/lit/ - Literature

Retroactively refuted by Damascius

>>15441448
OP you must have forgotten how in his last work which academia sat on for decades Kant admits that a necessary precondition of everything is a Spinozian-like or Brahman-like substrate underlying all existence which he calls 'caloric', thereby validating everything that Plato and Guenon said

>>15441448
refuted by me in post # 10154789

>>15441647
Plato thought you could work towards "seeing" the forms better. Kant never rejected that "forms" exist, but no matter how well you train your faculties for cognizing, you still won't get closer to the objects in themselves

>>15441649
How did Plato manage to figure out so many things 2300 years ago?

>God. The concept of God is an "idea", the "ideal" of reason. Like all objects of ideas, God is unrecognizable. For theoretical reason "God" is not a principle serving the explanation of phenomena, but a "regulative" concept, in order to bring highest unity into experience, in that all connection in the world is regarded as if it originated from a principle necessary by itself. This "as if" (see d.) occurs more often in Kant's doctrine of God; finally, Kant describes "God" as something only as an idea, something that expresses itself in reason itself, "existence" (at least in the categorical sense) does not belong to him, which, however, does not exclude a supersensible ideal being of God. We cannot recognize God, but, according to the analogy (see d.) of our mind, we can think of him, by means of a symbolic anthropomorphism (see d.), as a knowing and willing being, in order to bring him closer to us. But God is above all a postulate (see d.) of practical-moral reason, an object of faith (see d.). The ethical world view needs for its completion (not as a basis) the idea of God in the sense of a moral theism. The reality (validity) of the concept of God in a moral-practical sense, at any rate, is certain; the idea of God serves as the conclusion of ethics and our world view, it lets us relate the area of nature and that of freedom, of natural and moral law to a highest unity and a reason for this unity, and is the highest ideal for our striving that is alive in us.

>>15441694
He didn't. Ancient Egyptians figured them out even earlier, Plato simply wrote down what he learned from their mystery schools.

>>15441704
Egyptians didn't even discover philosophy because they were retarded

Kant and Plato agree. You are just too retarded to grasp it.

>>15441704
What ancient Egyptian philosophy would you suggest? I've always been fascinated by the civilization, but the lack of texts of any kind is pretty sad.

>>15441713

>>15441794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_Texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Dead

>>15441688
Noumena are not equivalent to forms.

>>15441876
So where are do you place the forms in Kant's framework?

Well....I mean...they're not.
What do you mean by a "thing"

>>15441448
Plato himself criticized the theory of forms in “Parmenides” and “Sophist”

>>15442137
So? If you leave out the forms, nothing is left from Plato's philosophy

>>15442153
Lmao

>>15442167
Kill yourself subhuman

>>15442175
Read Plato and stop forming your opinion about philosophers based on “summaries” of their views. Late Plato largely departs from the theory of forms.

>>15442153
holy brainlet

>>15441688
Consciousnesses is the noumena

>>15441688

huayan buddhism covers this topic well, and translates to platonism well. "forms" are not real, but you need them to exist to see that they are not real

Noumenon and phenomenon correspond to the same thing, the difference between them doesn’t exist “objectively” but only “subjectively”

What's the difference between Socrates making a distinction between science (empirical) and knowledge (reasoned) and Kant's making a distinction between synthetic and analytic?

>>15441855
A mythological text is not philosophy. Egypt never had anyone in the same ballpark as Socrates.

>>15442344
Hermes, whom Socrates bowed to

>>15442153

This thread is what happens when you want to have an opinion before having read both.

>>15442279
You're a retard if you think you can have philosophy without metaphysics

>>15442153
>yeah, I've read some excerpts of the Republic once, I'm kind of an expert on Plato

>>15442406
>>15442378
>>15442296
Try harder plebs

>>15442421
>So? If you leave out the forms, nothing is left from Plato's philosophy

False. Read all of the dialogues first before shitposting.

>>15442405
Do you think Heidegger and Wittgenstein have metaphysics, or are they, in your opinion, not philosophers?

>>15441688
And Jung basically pointed out that there are levels of analysis corresponding to degrees of consciousness which are interdependent on those analyzed levels.

>Boy, where do these preconceived notions (forms) of constituent reality come from?
They come from genetically inherited schematic blueprints transferred through your genetic structure and extrapolated up into abstract conceptualizations through the processes of the physiological, neurological, psychological and finally conscious thought.

Forms without content antecede forms with content.

>>15442436
>Do you think Heidegger and Wittgenstein have metaphysics
Yes retard

>>15442430
You can read the dialgoues a million times and you still won't understand the most basic things about philosophy because you're a subhuman

>>15442549
Lmao, and how do you define metaphysics in this case?

>>15442481
>They come from genetically inherited schematic blueprints transferred through your genetic structure and extrapolated up into abstract conceptualizations through the processes of the physiological, neurological, psychological and finally conscious thought.
Woah

>>15442563

what is the form of a subhuman?

