:01:09,079 --> 01:01:16,680
here, I will steal this sandwich, I will lie
to my friend, I will drive faster, I will
572
01:01:16,680 --> 01:01:19,240
cheat on my exam.
573
01:01:19,240 --> 01:01:25,789
Kant says that the first way to see if a maxim
conforms with reason – to see whether its
574
01:01:25,789 --> 01:01:36,349
moral - is to ask whether it could become
a universal law without contradiction.
575
01:01:36,349 --> 01:01:43,700
Kant asks would it be logically possible if
everyone did this, if it was universalised?
576
01:01:43,700 --> 01:01:47,529
Is there a ‘contradiction in conception’.
577
01:01:47,529 --> 01:01:49,309
Take breaking a promise.
578
01:01:49,309 --> 01:01:56,109
Ask ‘if everyone broke promises when they
wished, what would it mean to promise in the
579
01:01:56,109 --> 01:01:57,589
first place?’
580
01:01:57,589 --> 01:01:58,650
Nothing.
581
01:01:58,650 --> 01:02:06,980
The ‘institution’ of promising would break
down, wouldn’t function, would become untrustworthy.
582
01:02:06,980 --> 01:02:14,941
James Fieser writes that ‘if such deceit
were followed universally, then the whole
583
01:02:14,941 --> 01:02:21,109
institution of promising would be undermined
and I could not make my promise to begin with.’
584
01:02:21,109 --> 01:02:28,789
Or stealing – if everyone stole from each
other whenever they wished the idea of personal
585
01:02:28,789 --> 01:02:31,809
property would become meaningless.
586
01:02:31,809 --> 01:02:45,700
And in cheating – the institution – whether
in a card game or an exam - the rules that
587
01:02:45,700 --> 01:02:53,430
govern the activity would fall apart and becomes
pointless once everyone starts doing it.
588
01:02:53,430 --> 01:03:00,819
If, when universalizing our maxim, we get
a contradiction in conception, then Kant says
589
01:03:00,819 --> 01:03:04,250
we have a ‘perfect duty’ not to do it.
590
01:03:04,250 --> 01:03:12,070
But we should also ask whether the maxim is
something I could rationally will.
591
01:03:12,070 --> 01:03:18,829
Some things do not contradict themselves when
univseralised, but are still clearly intolerable.
592
01:03:18,829 --> 01:03:26,180
He writes ‘The rule of judgment under laws
of pure practical reason is this: ask yourself
593
01:03:26,180 --> 01:03:32,769
whether, if the action you propose were to
take place by a law of the nature of which
594
01:03:32,769 --> 01:03:38,430
you were yourself a part, you could indeed
regard it as possible through your will.’
595
01:03:38,430 --> 01:03:45,450
Take laziness, for example, or not helping
someone in need.
596
01:03:45,450 --> 01:03:51,170
They don’t contradict themselves when universalised,
but they don’t aid everyone’s reason in
597
01:03:51,170 --> 01:03:54,530
pursuing their ends if everyone did it.
598
01:03:54,530 --> 01:04:01,160
He sees we all need aid some times, and so
a world where no-one helped one another would
599
01:04:01,160 --> 01:04:07,069
obviously be a bad one.
600
01:04:07,069 --> 01:04:16,039
Fieser says two types of contradictions emerge:
one an internal contradiction with the proposed
601
01:04:16,039 --> 01:04:24,309
universal rule; and the other, a contradiction
between the proposed universal rule and another
602
01:04:24,309 --> 01:04:29,680
rational obligation that treats reason as
an end in itself.
603
01:04:29,680 --> 01:04:36,599
The next formulation of the categorical imperative
is to ask whether we are treating people as
604
01:04:36,599 --> 01:04:38,930
people with goals themselves.
605
01:04:38,930 --> 01:04:44,390
He says:
‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
606
01:04:44,390 --> 01:04:50,099
whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never merely as a means to an
607
01:04:50,099 --> 01:04:54,349
end, but always at the same time as an end.’
608
01:04:54,349 --> 01:05:01,350
This means that not only should we avoid manipulating,
using, or blocking that freedom in others,
609
01:05:01,350 --> 01:05:08,200
and even more, that we should actively pursue
aiding it in others.
610
01:05:08,200 --> 01:05:13,799
We should not only avoid treating people as
instruments for our own gain, but we should
611
01:05:13,799 --> 01:05:21,380
find ways to help them in achieving their
ends – because that’s what we’d rationally
612
01:05:21,380 --> 01:05:29,970
will for ourselves.
