/lit/ - Literature

>>14834057
Kant's philosophies needed to be said desu
But that doesn't make them true

>>14834057
>gets demolished by Einstein
how? special relitivity does not change the meta-knowledge through which we perceive the phenomina.

The only thing that I think you can really critique Kants system for is the existence of things in themselves. and even then, its a necessary extrapolation in order to demonstrate the supposed noumena which may or may not be the same as the noumena.

>>14834090
Not OP but special relativity should have been humbling to clueless philosophers who have been been talking about space and time as though it were purely an abstract philosophical matter, instead, they completely ignore it and continue their pointless discussion which contradict the facts.

I tried reading a philosophy of time book once and I couldn't stop cringing.

>>14834090
Philosophers that study science immediately recoil and hide when they realize half of their claims about metaphysical shit have physical/material mathematically describable properties.

>>14834102
If philosocucks were capable of updating their beliefs in response to facts most of them would just become scientists

>>14834090
First of all
>which may or may not be the same as the noumena.
meant to say phenomena

>>14834102
Tell me how you got to your conclusions about space in time, through empericism, so you are assuming some core principles. Hume himself detailed this, someone who einstien greately respected and pretty much has the same outlook of. Hume says that the relation of cause and effect are actually learned habitualy, and that we have limits to our perception and so on, so we should try to concern ourselves with what appears to be true. Kant simply has a critical detail of what we can know. The phenomina (special relitivity) may well be the nomina (truth), but logically we cannot take this for an absolute certainty, only a hypothetical probability that in practical usage is almost indistinguishable from the truth.

>>14834090
explain how kant's claim that our knowledge of space and time is a priori, and that we can generate synthetic a priori knowledge from this, all in light of relativity (not sure why you bother to specify special relativity)

>>14834153
If you're into science, this may be an easier way to put it. we can only determine what is likely given the information we have, not absolute truth.
>>14834128
I really recommend anyone who is scientifically minded and finds philo stupid to read Hume's Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. The beggining part is litterally adressed to people who dont buy into philosophy, and more or less says that that a good bit of it is useess.

>>14834128
examples ?

>>14834163
The relativity bit, because that is the only thing that could even be remotely be close to in any way contradicting Kant (which it doesnt).
>explain how kant's claim that our knowledge of space and time is a priori
Can you imagine or even conceive the lack of either space or time. can your knowledge or understanding as a perciever function without these concepts? If so, would you agree that everything we percieved, everything we sense is bound by these two? including empirical experience? if so, we cannot observe anything outside of these bounds. They are permanently glued goggles to our perception.

>>14834233
And going off this, people often interprete this as saying space and time are not real outside of the mind, but the conclusion is that it is unknowable if it is or not. The specticals may be clear glass, but they also may be tinted green, we cannot know.

>>14834233
>The relativity bit, because that is the only thing that could even be remotely be close to in any way contradicting Kant (which it doesnt).
You said special relativity, as opposed to general relativity or just relativity. I was hoping there was an interesting reason for that arbitrary choice rather than just a reflection of your familiarity

>Can you imagine or even conceive the lack of either space or time. can your knowledge or understanding as a perciever function without these concepts? If so, would you agree that everything we percieved, everything we sense is bound by these two? including empirical experience? if so, we cannot observe anything outside of these bounds. They are permanently glued goggles to our perception.
These don't get at the heart of what is actually being discussed here. That fact that I am a creature with instrumental utility in believing cause and effect does not justify cause and effect. The utility of my understanding of space time does not make it true, and moreover, Kant himself was deceived by this utility and presupposed it was a priori. When in fact our intuitions of space-time are heavily tailored (obviously) to successful existence as mammals on earth, while the true nature of space and time exist in mind-fucking ways. That's the point.

You are suggesting that my built in sensory intuition of the world is inherently apodictic, which is not only obviously absurd to but demonstrably false.

>>14834153
DUDE, USE A SPELL CHECKER. I'm not one to correct petty errors but no offence, it makes you sound stupid when every other word is spelled incorrectly.

>>14834153
Yes this is all very basic epistemology, but it's not really relevant whether you're an empiricist or a rationalist. The point is that Kant tried to investigate space and time metaphysically because he was not aware of special relativity. Now we are, so while we may retain some metaphysical reasoning from his work, we can't separate space and time and treat them as separate entities like philosophers of his time did.

>>14834275
I think i responded to your general critique here>>14834273

>That fact that I am a creature with instrumental utility in believing cause and effect does not justify cause and effect

But your argument is tautological. we are arguing about perception in itself, to say something about creatures and the nature of mammals predicates perception of them. we cannot apprehend these things without first perceiving them. thats begging the question.

>>14834309
Sorry, dyslexic.

>>14834338
Yes, thats why I was specifically talking about the Noumenon and Phenomenon. The hypothetical and the practical. In a strictly logical sense, we cannot assume that space and time are outside of us, the perciever, but in the practical sense we can.

>>14834356
>But your argument is tautological. we are arguing about perception in itself, to say something about creatures and the nature of mammals predicates perception of them. we cannot apprehend these things without first perceiving them. thats begging the question.

Have you read Kant? I'm not trying to be snarky, but
> we are arguing about perception in itself
We.are.not.
Kant insisted that we had A PRIORI APODICTIC KNOWLEDGE OF SPACE-TIME. This is how geometry was a priori synthetic knowledge.
Relatively has shown that space-time IS NOT intuitive. Space does NOT work the way Kant thought it did, or anyone before the 20th century for that matter.
I don't know where you got this existential understanding of Kant from, but this isn't a matter of what it is like to experience the world. This is a statement concerning truth, not subjectivity. For Kant's statements on space and time to hold, you need relativity to be false

>>14834128
>science

>>14834356
>Therefore, it is so greatly mistaken that my doctrine of the ideality of space and time makes the whole sensible world a mere illusion, that, on the contrary, my doctrine is the only means for securing the application to actual objects of one of the most important bodies of cognition - namely, that which mathematics expounds a priori - and for preventing it from being taken for nothing but mere illusion, since without this observation it would be quite impossible to make out whether the intuitions of space and time, which we do not derive from experience but which nevertheless lie a priori in our representations, were not mere self-produced brain phantoms, to which no object at all corresponds, at least not adequately, and therefore geometry itself a mere illusion, whereas we have been able to demonstrate the incontestable validity of geometry with respect to all objects of the sensible world for the very reason that the latter are mere appearances

>>14834385
I have read kant, but its been a while, but I feel confident in the gist of it.

