YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Kant: Dialéctica trascendental — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Kant: Dialéctica trascendental

Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur · 3,154 words · 16 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Kant: Dialéctica trascendental by Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Good evening. This video is about the transcendental dialectic of the Critique of Pure Reason, which is in Cannes. In other words, we're going to work on this part called the transcendental dialectic. In previous videos, we worked on the transcendental aesthetic, which studied the faculty of sensibility, and the transcendental analytic, which studies the

faculty of understanding. The transcendental dialectic, specifically, studies a part of transcendental logic that examines the use of thought beyond the limits of possible experience. Remember that possible experience was given by the participation of two faculties: sensation and understanding. Sensation granted phenomena, and understanding made it possible to think about those phenomena and transform them into objects.

So here we're going to focus on how thought moves away from that experience and goes beyond those limits. The question is, why does it go beyond those limits of experience? And that has to do with the very a priori structure of reason itself. That is to say, this structure that we saw, which had the three

faculties of sensibility, understanding, and reason, is the Reason, in general, has within its own a priori structure the conditions that allow it to go beyond experience; that is to say, it is not something that causes it, but rather an external cause by which thought goes beyond experience. Instead, it is the structure itself that impels it to go beyond.

The transcendental illusion is thus founded on the very nature of our reason. That is why this transcendental illusion exists, which we reach when we go beyond the limits of sensory experience. That is precisely the transcendental illusion. This transcendental illusion is inevitable because it is given by the nature of our reason, and even if we know how it is

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

produced, even if we discover it, it will not cease. The transcendental dialectic will not make this illusion disappear; rather, it will simply reveal it to prevent it from deceiving us. Colomer, for example, highlights the two uses of reason: reason as a faculty of general knowledge, and sensation plus understanding. If these were within that general faculty of reason, they were what

gave us knowledge. Yes, and this is what was studied in aesthetics and analytics. Remember that in knowledge, both faculties, sensation and understanding, are at work. So that is reason in general, as structures of knowledge. But there is also reason as the faculty of thinking, let's say, through mere concepts, and that would be transcendental dialectics, which

was studied in transcendental dialectics. So, two kinds of reason: one reason in a general sense, yes, and one reason as a specific faculty that produces, let's say, a thought, but one totally removed from knowledge. So, since we are talking here about a difference between this reason and the one that produces knowledge, yes,

we have to see what the difference is between understanding and reason, which is what Camps proposes. This difference is that understanding knows through concepts, which is what we saw in transcendental analytics; it knows through concepts. But the concepts of understanding are the categories, right? The categories that make thought possible. What characteristic do these categories

have? They are pure concepts, but these categories are applied to the phenomenon, to the phenomenon that is the intuition of sensibility. So, these categories are pure concepts, but they can be applied to the phenomenon. On the other hand, reason It also knows by the... well, I don't know, we would say... it also thinks by

concept, but it does so by mere concepts and only remains at the concept level. It cannot operate on phenomena. That is to say, what does reason do? It takes the concepts of the understanding and performs its operations apart from any relation to sensible intuition, and that is when illusion is generated. Yes, that is to say, it only

remains at the concepts of the understanding and works, but it doesn't go towards the phenomenon. So why does reason go beyond those limits? Then we have to ask ourselves, dissect what the elements of reason are, what the a priori elements of reason are that push it to go beyond. And remember that the

reason why reason goes beyond those limits is redundant. The cause why reason goes beyond those limits is within reason itself. We had said in a previous video that we had talked about ideas, and the ideas that will be the concepts that reason will produce. These ideas are pure concepts. Yes, they are pure concepts. Notice that we recall what we

had said: the categories are also pure concepts. So what is the difference between ideas and categories? The categories are concepts. Pure things that apply to phenomena, if on the other hand, yes, and that's why it produces knowledge. Ideas, on the other hand, are obscure concepts that don't apply to experience, they don't apply to

phenomena, therefore they don't produce knowledge, they produce what? What is it? An illusion? A transcendental illusion. Where do ideas come from? If these ideas, as we have already said, come from reason itself. As we recall, what each faculty does: sensibility intuits, understanding thinks, and reason reasons, that is, it reasons, as its name says.

