1
00:00:09,500 --> 00:00:14,070
Without sensibility, no object would be given to us without understanding.

2
00:00:14,090 --> 00:00:20,180
No object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty.

3
00:00:20,990 --> 00:00:25,400
Intuitions, without concepts or fly.

4
00:00:28,420 --> 00:00:36,820
So we see that for concept concepts, the conceptual dimension is actually the seeing element in experience.

5
00:00:37,510 --> 00:00:47,620
For there to be an experience in contrast to a sensation to a bear, sensation, to the triggering of events, of the sensory, all that.

6
00:00:47,620 --> 00:00:51,249
But it's not an experience for there to be an experience.

7
00:00:51,250 --> 00:00:56,650
There must be an experience of something and for there to be a something,

8
00:00:56,950 --> 00:01:03,850
it has to be an entity subsumed under a general class of things, whether it's a chair or a person.

9
00:01:04,960 --> 00:01:10,390
So there is a required conceptual framework for experience itself,

10
00:01:11,080 --> 00:01:17,380
and it is experience and understanding that together constitute the foundations of all knowledge.

11
00:01:20,230 --> 00:01:24,850
Without these concepts, no more than a parade of sensations would take place.

12
00:01:25,510 --> 00:01:31,030
And the this parade could never rise to the level of this or that.

13
00:01:33,230 --> 00:01:37,850
Now I want you to understand this is a species of cognitive relativism.

14
00:01:38,570 --> 00:01:46,490
This part of Kahn's argument with appropriate reservations may be taken to be a chapter in the very anthropology of thought,

15
00:01:46,730 --> 00:01:52,720
but not as a species of relativism. And when I say a chapter in the anthropology of thought,

16
00:01:52,970 --> 00:02:05,450
recall how frequently Cox reminds us that the argument in place pertains to us changed to a creature of a certain kind pertains to human beings.

17
00:02:06,110 --> 00:02:16,620
I think I've mentioned in an early election that the fact that he expresses impatience with those who are impatient with this divide,

18
00:02:16,620 --> 00:02:20,450
he's established between phenomena and Numa.

19
00:02:21,170 --> 00:02:28,100
Doesn't this lead to scepticism? Why indeed, can we not comprehend things as in themselves?

20
00:02:28,100 --> 00:02:35,780
They really are unconscious, prepared to say, well, imagine to believe that there is a creature that could but not us,

21
00:02:35,780 --> 00:02:44,840
and that people who are impatient with that division are asking this is a very daily quote, are asking for the impossible.

22
00:02:45,260 --> 00:02:56,710
They're asking for us not to be human beings. So it's not a relativistic epistemology, but it is an anthropology of knowledge.

23
00:02:56,720 --> 00:02:59,960
It presupposes a creature of a certain kind.

24
00:03:00,500 --> 00:03:04,970
And that's the only kind of conjecture discussed with any authority.

25
00:03:05,330 --> 00:03:11,750
And it's the only con to which Kahn's argument can relate directly and with authority.

26
00:03:13,780 --> 00:03:18,969
He probably would be interested in lots of literature that we've squandered in the last 30 years.

27
00:03:18,970 --> 00:03:27,280
On what it's like to be a bat. But I don't think he'd be interested for a long time now.

28
00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:33,939
The manner in which the external world is objectified is according to rules that

29
00:03:33,940 --> 00:03:40,780
are at once universal and necessary within the community of rational human beings.

30
00:03:41,470 --> 00:03:47,140
This is another way of saying this isn't a relativism that leads to scepticism.

31
00:03:47,170 --> 00:03:55,600
The rules that govern the synthesis of the manifold of sensuous composite content.

32
00:03:55,870 --> 00:04:05,080
These rules are universal and necessary. It's conceivable that some different creature might subsume appearances under different rules.

33
00:04:06,700 --> 00:04:10,890
That, of course, is not only something we don't know. It's something we've come to know.

34
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:18,850
The emphasis here is on what is knowable in principle by the sort of creature that we happen to be.

35
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:26,690
So knowledge of the country and scheme is a is an amalgam of sensibility and understanding

36
00:04:26,910 --> 00:04:33,920
such that what cannot in principle enter in to experience cannot in principle be known.

37
00:04:33,930 --> 00:04:42,930
And so what we says right at the outset that of course he was right in saying that all of our knowledge arises from experience.

38
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:48,140
That fossil fuel account has no trouble with at all. And he emphasised.

39
00:04:48,690 --> 00:04:57,330
He says the mistake you made was that in assuming that all of our knowledge arises from experience, our knowledge is grounded in experience.