"geometrical judgements cannot be based on concepts alone since they are not analytic, and they cannot be a posteriori since they are necessary.
> So unless they are based on a priori intuition we cannot account for the synthetic a priori nature of geometry"

>>14834057
Freud also btfo Kant about time

>>14834638
pls elaborate

amazing the number of people talking about his philosophy being "true" or "proven" or "btfo'd"

obvious none of you dumbfucks have even learned to read, let alone to read kant.

>>14834767
fuck you and your imperative you hoe

>>14834057
This portrait is fucking great though

>>14834767
>"space time is a priori"
>turns out its a posteriori

>>14834790
>>turns out its a posteriori
Proof?

>>14834057
>Einstein
>relevant
Also, read his political shit.

Einstein has not - as you sometimes hear - given the lie to Kant's deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a large step towards its accomplishment. - Erwin Schrödinger (someone who knows what he's talking about)

>>14834057
>einstein
the fuck does that have to do with anything?

>>14834057
Being able to apply mathz to phenomena doesnt "btfo" kant u retard u missed the point

>>14835494
it does desu

>>14835514
shit maybe it does now that i think about it

>>14835330
you need proof relativity needed empirical validation?

>>14834790

ITT: people who do not understand Special Relativity and haven't bothered to get through the Critique.

>>14835872
>haven't bothered
read: can't

>>14834385
>I don't know where you got this existential understanding of Kant from
Philosophy is not science and is an all encompassing field, Kant reduces human experience to the phenomenological, this further is expressed most obviously identified in the philosophical(as I said before spiritual-) developments of Husserl and Heidegger which in turn came into modernity and which may be now described as an essential character-air of it. That reduction to phenomena has never left, even if modern science pretends it has.

>>14834057
In which ways does Kant is refuted by relativity? I don't see it.
>>14834090
The existence of noumena is proved with airtight arguments in the trascendental deduction and the refutation of idealism. I genuinely dont know what this is suppoaed to mean:
>its a necessary extrapolation in order to demonstrate the supposed noumena which may or may not be the same as the phaenomena
Kant literally never claimed it, we have no positive knowledge of noumena, we can only infer their existence by a negative determination of phaenomena.
>>14834767
I have studied Kant extensively. Now bow to me

>>14836111
*in which ways is kant refuted by relativity?
Oops

>>14836111
everything noumenal is also phenomenal

>>14836120
What? Where are you getting this from?

>>14836141
if it weren't phenomenal, how could you know it, even negatively?

>>14836146
Have you read the two sections I have mentioned? To cut it short, in them it is proven that our intellect cannot be the sole source of our experience, it could have no made it up from scratch through the use of the faculty of imagination. So what is being said is that an A cannot be the cause of B (in this case A is the synthetic unity of apperception, B is my experience). B must have been caused by something other than A, but this is all I know. I don't know what that non-A positively is, I only know that A is not the cause of B.
Of course in Kantian terminology, everything that is not my experience or my synthetic unity of apperception is a noumenon, but said noumenon NEVER gets positively determined.

>>14836159
never positively determined and yet determined. phenomenally determined, evidently as kant was the "first" to "perceive" these noumena

>>14836167
No it is not determined. We don't know what noumena are, we only know that something other than what is required for our experience is needed for said experience to take place.
Maybe you're ontologizing it too much. For example, Kant doesn't refute the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment, rather it proves that at the very least something that is different from my experience (i.e. the vat and its machinery) is required for me to experience something in the first place. What's that required something, we can't tell.

>>14836174
and yet only we can tell that there must be something. very interesting....

>>14836176
Elaborate please, I have at least tried to make my point intelleggible. I don't even know what youre objecting to here

>>14836184
kant's experience/proof of the "existence" of something noumena is precisely that an experience or a proof rendered phenomenally. there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. any "noumena" is really just a different phenomena.

>>14836188
How can you experience a noumenon phenomenically? Give me, for example, some determinations of the noumena that you can experience as you type your post.

>>14834057
>>fails to refute Hume
Don't condemn him for that, Hume is irrefutable.

>>14834710
The Id is atemporal

>>14836198
kant's experience of the certainty of the existence of a noumena is a phenomenal experience and his "proof" is denied by me simply stating that I fail to see it. if cause and effect lie outside of experience, than they can tell us nothing about experience - including the experience of deducing the existence of noumena. my experience of cause and effect is not that there must be a chain with an end, but only that each effect must have a cause. it's an extrapolation to claim that the chain must eventually have a first, noumenal cause.

nothing "exists" outside of experience. "negative" existence or a "negative proof" of existence are both experienced. otherwise how could we "prove" them?

>>14836198
the point of saying "all noumena are phenomena" is to deny the existence of noumena. what kant calls "noumenal" is merely another phenomena. a limit imposed by understanding, not by any actual bound on experience.

>>14836358
>kant's experience of the certainty of the existence of a noumena is a phenomenal experience
I have asked you to prove it by giving an example of a noumenon's positive determination.
I have no idea what the next sentences are supposed to mean. Can you reformulate your claim in clearer terms?
>>14836362
Again, can you tell me anything about said noumenical phenomenon? I genuinely don't know what youre talking about. Icant read your mind, you know that

>>14836388
a "negative" determination is still a determination. one made in experience. you have the experience of thinking there is a noumena. that's it.

>>14836399
Not really, Kant is adamant in saying that negative determinations (and negative judgements) are by nature indefinite. Negating an A does not tell me anything about any determinate B that is a non-A (this would be a synthetic judgement, for which we would have no basis). This, by the way, applies to any possible concept. By saying "non-human being" I have not defined any concept, to the point where that non-human being could be a rock, or the concept of justice, or whatever else that is not an human being.

>>14834385
>Relatively has shown that space-time IS NOT intuitive. Space does NOT work the way Kant thought it did, or anyone before the 20th century for that matter.