>>15442549
And what is exactly does Wittgenstein’s metaphysics consist of?

>>15441876
Yes they are.

>>15442563
Is it really you Alex?

>>15442688

i thought the same thing. so nice of icycalm to descend from his paywalls and bless us with his insults

>>15441448
They were both teleoplexically refuted by Capital aka Nick Land.

>>15442687
Read the 32th paragraph of Prolegomena, retard, Kant explicitly explains there why noumena are not equivalent to Platonic forms.

>>15442481
>They come from genetically inherited schematic blueprints transferred through your genetic structure and extrapolated up into abstract conceptualizations through the processes of the physiological, neurological, psychological and finally conscious thought.
Jeebies!

>>15442481
Quality post

>>15441834
Kant is Plato

>>15443429
Explain

>>15442563
"No, you!"

>>15443429
Yeah, I remember Plato's Categorical Imperative too.

>>15442316
>"forms" are not real, but you need them to exist to see that they are not real

>>15441694
because philosophy is a piss easy, shallow, pseudointellectual waste of time. it doesn't take long to figure out the vast majority of philosphy, and once you do that there is really no reason to further obsess over it like the low IQ retards here do.

>>15443481
How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?

>>15443487
Cringe

>>15443491
>your field is trivial but don't expect me to demonstrate it reee

seethe brainlet

>>15443504
hes not me. i didn't say that I can solve all of philosophy. i said most of philosophy, and many unsolved questions philosophers waste their time on are simply unsolvable. The practical parts of philosophy are trivial and don't take much time. i guarentee you the answer to "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" is entirely irrelevant to literally everything in the world and only pseudointellectuals who are too far deep into the circlejerk that is philosophy thinks its worth wasting time on whatever self mastubatory framework they managed to construe in order to birth this question in the first place.

>>15443539
seethe

>>15443547
cope

>>15443479

yeah it is strange

>>15443633
No, it's retarded just like all your meme non-western philosophy

>>15443539
>Kant is trivial
>discuss Kant's theories
>No, no. I don't know them. I am just speaking about what I don't know which is trivial anyways

>>15443643

what happens when a western philosopher comes to the same conclusion? you wouldn't call plato or hume retarded

>>15443656
Post quote from plato saying that or back to street shitting

>>15443656

wait, nevermind, this is /lit/. you probably would

>>15442754
>believing Kant

>>15443671
So is eastern philosophy just a rejection of rationality? I don't really read that stuff so it's a genuine question. Is that why their countries smell like poo?

>>15443656
Plato and Hume would never say something so retarded.

>>15441448
aren't the very categories an inherently platonic idea?

>>15445577
Not every eastern philosophy is the same as Buddhism

>>15441448
What does it look like when someone btfos someone else? Is it like when people fall down on family guy?

>>15445646
Plato was a wrestler and Kant was like five foot tall so really it would be plato who did the btfoing.

>>15445660
Maybe Plato could show him some "Greek wrestling techniques" and make Kant have a prostate orgasm

>>15445670
>Kant, get the olive oil

>btfos plato
>literally copied him

>>15443481
hey anon I'm just chiming in to say that this comment makes you look like a certain kind of person and "smart" isn't the word for it

>>15446050
"brilliant" ?

>>15443539
Of course that you're too smart to answer a question such as how is human knowledge possible.

>>15443429
at last I truly see

>>15445612
Not at all

>>15442303
Hot take. Which aspects converge?

>>15445834
Literally not at all..

>>15442481
cringe naturalist perspective

>>15441876
Doesn't matter. The point is that Plato's forms were out of reach and unknowable

>>15441448
isn't Kant just a more "psychological" plato? saying the forms exist in the mind but it can't be known if they exist external to it

>>15448578
>psychological
cringe

>>15443656
>>15443633
>>15442316
Ok, this is my perspective, but I feel easterners rely a bit on obfuscation and trying to make something sound good and aesthetical rather than clear and didactic. Try to translate this to western speak
> huayan buddhism covers this topic well, and translates to platonism well. "forms" are not real, but you need them to exist to see that they are not real
I think he’s trying to say that forms as an idea, rather than necessarily a reality are useful in our conception of reality, and from the extrapolation of forms as an abstract idea we can conclude that they do not exist nominally, only as a form of representation.

>>15448630
it's not that complicated, it's the same principle as "reality is not real, but you need it to exist to see that it isn't real", meaning that the existence of reality is a prerequisite for the knowledge that it isn't real.

>>15448578
>isn't Kant just a more "psychological" plato
No. At least not when referring to his critique of Pure reason. He much more deals with epistemology and basic logic which he concludes can only go so far as the perceiving entity can conceptualize. In effect, in a materialist sense, the “brain”, but not the brain as a organ of flesh, but the extent of knowledge of a perceiving entity.

>>15448649
Ok. You made it much dumber than I gave it credit for. Congrats.

I guess my next question would be isn’t an illusion still a subset of what is real, and therefore is real? A physical illusion exists, but it is only a subset of a wider reality.