40
00:04:57,750 --> 00:05:08,040
And while HUME failed to appreciate is the necessary elements of cognition that must be in place for there to be experience

41
00:05:08,670 --> 00:05:17,740
and for experience to merge with understanding in a room governed way in such a way as to be generative of knowledge.

42
00:05:17,760 --> 00:05:28,060
You know. To be known, an object must go beyond an element of experience, and it must be located within a conceptual framework.

43
00:05:29,710 --> 00:05:36,280
So what's required now is an argument that establishes the necessity, that universality of the pure concepts.

44
00:05:37,090 --> 00:05:46,800
How come they're not just haphazard? Required us what country for us to as the transcendental deduction of the categories.

45
00:05:48,760 --> 00:05:53,170
Now, he says, not every kind of knowledge of priority should be called transcendental.

46
00:05:54,210 --> 00:06:02,910
But that only by which we know that and know how certain representations can be employed or are possible purely a

47
00:06:03,090 --> 00:06:11,040
your transcendental in the sense of establishing the necessary enabling conditions for something else to take place.

48
00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:20,710
So how do sensations of the most rudimentary sort enter into the formation of concepts?

49
00:06:21,460 --> 00:06:30,250
And how does the manifold of otherwise disparate appearances become a unified experience in a given consciousness?

50
00:06:30,260 --> 00:06:39,190
Redundantly not only has to get all of this flotsam unified, but it must be unified in a consciousness,

51
00:06:39,790 --> 00:06:50,050
and it has to be unified on a consciousness that actually has a street address so that all this is taking place in you or you.

52
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:53,680
It's not just out there somewhere.

53
00:06:54,550 --> 00:07:04,690
So there has to be a self-consciousness in which all of this somehow takes place and this has to be achieved without thinking.

54
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:12,770
Question. Now I do want to say something.

55
00:07:12,770 --> 00:07:21,890
I have this for on on the kind of deduction that Conte has and my transcendental deduction,

56
00:07:21,950 --> 00:07:26,750
the categories I mentioned before, Conte did have an interest.

57
00:07:27,140 --> 00:07:31,450
Conte had an interest in everything. He did have an interest in it.

58
00:07:31,490 --> 00:07:36,950
Certain of political events of the time, jurisdictional disputes,

59
00:07:36,950 --> 00:07:43,430
boundary and border disputes and various German principalities and so forth didn't make a close study of this,

60
00:07:43,730 --> 00:07:51,750
but anyone with an interest in that certainly would have been exposed to what were referred to as deduction placements.

61
00:07:52,340 --> 00:08:04,550
These are filings, formal filings. Today, we we talk about them as of legal briefs to establish the authenticity of a claim.

62
00:08:05,450 --> 00:08:14,000
And that's the sort of deduction he has in mind, is he's talking about an argument that a jury would find compelling.

63
00:08:14,540 --> 00:08:18,410
In other words, it's not a logical deduction of the categories.

64
00:08:18,650 --> 00:08:27,230
It's a transcendental deduction. And the deduction in question is to make out this case, since we can do such and such,

65
00:08:27,590 --> 00:08:31,730
since this happens across all of us, there's no question about it.

66
00:08:33,440 --> 00:08:45,500
Don't you agree that for this to be the case, that must be the case for the conceptual lives we live, for the knowledge claims that we routinely make?

67
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:53,020
Do you not see that there are certain pure categories of the understanding that must be in place?

68
00:08:53,030 --> 00:09:01,250
They must constitute the template, the framework, the necessary conditions for the knowledge we know we have.

69
00:09:02,210 --> 00:09:05,290
You say? It's that kind of argument.

70
00:09:12,250 --> 00:09:18,130
So he must. No.

71
00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:21,070
So he must provide the the argument.

72
00:09:23,320 --> 00:09:34,750
For the conclusion that we are in a position to make objective judgements regarding entities in the external world and judgement becomes pivotal.

73
00:09:35,020 --> 00:09:41,920
It's the linchpin of the cognitive processes that he's trying to establish.

74
00:09:42,190 --> 00:09:45,460
Judgement itself for time.

75
00:09:49,650 --> 00:09:55,650
So we see that an experience is of a something that's not merely a parade of disconnected sensations.

76
00:09:55,980 --> 00:10:05,600
It must be a means not contained in the sensations themselves by which these experiences are forged and concepts.

77
00:10:05,620 --> 00:10:11,100
The way to begin an understanding of how this takes place is with two supreme principles.