We need to be very careful when we talk about what exactly relativity has "shown". The only thing of interest to this discussion that we can glean from special relativity is that the absolute simultaneity relation postulated by Newtonian mechanics cannot account for certain empirical phenomena (mercury's orbit, lensing, etc.) and is better approximated by using the speed of light as a constant across all inertial frames of reference, which appears to relativize simultaneity. It is important to note that simultaneity is not time and that a relational ontology of time, like that supported by Leibniz, does not follow perforce from the relativity of simultaneity.

What bearing any of this, particularly the introduction of non-euclidean geometries to physical models, has on Kant is not clear cut, because the problem of geometry's nature is famously contentious. Einstein was reluctant to ascribe the reduction of geometry to ontology to his model. Poincare thought that the "real" geometry of the world was a meaningless question and a matter of aesthetic theory selection because different geometries could be utilized to describe the same phenomena. It does not help that no serious physicist would proclaim that general or special relativity are final theories of macro-scale physics and that any deductions about the nature of space and time are subject to change pending breakthroughs in a quantum theory of gravity. Plus, the fact that "spacetime" and its structure can be described mathematically in a multitude of ways (the metric tensor, geodesics, the minkowski tensor) which makes the problem of interpreting these objects as real entities more philosophically challening.

Basically, we don't know shit and skimming the wikipedia page of relativity is no substitute to knowing what the hell you're talking about.

>>14836434
>is adamant
"i disagree" is sufficient to "disprove" this.

>>14836459
How? What's your argument? How do you get a determinate B that is non-A by simply negating A?

>>14836491
Also do you realize that to do so you would have to claim crazy stuff like "by negating A, I know every determinate x that is not-A"? For example, with your logic, by negating "human being" I would know all the determinate things that are not human beings (i.e. the universe in almost its entirety, and every concept that can be thought)

>>14836491
cause and effect relationships are not determined in experience. they are determined by the subject. i see not-a as a determination different from other determinations not in kind but in measure.

>>14836504
Elaborate please, I'm not getting your point.

>>14836527
a bit distracted by something else, hence curt replies. sorry.

there's nothing necessary in the proof. because cause and effect itself lies outside experience, gives me only a relationship X causes Y. the sentence "rain causes wet shoes" is no more necessary than "wet shoes cause rain." likewise there's nothing necessary about kant's "proof" and to disprove it I have merely to say "I don't believe it," in which case he's failed to "prove" anything.

kant has an experience of being certain. certain that something - something outside experience - is causing the objects of experience. i see nothing in the relationship cause-and-effect that necessitates this conclusion. it comes about only in and owing to kant's particular experience. kant's "noumena" is a self-imposed limit, not a "natural" limit.

>>14836574
He doesn't have the experience that something outside of our experience causes it, rather he can state that our experience cannot be entirely produced by the intellect. Phenomena+SUoA cannot be the sole causes of my experience, this is the judgement that is being stated.
He argues it at lenght in the sections I've mentioned, he doesn't simply refer to an "experience of a noumenon" (which is, btw, a contradictio in adiecto). What parts of the argument stated in the TD and Refutation of Idealism do you disagree with?

>>14836637
>Phenomena+SUoA cannot be the sole causes of my experience
Just to make it clear, this means that our receptivity, which is a passive faculty, has to be "activated" somehow, and we cannot do it through the use of our pure intellect, for its only faculty is tp synthetize multiplicities into unities and relate them to the SUoA, creating therefore experience.

>>14836637
>Phenomena+SUoA cannot be the sole causes of my experience
so says kant, anyway.

>>14836663
He doesnt just say it, he argues for it. Im asking why you disagree. Also Im having troubles understanding what position youre trying to defend. Are you a solipsist? An Aristotelian realist?

>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU NEED TO ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO THAT MAXIM WHEREBY YOU CAN AT THE SAME TIME WILL THAT IT WILL THAT IT SHOULD BECOME AN UNIVERSAL LAW

Okay, 1.57. But why?

>NOOOOOOO DON'T QUESTION ME I AM SMAAAAART

>>14836671
wittgensteinian, probably

>>14834338
>we can't separate space and time and treat them as separate entities like philosophers of his time did.

yes we can. relativity is a jewish hoax.

>>14834338
Until scientists find out Einstein was wrong and give us some new bullshit theory that will last a century

>>14836441
>We need to be very careful when we talk about what exactly relativity has "shown". The only thing of interest to this discussion that we can glean from special relativity is that the absolute simultaneity relation postulated by Newtonian mechanics cannot account for certain empirical phenomena (mercury's orbit, lensing, etc.) and is better approximated by using the speed of light as a constant across all inertial frames of reference, which appears to relativize simultaneity. It is important to note that simultaneity is not time and that a relational ontology of time, like that supported by Leibniz, does not follow perforce from the relativity of simultaneity.
Relativity of time absolutely follows from simultaneity, as does every other strange feature of relativity. You're going to need some serious claim to back this up because this is one of the most basic appreciable features of relativity. This is easily demonstrated to every undergrad physics student with thought experiments involving trains, or less abstractly with muons heading towards earth.

>What bearing any of this, particularly the introduction of non-euclidean geometries to physical models, has on Kant is not clear cut, because the problem of geometry's nature is famously contentious. Einstein was reluctant to ascribe the reduction of geometry to ontology to his model. Poincare thought that the "real" geometry of the world was a meaningless question and a matter of aesthetic theory selection because different geometries could be utilized to describe the same phenomena. It does not help that no serious physicist would proclaim that general or special relativity are final theories of macro-scale physics and that any deductions about the nature of space and time are subject to change pending breakthroughs in a quantum theory of gravity. Plus, the fact that "spacetime" and its structure can be described mathematically in a multitude of ways (the metric tensor, geodesics, the minkowski tensor) which makes the problem of interpreting these objects as real entities more philosophically challening.
It doesn't matter that relativity isn't and can't be a final theory of gravity. It doesn't matter what mathematical constructs are employed in its calculation. Time dilation and all its consequences are empirically observed, the mathematical details describing them is secondary. Time dilation is equivalent to length contraction. These features are as unlikely to change as the fact that bodies attract bodies.

>Basically, we don't know shit and skimming the wikipedia page of relativity is no substitute to knowing what the hell you're talking about.
I recommend you consult a book on relativity not written by a philopseud.

any future kantcuck posting NEEDS to address kant's claim that space and time were a priori apodictic
THIS IS REQUIRED
DO NOT @ ME IF YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND BASIC KANT, HIS TERMS, OR HAVE LESS THAN A BABY'S FIRST MODERN PHYSICS CLASS UNDERSTANDING OF RELATIVITY
heed this warning, or you will fall by my blade

>>14836934
I find his arguments contained in the Trascendental Aesthetics pretty convincing. Which ones of those arguments do not convince you?

