/lit/ - Literature

>>22311467
>Kant was an ugly gob-

>>22220570
Refuted by Kant.

>>21329569
>What's prior to thought can't be arrived at via thought. The mind/brain is finite and you're expecting to cram knowledge of the infinite into it; it just won't fit.
>Simply let your attention relax back from extending outward and allow the mind to subside. Don't try to know and don't try to not know, don't look for nor expect some kind of experience. Don't try to get something or somewhere, what's really here now is already the answer; it's not the fulfilment of trying to know that reveals this, but the cessation of trying to know. The questioner does not find the answer, the answer sees through the question.

Then why does reason demand an answer in the first place? Why do we ask why if the question cannot be answered? If the question arises from reason the answer must also be found by reason. Therefore as rational beings knowledge that corresponds to our questions and satisfies our reason is acheivable by us. We just have to go out and do it.

>If, by the term noumenon, we understand a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensuous intuition, thus making abstraction of our mode of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the word. But if we understand by it an object of a non-sensuous intuition, we in this case assume a peculiar mode of intuition, an intellectual intuition, to wit, which does not, however, belong to us, of the very possibility of which we have no notion—and this is a noumenon in the positive sense.

>Now, the possibility of a thing can never be proved from the fact that the conception of it is not self-contradictory, but only by means of an intuition corresponding to the conception. If, therefore, we wish to apply the categories to objects which cannot be regarded as phenomena, we must have an intuition different from the sensuous, and in this case the objects would be a noumena in the positive sense of the word. Now, as such an intuition, that is, an intellectual intuition, is no part of our faculty of cognition, it is absolutely impossible for the categories to possess any application beyond the limits of experience. It may be true that there are intelligible existences to which our faculty of sensuous intuition has no relation, and cannot be applied, but our conceptions of the understanding, as mere forms of thought for our sensuous intuition, do not extend to these. What, therefore, we call noumenon must be understood by us as such in a negative sense.

>the intelligible requires an altogether peculiar intuition, which we do not possess, and in the absence of which it is for us nothing;

He meant all this merely as a thought experiment to demonstrate the logical consequences of the normie metaphysic (denial of intellectual intuition). The Critique is ultimately a reductio ad absurdum: "Look at what you get when you deny intellectual intuition, complete nonsense. Therefore intellectual intuition exists."

He does therefore believe in noumena in a postive sense: thoughts as objects of understanding, all the while tongue in cheek denying such a faculty for humans in the natural healthy state. It is by the process of progressing through transcendental critique that the human eventually grows out of this natural state and achieves the standpoint of philosophy which is the recognition of the true nature of thought, a state which transforms the human into something more than human: An Übermensch.

>pronounced: cunt
>meaning in german: edge
So his name is edgy because it's pronounced cunt. Is this a coincidence?

who was the most autistic philosopher?

>>8986859
Did someone say Universal Truth?

Was Kant right?

>>8374710
>not read travel literature
>mfw

"enlightenment is the emergence from self-inflicted tutelage"
is he right /lit/? also enlightenment general

How does one get into the logic goblin? Prereqs, reading order, etc

Is Critique of Pure Reason a good place to start with Kant? What should I have read beforehand?

What would Kant think of a place like /lit/?