Although it will be understood by reasoning, it will be deductive reasoning. If a reasoning is deductive, when the relationship between its premises and its conclusion is a necessary relationship, a logical necessity, that is to say, that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. The premises are what the conclusion is; they are judgments of

statements. So what we say is that the conclusion is obtained from the premises, yes, that is, the judgment that is in the conclusion is obtained from the judgments that are in the premises. And here what we have is a movement, not like intuition, which is immediate, that is, the conclusion is obtained by Through the premises,

then, one starts with a proposition, a statement, and through another, arrives at a conclusion. This classic model of deductive reasoning is the syllogism. There is a syllogism, an example, for instance: if we put in the first premise "all Greeks are men," the second premise "all men are mortal," the conclusion "all Greeks are mortal." So,

we have the first two judgments: "all Greeks are men" and "all Greeks are mortal." These two judgments would be the premises. The conclusion is "all Greeks are mortal." So, the final conclusion is reached through the premises. And well, that's what reason does. But it turns out that reason does n't stop there. It starts to say, "Okay,

all well and good, but let's see, the first premise we have can also be the conclusion of a judgment. It's a premise in this judgment, but in turn, it can be the conclusion of another judgment." So, if, for example, we take "all Greeks are mortal," well, it was one of the premises of the judgment I

mentioned in the reasoning we just gave, we can see how to transform it into a conclusion of another reasoning, for example... If we say all Greeks are rational beings, all rational beings are serious, many are human beings, so all Greeks are human beings. Yes, then we see that the judgment that was a premise in one

argument becomes the conclusion of another argument. So this constant movement of reason is what will lead it to transcendental illusion. Notice that the unity that reason produces is not like the unity produced by the understanding. The unity produced by the understanding brought together the multiplicity of phenomena, and that is what we saw in the

analytic. The unity that reason produces is of another type. Reason seeks the unconditioned. So notice that if we say all human beings are mortal, all human beings will be conditioned by mortality. Yes, because they are mortal, because they are human beings. So reason seeks that unconditioned element, and that is how we arrive at

ideas. Because ideas, that is, because being a human being is not unconditioned, because we can derive that from another judgment, as we just saw. So reason is always seeking the unconditioned element, making arguments. So, it escalates in the reasoning, well then, it arrives at the ideas, the ideas, how vain are the ideas, the ideas that

meet all the conditions, that is to say, in this search for the unconditioned, one arrives at a point where we have something, which is the idea, that meets all the conditions, and it meets all the conditions, so it is unconditional. Well, here we have three ideas, and we are going to see how these three ideas arrive at, let's

say, this pair. These three ideas are reached from the three types of syllogisms. In the classification of judgments, we had judgments according to their relationship, which we had: categorical judgments, hypothetical judgments, and disjunctive judgments. When we have a reasoning that is constituted by categorical judgments, then we have the categorical syllogism. Remember what the

categorical judgment was, which was the one that established the relationship between subject and predicate. In the hypothetical syllogism, we have hypothetical judgments, and what relationship do hypothetical judgments establish? The cause-and-effect relationship. And in the disjunctive syllogisms, we have judgments... disjunctive, and what characterizes a disjunctive judgment? The relationship of exclusion of the parts of a whole. So,

starting from the judgments, if we make them operate, let's say, in a reasoning, depending on the judgment, we will have the syllogism. If the judgments are categorical, we have the categorical syllogism. If the judgments are hypothetical, we have a hypothetical logical syllogism. And if there are disjunctive judgments, we have a judgment of one. We

have a syllogism. Let's remember another thing about judgments of relation: categorical judgments gave us the category of substance, hypothetical judgments that of cause, and distinctive judgments that of reciprocity. So we have these three categories, and this is important for what we are going to discuss here because, ultimately, what we want to do here is to

grasp the idea of why psychology is not a science. That is the objective of this video. Yes, because psychology is not a science, and with psychology, all the human sciences are included. So, from the syllogisms, we obtain three forms of the concept of... From the three logical and unconditioned syllogisms we saw, we have three forms of the concept of the

unconditional in the categorical syllogism, which is the one that will interest us here. Remember that we took judgments, the relationship of the subject with the predicate, the unconditioned, which will be a subject that is always the subject, and that is how we go towards the idea of the self. From that idea of the self, because the self or the

soul would be the subject that is always the subject of all judgments. In the case of hypothetical syllogisms, remember that what was of interest here was the cause-effect relationship; that was the category. The judgment established the relationship of the condition with the conditioned. So what we arrive at here, the unconditioned, which hypothetical reasoning arrives at, the

hypothetical syllogism, is the cause that is always the cause, that is to say, a cause that is never the effect, and that will be the idea of the world. And finally, we have the disjunctive syllogism. Remember that here the judgment that makes this disjunctive syllogism possible is that of the exclusive relationship between a part of a whole. Here,

the unconditioned will be the totality of reality, that is, something that is not part of it, and that is the being of beings. And this is the idea of God. We have seen very quickly how reason arrives at the three ideas: the idea of self or soul, the idea of world, and the

idea of God. These three ideas are precisely what metaphysics studies. The self, remember, is the subject of inner experience. The world, that is, it encompasses everything that happens within us: all our representations, all our thoughts, all our memories. The world is the totality of phenomena, that is, the world is the totality of everything that