>>14836646
"How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" Kant asked himself. And what did his answer essentially amount to? Thanks to a faculty. However, unfortunately he did not answer in three words, but so labouriously, venerably, and with such an expenditure of German profundity and flourishes that people failed to hear the comical niaiserie allemande inherent in such an answer.

>>14836992
At this point I'm getting the impression you're more interested in having monologues with yourself. You're not used to have conversations with strangers, do you? It seems pretty clear to me, given your habit of assuming that whoever is talking with you already knows everything about all your inner considerations and thoughts. Breaking news: this is not the case, most of your responses are inintelleggible and could be interpreted in a fuckton of contradictory ways. I would literally have to guess the meaning of this response at random in order to give you an answer.

>>14834128
science is just natural philosophy

>>14836859
won’t happen

>>14837030
philosocope

>>14837037
it literally is, without natural philosophy there would be no modern science
'science' is just a rebranding of it

>>14837046
MASSIVE cope. there’d be no modern chemistry without alchemy but no one would call chemistry “””just a rebranding”””
science is what you get when you take philosophy and strip away all the dumb shit

>>14836859
You could say this about literally any knowledge other than statements like "every triangle has three sides". What a fucking bore.

>>14836859
This fucking cope again.
Yes science evolves all the time, but it's all built upon each other. Einstein disproved Newton but Newtonian physics is still true for many applications. Another example is our understanding of aerodynamics has changed and will change but we will consistently build better planes each generation.

Meanwhile philosophy agrees on literally nothing, it's been jumping in a circle for thousands of years and will continue to.

>>14834102
Read Bergson

>>14837023
>Just to make it clear, this means that our receptivity, which is a passive faculty, has to be "activated" somehow, and we cannot do it through the use of our pure intellect, for its only faculty is tp synthetize multiplicities into unities and relate them to the SUoA, creating therefore experience.

>>14837023
How does opium make people sleep? " By means of a faculty," namely, the virtus dormitiva. Because it has the sleeping virtue whose nature makes the senses sleep.

>>14836992
This is Nietzsche, isn’t it?

>>14837023
Lol

>>14836646
your argument is literally, "kant doesn't experience noumena; he proves that they must exist because the faculty of reception is passive and must be stimulated by something which must be prior to experience in order to therefore bring about experience." which is no demonstration at all to anyone who responds to the existence of such a faculty with, "i don't believe you." kant hasn't "proven" the existence or necessity of any faculties whatsoever and any further "proof" of noumenon likewise means nothing except that kant perceived a limit to his line of inquiry - an arbitrary limit imposed by his understanding, not by any natural "faculty." kant's supposed "noumena" is nothing but a phenomenon dreamt up by his idiotic German logic. there is nothing outside phenomena.

>>14837279
What does this have to do with the basis for sunthetic a priori judgement? Here we were talking about the existence of noumena. I don't even knoe why we're talking about synthetic a priori judgements, you didnt even introduce the subject.
>>14837294
You're conflating epistemology with ontology. Also let me me point out that nowhere in this thread Ive mentioned the argumenta that Kant actually brings to justify synthetic a priori judgements, namely trascendental schematism. This leap of yours made no sense.

>>14837423
noumena exist in the same way that angels on a pin do

>>14837451
Ugh

>>14837526
kantians always respond in the same way. claiming you've misunderstood the terms of the debate or that you haven't argued in the proper style. as if "you're more interested in having monologues with yourself" weren't a tremendously apt description of kantians as a whole. they're so mystified by kant's germanisms that they lock themselves up in their magical kingdom of ends and refuse entrance to anyone who fails to speak with the proper kantian inflection. the whole "system" is a house of cards built atop a single intelligent insight.

all reactionaries are paper tigers.

>>14837574
I've literally just asked to argue for your unargued assertions, stop being a triggered little bitch. Also if you havent read Kant just admit it, no one will mock you because of it.

>>14837209
>But in "Einstein and the Crisis of Reason", a leading French philosopher, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, accused Einstein of failing to grasp Bergson's argument. This argument, Merleau-Ponty says, which concerns not the physics of special relativity but its philosophical foundations, addresses paradoxes caused by popular interpretations and misconceptions about the theory, including Einstein's own.

hmm who should I listen to, two french postmodern marxist philosophers who claim einstein doesn't understand relativity because of some obscurantist reasons, or the guy who invented the theory

>>14837990
>two french postmodern marxist philosophers
You dont know who they are, do you?
>who claim einstein doesn't understand relativity
Literally not what it's being claimed in that post.

>tfw no reading comprehension

>>14837209
No.

>>14838007
The absurdity of their claims passes a threshold I am not willing to tolerate unless it is strongly supported. Given that most other philosophers don't even agree with Bergson, why should I bother even reading it?

>>14838007
>Literally not what it's being claimed in that post.
>addresses paradoxes caused by popular interpretations and misconceptions about the theory, including Einstein's own.
tfw no reading comprehension indeed

>>14838023
That's in relation to Bergson's argument, which hinges on the originariety of time. At no point Bergson objected to the physical theory, eathee he objected to certain metaphysical interpeetation of it (and yes, saying that time is the measure of movement IS a metaphysical statement, for no experiment will ever prove that claim)
>>14838020
You literally don't even know what the point of contention is.

>>14834057
I don't see why it can't be both metaphysical and material. When I go to sleep, time evaporates for me, yet the world continues to exist and change when I wake up.

>>14838044
>That's in relation to Bergson's argument, which hinges on dumb philosotard cope
yeah sure thing dude, it’s still some French faggot saying he knows the theory better than the guy who invented it

>>14838023
>>addresses paradoxes caused by popular interpretations and misconceptions about the theory, including Einstein's own.
>Einstein's own
Own what? The sentence is ambiguous.

>>14838056
Literally retarded
Do you know what the point of contention is?

