/lit/ - Literature

he was 60 when he started publishing his work and well known antropologist/geographer. Not a literal nobody on the internet where he's lead to believe all reactions directed t him are good

>>15735386
this is impressively unrelated to what OP said

>>15735400
>How in the world did this huge bafoon and his incoherent philosophy gain any traction? Is philosophy really this much of a joke?
well, enlighten me then. What did HE said?

Specific patterns of change are derived from experience but the proposition is synthetic a priori

>>15735412
I think you misunderstand me. This has nothing to do with synthetic or not. Kant claims that "Every change has a cause" is impure because of the conception of change, but then claims that "Every change must have a cause" is pure despite the fact that change is still the subject, its conception must still be derived from experience, and thus the proposition should be impure.

>>15735452
just stop giving a shit about "purity"

wah lah, he makes perfect sense

>>15735496
>bro just ignore that Kant blatantly contradicts himself a mere 7 paragraphs into his major work and just handwave everything
Always knew philosophy was a joke. I avoided it and especially lauded anything to do with metaphysics, but since I read Kant tried to put philosophy on more rigorous and believable grounds he would be worth a read. guess not since I refuted him after only 7 paragraphs.

>>15735535
>NOOOO HE DIDN'T HAVE 10 EDITORS TO PROOFREAD IT, AND I HAVE TO DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTAND HIS POINT JUST BECAUSE I HATE SUBJECT X

>>15735535
This doesn't really undermine his entire system lol. It does seem like he was confused or made a mistake, though it could be your translation, idk.

>>15735555
>heavily discussed and scrutinized by his peers upon its publication
>in the 6 years between the first publication and the second edition, not a single person pointed out to Kant this issue that occurs 7 paragraphs in (beginning of the work is going to be the most read portion of the work)
philosophers are pseuds
>>15735563
lol sure it doesn't. Kant can't even decide whats pure a priori and just handwaves everything, and the origin and content of this pure a priori and how we use it to make synthetic a priori judgements is the entire point of his work.

>>15735604
If he actually did contradict himself here then it means he wasn't clear on his understanding of change, for whatever reason. There is much more to his system than just that.

>>15735341
Did Kant have anything on cute goth chicks? Asking for a friend

Since this board is full of coping pseuds defending their god head, I looked it up since surely anyone worth their salt would notice a glaring issue in the beginning of the Critique, and I immediately got a result
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/64369/did-kant-classify-the-same-proposition-as-both-pure-and-impure-a-priori
everyone agrees its a contradiction, no one disputed it wasn't a contradiction. I consider this a major flaw. Kant supposes for the whole work that there is some pure a priori completely independent of experience and is under the delusion he can point to it, but all his examples are debatable.

>>15735712
Kant's pure a priori is about the basic structure of our conscious experience, the rules that govern any possible experience. It is an interesting concept regardless of how correct he may have been about everything he said relating to it.

>>15735757
this is why people think philosophy is a joke
>hurr durr well if this imaginary metaphysical structure that we can never prove exists does actually exist and if such a thing can even exist in any meaningful way, it would be interesting

>>15735341
OP, I understand you're being intentionally hyperbolic, but for the sake of argument, I'll take your post at face value. I think it's massively unfair to disregard the myriad insights of Kant over something as simple as him contradicting himself on which subcategorization of a priori the notion of causality falls under. I'm sure that any philosophical text has multiple similarly minor errors when examined closely and to suggest that such a flaw has any real bearing on the overall quality/validity of the work is absurd. Read Kant.

Is 24 too old to get goth chick? Did I miss the boat? I never even knew any in school.

>>15735643
Locke did

>Is philosophy really this much of a joke?
YES.
Rich fags from the 1800s spewing bile. Midwits think being completely incomprehensible is the same as being profound.
FUCK PILOSOPHY

>>15735341
If I ever have a daughter, they will only be allowed to wear shirts that show off a midriff.

>>15737276
>Is 24 too old to get goth chick?
I kan't say for sure

>>15737309
Ah right, because your grasp of the world is infinitely truer and wiser than all philosophy could ever hope to accomplish. Can you donate some of that ego to charity please

>>15737411

>>15735341
>What is an axiom?

first edition critique is best edition

>>15737282
What did he say?

OP's shouldn't include images, especially Jezebels.
>>15735341
You fucking moron he literally at one point states, that the knowledge that all cause and effect is a priori but is not pure because we only learned of its a priori necessity from experience and this is different from the actually pure a priori knowledge that the not pure a priori knowledge of cause and effect as necessity is a priori necessary to us.
>No, this can't be continued ad infinitum

>>15735604
>muh infallible peer review!
Scientism sure has gotten retarded in the last couple of years.

>>15738990
He talked about gaining first hand experience of the freedom of his willy in the presence of goth chicks with massive tits

@15739009
>one comma in the sentence
>it's in the wrong place
make your nonsense readable if you want (You)s

>>15739195
Ah yes, his treatise on eating peaches and sucking plums.

>15739238
You fucking moron, he literally, at one point, states, that the knowledge, that all cause and effect is a priori, but, is not pure, because we only learned of its a priori necessity from experience, and this is different from the actually pure a priori knowledge, that the not pure a priori knowledge of cause and effect, as necessity, is a priori necessary to us.
Don't @ me about retarded anglo comma placement. Have german Kant style commas instead.

