/lit/ - Literature

A challenger appears

I'll start with an obvious one.

>>20229729
Say no more senpai

>>20229833

What is it about this book that scares people? Is it the title?

The transcendental aesthetic is as true as the Bible.

>To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Voltaire

Has anyone here undestood the Transcendental Aesthetic?
Is Space really the only objective thing there is?

what is transcendental idealism really all about ?
I am a bit confused by Kant claiming that space and time are a priori and not things in itself...

Isn't it obvious that things in itself as they really are and not just as mere appearance for us... that they are spaciously and apart and moving in time ?

How can you seriously claim space and time not being things outside of our perception ? isn't that insane to assume ?

Bros can I use Kritik der reinen Vernunft to learn German? I have a german dictionary and a german grammar and usage book. I'd like to kill two birds with one stone and learn german reading what interests me.

Hey /lit/bros just want to start a thread about philosophy books after critique of pure reason that relate to it and things like such as that. I been reading RK Reinholds essay on the mind. It's pretty good. He kinda covers the same territory as critique of pure reason but is a little more clear about stuff, uses examples and shit- more examples than Kant. So far I've only read half the book but it's pretty good so far. Also, I think that the way to know the thing in itself is to somehow develop and change the mind, or what Reinhold calls the capacity for representation. How though? That is the question. Still working on it. But if you have any tips or ideas please let me know seriously.

Philosophy:
>Pleb filter
The biggest filter happens when Idiots start out with books that presuppose knowledge of previous philosophers, usually the Greeks. More concretely I think Aristoteles or Nietzsche have filtered most people who tried to get into philosophy.
>midwit filter
The critique of pure reason, this is where most midwits or hobby philosophers give up on philosophy.

Read this.

Can we discuss this piece of absolute non-fiction ?

>Space is not a conception which has been derived from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate to something
without me (that is, to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent
them not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in separate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation.

>Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not
exist as a foundation à priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same
time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

Skeptics essentially rebuted

I've read the Prolegomena and I'm trying to make sense of The Critique of Pure Reason, but I have one question.

Does Kant discuss free will and dreams in this book? I heard from someone (on this board actually) that he uses dreams as a way of understanding conscious experience.

>>14629740
I don't look at the world in the same way anymore. Answers so many questions..

>>14410250
Radical empiricism has been disproved by Kant, every information is processed and organized by your brain using a priori categories

Fuck Guenon and fuck Whitehead. Read some real philosophy for once.

Kant thread.
Not sure if this is /lit/ type of thread, but I had a dream last night, I was reading some work of Kant. Not sure what exactly because I never actually read Kant.

What could this all mean? Could this be a revelation of some kind? I was checking Kant on wikipedia and there are few spooky things on wiki page (like his association with Swedenborg) and looking into Critique of Pure Reason it seems to be not an easy read.

I'm about to finish the Critique of Pure Reason. What comes next? Should I read Kant's 2 other critiques before heading over to Hegel?

How does one scientifically defend the idea of an objectively knowable material reality after Kant demonstrated the limits of our perception? For Kant the thing-in-itself fills the role of external objective reality, but how is belief in the thing-in-itself not equal to belief in God?

>Taking anything other than the first critique and Prolegomena seriously.

Kant literally said that his morality was based on the fact that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, so you better act morally just in case.

Being purposfully delusional is a waste of time. The First Critique is a masterwork that destroyed all the spooks before it. Then Kant proceeds to build those same spooks back up.

>I'm Immanuel Kant, and this is a Critique of Pure Reason
Fuckiing