>>14838044
Bergson was a scared reactionary philocuck trying to create a bulwark around his retarded metaphysics, instead of growing with the advance of knowledge

>>14834057
>Einstein proves that spacetime is relative due to the discrepancies made in it by motion differences between two reference frames.
>this somehow demolished Kant, who posited that space and time were ideal and within the frame of the observer.

>>14835425
This. And both Schrödinger and Einstein were Schopenhauerians.

>>14836873
>Relativity of time absolutely follows from simultaneity, as does every other strange feature of relativity. You're going to need some serious claim to back this up because this is one of the most basic appreciable features of relativity

Again, the simultaneity relation is obviously not ontological time. It's an interesting and demonstrable feature of reality, to be sure. I am not denying the existence of relativistic effects. But at best, it implies the existence of a block universe and an eternalist ontology of time, which tells us very little about what exists. This is a matter of interpreting the empirical evidence.

>It doesn't matter that relativity isn't and can't be a final theory of gravity. It doesn't matter what mathematical constructs are employed in its calculation. Time dilation and all its consequences are empirically observed, the mathematical details describing them is secondary.

It does matter, because if different maths describe the same results, because if we're concerned with what relativity says about the world, then what the mathematics commits us to is of the utmost importance. The type of philosophical confusions you fall into by disregarding becomes readily apparent with a simple example: if time is merely the relation between bodies, what is the substance causing the observable lensing and dilation? If the spacetime metric is to be interpreted realistically, then what does it even mean to say that time isn't real? You need to be prepared to work through the implications of your ontological commitments.

>Time dilation is equivalent to length contraction. These features are as unlikely to change as the fact that bodies attract bodies.

It is funny you bring up length contraction, because Einstein and Lorentz famously debated over whether objects are actually shortening when they undergo this effect. Needless to say, it has not been settled and I expect most physicists would shrug their shoulders if you asked them. I assure you, there has never been a "shrinkage" of objects being observed from distant inertial frames. It is all in the maths.

>I recommend you consult a book on relativity not written by a philopseud.

Your pompous dismissal outs you as a PBS-watching pseud.

>>14838500
Show me the experiment which proves that time is thw measure of movement and nothing else. Until you'll do so, you'll just a duncw who has dogmatically a metaphysical theory only because a scientist presented it (without any evidence or argumentation whatsoever)

>>14838783
Show me a measurement of time that uses anything other than movement. You offer no alternative, just a generic solipsistic idealism that tries to weasel in mysticism

>>14838307
unironically the point of contention is dumb philosotards triggered about becoming redundant

>>14838636
the real problem for kant is that he thinks it's knowable a priori that space is euclidean (this is part of his argument for why space is merely the form of outer intuition). but it turns out that space is not euclidean, and so it's certainly not knowable a priori that space is euclidean, which means that kant's argument fails. the relativity stuff is just part of how we know that space is euclidean

>>14838760
Good post.

>>14838760
Best post in this thread.

>>14838760
>ontological time
>>>/x/

>>14838760
>the simultaneity relation is obviously not ontological time
And yet you cannot point to any part of reality that expresses time which wouldn't fall under the purview of relativistic effects. This isn't just an issue of empirical evidence, you lack even a theoretical description of this imagined time.

>It does matter, because if different maths describe the same results, because if we're concerned with what relativity says about the world, then what the mathematics commits us to is of the utmost importance.
Abolute.Brainlet.
Does infinity exist as we use it in infinite series, or the whole foundation of calculus? Does the infinitesimal undercut the whole project of particle physics? These are logical constructs used to approximate behavior. They commit us to nothing, and we flagrantly bypass their supposed commitments regularly.
By all means, explain the commitment we fulfill when we rape mathematics during the normalization of the wave function.

>The type of philosophical confusions you fall into by disregarding becomes readily apparent with a simple example: if time is merely the relation between bodies, what is the substance causing the observable lensing and dilation? If the spacetime metric is to be interpreted realistically, then what does it even mean to say that time isn't real? You need to be prepared to work through the implications of your ontological commitments.
"If not the ether, what is the substance through which light propagates?"
You are the one presupposing a new substance, justify it.
Also, "time isn't real?" Are you just making up points to disagree with now? Sloppy.

>It is funny you bring up length contraction, because Einstein and Lorentz famously debated over whether objects are actually shortening when they undergo this effect. Needless to say, it has not been settled and I expect most physicists would shrug their shoulders if you asked them. I assure you, there has never been a "shrinkage" of objects being observed from distant inertial frames. It is all in the maths.
"The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."
Jesus you are fucking sloppy.

>Your pompous dismissal outs you as a PBS-watching pseud.
Your next shit reply better start providing real bases for defending Kant, because I'm getting tired with your sophistry.

>>14834057
>math commitments
>what a mathematical theory says about the world

top kek, math is just a tool to describe reality, it says nothing existentially or philosophically meaningful about "reality" nor does it commit us to anything and it never will.

>>14834227
Nietzsche is actually a really good example... a good chunk of his project is finding a place for philosophy after his recognition that (psych/bio) could successfully describe metaphysical speculation as the activity of someone with a certain type of physiology..

Just as small birds can only make high pitched squeaks due to their tiny size, so too will kantian manlets speculate about metaphysics due to their permanent dissatisfaction with their bodies

>>14840545
Plato was pretty shredded though and he speculated about dumb metaphysical stuff too

>>14840256
>And yet you cannot point to any part of reality that expresses time which wouldn't fall under the purview of relativistic effects. This isn't just an issue of empirical evidence, you lack even a theoretical description of this imagined time.

Temporal ontology concerns time's nature, meaning that it concerns whether time itself is a container in which events occur or merely a relation between events that would disappear if there were no such events. It also concerns what times are real (past, present, future) and what times are not. The formalism of relativity says absolutely nothing about this, though it does make metaphysically relevant insinuations about what times might be real. The relativity of simultaneity is an artifact of the invariability of the speed of light in every inertial frame. This by itself does not tell us anything about what time is. Simultaneity is not time, though the question of whether simultaneity is absolute or relative obviously has some bearing on the question of realism, as simultaneity is a temporal relation (hint: the future is fixed).

>Does infinity exist as we use it in infinite series, or the whole foundation of calculus? Does the infinitesimal undercut the whole project of particle physics? These are logical constructs used to approximate behavior. They commit us to nothing, and we flagrantly bypass their supposed commitments regularly.
By all means, explain the commitment we fulfill when we rape mathematics during the normalization of the wave function.

