/lit/ - Literature

All of (post-Kantian) western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Kant and more specifically the First Critique (Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Edition 2)

>>23463340
I didn't say he did. Sensibility is passive, and imagination may be both active AND passive, but in either case, intuition is distinct from both, and is passive in relation to both since it must be given real or imagined sensations and is therefore, again, DEPENDENT on sensations, real or imagined.

Reminder that Kant's ethics cannot be understood outside the context of transcendental idealism. Too many people just read his ethics because his metaphysics is too hard and then give poor metaphysically uninformed criticisms of his ethics.

>By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
- Kant, CPR 2nd Preface

>>23455494
That the Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason is a meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena:

>although a mere sketch PRECEDING the Critique of Pure Reason would be UNINTELLIGIBLE, UNRELIABLE, and USELESS, it is all the more useful as a SEQUEL. For so we are able to grasp the whole, to examine in detail the chief points of importance in the science, and to improve in many respects our exposition, as compared with the first execution of the work.

>>23447764
>>23447771
Transcendental illusion, on the contrary, does not cease to exist, even after it has been exposed, and its nothingness clearly perceived by means of transcendental criticism. Take, for example, the illusion in the proposition: "The world must have a beginning in time." The cause of this is as follows. In our reason, subjectively considered as a faculty of human cognition, there exist fundamental rules and maxims of its exercise, which have completely the appearance of objective principles. Now from this cause it happens that the subjective necessity of a certain connection of our conceptions, is regarded as an objective necessity of the determination of things in themselves. This illusion it is impossible to avoid, just as we cannot avoid perceiving that the sea appears to be higher at a distance than it is near the shore, because we see the former by means of higher rays than the latter, or, which is a still stronger case, as even the astronomer cannot prevent himself from seeing the moon larger at its rising than some time afterwards, although he is not deceived by this illusion.
- Kant, Transcendental Dialectic

>>23433544
>an object created by divine intellect
that's not what Kant means by noumena

>...noumena in the negative sense, [are] things which the understanding is obliged to cogitate apart from any relation to our mode of intuition, consequently not as mere phenomena, but as things in themselves [...] If, [...] we wish to apply the categories to objects which cannot be regarded as phenomena, we must have an intuition different from the sensuous, and in this case the objects would be a noumena in the positive sense of the word
- Of the Ground of the Division of all Objects into Phenomena and Noumena.

>>23423926
>Its perfectly observable both within your own mind and in the behaviour of others.
then he's not a Kantian

>the subject intuites itself, not as it would represent itself immediately and spontaneously, but according to the manner in which the mind is internally affected, consequently, as it appears, and not as it is.

>>23373504
I know I get it. You're implying the language I speak to define terms and communicate judgments and inferences is itself a system of symbols which have to be all empirically learned. But you are entirely missing the point: in order for me to even have a unified self-conscious experience within which to learn anything at all, certain powers must already exist and operate logically prior to that experience which make that experience possible and which therefore also make all empirical knowledge (even language) subject to, and conditioned by, their influence.

When Kant says there is something "out there" one has to recognize this is pure metaphor. It is not the sensible; it is not nature; it is nothing that can be ordered with the categories of thought: the Ding an sich is unknown and in principle unknowable, and any claim that phenomena correspond in some way to the Ding an sich, whatever it may be, is to commit the error of applying the categories of substance and causality beyond (per Kant) their only legitimate domain. In other words, by claiming there is someting "out there" (metaphorically speaking of course since space is idiosyncratic to humans) you have already passed beyond applying the Categories to proximate causes and matter (what Kant calls 'phenomenal substance") and attempted the theoretical use of the Categories beyond phenomena to that which lies beyond phenomena, and therefore beyond experience. From the standpoint of the theoretical use of reason, even this use is forbidden according to Kantian principles.

Basically, for the same reasons that reason in its theoretical use cannot obtain knowledge about the Soul, Freedom, or God, reason in its theoretical use cannot obtain knowledge even of the Ding an sich. It is, in effect, an object of faith or belief, in the same way the other Ideas of Reason are.

As far as Spinoza's and Leibniz's speculations about what the Ding an sich is, for Kant that is a moot point, having no possible way to affirm their truth or falsity since they are beyond experience. And this is why Kant is so devastating to metaphysics in the traditional sense of "the science of Being qua Being" since we cannot know anything other than Being qua phenomena.

Let me emphasize: the Ding an sich , "the real world", is not an actuality for Kant-- we do NOT KNOW it actually exists or is or whatever (in fact, even using words like existence or being is already a misuse of the categories of reality, substance, causality, etc,) It is, effectively, for us humans NOTHING. To put even more clear, even our concept of nothing does not correspond to it, since it can never be an object of our thought-- if we think we are thinking or talking about it WE. ARE. NOT. It cannot be spoken about; it cannot be conceived. Not even the word "Nothing" corresponds to it.

This is the logical conclusion of the Kantian system-- the missing capstone of the Great Pyramid.

>>23285746
>I'm not saying it is necessary true because it works, but that its universality comes from its effects in practice
that ironically is what you are saying and again no it does not. Hume already showed this. The observation of its repeated success in practice in no way demonstrates its universality, because, for the n-th time, induction will never yield the concept of necessary connection, which you admit when you say

>we have no proof of its necessity being actual in the world itself.

except we DO have a proof if by "the world itself" you mean the world as empirically observed, i.e. the phenomenal world, and Kant DID provide it.