>>15735341
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING PHILOSOPHY BOARD
FUCK OFF BACK TO /sci/
FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>15735341
Kant has an idiosyncratic way of using the term a priori. It doesn't mean "independent of experience", but rather "a necessary aspect of every experience". He thought it could be easier to validate a priori statements like "every event has a cause" if he construed them as derived from the alleged fact that our cognitive faculties are constituted in a way that our experiences are always construed in line with these principles, rather than having to explain how there is an intuition that gives us directly these facts about the world. Now his solution doesn't work either because there is no way to prove that our experience is constituted in a way that all events happen in accordance to law-like regularities, but that's neither here or there. In the passages you quoted he doesn't contradict himself.

>>15739272
Don't post on /lit/ if using proper grammar takes too much effort for you.

Kant is a meme, just read Hume instead

>>15735341
who dis lil semon demon?

>>15740912
Fuck you faggot, proper grammar usage is for nitwits. Kants comma usage is not proper comma usage in the german language.
You are a narrowminded waste if you harp on proper comma or even grammar usage.

>>15739543
>t. illiterate
this isn't about a priori vs posteriori. this is about pure vs impure

>>15740953
Don't expect anyone to read your posts, then. Illiterate nigger fuck.

>>15740965
Post the full passage so we can we see if you took him out of context

>>15741023
cope.

>>15740981
Did I complain about hte lack of (you)s?
I only mocked your response at the lack of my commas.
You are so retarded.

>>15735627
>There is much more to his system than just that
As if “his system” isn’t just a replication of every other metaphysical approach since Plato. Kant fags are retard sophists

>>15741113
With the full context, it is very easy to interpret the passages charitably in a way that they don't entail a contradiction. In the first passage he defines a proposition being pure if it is in no way derived from the senses, and in the second passage he says that a judgment being pure a priori follows from the fact that it is necessary and universal. So it seems like in the second passage he uses the word "pure" in its colloquial meaning as a way to give emphasis, not in the technical meaning of not being derived from the senses.

It is a possible interpretation at any rate.

>>15741751
>With the full context, it is very easy to cope by blurring everything until these paragraphs don't even mean anything and you are left with a vague delusion that there is something coherent here without every being able to coherently justify it
go dilate. For being so obsessed with a scientific method for metaphysics, kant sure does suck at any sort of rigor

>>15735535
>lauded
uh...?

>>15741869
congratulations, you are the first person here who is at all literate.

>>15741794
this is completely dishonest, I showed you a simple reading that resolves the contradiction and you are still keeping faithful to your uncharitable interpretation because you feel smart thinking you owned Kant

>>15742288
>if you change the definition of "pure" every time kant uses it so that it fits that particular usage, it all makes sense. if you disagree you are dishonest.
the only dishonest thing is your interpretation. Kant can't keep his head on straight for the duration of 4 paragraphs. This isn't some subtle contradiction either, the contradiction is blatant and all you need is a surface level understanding of the language. He calls a proposition impure, but then calls the same proposition pure. This is indicative of the quality of his work.

>>15735341
>>15741113
Anglos again utterly BTFO. In the original German Kant never claims that the proposition is a pure a priori, this is a simple translation error. This is what the German says:

>Daß es nun dergleichen notwendige und im strengsten Sinne allgemeine, mithein reine Urteile a priori, im menschlichen Erkenntnis wirklich gebe, ist leicht zu zeigen. [...] so kann der Satz, daß alle Veränderung eine Ursache haben müsse, dazu dienen [...].

This roughly translates to:

>It is easy to show that there are such necessary and in the strictest sense general, even pure judgements a priori, in the human understanding. The proposition that all change must have a cause can serve this purpose.

I am not copying the rest but he goes on to even clarify that said proposition becomes clear as a priori in the course of experience (making it impure).

>>15735555
Wasted get on soijack shit (even tho you're right)

>>15735341
General rule one ought to follow when reading Kant: if you think he is wrong, it's likely you're the problem.

Kant's statement in B3 that the proposition "every change must have a cause" is not a pure a priori does not contradict the argument in B4/B5 because the first proposition is an analytical proposition with an empirical subject and the second proposition is a formulation of the principle of causality. Understood as the latter these propositions fulfill the necessary properties of a pure a priori.

People misunderstood this already when he was alive by the way and he countered the objection in 1788 in "On the use of teleological principles in philosophy".

>>15735341
>impure a priori
By impure here he means not analytical.
>pure a priori
By pure here he means not empirical, which as we know from Kant may mean either synthetically a priori or analytically a priori.

If you judge it by the letter it is a blatant contradiction, yes. But since the whole point of the work is to drive at this very distinction (synthetic, thus impure--i.e., requiring intuition--but also non-empirical, thus pure) the issue is understandable.

>>15735535
>reads 7 paragraphs
>BRO PHILOSOPHY IS A JOKE

Are you illiterate? The first sentence in the second section explains the use of "pure" in the latter proposition.

>>15735535
I think the difference here is the use of the word “must” in one verse the other. It’s hard to tell without more context. Pure a priori philosophy deals with the conditions of experience. Impure deduces a priori truths but takes the formal conditions of experience for granted.