You are making most of my point for me right here. Physical models have philosophical baggage. You can either choose to ignore them in favor of purely utilitarian concerns (as most contemporary physicists unwisely do, with seriously damaging consequences for the culture of the field) or engage with them and perhaps achieve the kind of theoretical insight and meaningful breakthroughs that this kind of contemplation produces (as Cantor, Einstein, John Bell and many others discovered). Maybe infinity exists, maybe calculus describes reality, maybe the wavefunction is real and maybe it isn't. It's merely worth reminding ourselves that these are philosophically relevant questions about what our models tell us about the world that are not settled by empirical evidence.

1/2

>>14840256
>>14840789

>"If not the ether, what is the substance through which light propagates?" You are the one presupposing a new substance, justify it. Also, "time isn't real?" Are you just making up points to disagree with now? Sloppy.

What's sloppy is to claim that "simultaneity is relative" is equivalent to saying "time is relative", which is in fact equivalent to saying "time is relational and thus not real". Again, you are deferring to empirically observable phenomenon like time dilation and length contraction, which certainly exist, the question is how to interpret it. If time is "relative", what's relative about observable phenomenon like gravitational lensing and black holes? If spacetime is absolute, how is time relative?

>"The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."

Nice copy-paste. I'm sure you googled that in a rush. But the point here is that there is a real question about whether connecting relativistic temporal notions to questions of "reality" (or existence) means asking whether existence itself is relativized. Sellars has interesting things to say on this:

>… in the case of an ‘event’ framework, a primary temporal picture is a picture with a now. And even if one observer’s now is another observer’s then, or one observer’s simultaneous cross sections of the world are another observer’s sets of differently dated ‘events’,… each of their now-pictures is a primary picture, and the purely topological picture (which includes the measurements performed by S and S as topological facts) which is common to them is not the primary picture of the world construed as a system of ‘events,’ but merely a topological abstraction common to the various primary pictures; and the topologically formulated location of individual events in the topological picture is merely the topologically invariant features of the criteria which identify these ‘events’ in a primary picture.

(hint: we are closing in on Howard Stein's pluralistic solipsism interpretation of relativity. Perhaps special relativity has something interesting to say about reality after all, with a little help from philosophy).

2/2

>>14840256
>>14840789
>>14840797
> Your next shit reply better start providing real bases for defending Kant, because I'm getting tired with your sophistry.

We can discuss whether non-euclidean geometry undercuts the Kantian project. But I think the considerations here are foundational and need to be addressed before we can even consider that question. If spacetime is not a substance, then obviously we cannot deduce anything about the real geometry of the world from the formalism of special relativity, which makes the entire argument moot. I responded to your post merely to draw attention to the fact that your words and assumptions are loaded with baggage you haven’t even begun to consider. I would suggest reading a book.

3/2

>>14834102
You are a total moron. Einstein's views on space and time were informed by a long line of philosophers.

>>14836111
I said I made a mistake and meant phenomenon.

>>14840797
>>14840789
>>14840801
Based response anon. It’s not everyday you see effort posts like this. It’s really enjoyable.

ITT... people failing to distinguish the Manifest Image from the Scientific Image. Read your Sellars in addition to your Kant and Einstein.

>>14840797
>Howard Stein's pluralistic solipsism interpretation of relativity
First “””interpretations””” of QM And now “””interpretations””” of relativity. The philosotard’s endless ability to waste time is amazing to behold.

>>14840913
Brainlet detected.

>>14840797
>>14840789
>>14840801
Incredibly based anon. Best set of posts I've seen here in a while. Naive realism BTFO.

>>14834090
God why do people care about this word salad holy shit

Noumena is just an asymptote. And fuck Kant.

>>14839708
We USE time to measure movement. Without time the term "movement" would be meaningless in the first place. We might as well say that space is the measure of bodies

>>14840865
I know, the quote I've mentioned is already corrected.

>>14840845
Prove it.

>>14840789
Philosophy is a child of empiricism as well, dumbass. Where do you think logic comes from?

>>14841283
>>14840900
>>14840156
>>14840065
It’s /lit/‘s very own Plato totally btfo’ing all these anti-Kantfags
>good point Socrates
>wow Socrates, you’re so clever
>never thought of it like that, Socrates, you’re a genius
>based atf, Socrates

>>14837066
Seethe harder

>>14837066
Can you prove this narrative with demonstrable facts?

Kant's position is actually reinforced by relativity. Why is it so hard for you to understand Kant? The brainletism on this boad surely is astonishing sometimes...

>>14842419
See: http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/Friedman_RelativizedAPriori.pdf

"[T]he developmental process by which the transition from Newton to Einstein actually took place [was] mediated... by the parallel developments in scientific philosophy involving, especially, Hermann von Helmholtz, Ernst Mach, and Henri Poincaré."

>>14842556
Logic is not empirical

>>14842722
No, it isn't. Relativity has nothing to say about whether it is sensible to partition experience into 'form' and 'content', nor does it have anything to do with our 'subjective realities'.

I would submit that without any solid basis from which to suppose the existence of 'form' (e.g. proof of universals), we should refrain from doing so.

Brainletism anywhere is not astonishing — it's expected. You're just padding your ego.

>>14842838
So from whence is it extrapolated?

It is absolutely empirical.

>>14842880
If you are trying to verify a logical truth through observation, you are very confused.

>>14838636
>Einstein proves anything
>without any fucking experiments

>>14842902
You are ducking the question... From where do we glean the consistencies of logic (or even the importance of consistency)?

>>14842915
from within the workings of the rational intellect

>>14838636
They're different things. Relativity is talking about ontological spacetime, Kant is talking about the intuitions that condition our experience (which he did not prove to be ideal 'forms').

>>14842915
From the meanings of logical terms; specifically, their introduction and elimination rules. In contrast, truths extracted from experience are at best empirical generalizations.

>>14834128
>

>>14842915
>glean
idiot

>>14842933
From where do we glean the meanings of logical terms

>>14842953
From the stipulated axioms.

>>14842933
No, the consistency that underlies logic and establishes it as a standard is more fundamental than language and specific terms. Even apodictic truths are proven by our experience of them. No matter how abstract and self-referential logic and math may become, their foundation is the consistent relations in our experience.

