/lit/ - Literature

>>14089563
> psychology

How well does Platonism hold up to modern neurolinguistics?

>>14089563
nobody smart would ever type this question up

>>14089563
Very well.

>>14089563
Really Well

>>14089563
Pointless question

Neuroscience has confirmed Kantianism. He is 100% correct.

>>14089709
Silly oversimplification

>>14089563
How well does Einstein’s relativity hold up to Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition?

>>14089718
t. seething randroid

>Dr. Verbrecherstein, I think we've found something incredible. Through extensive empirical study we have indeed proven that the schematism of the categories indeed relate pure concepts to the manifold of sense perceptions.

>>14089777
I didn't say, nor implied, that cognitive psychology could prove Kant right, I only asked how it currently held up to Kant's thought

>>14089936
You should be asking how cognitive psychology holds up to Kant's thought. That would be a much more interesting thread.

>>14090856
This tbqh. Kant is a system of understanding reality, psychology is a smaller field of study.

>>14089563
YiKeRs

>>14090856
I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference in the question; the exact wording will differ, but the end result will be the same (e.g., "x holds up to y very well" and "y holds up to x very well" have different subjects and predicates, but it's still being expressed that x and y agree with each other to a large degree).

>>14091119
thanks mr analytic philosopher, very cool!

>>14089572
It doesn't. Platonism is trite carnival shit for pseuds.

>>14089563
There's criticism of his "naive" a prioris, that what is intuitive to us corresponds to the world - more specifically, his geometry is Euclidian, and now we know the universe is better modeled by hyperbolic geometry
honestly I don't remember the ramifications or the article I was reading but you can find plenty of discussion with some googling
>Despite the very different positions that contemporary commentators develop as to how best to understand Kant's thought, they are broadly united in opposing a long-standard story (perhaps originally promoted by Bertrand Russell in his Principles of Mathematics and by Rudolph Carnap in his Philosophical Foundations of Physics) according to which the development of modern logic in the 19th and 20th centuries, the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries, and the formalization of mathematics renders Kant's intuition-based theory of mathematics and related philosophical commitments obsolete or irrelevant. Contemporary commentators seek to reconstruct Kant's philosophy of mathematics from the vantage of Kant's own historical context and also to identify the elements of Kant's philosophy of mathematics that are of eternal philosophical interest.

>>14091262
I feel his veiws on euclidean geometry are rather minor in effect. His more epistomological claims of a priori space and time are the crux.

>>14091262
>There's criticism of his "naive" a prioris, that what is intuitive to us corresponds to the world - more specifically, his geometry is Euclidian, and now we know the universe is better modeled by hyperbolic geometry
The criticism hardly applied, I believe.

Kant does not state anything about "the world" by itself but only about the world of experience. The geometry that better model physical phenomena does not need to correspond with the geometry of our word-experience.

>>14089563
I want to point out that the critique is a XVIII century metaphysical treatise. The merits of philosophical books should be viewed in their context, since centuries later their content may be trivial.

In regard of the very specifics, we don't care much because it's and unscientific. But he receives appreciation and courses in cog.sci often begin with a philosophical introduction which always mentions Kant, since he's the main figure to consider the world of experience and the elements of reason which bring forth this construction.

Without Kant we probably wouldn't have cognitive science, but his theory, just like most scientific thought of that time, it's obsolete.

>>14089718
Simply oversillification.

>>14091327
>Without Kant we probably wouldn't have cognitive science, but his theory, just like most scientific thought of that time, it's obsolete.


How?

>>14091383
how what? ...

>>14091389
How is it obsolete?

>>14091381
>no u

>>14091237
>t. process philosophist

>>14089563
Kant has been retroactively refuted by Hume, why do people even care about his crazy idealist ramblings.

>>14091650
>retroactively refuted
care to elaborate, or point to where someone else speaks on this?

>>14091661
Are you asking for a book recommendation? The Cement of the Universe has a chapter where it attacks Kant's a priori account of causation from a broadly Humean standpoint. I can give you a download link if you want.

>>14091699
Please do

>>14091731
Here you go:
https://epdf.pub/the-cement-of-the-universe-a-study-of-causation-clarendon-library-of-logic-and-p7967f085f8f109d864af0696e47c530c15939.html
The criticism of Kant is in chapter 4

>>14091791
awesome, thanks anon. I'll be sure to check it out

>>14091699
>The Cement of the Universe has a chapter where it attacks Kant's a priori account of causation from a broadly Humean standpoint.
Kant doesn't ever assert that space, time, unity, or division are "real", except as what the human mind thinks of the world as working through. In that regard, Kant doesn't differ from Hume.

>>14092196
No, Hume regards space and time as objective features of the world. On the other hand Kant's position is what you described, space and time are just ways the mind organizes things. So according to Kant, when I look at my cup of hot chocolate, what actually happens is not that a perceive a physical object, the cup, which exists inside the room alongside with me. Neither the room or the cup exist, the only thing that exists is an unorganized stream of stimuli that pops inside my consciousness, to which I apply the Categories to create imaginary things with no basis in reality like "cups" and "rooms". I have noticed that many Kantians here on \lit\ don't realize how radically idealist he is, a position which is, needless to say, very different from Hume's (but very close to Berkeley's).

>>14091650
actually Hume was postscripturally debunked by Kant

>>14092475
>I apply the Categories to create imaginary things with no basis in reality
First, you don't "apply the catagories" as that implies intention. Second, reality is itself phenomenalogical, why else would Kant be an idealist? Third, the only thing which can be said to underlie the object is the thing-in-itself, not the catagories, which exist as faculties

>>14092499
>First, you don't "apply the catagories" as that implies intention.
Well yeah that was a crude way to put it
>Second, reality is itself phenomenalogical, why else would Kant be an idealist?
"Phenomenological" is an epistemic term, I think you meant to say "phenomenal". And I dont understand your point here, you seem to assert a tautology. Where is the part where you disagree with what I said?

>>14089737
broth

>>14092499
>reality is itself phenomenalogical, why else would Kant be an idealist?
You can accept the phenomenological nature of reality without resorting to idealism
>Husserl believed that we really are in touch with the essence or true meaning of apple. This is so because the mind as part of reality is not a self-enclosed sphere but essentially correlated with objects in the world. For Husserl, the task of philosophy was now to study how objects revealed themselves in their immediate relation to the observer.