/lit/ - Literature

>>23780684
>remains within the confines of the fixity of the understanding
everything you just pointed out is rationally reconcilable and the apparent contradictions is only your failure to see the unity in the apparent differences.

>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

I have mastered the one true system of philosophy. I resolve all apparent contradictions in the whole of the one universal reason.

>>23745095
>Einstein has not — as you sometimes hear — given the lie to Kant’s deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a large step towards its accomplishment.
Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter (1967)

>>23682888
>rejection of what he called mysticism.
which was not so much a rejection but rather a suggestive directive for those with eyes to see.

>>23591652
>Metaphysics, as here represented, is the only science which admits of completion—and with little labour, if it is united, in a short time; so that nothing will be left to future generations except the task of illustrating and applying it didactically.

>We come now to metaphysics, a purely speculative science, which occupies a completely isolated position and is entirely independent of the teachings of experience. It deals with mere conceptions—not, like mathematics, with conceptions applied to intuition—and in it, reason is the pupil of itself alone. It is the oldest of the sciences, and would still survive, even if all the rest were swallowed up in the abyss of an all-destroying barbarism.

>That metaphysical science has hitherto remained in so vacillating a state of uncertainty and contradiction, is only to be attributed to the fact that this great problem [how are synthetic a priori judgements possible] and perhaps even the difference between analytical and synthetical judgments, did not sooner suggest itself to philosophers. Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of the science of metaphysics.

>goes on to demonstrate how synthetic a priori judgements are possible

He literally made metaphysics into a strict science.

>>23580202
We've been down this road before

>>23564935
>seem

>>23546303
>Can you deduce Dalton's Law from the law of non-contradiction?
now wouldn't that be something to wonder at...

>>23469196
I know that. But you lack the speculative ability to see the unity AND the difference between mysticism and speculative philosophy. You are one-sidedly abstracting from their unity and only paying attention to their difference. They are stages in the development of spiritual conscious, the speculative philosopher being one rung up the ladder through his expansion of understanding through his conceptualization of the mystic vision. In other words, yes I know, the (common) understanding ALONE cannot arrive at the mystic vision, and imagination ALONE must need leave the mystic vision in its uncomprehended mystery (the stage of the mystic), but when you get someone who by means of the imagination has arrived at the mystic vision, and dares to understand that holistic vision (the stage of the speculative philosopher) then you have both the components necessary to express that holistic vision in terms of the understanding as the organic system of abstract identities, which when grasped as a concrete whole presents the mystic vision once again but now in clearness and distinctness of the system of speculative philosophy, or the Absolute concept expressed and communicable through human language.

>>23466759
>most successful scientific models in history use randomness, but whatever.
empirical data is useless in a question of metaphysics. We are concerned with the ontological status of randomness and any assertion concerning that status requires more than empirical "evidence" gathered on the presupposition that causality is not necessary. You naively presuppose randomness is a possible component of human experience prior to a metaphysical theory to support that claim, and that possibility permits you to infer from appearances the supposed reality of randomness--, but without a metaphysical theory to back up your claim, you affirmation of the reality of randomness is just that: a mere metaphysical assertion, nothing more.

>>23444894
>If I make complete abstraction of the content of cognition, objectively considered, all cognition is, from a subjective point of view, either historical or rational. Historical cognition is cognitio ex datis, rational, cognitio ex principiis. Whatever may be the original source of a cognition, it is, in relation to the person who possesses it, merely historical, if he knows only what has been given him from another quarter, whether that knowledge was communicated by direct experience or by instruction. Thus the Person who has learned a system of philosophy—say the Wolfian—although he has a perfect knowledge of all the principles, definitions, and arguments in that philosophy, as well as of the divisions that have been made of the system, possesses really no more than an historical knowledge of the Wolfian system; he knows only what has been told him, his judgements are only those which he has received from his teachers. Dispute the validity of a definition, and he is completely at a loss to find another. He has formed his mind on another's; but the imitative faculty is not the productive. His knowledge has not been drawn from reason; and although, objectively considered, it is rational knowledge, subjectively, it is merely historical. He has learned this or that philosophy and is merely a plaster cast of a living man. Rational cognitions which are objective, that is, which have their source in reason, can be so termed from a subjective point of view, only when they have been drawn by the individual himself from the sources of reason, that is, from principles; and it is in this way alone that criticism, or even the rejection of what has been already learned, can spring up in the mind.
Look for principles. Reason on your own from principles. Don't just learn the conclusions of the text; understand the reasons and reasoning behind the conclusions.

>>23376714
that's literally what undefined means unless you now suddenly believe words have objective definitions existing independent of the human mind and inscribed by nature herself into the fabric of reality.

>>23287144
You pulled those numbers out of your butt. Regardless, there is an esoteric hermeneutics of Kant which was obvious to many from Fichte to Hegel and beyond, Kant's tongue-in-cheek denials of that hermeneutics not withstanding. The hints he gratuitously provides throughout his work are obvious for those who have grasped the spirit behind the letter.