Empiricism is our -only- conduit to knowledge.

>>14842993
That is circular... How do you stipulate axioms without meaning?

>>14843086
> Empiricism is our -only- conduit to knowledge.
speak for yourself, bud

>>14843114
Oh, so your ostensible revelation isn't contained within your experience? How perplexing.

>>14843310
your conclusion that noumena must exist isn't contained within your experience? how perplexing.

>>14834057
Read Heidegger
>To establish the fundamental feature of Dasein as originary temporality, Heidegger distances his view of Dasein’s temporality from all common sense understandings of time as a series of nows, thereby deferring the common sense understanding of past as no-longer-now and future as not-yet-now. His position depends on a distinction between how time shows itself to Dasein as world-time and ordinary-time, the latter being derivative of the former. World-time denotes the manner in which the world appears as significant to Dasein in its everyday reckoning with the world at a practical level through its projects.
>This time that measures successive nows, Heidegger deems ordinary-time, which depends upon world-time. Heidegger distinguishes the two by pointing out that the significance which colors world-time goes missing in the view of ordinary time and time appears no longer as the span of my project but the mere succession of punctual, atomistic nows.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/phe-time/#SH2a

>Heidegger is concerned not with clock-time (an infinite series of self-contained nows laid out in an ordering of past, present and future) or with time as some sort of relativistic phenomenon that would satisfy the physicist.
>Time thought of in either of these ways is a present-at-hand phenomenon, and that means that it cannot characterize the temporality that is an internal feature of Dasein's existential constitution, the existential temporality that structures intelligibility (taking-as).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger

>>14843317
Any potential knowledge is, that's the point.

>>14842838
Logic isn't anything other than a language for evaluating truth. The trite example is how quantum logic does not preserve the distributive principle from classical logic.
There are many logics out there, and classical logic has many failings. A system of logic absolutely needs contact with something external to have any use or validity.

>>14843428
until it's no longer potential. nothing is beyond understanding.

>>14843447
Ok, you're just babbling now. Have a nice day.

>>14843464
cope

>>14836441
based

>>14836574
lol by your logic you are refuting yourself, since the certainty of what you're saying is experienced by you, and so I simply have to say "I don't believe it"

>>14843576
Duh?

>>14843562
Just write “bump” instead of liking your own posts, dipshit.

>>14843086
You don't "experience" the law of the excluded middle or the principle of non-contradiction. You don't "experience" the deductive truths of Aristotelian syllogism. All knowledge begins with experience, that is true, but it does not all arise from experience.

>>14843359
>read another schizo philosotard
pass

>>14842683
Actual cope
>>14842707
Yes, the fact that no one thanks alchemists when they go to the pharmacy to pick up pills

>>14841084
Agreed, there’s lots of them in their head telling philosocope fairy tales about science

>>14842725
poincare and helmholtz were mathematicians and mach was a cringelord. philosophy btfo once again

>>14843598
if it were a necessary conclusion, it would be impossible for me to doubt it. I maybe can’t doubt time or space, but i can definitely doubt the conclusion about noumena. In fact, Schopenhauer does exactly that when he correctly points out reason only demands a cause for every effect, never a chain of causes.

>>14843598
Of course you do. All of those things are only intelligible because they are abstracted from concrete and consistent relations in our experience. The fact that one can methodically manipulate abstract symbols (a process which is experienced) in no way indicates an alternative conduit of knowledge.

>>14843665
based

>>14843665
You do not derive syllogistic logic from experience the same way you would derive empirical "laws" like Newton's. The excluded middle is neither observed, measured or inferred from experiment. It is a theoretical precondition adopted prior to observations to make sense of what is observed. It is trivial to say that anything experienced is "empirical". Mathematics is not a science for the same reason logic is not. We are not observing mathematical or logical laws in the same way we do experiments in the lab or even in the way you note passing ephemera in every day life.

>>14840573

Plato insisted that philosophy is something that could only be done well after the age of 60.. that is to say... when one was no longer shredded and one's body had basically shrivelled, you are perfect to do metaphysical speculation.. you are close to death and begin to worship it..

>>14843940
Except that we do. The axioms for those abstract systems don't just apparate out of nowhere, they are constructed from the relations we experience. You're trying to pretend that you can draw a hard boundary at some point where abstract systems become fully self-referential, but this just never happens; they always relate back to the concrete in their foundations (no pun intended). If math and logic didn't relate back to empirical consistencies, then they wouldn't even be intelligible to us (nor would they provide the utility that they do).

>>14844189
Utterly based

>>14844240
that which is true without reference to experience can have nothing to do with or tell us about experience

>>14844276
The point is that there is no truth or mode of arriving at truth that -doesn't- reference experience you fucking nit-wit.

>>14843621
Keep on seething STEMlet

>>14844348
Cope

>>14834070
This. Its like someone complaining about Leibniz or Euler for not getting it 100%

>>14843638
>poincare and helmholtz were mathematicians
They were philosophers, moron.

>>14844309
Obviously not, but again that is trivial, since all knowledge begins with experience. There is nothing empirical about the necessity of logical truth.

>He was proud of the fact that he had discovered a new faculty in human beings, the ability to make synthetic judgments a priori. Suppose that he deceived himself here. But the development and quick blood of German philosophy depend on this pride and on the competition among all his followers to discover, if possible, something even prouder - at all events "new faculties"! But let's think this over. It's time we did. "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" Kant asked himself. And what did his answer essentially amount to? Thanks to a faculty. However, unfortunately he did not answer in three words, but so labouriously, venerably, and with such an expenditure of German profundity and flourishes that people failed to hear the comical niaiserie allemande [German stupidity] inherent in such an answer. People even got really excited about this new faculty, and the rejoicing reached its height when Kant discovered yet another additional faculty - a moral faculty - in human beings, for then the Germans were still moral and not yet at all "political realists." Then came the honeymoon of German philosophy. All the young theologians of the Tubingen seminary went off right away into the bushes - all looking for "faculties." And what didn't they find - in that innocent, rich, still youthful time of the German spirit, in which Romanticism, that malicious fairy, played her pipes and sang, a time when people did not yet know how to distinguish between "finding" and "inventing"! Above all, a faculty for the "super-sensory." Schelling christened this intellectual contemplation and, in so doing, complied with the most heartfelt yearnings of his Germans, whose cravings were basically pious. The most unfair thing we can do to this entire rapturously enthusiastic movement, which was adolescent, no matter how much it boldly dressed itself up in gray and antique ideas, is to take it seriously and treat it with something like moral indignation. Enough - people grew older - the dream flew away. There came a time when people rubbed their foreheads. People are still rubbing them today. They had dreamed: first and foremost - the old Kant. "By means of a faculty," he had said, or at least meant. But is that an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather a repetition of the question? How does opium make people sleep? "By means of a faculty," namely, the sleeping virtue, answered that doctor in Moliere. Because it has the sleeping virtue, whose nature makes the senses sleep.

