/lit/ - Literature

>>23273132
Pre-Kantian in this sense doesn't mean before Kant, it means that ancient minds (not classical) do not work according to Kant's "universal" categories, but rather by forms of mythopoetical thinking different to Kant's "thinking cap," that whilst non-Kantian, still have a structure that can be understood, like the sign=signified fallacy, or undertanding of metaphor as a relation of identity and not symbol, or that strong emotions were understood not as being a product or affect of the person but as being literally possessed from the outside by a god (e.g. Helen is possessed by Aphrodite, i.e. erotic attraction, when she eloped with Paris, and therefore has no moral blame because it literally wasn't her emotion or act, it was the god's act: every strong emotion that overrides rational thought is divine possession in Homer's time) etc.

Cassirer was a Neo-Kantian, hence his interpretation of it as pre-Kantian in comparison to the Kantian mind, which Kant would argue was universal (and shared by Augustine and all the rest in how their minds worked.) Cassier instead argued for historicism, that the structures of mind and thinking develops and is different at different historical periods. Vico and Herder did the same earlier from non-Kantian perspective ("pre-Kantian" in your sense,) and Vico in particular proposed an array of structures and rules for how the ancient mind thought and developed.

>>20923890
Stupid Frogposter
>>20925294
autism. please end your life immediately.

I only consume. I read and never write. The notes I take are direct quotations, not original ideas or systematizations. I read without understanding, only gaining pleasure and ecstasy if certain words are written in certain pleasurable combinations, or if a passage quotation reminds me of another similar quotation from another book. Therefore, I do not read to acquire concepts, only to recollect and hyperlink. Furthermore, the only value judgements I make are "based" and "cringe" neither of which I have a defined criteria for. I should be rather practicing mechanical skills like arithmetic and studying for my courses like the automaton I am, but instead I "read" complex philosophy without putting the effort to actually understand it. I am a shut-in who neither acquires experience, nor applies what he has "learned", so I am wholly unjustified in "reading" philosophy. In final, I should, with what I have memorized, be able to give up 'reading' books and sit down in front of an empty whiteboard and think about and develop and systematize an ontology from scratch and actually think once about the world with my own mind, but when I tried to do that (only once) I fell into a week-long hedonistic depression and made no progress. I returned immediately to my reading routine. I do not ask for your absolution.

"Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) tried to provide a ground for empirical science against David Hume's skeptical treatment of the notion of cause and effect. Hume (1711–1776) argued that for the notion of cause and effect no analysis is possible which is also acceptable to the empiricist program primarily outlined by John Locke (1632–1704). But, Kant's attempt to give a ground to knowledge in the empirical sciences at the same time cut off the possibility of knowledge of any other knowledge, especially what Kant called "metaphysical knowledge". So, for Kant, empirical science was legitimate, but metaphysics and philosophy was mostly illegitimate. The most important exception to this demarcation of the legitimate from the illegitimate was ethics, the principles of which Kant argued can be known by pure reason without appeal to the principles required for empirical knowledge. Thus, with respect to metaphysics and philosophy in general (ethics being the exception), Kant was a skeptic. This skepticism as well as the explicit skepticism of G. E. Schulze gave rise to a robust discussion of skepticism in German idealistic philosophy, especially by Hegel. Kant's idea was that the real world (the noumenon or thing-in-itself) was inaccessible to human reason (though the empirical world of nature can be known to human understanding) and therefore we can never know anything about the ultimate reality of the world. Hegel argued against Kant that although Kant was right that using what Hegel called "finite" concepts of "the understanding" precluded knowledge of reality, we were not constrained to use only "finite" concepts and could actually acquire knowledge of reality using "infinite concepts" that arise from self-consciousness"

Well /lit/? Do we have access to 'infinite concepts'?

first for kant

on this fucking board just turned me into a radical skeptic... thanks anonymous arbiters of "knowledge".

Are Liberals self-defeating in their pursuit to abolish war?