78
00:10:11,760 --> 00:10:15,610
So we now get to the two supreme principles of the first chief.

79
00:10:18,930 --> 00:10:23,010
One pertains to sensibility and one pertains to understanding.

80
00:10:24,950 --> 00:10:30,620
The supreme principle in relation to sensibility is that the manifold of intuition,

81
00:10:30,620 --> 00:10:35,060
quote, should be subject to the formal conditions of space and time.

82
00:10:35,360 --> 00:10:47,340
That's the transcendentalists that the necessary enabling conditions for there to be sensibility is a spatial temporal framework, not in the stimulus.

83
00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:50,600
That's something that we we bring to the situation.

84
00:10:51,710 --> 00:10:58,760
That's the supreme principle regarding sensibility. The supreme principle in relation to understanding is that, quote,

85
00:10:59,390 --> 00:11:07,340
all the manifold of intuition should be subject to conditions of the original synthetic unity of perception.

86
00:11:07,680 --> 00:11:16,220
A typical country and phrase. You're sitting there as if you met them, paralysed by a fire poison dart.

87
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:20,670
If I say it again, your facial expression will not change one wish.

88
00:11:21,050 --> 00:11:27,140
I will prove this by saying it again. The supreme principle in relation to the understanding.

89
00:11:27,920 --> 00:11:31,730
Somehow you are an Oxford students. Nothing gets by you.

90
00:11:33,260 --> 00:11:38,690
This will be the supreme principle in relation to the understanding is that, quote,

91
00:11:39,230 --> 00:11:48,230
all the manifold of intuition should be subject to conditions of the original synthetic unity of perception.

92
00:11:49,460 --> 00:11:55,190
What's the manifold of intuition? It's all that impinging stuff.

93
00:11:55,730 --> 00:12:00,560
You say spatial, temporally received.

94
00:12:02,550 --> 00:12:14,290
Intuition. On. Sure, this mode of reception and what has to happen to it has to get synthesised.

95
00:12:15,660 --> 00:12:26,130
And it has to get unified. I shall give this to you of if it were the States, you could probably put this on Sesame Street.

96
00:12:27,690 --> 00:12:36,270
I will give it to you by way of Sesame Street. Part of the manifold of intuition is part.

97
00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:43,590
Another part of it is blacks. A third part of it is this bias.

98
00:12:45,300 --> 00:12:52,500
A fourth part of it is West. And the fifth part of it is a pungent aroma.

99
00:12:53,730 --> 00:12:57,750
Absolutely. Absolutely. Synthetic unity of perception.

100
00:12:57,780 --> 00:13:02,290
You will never get a cup of coffee out of this. Oh.

101
00:13:03,500 --> 00:13:08,480
And also now the eyebrows or a vest and the poison has worn off.

102
00:13:09,050 --> 00:13:19,970
So we've got to have the synthetic unity of perception imposed on these sensuous into which the manifold of sensuous intuitions,

103
00:13:20,300 --> 00:13:25,550
which, by the way, do not come carrying the code for unification.

104
00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:28,520
We provide the unification.

105
00:13:29,750 --> 00:13:40,890
The external world provides the matter for otherwise known as we want a technical term of this otherwise known as the mass.

106
00:13:42,780 --> 00:13:49,640
And I would say that we make a cup of coffee constantly on my mind during these lectures.

107
00:13:54,630 --> 00:13:59,220
Now we're the jury in front of competency, argues this case,

108
00:13:59,820 --> 00:14:05,700
and we have to judge whether he's made this case for the transcendental reduction of the categories.

109
00:14:09,970 --> 00:14:15,220
The transcendental, as noted, refers to the necessary conditions for there to be knowledge at all.

110
00:14:16,330 --> 00:14:19,240
He puts it this way as early as a 12.

111
00:14:20,830 --> 00:14:32,830
I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience.

112
00:14:34,340 --> 00:14:41,830
You say? It's the rule according to which we can have objective knowledge even before our eyes.

113
00:14:46,900 --> 00:14:52,380
How do we want to understand this? We have a little booklet called The Rules of Chess.

114
00:14:53,700 --> 00:15:00,839
So before you ever buy pieces or open up the board or anything, that's every permissible move that can take place.

115
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,960
And a game properly called the game of chess.

116
00:15:05,990 --> 00:15:10,280
All knowledge is transcendental. Such knowledge is transcendental.

117
00:15:10,280 --> 00:15:20,190
When in fact. It's occupied, not with let's watch music glasses, but the very possibility of knowing anything.

