/lit/ - Literature

>>23541303
>It was a design worthy of an acute thinker like Aristotle, to search for these fundamental conceptions. Destitute, however, of any guiding principle, he picked them up just as they occurred to him, and at first hunted out ten, which he called categories (predicaments). Afterwards be believed that he had discovered five others, which were added under the name of post predicaments. But his catalogue still remained defective. Besides, there are to be found among them some of the modes of pure sensibility (quando, ubi, situs, also prius, simul), and likewise an empirical conception (motus)—which can by no means belong to this genealogical register of the pure understanding. Moreover, there are deduced conceptions (actio, passio) enumerated among the original conceptions, and, of the latter, some are entirely wanting.
They are not the active intellect. They are the pure concepts of the active intellect. The pure formal concepts of the formative activity of the active intellect's role in Aristotle hylomorphic theory. Kant improves upon Aristotle by giving those concepts a proof for their objective reality in waking experience.

>>23523381
>it is quite clear that there must be some third thing, which on the one side is homogeneous with the category, and with the phenomenon on the other, and so makes the application of the former to the latter possible. This mediating representation must be pure (without any empirical content), and yet must on the one side be intellectual, on the other sensuous. Such a representation is the transcendental schema.

>>23519169
>specialized theories for different areas and deal with complex problems that can't always fit into one unified system
not with that attitude

> For the law of reason which requires us to seek for this unity is a necessary law, inasmuch as without it we should not possess a faculty of reason, nor without reason a consistent and self-accordant mode of employing the understanding, nor, in the absence of this, any proper and sufficient criterion of empirical truth. In relation to this criterion, therefore, we must suppose the idea of the systematic unity of nature to possess objective validity and necessity.

>>23486627
this chart is incorrect and pseudish. Never read the prolegomena before the first critique. 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.

>>23492514

time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not in themselves things. They are nothing but representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind.

>>23466457
> The evidence points to it being true that "anything that isn't a contradiction in terms can be conceived."
Kant completely agrees with this:

>We must therefore hold the principle of contradiction to be the universal and fully sufficient principle of all analytical cognition. But as a sufficient criterion of truth, it has no further utility or authority. For the fact that no cognition can be at variance with this principle without nullifying itself, constitutes this principle the sine qua non, but not the determining ground of the truth of our cognition

But Kant goes further and claims that anything that can be conceived must furthermore accord with the categories of pure intellect, and therefore the laws of pure logic are also the laws of nature, or physical reality. Consequently, all apparent absence of law in nature is only a temporary lapse in our understanding of reality, which will in time be corrected by recognition of further laws of nature.

>>23431848
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.

>>23373130
...though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.

No one, it is true, will be able to boast that he knows that there is a God and a future life; for, if he knows this, he is just the man whom I have long wished to find.
- Canon of Pure Reason

noobs in philosophy are normie naive realists. Their default mode is materialism. You can't just tell them "bro materialism is false bro bc it just is ok", you have to actually show them. Plato is too highbrow for them at their present stage; they won't "get" him because the Ideas are not even a possibility for them. But Kant gets down to their level, uses this normie midwit state of consciousness as the starting point for his system and leads his readers to see the falsehood of materialism, to despair of the consequences of the combination of this falsehood with the limitations of the normie midwit mind, and only then even begin to understand the significance of Plato. Through Kant's meticulous analysis of the mind, and likewise meticulous investigation into what the conditions of knowledge of a transcendent realm would be, and also whether the knowledge derived from this preceding analysis reveals the mind to conform to these conditions, the reader is provided with possibly the best material with which to develop a system under which the analysis of mind would find it (the mind) commensurate to the task of knowing a supersensible reality: the intelligible or ideal realm--- the realm of the noumena in a positive sense, in the sense of actualities, in the sense of the noumena as real rather than simply products of our subjective imagination. From this point, the transition to the study of Plato would be a natural and satisfying decision for the reader, and he would be able to really appreciate Plato. Don't listen to the naive realist materialust normie faggots. Read Kant, but don't be a dilettante, because then you're just wasting your time and you'll end up being another one of those anons seetheposting everyday because they got filtered but blame the author instead because they have fragile egos. Take it seriously and maybe you might develop intellectual intuition, or as some call it, the third eye, and see the noumenal realm for yourself.

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.

>>23213268
>It's an appeal to logic, it's true in the context given by the rules we use to reason, as true as claims get.
Except logic as no authority to be appealed to if this beyond is a logic-transcendent reality. Checkmate.

>Our Critique would be an investigation utterly superfluous, if there existed a possibility of proving a priori, that all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, as such, therefore, possess the inseparable attribute of personality, and are conscious of their existence apart from and unconnected with matter. For we should thus have taken a step beyond the world of sense, and have penetrated into the sphere of noumena

>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.

I think the answer is obvious (which again shows Kant's subtle suggestion presented to the reader subliminally and between the lines): INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG

In other words, all thinking being is related to corporeal being always and therefore must possess a sensibility, but this corporeal being does not necessarily have to be the gross matter of waking life-- mind stuff of intellektuelle anschauung remains possible.

what happened to the Critque of Pure Reason reading group?

Karl Arnold Wilmans
The Similarity of Pure Mysticism with the Religious Doctrine of Kant, 1797

>>22376149
>system knowledge is still derived from an object of a possible experience where he holds them as real.
no the thing in itself, for us human beings, is a only void concept necessary for the satisfaction of reason, in the same way God is. But in the same way Kant leaves the question on God (as distinct from our concept of God) as unanswerable theoreticallly, he leaves the question of the thing in itself (as distinct from our concept of the thing in itself) as unanswerable theoretically. The thing in itself as thing in itself is an object of rational faith grounded on practical reason, not theoretical reason, and so he is still an idealist, a transcendental idealist.

>a judgement one may call the given conceptions logical matter (for the judgement), the relation of these to each other (by means of the copula), the form of the judgement.

here we see the hegelian fetus in it's early stages

>>22346156
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because men choose to skim through the book, and not to think through it
thread/

>>22355187
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.

>In relation to the object of the cognition of reason, philosophers may be divided into sensualists and intellectualists. Epicurus may be regarded as the head of the former, Plato of the latter. The distinction here signalized, subtle as it is, dates from the earliest times, and was long maintained. The former asserted that reality resides in sensuous objects alone, and that everything else is merely imaginary; the latter, that the senses are the parents of illusion and that truth is to be found in the understanding alone. The former did not deny to the conceptions of the understanding a certain kind of reality; but with them it was merely logical, with the others it was mystical. The former admitted intellectual conceptions, but declared that sensuous objects alone possessed real existence. The latter maintained that all real objects were intelligible, and believed that the pure understanding possessed a faculty of intuition apart from sense, which, in their opinion, served only to confuse the ideas of the understanding.

>>22342462
>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.

The Prolegomena are meant to be read after, not before, the first critique.

>>22333851
>>22332259
>The evidence of mathematics rests upon definitions, axioms, and demonstrations. I shall be satisfied with showing that none of these forms can be employed or imitated in philosophy in the sense in which they are understood by mathematicians; and that the geometrician, if he employs his method in philosophy, will succeed only in building card-castles, while the employment of the philosophical method in mathematics can result in nothing but mere verbiage. The essential business of philosophy, indeed, is to mark out the limits of the science; and even the mathematician, unless his talent is naturally circumscribed and limited to this particular department of knowledge, cannot turn a deaf ear to the warnings of philosophy, or set himself above its direction.

>space does not represent to us any determination of objects such as attaches to the objects themselves, and would remain, even though all subjective conditions of the intuition were abstracted.