/lit/ - Literature

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.

check it out
https://youtu.be/BYGGHlgpdlw

>>22318929
>Kant said what he needed to say briefly, precisely, and concisely.
ftfy

>as regards the comprehensibility of a system of speculative cognition, connected under a single principle, we may say with equal justice: many a book would have been much clearer, if it had not been intended to be so very clear.

>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. Consequently, the representation of space cannot be borrowed from the relations of external phenomena through experience; but, on the contrary, this external experience is itself only possible through the said antecedent representation.

What do you think bros? Is space real or ideal?

>>22271685
>They must exist,
necessity is a category, therefore the thing in itself only necessarily exists as a thought, an object of the mind, but that object of the mind, that noumena in the positive sense recognized merely as subjective, is not the thing in itself, since the thing in itself as transcendent cannot have any categories, including necessity, predicated of it. you've outed yourself pseud. and victory is mine.

>>22250863
>The being-there of whatever we receive is what posits a dilemma to the the Kantian critique, for admitting the existence of things in themselves as ground of these sensations is problematic, but at the same time that denying them likewise is problematic, for it would result in radical subjectivism, solipsism (account only for the subjective activity)

What part of
>Kants conclusion is agnostic with respect to the thing-in-itself; Kant is agnostic even with respect to a cause our sensations. But he does not deny there is a mind-independent cause of sensations like Berkeley-- which means he is not a subjective idealist, but neither does he affirm it, theoretically, speculatively.
did you not understand?

>All we know is we have sensations. PERIOD.

>Coffee — he called it a “great power in [his] life” — made possible a grueling schedule that had him going to bed at six, rising at one in the morning to work until eight in the morning, then drinking eighty cups before putting in another seven hours.
>Whenever a reasonable human dose failed to stimulate, Kant would begin eating coffee powder on an empty stomach, a “horrible, rather brutal method” that he recommended “only to men of excessive reason, men with formidable intellects.”

Do you mean humans describe the world one way and manage to prove it another? Almost like there is a human bias to all of our knowledge. Like we a priori do this and can't understand reality any other way.

>>17271680
But he was a goblino

>>16421400
If we put all together, that the virgin has never had sex, that the non-virgins have, and that the virgin demonstrates about non-sexness, this would seem to constitute no small part of our knowledge. Nevertheless, I dare assert that all these non-virgins could be placed in a most awkward embarrassment, if it should occur to somebody to insist upon the question, just what kind of a thing that is about which these people think they understand so much. The methodical talk of learned sexhavers is often simply an agreement to beg a question which is difficult to solve, by the variable meaning of different sexual positions. For we seldom hear at origies the comfortable and ofttimes reasonable “I do not fuck.” Certain newer virgins, as they like to be called, overcome this question easily. A hymen, they say, is a being possessed of purity. Then it is no miracle to see virgins; for he who sees sexhavers, sees beings possessing sex. But, they continue, this being in virgins, possessing purity, is only a part of sexhaving, and this part, the animating genitals, is a spirit. Very well then. Before you prove that only a virginal being can have sex, take care that first of all I understand what kind of conception I must have of a virginal being. Self-deception in this matter, while large enough to be seen with legs half-open, is moreover of very evident origin. For, later on and in old age, we are sure to know nothing of that which was very well known to us at an early date, as sexhavers, and the man of thoroughness finally becomes at best a sophist in regard to his youthful purity.

This is the ideal male physiognomy. You may not like it, but this is what peak intellect looks like

>I’m not listening to your utilitarianism because it hurts my feelings :(
Why do people take this hack seriously?