118
00:15:22,030 --> 00:15:28,810
Before we experience the conditions that must be in place for us to know things in a certain way.

119
00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:32,530
What way? Our way of knowing things.

120
00:15:34,420 --> 00:15:41,140
So the task of the transcendental deduction, finally, is the question how do we come to have knowledge of objects?

121
00:15:41,170 --> 00:15:42,460
And more precisely.

122
00:15:42,850 --> 00:15:53,680
The task is to establish the warrant or the justification of any knowledge claim we might make that would be validly tied to experience.

123
00:15:57,250 --> 00:16:06,040
Well, let me summarise the approach through a series of steps from sensation to appearances to concepts, and then to one's own concepts.

124
00:16:06,820 --> 00:16:17,080
The process begins with sensation, a response or reaction on the part of sensory organs to stimulate, originating in the external world.

125
00:16:18,220 --> 00:16:21,520
And then by way of the pure intuitions of time and space,

126
00:16:21,670 --> 00:16:28,990
the necessary enabling conditions of sensibility itself, the sensations are transformed into appearances.

127
00:16:30,360 --> 00:16:35,520
It's only when these appearances are subsumed under the pure categories of the understanding

128
00:16:35,790 --> 00:16:41,730
that we can be said to have an experience of what is present in the external world,

129
00:16:42,600 --> 00:16:54,390
as he says it. B 161 The necessary conditions by which there is the very possibility of experience are the pure concepts that we understand.

130
00:16:55,950 --> 00:17:00,120
Well, this gets us back to a question that I think I raised a second.

131
00:17:00,990 --> 00:17:09,899
Well, does a dog say a true creature, a creature without the or in categories could have the same sensations,

132
00:17:09,900 --> 00:17:19,350
and these sensations could give rise to the same appearances as we possess, but not the same experiences.

133
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:25,440
Such a creature would see a tree, but not experience as such.

134
00:17:25,830 --> 00:17:33,960
And again, you know, we all see dogs, see everything, but they don't see smell.

135
00:17:36,450 --> 00:17:45,540
This becomes clearer and then comes treatment of judgement, which allows us to trace the argument from the subjectivity of mere perception.

136
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:56,160
Now this is a key distinction that I do hope you will revert to the most functional part of lost frontal cortex social.

137
00:17:57,590 --> 00:18:02,600
And bits of bits of limbic system.

138
00:18:03,530 --> 00:18:10,070
You want to remember this even viscerally. So when you hear it again, you get a funny sensation.

139
00:18:10,880 --> 00:18:22,440
Like, I heard this before, so. And that's the distinction between judgements of perception and judgements of experience.

140
00:18:23,790 --> 00:18:28,230
Judgements of perception versus judgements of experience.

141
00:18:37,190 --> 00:18:46,490
The subjectivity of our perceptions being what it is will give rise to a subjectivity of judgement.

142
00:18:48,490 --> 00:18:58,180
But as experiences arise from the subsection of content under necessary and universal categories,

143
00:18:58,510 --> 00:19:03,280
the judgements of experience are common across recipients.

144
00:19:04,090 --> 00:19:14,320
That's going to be part of the argument that has to be made now integral to this entire process is the faculty of imagination.

145
00:19:16,540 --> 00:19:21,310
It's through the imagination that concepts and intuitions become synthesised.

146
00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:28,830
And become synthesised according to a universal rule, which you can't refers to as a schema.

147
00:19:30,580 --> 00:19:36,970
This is the way the understanding will rise to the level of empirical knowledge and objective general knowledge.

148
00:19:38,410 --> 00:19:47,320
The imagination is what has the power of drawing together certain elements in an otherwise disconnected assortment of sensations,

149
00:19:47,740 --> 00:19:52,480
drawing together just those elements that constitute a knowable something.

150
00:19:54,430 --> 00:19:57,670
But the imagination as such does not yield knowledge.

151
00:19:57,700 --> 00:19:59,590
Rather, it makes knowledge possible.

152
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:10,240
It is only when the synthesis of the manifold is then brought into froth under the pure categories of the understanding that knowledge as such arises.

153
00:20:12,180 --> 00:20:20,370
Now you might say, well, the imagination, the word itself is suggestive of a kind of subjectivity in my using my imagination

154
00:20:20,970 --> 00:20:28,740
when I do this and wants to be clear that the process of synthesis is not arbitrary.

155
00:20:30,060 --> 00:20:36,870
Indeed, if the resulting synthesis generates the same object for all comparably situated observers,

156
00:20:37,140 --> 00:20:45,330
then you certainly can say that this is the outcome of some merely probable or if the process.