The thing in itself, which because it being what it really is is logically prior to our conceptualization of it, can also not be called an unknowable chaos since this would be a subreptive application of the categories of thought to that which we want to know as it is prior to that application. Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rock, etc., which exists externally. And, according to Kant, it will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future because we do not now at this point in history have the mental capacity to determine whether our subjective categories of thought have an exactly corresponding objective correlate which would allow us to legitimately apply our categories of thought to it since, in that case, the thing in itself would then also have to be a subject (an ego, an I, soul, mind) in some larger sense with the same categories of thought as ours: a microcosm to macrocosm relation, or more simply, as above, so below. This being the case, ironically, the best way to arrive at an understanding of objective reality would be by understanding our own selves, recalling the ancient famous injunction: Know Thyself.

The thing in itself, which because it being what it really is is logically prior to our conceptualization of it can also not be called an unknowable chaos since this would be a subreptive application of the categories of thought to that which we want to know as it is prior to that application. Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rock, etc., which exists externally. And according to Kant it will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future because we do not know at this point in history have the mental capacity to determine whether our subjective categories of thought have an exactly corresponding objective correlate which would allow us to legitimately apply our categories of thought to it since the thing in itself would then also be a subject (an ego, an I, soul, mind) in a larger sense with same categories of thought as ours: a microcosm to microcosm relation, more simply, as above, so below. This being the case, ironically, the best way to understanding objective reality would to understanding our own selves, the famous injunction: Know Thyself.

>>23143477
>Kant clearly believes the sun is really there in some important way, and really heats the rock, which also really exists.
As phenomena yes, as noumena no.

>it makes the entire external world an unknowable chaos?
yes, the thing in itself, which because it being what it really is is logically prior to our conceptualization of it can also not be called an unknowable chaos since this would be a subreptive application of the categories of thought to that which we want to know as it is prior to that application. Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rock, etc., which exists externally. And according to Kant it will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future because we do not know at this point in history have the mental capacity to determine whether our subjective categories of thought have an exactly corresponding objective correlate which would allow us to legitimately apply our categories of thought to it since the thing in itself would then also be a subject (an ego, an I, soul, mind) in a larger sense with same categories of thought as ours: a microcosm to microcosm relation, more simply, as above, so below. This being the case, ironically, the best way to understanding objective reality would to understanding our own selves, the famous injunction: Know Thyself.

Remember a Kingdom is order, rational order, logos.

Seek first the Kingdom of God

>as objectively considered there can only be one human Reason, so there cannot be many Philosophies; in other words, there is ONLY ONE TRUE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY founded upon principles, however variously and however contradictorily men may have philosophized over one and the same proposition.

>>23137291
>they are from the same source of concluding through repeated observation?
you are making the same mistake as hume. The permanence of substance, causality, etc., cannot be proved from experience alone. You cannot see, hear, touch, etc., substance, only it's attributes; you arrive at it only by means of thinking. It is purely an object of thought. And so it is with the other categories. At this point a Hume-minded person would say substance is just made up then, and has no real grounding except the fact we by pure chance habitually came use this concept. But this is where Kant enters the picture and also why it's very important to recognize that Kant is a systematic thinker. Kant says these concepts lie dormant in the mind prior to any conscious experience of the sensible world and become activated upon our coming into interaction with the objective correlates of our senses. These concepts are part of a system that together form the necessary conditions to produce ego-consciousness, and ego-consciousness is not possible without them. Therefore, any "I", any self-conscious unified being will and must take with him into any of his thinking about anything, these concepts, and must think using these concepts. This is where there universality comes from; wherever there is a conscious observer necessarily there will also be those concepts required for there to be a conscious observer at all.

The concept of motion would not be necessary for there to be ego-consciousness, Kant thought, or in other words, it is not necessary that every where and always wherever there is a conscious observer there be motion. But there is still debate over this and you should check out his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science where he discusses motion. I have only skimmed through it but I saw the topic discusses. Ok that's all I have for now. Good day.

>The permanence of the soul, therefore, as an object of the internal sense, remains undemonstrated, nay, even indemonstrable. Its permanence in life is evident, per se, inasmuch as the thinking being (as man) is to itself, at the same time, an object of the external senses. But this does not authorize the rational psychologist to affirm, from mere conceptions, its permanence beyond life.

Any of you ever meet any actual irl Kant readers? I've met exactly zero.

>>22877622
>one great man
Pro tip: KANT

>>22880081
>it he refers to mathematical knowledge as a priori but doesn’t specify synthetic
read it again. It is both synthetic and a priori. It is new knowledge and also it is not gained from experience. The key concept you overlooked is INTUITION. There is sensible intuition, like seeing, hearing, feeling, etc., but there is also PURE intuition which contains nothing empirical. There are only two pure intuitions: Space and Time. This is the realm of mathematics. And therefore mathematics is necessarily applicable to the physical world since it is in space and time.

>>22858518
good job anon. you btfo'd that analytictard so hard he deleted his post. Kant (pbuh) is smiling in the noumenal realm right now.

>>22832766
he was writing for professionals. you have to get on his level. it is a work of P R E C I S I O N.

> I confess, however, I did not expect, to hear from philosophers complaints of want of popularity, entertainment, and facility, when the existence of a highly prized and indispensable cognition is at stake, which cannot be established otherwise, than by the strictest rules of methodic precision.

>>22822688
nope I AM KANTPOSTER and I approve this message.

>>22813557
>The rules of geometry are an arbitrary abstraction of some aspect of experience
Can you even into Kant?

>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight,—whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori

>No subject can have a predicate that contradicts it