happens outside of us. And God is the totality of everything that encompasses everything. The self is studied by psychology, the world by cosmology, and God by theology. And these three sub- disciplines—psychology, cosmology, and theology—constitute metaphysics. Do you think it will say that in metaphysics there is thought but no knowledge? Because knowledge only occurs when we have our

faculties of sensibility and understanding acting, that is, when the understanding can apply its categories, that is, when the The understanding applies its categories to the phenomenon that sensibility had given rise to. In contrast, in metaphysics, there is no possible experience because these three ideas, unlike the categories of the understanding, cannot be applied to phenomena. So, you

are in these ideas. If we see that the whole process of reason points to them, but there is no experience that can reach them, there is no sensory experience of the self, no sensory experience of the world, and no sensory experience of God. We are going to stay here only with the case of psychology, which is the one that

interests us. So, the thing is that when reason makes these movements, there is a moment when it gets lost and begins to commit some formal errors, which are precisely errors not due to the content of the judgments, but rather errors due to the very structure of the reasoning, which are precisely these formal errors. And how does one arrive at the self?

Because here, to say that the self, the self as an idea, is to think of the self as a substance. Yes, what does that mean? That there is something that is "I," I know, the self as a substance, which would be precisely that: to say that there is a type of entity that is the self. I, as a

substance, is what Camps is going to show is the result of a formal error, a logical error. While when we talk about substances we might think that these are the objects in the painting—remember our metaphor of the painting, what's inside the painting and what's outside the painting? What's inside the painting are precisely the

objects; that is, we could say that these objects are substances, and it's not exactly the same thing. But up to this point we've already seen what the objects were, but what we call substances would be the objects that are inside the painting. And since we've already begun to perceive the paradox, let's see then how this self as a

substance is conceived. And here Camps says the reasoning goes more or less along these lines: if the substance, as the absolute subject of judgments, that is the object, that is, the substance is an absolute subject of judgments, yes, and that is the object. Now, the self, as a thinking being, I know that I am the subject of all my

judgments. Here we were talking about the transcendental subject, and the subject is transcendental; it is different from objects. That is to say, here we have a line of reasoning that is using the self of love, or the subject. It's better understood as two distinct senses. In one premise, it states that the absolute subject of

judgment is a substance. In the second premise, it states that the thinking self is the subject of all its judgments, and from this, it is inferred that the self is a substance. But the error here lies in the fact that in the first judgment, the subject, being a substance, is conceived as an

object, that is, within the frame. In the second judgment, the self, the subject of all its judgments, is conceived as a transcendental self, that is, as a transcendental subject. If, then, the transcendental subject is outside the frame, and therefore the transcendental subject that makes the frame possible and the objects within the frame are different, then we already have

a difference: outside the frame and inside the frame. Outside the frame, we have the transcendental subject; inside the frame, we have the objects. So, wanting to think of the self as a substance is a paradox, and it arises from a logical error: taking the subject in two distinct senses, as a substance, that is,

as an object within the frame, and as a thinking being, as a transcendental subject, outside the frame. Therefore, what exists outside the frame is the self. as self-awareness, which is the transcendental subject, and within the picture there would be an ontological or substantial self, and that is supposedly what could be known, but they are dissected, but they

are different. So I cannot know the self, self-awareness, if I cannot know that fact. I can be conscious of myself, but I cannot know it. Yes, and this is what we had seen from the beginning. Yes, so this is precisely what Can shows, that is, we return again to the metaphor of what is outside the picture and what is

inside the picture. That is why the human sciences are not possible here, that is, there is no possibility of the human sciences. Well, consider psychology because it is the discipline of its time, but psychology as a science is not possible because psychology would be founded on an idea that is the product of a

logical error and that, moreover, cannot be applied to any sensory experience. So, in summary, we see that the idea of the self is a transcendental illusion to which reason itself has arrived, and therefore it has been lost there. In that search for the unconditioned, it arrives at this idea, which is a mirage, a deception, a transcendental illusion. It

produces the same reason, and we return again to the difference between postulating a shock as self-awareness, a transcendental subject that would be outside the frame, and a shock as ontological or substantial, which would be an object, inside the frame. Wanting to place that transcendental self, the subject, inside the frame generates paradoxes, generates problems, and Can

seeks to avoid them by showing that there are two distinct senses of subject, and that the transcendental self can never be an object of knowledge. That is, for self-awareness to be possible, but not self-knowledge, Freud will have to come along to say, "Well, we can also know the self or the soul," which

is precisely what we have in Freud's text. He will take the same approach as Kandy, the same structure, only he will say that there is a possible experience of the self, but not through the senses, but through consciousness. Well, thank you very much, and see you in future videos.