613
01:05:29,970 --> 01:05:37,150
To take one example, in asking whether I should
help someone in need, not only should we pursue
614
01:05:37,150 --> 01:05:44,480
it if we see someone in need, but we should
actively seek it out, if we can, within a
615
01:05:44,480 --> 01:05:52,319
balancing of our other responsibilities and
rational life plans, because it will help
616
01:05:52,319 --> 01:06:01,690
them achieve their own goals, their own ends
as humans.
617
01:06:01,690 --> 01:06:13,390
Finally, we should ask whether ““every
rational being must act as if he were by his
618
01:06:13,390 --> 01:06:19,150
maxims at all times a lawgiving member of
the universal kingdom of ends”
619
01:06:19,150 --> 01:06:25,980
In short, this means thinking about whether
– if everyone was rational, everyone followed
620
01:06:25,980 --> 01:06:34,059
each others moral laws, if everyone respected
each other – the maxims would all hang together.
621
01:06:34,059 --> 01:06:35,550
Think about traffic lights.
622
01:06:35,550 --> 01:06:45,970
I have a maxim to stop or go at a certain
time
623
01:06:45,970 --> 01:06:57,019
and this hangs together with traffic coming
the other way, the maxim fits the maxim of
624
01:06:57,019 --> 01:07:07,459
the pedestrian to wait patiently, our moral
ideas should be symmetrical so as to be universalisable
625
01:07:07,459 --> 01:07:10,480
– otherwise there would be chaos.
626
01:07:10,480 --> 01:07:16,680
Allen Wood writes that “Rational beings
constitute a realm to the extent that their
627
01:07:16,680 --> 01:07:23,099
ends form a system” in which “these ends
are not only mutually consistent, but also
628
01:07:23,099 --> 01:07:26,400
harmonious and reciprocally supportive,”
629
01:07:26,400 --> 01:07:33,440
Well, in writing these works, in a short period,
just before the French Revolution at the onset
630
01:07:33,440 --> 01:07:40,500
of the truly modern world, towards the end
of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant changed
631
01:07:40,500 --> 01:07:41,500
everything.
632
01:07:41,500 --> 01:07:47,609
For example, Guyer writes that ‘Kant’s
idea that humanity must be treated as an end
633
01:07:47,609 --> 01:07:54,230
in itself and never merely as a means has
gained wide acceptance in modern moral thought
634
01:07:54,230 --> 01:08:00,590
and philosophy’ – and while its liberal
consequences has had a huge effect on our
635
01:08:00,590 --> 01:08:07,269
politics, the question has to be asked, has
its implications been fully realised?
636
01:08:07,269 --> 01:08:16,960
He was immediately, immeasurably, and inimitably
influential.
637
01:08:16,960 --> 01:08:25,250
This idea of focusing on that relationship
between experience and conceptual thinking
638
01:08:25,250 --> 01:08:32,380
started a revolution in philosophy in Germany
known as German Idealism that led to Hegel
639
01:08:32,380 --> 01:08:45,060
and Marx, and in many ways, he began to put
an end to many intellectual arguments that
640
01:08:45,060 --> 01:08:48,870
defined the Enlightenment.
641
01:08:48,870 --> 01:08:55,640
This was because, for many, Kant had proven
that you couldn’t get beyond immediate experience
642
01:08:55,640 --> 01:09:03,580
and thought – any grand theories that tried
to prove or disprove god – whether there
643
01:09:03,580 --> 01:09:11,160
was a beginning to time – were, in their
very nature, pointless, ungraspable.
644
01:09:11,160 --> 01:09:16,720
In this sense, he was a very conservative
figure – carefully attending to the matters
645
01:09:16,720 --> 01:09:17,720
at hand.
646
01:09:17,720 --> 01:09:25,340
But also, strangely, a very radical one – we
can all think for and guide ourselves.
647
01:09:25,340 --> 01:09:33,120
But once you’ve been to the top of the mountain
– got a glimpse of pure reason – been
648
01:09:33,120 --> 01:09:41,930
convinced of your own – truly your own – powers
of rational thought, of applying careful categorisation
649
01:09:41,930 --> 01:09:49,520
to the world, recognising qualities, counting
carefully where and in what ways those qualities
650
01:09:49,520 --> 01:10:31,390
are found – you notice it everywhere – in
ideas & objects, in facts & feelings, in relationships,
651
01:10:31,390 --> 01:10:40,240
philosophies, pursuits, passions, and projects
– how we judge, in what ways we understand,
652
01:10:40,240 --> 01:11:00,830
how we reason through the world – well,
its everything.
66715
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.