157
00:20:47,310 --> 00:20:52,980
There must be a framework. There must be rules by which the elements of the manifold are pulled and held together.

158
00:20:54,030 --> 00:20:59,250
And this, of course, is what the pure concepts of the understanding of the subject.

159
00:21:00,120 --> 00:21:04,770
So you begin to see how the famous transcendental deduction unfolds.

160
00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:13,020
Cult begins with the with an indubitable feature of the understanding, namely the stability of representations,

161
00:21:14,280 --> 00:21:20,910
the virtually universal manner in which comparably positioned observers judge the objects of experience.

162
00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:29,140
Although it may not be cryptic on this point. Look. Take a look.

163
00:21:30,310 --> 00:21:33,330
Well, take a. No.

164
00:21:35,060 --> 00:21:41,980
I'm larger on your. My Surface Reflections has just changed.

165
00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:47,740
An entirely different configuration of stimuli has just occurred.

166
00:21:49,340 --> 00:21:57,950
As it has again just occurred, every aspect of the external world changes as your head.

167
00:21:58,980 --> 00:22:05,820
Changes as you inspire and breathe out every time you do this,

168
00:22:07,050 --> 00:22:19,470
the position of the external world changes just so you stop this incessant system of continuous alteration,

169
00:22:19,980 --> 00:22:30,420
constant alteration in a world that nonetheless contains things that retain their resilience throughout all these transformations.

170
00:22:31,230 --> 00:22:46,270
How does that. It happens in so far as some aspect of the external world remains of this, and it remains of this by being conceptual.

171
00:22:49,480 --> 00:22:55,570
So that you are no longer limited to judgements of perception, which can be exquisitely detailed.

172
00:22:57,070 --> 00:23:00,910
But you now are in a position to make judgements of experience.

173
00:23:01,630 --> 00:23:09,280
Yes. As the chap on the hill approaches me, his retinal projection gets larger and larger.

174
00:23:09,850 --> 00:23:16,030
A judgement of perception, which, by the way, in classical psycho physics would be called the stimulus error.

175
00:23:17,940 --> 00:23:24,750
Is now corrected by the fact that you happen to know it's a person who size doesn't change as he gets closer to you.

176
00:23:25,470 --> 00:23:33,080
Do you see what I'm talking about? The difference between something that's perceptually governed and something that's conceptual doesn't.

177
00:23:36,310 --> 00:23:50,270
Precepts and concepts are quite different. I mentioned St Augustine's engagement on that front.

178
00:23:51,140 --> 00:23:56,790
I did mention I did a. Should I take a moment because it shows up again.

179
00:23:56,800 --> 00:24:02,950
In fact, Descartes uses exactly the same examples as Augustine does and in a different context.

180
00:24:04,270 --> 00:24:09,970
Augustine uses his to become a saint and Descartes to.

181
00:24:11,300 --> 00:24:14,500
Retain his. Credentials as a philosopher.

182
00:24:18,100 --> 00:24:21,520
Well, how do you become what? You could become a saint? A lot of different ways.

183
00:24:21,850 --> 00:24:28,420
But Saint Augustine was on the way to becoming a saint by effectively battling heresies.

184
00:24:29,140 --> 00:24:35,080
Now, here's a heresy for you. Because it couldn't take place today.

185
00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:42,070
Nobody would think this way today. When people talk about God and tell you what they really mean by God.

186
00:24:42,580 --> 00:24:50,320
They assign attributes that by the very nature of God are beyond the range of possible experience.

187
00:24:51,100 --> 00:24:59,530
God has an infinite. There's a maximum that all you can ask for, etc., etc. has no moving parts, occupies no space.

188
00:25:00,880 --> 00:25:04,780
The whole cosmos is somehow in his imagination. You know the story.

189
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:14,300
So there isn't any empirical grounding for epistemic claims regarding golf.

190
00:25:15,590 --> 00:25:20,059
So when you talk about God, quite literally, technically,

191
00:25:20,060 --> 00:25:28,420
you're talking about something you couldn't possibly know anything about because there is no perceptual grounding for that knowledge.

192
00:25:30,020 --> 00:25:33,490
Right. They're just sort of names.

193
00:25:33,800 --> 00:25:45,700
I mean, we could we could bring it up national, the group of Oxford leading whites probably saying my college.

194
00:25:45,700 --> 00:25:56,500
Exactly. Well, so St Augustine said well look every normally sight of a person.