>>23138024
>time
>can't be sensed
smfh Time is the pure form of internal SENSE. Anything IN time and observed a posteriori IN time is learned through SENSE. Motion as temporal IS sensible; Causality as the logically antecedent necessary condition for there even to be time succession is NOT sensible.

>>23088853
you have to forwards to go back

>>23057761
>>23058191
Why you fleebles hating on the cover? I like it. Gives Willy Wonka vibes.

>>22873866
dotard you cannot fucking read, he is saying the MYSTIC does not pursue thought further to elucidate the truth of mysticism, NOT that mysticism is not true you retarded monkey, but the part you refuse to, or more likely cannot understand since you are a babboon, is that the speculative logician DOES attempt this because he knows reality is rational and the truth the mystic leaves in obscurity CAN be rationally and scientifically communicated.

>>22747532
[continued]
For the underlying idea of Ibsen's Art and Philosophy seems to be that one should conceive the beautiful and the true in this terrestrial existence and wait to realize them in another. Or, apply the bullet or the cyanide, if you can not wait. Sow in your soul the seeds of the ideal, which is one way of answering Pilate, and let death shield them from the frost of life. In other words, as soon as the ideal begins to germinate, in order to preserve it in its vigor and purity, hasten hence to some more friendly clime beyond the valleys of the moon. I do not think it would be far from the truth to picture those Ibsen souls as comets sweeping through this world to others far and unseen, leaving in the disturbed atmosphere behind them a sinister portent of coming disaster. That is why I call him the Cometographer of the spirit-world.
And thus, what are called results are only beginnings according to Plato, who answered Pilate by offering him the Magic Carpet of Dreams. Which I, for one, prefer to Ibsen's cyanide of mercury or any other equivalent. For when I saw Brand, his master creation, dying on the snow-covered heights, I wished I were living in another age, when the art of caricature was not known. I thought of Socrates, the master creation of God, dying in prison, and I thought of the Christ dying on the cross. And what avails my philosopher's abstractions, and my Manuel Maker's practical wisdom, and my Dramatist's hectic inventions, in the face of these? Indeed, the world would be richer and happier for a few more seers and sages like Socrates and Tabrizi, who would not condescend to write a book. For not by the written word, or by mummery on the stage, but silent and head bowed we best answer the query of Pilate. The Christ on the cross, Socrates in prison—that is my answer to the Roman procurator of Judea.
-Path of Vision; pocket essays of East and West by Ameen Rihani

>>22731529
*slams fists on table*
DAMN IT ANONS. ok... I concede... but when this reading group fizzles out in the next few weeks (as it inevitably will since I guarantee the Guyer/Wood translation will absolutely filter our anons by the time they reach the Transcendental Analytic) you will see for yourself the mistake you have made-- in any case, are we reading first or second edition?

>>22581751
>Yeah that ls the problem with idealism, isn't it?
No. It's not smoothbrain. Because it's a metaphysical theory. If it's true it's true regardless of empirical confirmation, and any empirical confirmation would be merely gratuitous as far as the truth of the theory is concerned.

>>22547341
>Say something worth starting a thread over, something fucking original
oh you mean like
> is x worth reading?
> books for x feel?
> woman hate thread
> post stacks
> random question as excuse to post pic of cute girl I like
like such as that?

>>22505963
Sex is for materialist normalfags. It was the redirected orgone from his sex organs to his cognitive organs from voluntary celibacy that produced the supermind and the corresponding super thinking abilities of the great Kant. Develop the self discipline to resist sexual desire and thereby acheive the intellectual heights of the Empyrean like Kant did. The never ending chase on the hamster wheel of sexual gratification is mere cope for those that can't into Kant and their seetheposts against Kant are the only way they know how to release their pent up sexual frustration. I would tell them to kys but I am not so cruel, and instead I invite them to read a copy of the first critique today. Good day, sirs.

Intellektuelle Anschauung is real. All talk is just a means to an end you can't get to without the talk ('I am therefore I think' is the correct formulation; descartes got it backwards). Once you see the spiritual sun, the invisible sun, the BLACK SUN, Dionysus, God of the Night, you will behold the world of shadows in the Astral Light. This is the aim of the sage, the goal of the wise, DIE SACHE SELBST.

>>22473004
>For one who is initiated into these mysteries
initiate confirmed.

>>22430356
>nobody literally has a fucking clue what he's saying
holy fuck dude. read more.

>>22430356
>Hegel never made a mistake? Never contradicted himself? Never said something vague on a controversial topic that could legitimately invite several different positions?
retard. that's not what I said. I said the truth is the WHOLE, the whole system is the truth.

>what logic is cannot be stated beforehand, rather does this knowledge of what it is first emerge as the final outcome and consummation of the whole exposition.

>The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get it and will never get it unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.

>[the] metaphorical notion of "the eye of the soul" is akin to illuminative intuition and although it is a faculty that is latently possessed by every soul, nevertheless it must be developed and properly directed by dialectical reasoning. If the initiate is suitable and has a high degree of proficiency in dialectics ultimately acquaintive knowing supervenes upon propositional knowing.

>in dialectics ultimately acquaintive knowing supervenes upon propositional knowing.