Kant’s Transcendental Philosophy | Robert Wright & David Ottlinger [The Wright Show]

thanks for the interview but right off the bat I must say that I am hugely disappointed.. I am interested in the Kantian philosophy and I read mostly secondary literature but honestly Kant should not be so difficult to talk about, not in this kind of an interview. The guest has made a couple of mistakes regarding Kants agnostism too.. basically what Kant saying is that time and space are human constructions which are in the phenomenal world as there is no space and time in the noumenal world. The reality seen by the human lens is inherently shaped by the lens and as such is not the reality as is. It is shaped time and space, through our senses. The example is a painting.. of a landscape for instance. the painting is what is captured by the painter but it is not the landscape itself. so since we can not eliminate the space and time, there is no way of knowing things in themselves.. we see them always through our senses.. thats why objects always conform to us and not the other way around. I recommend Bryans Magee if you want to understand Kant and Schopenhauer

Nice job, guys. Quite clear, considering the topics. I never heard of Ottlinger before. I hope he has more youtubes. Reminded me in appearance a little of detective Cormoron Strike.

Fun conversation! Thanks, fellas. Philosophy major (undergrad) and Buddhist (30+ years of practice) here. The only slightly painful tangent was the foray into Buddhist emptiness and how it might relate to Kant. It surprised me somewhat, given Robert's knowledge of Buddhism, that he was not able to explain to David that his notion of Buddhism somehow involving a "transcendence" from one world or realm to another was a gross misinterpretation. Buddhism's primary tenant is NON-dualism, grounded in the concept of impermanence. No this or that, no going from here to there. Enlightenment is not a transformation, per se, but the realization of a misapprehension. If you think that piece of rope on the ground is a snake (maybe it's dark out, maybe you're anticipating a snake) it doesn't change the nature of things. - Also, like Kant, the Buddha was practically minded. His whole system is incredibly straightforward: wake up from your delusion, you're misapprehension, here are the basic steps to get you on the path, adjust as needed. Ultimately, it's not necessary to "find" ultimate reality, we're living in it! Just wake up to that fact. When students would ask him to explain theoretical concepts, he would say (I paraphrase) "your questions are like the actions of a person who has just been shot by an arrow, and instead of concerning himself with its removal, asks 'Who shot this arrow? Where was the arrow made? What kind of bow was used?'".

Usually I like what Robert Wright says and how he contributes to the discussion, but in this discussion he admittedly knows almost nothing about Kant, yet spends the first 10 minutes jabbering about an irrelevant author and his confusion about "numinous" terminology.

Jesus said : “Ye do err not knowing the scriptures for in Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage”.

I think Humanity is crazy -- wholesale.

Some time after my mother passed on or died - still not sure what term to use that works for me - I became aware of her "essence". I'd already read "Why Buddhism Is True" and essence, along with a lot of what the book touched on, intrigued by its pertinence to what I was experiencing. I felt "essence of" everywhere, in everything and was surprised by how strong was, what I'm calling, her "isness".

I would think a computational model of consciousness advocate would criticize kants categories

1:21:56 (RW) _“Although the transcendence is ultimately impossible, according to Kant. […] I mean, true transcendence is theoretically possible but practically impossible in Kant’s two worlds universe."_ 1:22:14 (DO) _“Well, you’d need some capacity other than reason. […] If you experience the noumenal, it can’t be through concepts or through empirical experience. But maybe there’s some capacity of the soul which [can...]_ Franklin Merrell-Wolff, who was strongly influenced by both Kant and Shankara (8th century Advaitic sage), but who also had had a transformative mystical realization, came up with a transcendent third category or modality of knowing, in addition to conception and perception. He called it introception and defined it as _knowledge through identity,_ a kind of knowing through being that transcends the subject-object mode of knowing. Personally, I can appreciate the idea of a way of transcendence that doesn’t entail blissing out in some nirvanic realm, but is actually realized and lived in ordinary life, with all of one’s faculties well functioning and engaged with others. Still, a minor nitpick is that I’ve never liked his term for this - introception - because it’s too easily confused with introspection, which it has nothing to do with (or introversion, which, again, is completely unrelated). I think a better term for a transcendent way of knowing is transception.

Wow -being waiting for some thoughts on Kant and Buddhism .Although Shopenhauer does discuss Buddhism and `philosophy .Thanks guys great talk .

Cognitive Science backs Kant's view up. We learn forms that we derive from experience, and then predict based on those experiences in order to maximize metabolic efficiency. A good deal of what we think we're perceiving is a projection based upon assumptions that we're making.

Dang, Kant be sounding like Donald Hoffman a little.

Spring is coming, and Bob is hitting his stride! What an awesome interview!!!!

I would love an episode where you find a scholar where you could really go into the weeds about Buddhist philosophy. I mean like different schools, different individual Buddhist philosopher, different texts, etc.

That’s what I’m talking about

0:25 vor.in.net