/lit/ - Literature

>>21967142

>>21966587
Read now

Essential schizo kino.

Schizophrenic: uncontrolled overpowered mystic

Metaphysician: controlled calculating scientific mystic

>>21777278
That's a synthetic a priori judgement like many others, like the pythagorean theorem. Nothing special about it when compared to other judgements of its kind.

>>21730878
Read Pic related. If you're going to do time you might as well get to know what time actually is.

>>21695737
The reason the will doesn't use reason is because it doesn't necessarily have one. Always read Kant as well.

>>21600728
Although I read somewhere that Eisenstein wanted to do it, but I can't find anything about it now.

Space and time were a mistake.

>>21423632

>>21416543
Systematic par excellence

>>21391875
Makes STEMlords seethe, presupposing they can actually understand it.

>>21363806
>It is important to note that this is a theoretical scenario and may not necessarily occur in all cases where anticipation and perception are involved in a feedback loop.

Begone speculative reasoner

Get redpilled on space and time

>>21327897

>>21216903
You can infer but the inference could not be confirmed as true apart from an intuition of an object corresponding to the concept inferred. If the object were a possible object of experience, then in principle you could at least search for the object in the space-time continuum that coressponds to your hypothetical concept, such as in astronomy, but how is the avatar in the game ever to possibly experience the source code beyond the game if all his knowledge can only be found in the game? Even a supposed representation of the source code given to the avatar within the game would still be a mere representation that is presupposed as correctly and accurately representing the source code and therefore appearing to provide the object to the avatar's inferred concept of the source code and appearing to give that concept objective reality. But this is never the case because it is only the player outside the game who has the higher standpoint from which to judge the truth of the correspondence of this inferred concept by the avatar to a transcendent object outside the game existing in some transcendent realm, the realm of the player. Your analogy presupposes the avatar could somehow attain the standpoint of the transcendent player, and in this way confirm the hermetic principle of as above so below, with respect to a transcendent realm, but as Kant shows this principle can at best serve as a principle to guide our researches on the nature of the immanent world of experience, in other words, as a metaphysical foundation for natural science, but not metaphysics proper, or, in accordance with your analogy, a systematic science of the source code

Greetings again readers, today I will discuss an idea I have had regarding the power of our imaginative faculty and its relation to what we call the external world.

To begin, I think we would all agree that we all have some faculty of our mind which can generate a kind of imagery, albeit lacking the reality of what we take to be real in our physical experience. Now, I also think that we would agree that from time to time we have a type of experience that also lacks the intense reality of our conscious physical experience and occurs while we are sleeping; these experiences we call dreams.

Now, we usually take the imaginative faculty during waking life to be subject to our will and as a result imaginings are within our control. On the other hand, in our dream experiences, many events appear to occur against our will. However, I think that both dreams and waking imaginings are both products of our imaginative faculty. Why then is it that one experience is taken to be voluntary and the other involuntary?

I think an analogy to the functioning of the imaginative faculty could be made with the functioning our lungs; our breathing process can occur on a voluntary and involuntary level. It is constantly occurring in the background unconsciously and involuntarily, but enters our consciousness when we voluntarily take over the breathing process. In comparison, dreaming is like unconscious involuntary breathing in so far as in dreaming the dream events occur against our will and, although we are conscious of the dream, we lack the self-awareness to be conscious that we are *in* a dream; waking imaginings, on the other hand, are like conscious breathing, in that we are imagining in accordance with our will and our aware that they our only our imagings; we are self aware and do not become identified with the imaginings, that is to say, lose self-awareness.

Now notice that waking reality has a more intense reality, or sensual intensity, than dreams, and dreams have a more intense reality than waking imaginings. In this way, I hypothesize that waking reality, dream worlds, and waking imaginings are all a continuum of the products of our imaginative faculty. If this is so, then to continue with the breathing analogy, then there may be ways to taking conscious, self-aware, and voluntary control of dreams, and in fact there are many who claim to have developed this ability through what is called lucid dreaming. Furthermore, if we achieve the ability to alter our dream reality, then if our waking reality is also a product of our imaginative faculty, which I believe it is, then believe we may also be able to alter waking reality by attaining a type of self awareness. Now, how this self- awareness is to be obtained I am not sure, but I suspect that the methods of Yoga are, in fact, the path to this self-awareness, and, as a result, a path to becoming divine in a very literal sense

>>21207644
> If, accordingly, we have assumed, from a non-speculative point of view, the immaterial nature of the soul, and are met by the objection that experience seems to prove that the growth and decay of our mental faculties are mere modifications of the sensuous organism—we can weaken the force of this objection by the assumption that the body is nothing but the fundamental phenomenon, to which, as a necessary condition, all sensibility, and consequently all thought, relates in the present state of our existence; and that the separation of soul and body forms the conclusion of the sensuous exercise of our power of cognition and the beginning of the intellectual. The body would, in this view of the question, be regarded, not as the cause of thought, but merely as its restrictive condition, as promotive of the sensuous and animal, but as a hindrance to the pure and spiritual life; and the dependence of the animal life on the constitution of the body, would not prove that the whole life of man was also dependent on the state of the organism.

Yes

>We may assume that this life is nothing more than a sensuous representation of pure spiritual life; that the whole world of sense is but an image, hovering before the faculty of cognition which we exercise in this sphere, and with no more objective reality than a dream; and that if we could intuite ourselves and other things as they really are, we should see ourselves in a world of spiritual natures, our connection with which did not begin at our birth and will not cease with the destruction of the body. And so on.

YESSSSS

>We cannot be said to know what has been above asserted, nor do we seriously maintain the truth of these assertions; and the notions therein indicated are not even ideas of reason, they are purely fictitious conceptions. But this hypothetical procedure is in perfect conformity with the laws of reason. Our opponent mistakes the absence of empirical conditions for a proof of the complete impossibility of all that we have asserted; and we have to show him that be has not exhausted the whole sphere of possibility and that he can as little compass that sphere by the laws of experience and nature, as we can lay a secure foundation for the operations of reason beyond the region of experience. Such hypothetical defences against the pretensions of an opponent must not be regarded as declarations of opinion. The philosopher abandons them, so soon as the opposite party renounces its dogmatical conceit. To maintain a simply negative position in relation to propositions which rest on an insecure foundation, well befits the moderation of a true philosopher; but to uphold the objections urged against an opponent as proofs of the opposite statement is a proceeding just as unwarrantable and arrogant as it is to attack the position of a philosopher who advances affirmative propositions regarding such a subject.

[gets raptured in ecstasy]

>>21207006
By far

ITT: we discuss Metaphysics. Keep it /lit/ related pls

The noumenon is the will of the Almighty, because God's will is eternal.

Schopenhauerpseuds of /lit/ do yourselves and everyone else a favor and shut the fuck up until you have read and understood picrel.

>>21039941
>t. has not read Critique of Pure Reason
Why are so many anons like this?

>>21007036