The more I read Kant the more right I realize Nietzsche was.

>>14844309
He was agreeing with you, idiot.

>>14846271
Because all logical truths are tautologies

>>14846716
Wow, Nietzsche really didn't understand Kant.

>>14846768
clearly he understood him better than you ;)

problem of induction.

>>14834128

>>14834338
>we can't separate space and time and treat them as separate entities
lmfao

>>14834138
>updating their beliefs in response to facts

Brainlet here. In the refutation of idealism Kant claims the existence of the external world through arguing that there are successive temporal object states in space, but how is this reconciled with the fact that space and time are both pure forms of the intuition, if one were to follow Kant's argument wouldn't this just mean that objects rather just persist in our own representation of them rather than objectively? I fail to see how he escapes the clutches of idealism. Like I said, I'm a retarded brainlet, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

>>14845829
Nope and cope

>>14847491
>Kant's attitude toward Newton's absolute space is somewhat confused. At times he defends the absoluteness... At other times he presents his own arguments in favor of the relativity of space and motion. ...At any rate the problem of the absoluteness of space and time in classical science refers not to the essence of space and time ( a problem which would degenerate into one of metaphysics, hence would be meaningless to the scientists), but solely to a discussion of those conceptions which are demanded of the world of experience. Hence we may realise that a man ignorant of mechanics is in no position to pass an opinion one way or the other. And Kant's knowledge of Newtonian mechanics was extremely poor, to say the least.
Thus in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels [General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens], we find him giving incorrect formulæ for the most elementary facts concerning falling bodies. Then again, basing his arguments on what he claims to be the laws of dynamics, he tells us of a nebula which would set itself into rotation owing to its outer parts falling towards the centre and rebounding sideways against the inner parts. But this hypothesis is in flagrant opposition to the principles of dynamics, and had Kant spoken of a man pulling himself up by the bootstraps he would have given expression to no greater absurdity. Whereas this latter statement would violate the principle of action and reaction, Kant's violates the principle of the constancy of the angular momentum of an isolated dynamical system.

You are correct in recognizing Kant never established anything systematically valid in his thought.

>>14847469
>I fucking HATE science

>>14847530
>I know.. I'll just lie! That'll stop 'em.

>>14847444
it’s true though

>>14847536
Imagine being such a brainlet fucking retard that you don’t even know who poincare is. Philosotards are literally too stupid to engage in discussion

>>14847572
You are literally retarded. Poincaré's "La Science et l'Hypothèse" is a foundational text in 20th century philosophy.

>>14847589
Yes, mathematicians (and other real intellectuals) are so superior to philosotards that they can take a day off from their actual work and reinvent philosophy for a laugh (see also Kuhn)

>>14847596
Do you even remember what you are arguing at this point?

>>14847605
Yes

adavaita makes kant look like a school child

>>14847535
But this makes no sense.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

>>14847596
You say that, but so far you dont even seem capable of grasping very basic stuff about Kant

>>14847542
I can’t even imagine being this stupid. Maybe you can’t lol

>>14847804
no you can’t either
>b-but it FEELS like I can
lel

>>14847876
>space is a thing
Sciencetards strike again

>>14846271
Of course there is. The relations that establish the concept of logical necessity are basic to our experience. Again, you're acting like there's some clear boundary past which abstract systems become fully self-referential, but this is not the actual case. You aren't thinking critically about this.

>>14834057
Theres much more to his arguments than that

>>14847879
>spacetime isn't a thing
philosotards lel

>>14848389
No, the lack of something is not something, redditard

>>14848389
Spacetime is relational, it's literally not a thing (substance)

>>14847531
Kant literally never established any trascendental physics, you guys are attacking a strawman. Apparently he started thinking aboit it in the very last years of his life, but he had to interrupt his activity shortly aftee due to his old age (all those notes have been published in the Opus Postumum).
Kant's treatment of space and time is EXTREMELY basic, I'm not sure any new physical theory have contradicted those basic attributes. For something x to be in space, it just has to be extended in every direction concievable in a 3d space, and it must not occupy all ofspace (other things are outside of x, and next to it). The form of time just entails the succession of different moment in times, such that by observing x you can see that some of its changes happen before other ones. I don't think Kant needed to be a physicist to use these premises. Have they been contradicted so far?

>>14847491
From what I understand, he is not claiming that these objects exist in a spacetime that is outside us, rather he is claiming that our experience of permanent objects in space and time (phenomenons) cannot be explained through the mere use of imagination (we cannot have created such an experience by ourselves). Also keep in mind that when talking about noumenons "exterior" does not mean "outside, in space", rather it means "ontologically different from me and my expeeience"

>>14848824
Not necessarily. It is quite possible that 'space' itself is quantized (we know vacuum isn't actually empty).

One should be careful not to uncritically project the relational nature of spacetime in math onto the ontological question.

>>14848855
Thank you, I think you're reading it correctly and have cleared away the difficulty I was having with this. So the fact that there *are* objects that appear to us through the intuitions of space and time is enough to refute idealism as we did not create these objects, merely encountered them.

auf wiedersehen, logical positivism.

>>14848855
>ontologically different from me and my experience

>>14849145
By "me and my experience" I mean the phenomena of my experience, and what is necessary for them to take place (a synthetic unity of apperception+receptivity and its forms), sorry if I wasn't clear. If everything was in me and my experience, I would be able to conjure up said experience through my faculty of imagination, which would be the solipsist take.

>>14849176
*what is formally necessary for them to take place, my bad

>>14834385
I hate that I think you´re right.

>>14844765
Seethe

>>14848362
there is literally nothing left of his arguments once his claims on a priori synthetic knowledge collapse