195
00:25:57,890 --> 00:26:09,290
Can perceive a geometric object with four equal sides, pairs of sides, standing angles of 90 degrees.

196
00:26:09,470 --> 00:26:17,840
We call that a square. And as everyone can perceive such a thing, so everyone can conceive of such a thing.

197
00:26:20,350 --> 00:26:27,710
Of course, everyone can also conceive of a truly gong, which is a thousand steps figure.

198
00:26:28,540 --> 00:26:31,570
But though you can conceive of it killing a gun,

199
00:26:32,200 --> 00:26:43,210
you can't perceive it because the angular changes are so slight as not to be resolvable by way of our visual acuity.

200
00:26:44,170 --> 00:26:51,700
So you see, you can have quite a clear conception of something that really exists without preceding.

201
00:26:57,260 --> 00:27:02,270
Descartes uses exactly that example, by the way, a few years later.

202
00:27:06,030 --> 00:27:09,060
Descartes died in 1650.

203
00:27:11,000 --> 00:27:15,070
Saint Augustine was hitting homeruns. Earlier.

204
00:27:16,070 --> 00:27:20,820
End of the fourth century. 80. Ah.

205
00:27:21,430 --> 00:27:25,300
Well, what happened? What. What does that have to do with this?

206
00:27:25,720 --> 00:27:30,850
Well, what it has to do with is this. We will all have the same objective.

207
00:27:31,270 --> 00:27:37,930
We will all have the same judgements of experience when it comes to killing gods.

208
00:27:38,860 --> 00:27:43,960
We might have radically different judgements and perceptions when it comes to killing guns.

209
00:27:47,900 --> 00:27:59,000
So intersubjective agreement, not to mention the stable cognition of objects under widely varying conditions, is now explained by way of unhear.

210
00:27:59,000 --> 00:28:01,920
Here, I quote, can't remember what we're trying to explain now.

211
00:28:02,240 --> 00:28:09,800
Intersubjective agreement and stable cognitions of objects under widely variable conditions.

212
00:28:11,030 --> 00:28:22,190
Explain by way of quote a pattern of all the originally pure concepts of the synthesis which the understanding contains after yours,

213
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:33,950
and these concepts alone entirely to be called a pure understanding, inasmuch as only by them can it render the manifold of intuitions conceivable.

214
00:28:34,100 --> 00:28:36,800
In other words, think an object.

215
00:28:37,670 --> 00:28:47,900
This division is made systematically from a common principle, namely the Faculty of Judgement, which is just the same as the power of thought.

216
00:28:51,590 --> 00:28:57,980
This land is the outline of the transcendental reduction for our representations.

217
00:29:00,240 --> 00:29:05,880
To serve as possibilities for knowledge, they must become conceptual ground.

218
00:29:06,660 --> 00:29:14,160
The categories delineated in the in what come closely metaphysical deduction now seen as necessary

219
00:29:14,160 --> 00:29:19,800
for knowledge to be derived from experience is going to give us a metaphysical deduction,

220
00:29:20,130 --> 00:29:22,470
followed then by a transcendental deduction.

221
00:29:22,830 --> 00:29:34,710
The metaphysical deduction, to some extent tracks Aristotle's famous delineation of the categories constant playing with Aristotle.

222
00:29:34,920 --> 00:29:39,330
That's not so much a complaint, is it? Look, you know, Aristotle had these categories.

223
00:29:39,480 --> 00:29:45,420
Cards categories are going to be different and they're going to be much more carefully arranged.

224
00:29:46,230 --> 00:29:51,270
Is that what Aristotle was doing? It's a mild complaint.

225
00:29:51,960 --> 00:30:00,420
Aristotle was just listing the properties of things that one knows about and subsuming them under general categories.

226
00:30:01,020 --> 00:30:04,710
He was pretty much governed by empirical considerations.

227
00:30:08,160 --> 00:30:13,170
Well, I don't want to say comes close to saying, you know Aristotle that Greek human.

228
00:30:13,380 --> 00:30:20,520
Well, Aristotle's not not that I'm saying that he sees Aristotle as sort of just

229
00:30:20,880 --> 00:30:24,450
putting together a lot of categories because if you get enough of them in place,

230
00:30:24,450 --> 00:30:28,590
it'll pretty much account for all the properties of things that we know about.

231
00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:38,120
A metaphysical deduction is different, that a physical deduction has to do with the number,

232
00:30:38,130 --> 00:30:52,680
the minimum and defined number of categories for all conceivable possible objective knowledge.

233
00:30:54,910 --> 00:31:02,770
The argument as to what you would have to have minimally and devoid of all empirical content.

