/lit/ - Literature

>>13222923
Tru

>>13222932
I am glad you agree.

>>13222923
Kant lol (but he's the only one)

>>13222923
Everything that Berkeley does well Adi Shankara does much better tbqh

>>13222923
God bless this man.

lil b

>>13222923
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

>>13222923
I’d like to know why you're infatuated with Berkeley. Is it because you haven’t made it to Kant yet or did Leibniz really, really hurt you?

>>13223540
Its because i hate calculus lol.

>>13223540
How does Kant refute Berkeley exactly?

>>13223556
Read Kant exactely. I’m not going to sparknotes a 700 page metaphysical system let alone recount the major consensus of basically every philosophical historian.

>>13223606
>Im not going to defend what I said
nigga please exit the thread

>>13223606
lol, so you don't have an argument?

>>13223613
He critiques radical empiricism (and radical rationalism in the same hand) by giving an account of a priori forms of sensible intuition shape up empirical content (soace and time, specifically). These can be deduced transcendentally but still require empirial material to confirm, hence the shaping up. There, are you happy you faggot? But do you understand what sensibility is? Do you understand what intuition is? Do you understand space, time, let alone the possibility of a transcendental analysis? No, because you’re a lazy faggot who hasn’t read Kant. Now why would I waste my time butchering what has been said better by the man himself? Why would I waste my time reciting literal history?

>>13223623
See: the Critique of Pure Reason. It’s not my argument retard. That’s what you really want in an argument, isn’t it? Irrefutability. For that, take up Kant.
googling “counterarguments to kant” intensifies

>>13223636
>He critiques radical empiricism (and radical rationalism in the same hand) by giving an account of a priori forms of sensible intuition shape up empirical content (soace and time, specifically). These can be deduced transcendentally but still require empirial material to confirm, hence the shaping up.
Doesn't refute Berkeley. Kant's descriptions of the a priori forms would just be how Berkeley's Minds work(or at least human minds). It wouldn't conflict with his understanding of everything other than mind being Idea.

>>13223662
Yeah that “other than” sounds like it’s due to be crucial. How is mind Idea? For Kant, “mind” can be ripped out of your skull leaving you with the transcendental functions of a rock.

>>13223556
he didn't refute Berkeley, he just elaborated on his system a bit more. Instead of affirming the world and its particulars as tacitly-generated ideas, Kant saw human beings actively creating their world

>>13223672
Does that really seem persuasive to you?

>>13223672
That's just how Berkeley's system is set up, there are minds and ideas, and his proposition was that there is no object that we have ideas of, because there is no evidence of that entire category of reality, there are just the ideas we(or God) have.

kant can't provide evidence of such a category, he just calls it Noumenon or whatever, I dont remember, but he doesnt pretend he knows anything about 'objects in themselves', a category Spinoza would not bother with at all.

>>13223694
>Spinoza
lol I was just reading something about Spinoza sorry.

>>13223693
Does what? That my brain and all of its according functions have a physical being that can be concretely eliminated, and that further epsitemic speculation either requires a total overhauling or is just left to healthy skepticism? Yeah.

>>13223694
>(or God)
Okay, but isn’t that the crux of Berkeley’s argument? Are you really about to make the claim that Berkeley’s novel contribution was not an affront to rationalism in it’s purest so much as a middling approach?

>doesn’t oretebd he knows
We most certaintly “know” Noumenon just as we know the “-“ (negation) sign in a logical statement.

>>13223694
But also to more staightforwardly/less confrontationally respond, for Kant there are most certainly “not” objects that we have ideas of, namely space, time, math, the categories, and (I can’t recall directly what else). Why would I have any reason to doubt those?

>>13223732
Berkeley's system seems to me just a cutting away of ontological categories that aren't necessary. There could be things that aren't ideas, but we have no evidence or information about them.

That is why I asked how Kant refutes Berkeley because he doesn't make any such claims that Im aware of. The noumenon is an open ended 'there could be something else, we don't know' isn't it?

>>13223741
>He believes in math

>>13223741
>y space, time, math, the categories,
These would be the 'mind' for Berkeley since they're the condition of any human awareness of Ideas(kant's phenomena) in the first place, assuming that Berekely would have agreed with kant about that. Berkeley just didnt go as far as Kant in examining how the Mind worked(massive understatement)

>>13223748
>>13223748
No, the noumenon is, again, more like a logical placeholder demarcating what we cannot literally know (“literal” in the sense of according with the epistemic system of the two a priori forms of sensible intuition as well as the empirical phenomena that Kant works out) but that we can know (in a softer sense) according to intuition (in the more contemporary, Kripkean sense) and rules of logic (whereby things like negation operate). That’s the more contestable side of the coin. Now, the uncontestable side of the coin for Kant includes space and time. You cannot hand me space. You cannot independently work out a deduction of space. However, we still intuit space and we receive phenomena that in turn confirms our intuition. We can a posteriori work out a logical system accounting for the a priori intuition, but any further claim of origination is unverifiable if not fallacious.

>>13223755
You got me there.

>>13223757
Herein lies the difference. We’re not disagreeing about the content of the argument so much as we are about the extent of the arguments, which is where I can only say “hey, historians generally see Kant as an advancement from Berkeley, I personally have x things to say about his system which may indicate that but really you just have to read it and decide for yourself.”

>>13223779
>but that we can know (in a softer sense) according to intuition (in the more contemporary, Kripkean sense) and rules of logic
We can know about the Noumeon according to these?

Your second point about time and space, that is just incontestable for the phenomena though right, those are the necessary forms of the phenomena we're aware of?

>>13223755
But yknow what, idk what tf “believe” even means in this snarky context. If by “believe” do you mean I believe in the complex system that has pragmatic conclusions, such that my thermostat will work when it’s cold or that my engine won’t explode when I’m driving down the highway, but also can be explained via basic logic-abiding axioms? Then yeah. You do too. But if you mean something further then do tell.

>>13223804
Can you hold math in your hand?

>>13223794
Yes. Again, the best analogy I have found for this is the negation sign. It doesn’t indicate nonexistence in the stongest sense, it just indicates that something is not the case wherein the very indication implies possibility i.e., modality. Kant is going to pull the breaks there and say “yeah, I already have a strong enough account of modality without having to factor in the greatest capacity of metaphysical possibility, which is what I’m trying to restrict anyway.” And yes.

>>13223817
Bad analogy, chief. Again, answer the stakes and scopes question or fuck off back to Quine.

>>13223819
Im not really following, is he actually making any claim that would contradict Berkeley's theory that all that exists are minds and ideas, or is he saying that 'there could be' other metaphysical possibilities?

>>13223837
The latter while restraining our epistemic situation to the former, though I suspect we are running into an issue of definitions concerning “minds” and “ideas.”

>>13223829

>>13223851
I’m so confused by who you think you are in this situation and who you think I am. But the fact that you can’t remain at the level of direct discourse is telling enough.

>>13222923
Nobody has ever successfully refuted him, a lot of the Germans tried but they all failed

>>13223856
It's your fault for thinking my math comment was anything but a joke. In this situation, I would be Mickey though. You wouldn't be anything in that comic. The comic itself was a continuation of the joke anyway so it isn't that important.