/lit/ - Literature

>>23490827

>>23481346
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.

discuss metaphysical literature

>>23466284
>In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition.

>Imagination is the faculty of representing an object even without its presence in intuition. Now, as all our intuition is sensuous, imagination, by reason of the subjective condition under which alone it can give a corresponding intuition to the conceptions of the understanding, belongs to sensibility.

>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.

>>23447101
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, rocks, 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.

Why is there a sudden interest in Critique of Pure Reason online? Are average internet people really out there cracking open and reading 18th century transcendental philosophy?

Why do so many of you misunderstand him?

>>23373431
...it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)...

whether the world has a beginning and a limit to its extension in space; whether there exists anywhere, or perhaps, in my own thinking Self, an indivisible and indestructible unity—or whether nothing but what is divisible and transitory exists; whether I am a free agent, or, like other beings, am bound in the chains of nature and fate; whether, finally, there is a supreme cause of the world, or all our thought and speculation must end with nature and the order of external things—are questions for the solution of which the mathematician would willingly exchange his whole science; for in it there is no satisfaction for the highest aspirations and most ardent desires of humanity.

Do you believe in Intellektuelle Anschauung? Why or why not?

>>23310263
if the laws of nature are violated there is no us as we know it, and therefore no us to conceive the thing in itself, no us, no subject in which the concept of the thing in itself (and all it is is a concept) could exist (as a concept).

>>23284293
>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)

>Through observation and analysis of appearances we penetrate to nature's inner recesses, and no one can say how far this knowledge may in time extend. But with all this knowledge, and even if the whole of nature were revealed to us, we should still never be able to answer those transcendental questions which go beyond nature. The reason of this is that it is not given to us to observe our own mind with any other intuition than that of inner sense; and that it is yet precisely in the mind that the secret of the source of our sensibility is located. The relation of sensibility to an object and what the transcendental ground of this [objective] unity may be, are matters undoubtedly so deeply concealed that we, who after all know even ourselves only through inner sense and therefore as appearance, can never be justified in treating sensibility as being a suitable instrument of investigation for discovering anything save always still other appearances – eager as we yet are to explore their non-sensible cause." (A278/B334)

Press F to pay respects

>>23213196
>happens every day
I commend you efforts. Keep going.

GOTT MIT UNS

>>23192849
unironically

noumenology (uncountable)
1. (philosophy) The study of noumena, that is, things as they are in themselves, beyond their immediate human perception.

>>23151128
yes

His daily schedule then looked something like this. He got up at 5:00 A.M. His servant Martin Lampe, who worked for him from at least 1762 until 1802, would wake him. The old soldier was under orders to be persistent, so that Kant would not sleep longer. Kant was proud that he never got up even half an hour late, even though he found it hard to get up early. It appears that during his early years, he did sleep in at times. After getting up, Kant would drink one or two cups of tea -- weak tea. With that, he smoked a pipe of tobacco. The time he needed for smoking it "was devoted to meditation." Apparently, Kant had formulated the maxim for himself that he would smoke only one pipe, but it is reported that the bowls of his pipes increased considerably in size as the years went on. He then prepared his lectures and worked on his books until 7:00. His lectures began at 7:00, and they would last until 11:00. With the lectures finished, he worked again on his writings until lunch. Go out to lunch, take a walk, and spend the rest of the afternoon with his friend Green. After going home, he would do some more light work and read.
-Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography

>>22822481
I AM KANTPOSTER AND U ALSO READ AND ENJOY THE JOURNAL OF SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY. SEETHE MORE FAGGOT.

Kant achieved intellektuelle Anschauung by the way.

>>22790326
>cognition

>Intuition and conceptions constitute, therefore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither conceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cognition.

>Understanding is, to speak generally, the faculty Of cognitions. These consist in the determined relation of given representation to an object. But an object is that, in the conception of which the manifold in a given intuition is united. Now all union of representations requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently, it is the unity of consciousness alone that constitutes the possibility of representations relating to an object, and therefore of their objective validity, and of their becoming cognitions, and consequently, the possibility of the existence of the understanding itself.

>>22765893
>Bruh-ther how the fuck would you know?
INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG

>transcendental ideas are properly nothing but categories elevated to the unconditioned

>>22728624
>reading the first Critique now.
based.