234
00:31:02,780 --> 00:31:10,429
This is what you have to have before the eyes are open. Now, once that metaphysical deduction is in place,

235
00:31:10,430 --> 00:31:17,690
the transcendental deduction then becomes the argument to the effect that what you have to have is what we have,

236
00:31:17,960 --> 00:31:22,760
and that's what grounds our objective knowledge of the external world.

237
00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:35,170
So the transcendental deduction then becomes the means by which of what?

238
00:31:35,750 --> 00:31:43,760
What would have to be in place is seen to be in place and operating with necessity and universality.

239
00:31:47,610 --> 00:32:01,800
And the pro a commoner up to 97 to 3 oh to come does draw very clearly this distinction between judgement, perception, judgement.

240
00:32:04,980 --> 00:32:10,710
To keep in mind that judgements of perceptions are subjectively valid.

241
00:32:10,770 --> 00:32:21,630
When I judge honey to be sweet, I'm connecting to entities the physical object that is honey and a subjective sensation of sweetness.

242
00:32:22,770 --> 00:32:29,490
There's no guarantee that others will have the same experience or that I will on repeated encounters,

243
00:32:29,940 --> 00:32:33,810
or that my own sensation is not the result of something other them.

244
00:32:35,220 --> 00:32:44,490
Quite simply, they are not the stuff of which science of nature to make a judgement of experience as a node of a quite different.

245
00:32:44,500 --> 00:32:49,350
With these we begin to with what is given by way of sensuous intuition,

246
00:32:50,250 --> 00:32:55,380
but this is then subsumed under concepts that are based on the pure categories of the understanding.

247
00:32:55,620 --> 00:33:02,099
And these are universally operative within the realm of human cognition of life.

248
00:33:02,100 --> 00:33:08,910
The judgements of perception, the judgements of experience hold good not only for us, but for everybody.

249
00:33:09,960 --> 00:33:16,860
And so we now have an objective validity which says content is the same as necessary universality.

250
00:33:17,100 --> 00:33:21,810
Objective validity equates with necessary universality.

251
00:33:22,140 --> 00:33:30,090
It's in this sense that the possibility of nature becomes tied to the possibility of experience itself.

252
00:33:33,020 --> 00:33:37,550
Well, now we can. It's got to be 75 again.

253
00:33:37,730 --> 00:33:43,430
This maximum. Without sensibility, no object will be given to us.

254
00:33:44,180 --> 00:33:47,600
And without understanding, no object would be thought.

255
00:33:48,680 --> 00:33:54,620
Thoughts without content or empty. Intuitions without concepts of light.

256
00:33:55,910 --> 00:33:59,990
So in the absence of the categories of assumptions would, quote,

257
00:34:00,590 --> 00:34:06,800
be without an object merely applied to play of representations less even than a dream.

258
00:34:07,160 --> 00:34:16,879
You say if you couldn't conceptual vice things. Know that the various elements of the objects of thought are synthesised,

259
00:34:16,880 --> 00:34:22,910
but a given object is encountered, as I noted, under radically different conditions at different times.

260
00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:30,530
It retains its identity as a this or that. Surely not as a result of anything delivered by the senses.

261
00:34:30,530 --> 00:34:40,310
In fact, to the extent that we are in the thrall of our sensory processes, it can never be the same object on any successive sample.

262
00:34:43,050 --> 00:34:47,110
All right. So that's the transcendental deduction of the categories.

263
00:34:47,130 --> 00:34:51,390
It has spawned a huge literature, much of it critical.

264
00:34:51,720 --> 00:34:56,580
And there are problems that arise within the arguments itself.

265
00:34:56,850 --> 00:35:00,630
Some of these were duly noted, if I may, saying, with all due respect,

266
00:35:01,110 --> 00:35:08,070
were rather more dishearteningly noted by Kahn's contemporaries than by many of my contemporaries.

267
00:35:09,490 --> 00:35:11,170
But those are not the same contemporaries.

268
00:35:13,120 --> 00:35:23,920
But I'm confident clear on the need for a process by which otherwise various and varying representations are held together.

269
00:35:24,490 --> 00:35:27,400
He describes the process of synthesis as, quote,

270
00:35:27,730 --> 00:35:34,810
the act of putting different representations together and grasping what is manifold in them in one cognition.

271
00:35:36,900 --> 00:35:40,799
Now integral to this process is what we've referred to in an earlier lecture.

272
00:35:40,800 --> 00:35:47,970
Spontaneity. Sensations as such are devoid of structure, synthesis, yield structure.

273
00:35:48,210 --> 00:35:57,300
And spontaneity gives rise to creative and flexible cognitions when on something like an art in our modes of representation.

274
00:35:58,680 --> 00:36:03,089
But then serious questions do arise. And that comes in.

275
00:36:03,090 --> 00:36:08,549
A letter to August 1st repeats a question that has been raised by someone Solomon,

276
00:36:08,550 --> 00:36:13,590
my blog and others of persons who have had many criticisms of the critique.

277
00:36:14,040 --> 00:36:22,530
The question is this How does Carter account for the agreement between the author, your intuitions and the authority concepts?

278
00:36:23,070 --> 00:36:28,500
They come together so perfectly. It looks almost contrived.

279
00:36:31,460 --> 00:36:39,500
How is it that sensuous representations are properly taken up in just the right way by the pure concepts of the understanding?

280
00:36:41,330 --> 00:36:48,250
You know, the question is it's almost like a kind of card trick or the shell game, so.

281
00:36:51,490 --> 00:36:58,750
Is it some Darwinian sort of thing that there might have been species that didn't do it the right way and they all went belly up?

282
00:36:58,750 --> 00:37:01,990
And then, you know, we came on the scene.

283
00:37:02,500 --> 00:37:10,490
We do it right. What what kind of an argument is? Confess to this I hands.

284
00:37:10,780 --> 00:37:15,490
I don't know that you find this compelling has its content.

285
00:37:17,230 --> 00:37:31,280
To this I answer. All of this takes place in relation to an experiential knowledge only possible for us under these conditions.

286
00:37:32,630 --> 00:37:38,450
A subjective consideration to be sure, but one that is objectively valid as well,

287
00:37:38,780 --> 00:37:44,420
because the objects here are not the things in themselves but mere appearances.

288
00:37:44,810 --> 00:37:50,620
Consequently, the form in which they are given depends on ask what?

289
00:37:50,630 --> 00:38:01,070
What he's saying is that he doesn't completely de subjective visit, but he says, look, the pure categories.

290
00:38:01,160 --> 00:38:06,410
This is something that the coloniser is imposing on the sensuous manner.

291
00:38:07,870 --> 00:38:18,309
And and as this is the necessary and universal set of conditions for human understanding, it shouldn't be surprising that we all do it the same way.

292
00:38:18,310 --> 00:38:25,240
Of course we all do the same way. Ideologically speaking, we all conform to the same rules when we play chess.

293
00:38:26,710 --> 00:38:31,570
No surprise, because everything we're doing is governed by a rules structure.

294
00:38:32,620 --> 00:38:34,570
So, so. So again, with can't.

295
00:38:35,710 --> 00:38:44,110
He says all of this takes place in relation to an experiential knowledge that is only possible for us under these conditions.

296
00:38:44,500 --> 00:38:49,780
A subjective consideration to be sure, but one that's objectively valid as well,

297
00:38:49,990 --> 00:38:54,850
because the objects here are not things in themselves, but they are appearances.

298
00:38:55,330 --> 00:38:59,290
Consequently, the form in which they are given depends on us.

299
00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:05,889
On the other hand, they are dependent on the lining of the manifold and consciousness that is on what

300
00:39:05,890 --> 00:39:11,590
is required for the thinking and organising of objects by the understanding.

301
00:39:11,800 --> 00:39:16,390
It's only under these conditions, therefore, that we can have experiences.

302
00:39:16,630 --> 00:39:24,280
So to the extent that the categories that the pure concepts of the understanding are universally

303
00:39:24,280 --> 00:39:30,700
distributed in creatures of a certain kind of a necessary preconditions for the understanding.

304
00:39:31,360 --> 00:39:42,520
But the understanding itself must merge with experience in the right way to constitute knowledge to the extent that this is the case we have.

305
00:39:44,970 --> 00:39:52,710
An anthropological perspective on knowledge, but a universalist anthropological perspective.

306
00:39:53,750 --> 00:40:00,139
It can be subjective in the sense that it is subject to the willy nilly subjective

307
00:40:00,140 --> 00:40:05,840
status of a public recipient because the knowledge claimed does not arise.

308
00:40:06,530 --> 00:40:15,950
It's not grounded in perception. It's grounded in the pure concepts of the understanding as necessarily and universally distributed.

309
00:40:17,200 --> 00:40:23,880
I said that I would be performing a transcendental reduction in the instrument in case you haven't noticed it.

310
00:40:25,180 --> 00:40:28,790
I didn't. Let's.