/lit/ - Literature

>>20991872

>>20991872
Do booba exist in the noumenal realm

>>20991886
Excellent question. Yes, indeed they do. The perfect booba actually.

Why are you posting a worse egirl?

>>20991879
Ikr fr fr jk but fr tho amir

>>20991898
Different, not better or worse

Platonic ideals aren't real they can't hurt you

>>20991904
Sounds like relativism, is there no such thing as Truth?

>>20991917
There is, but not in the realm of phenomena.

>>20991886
yes

>>20991872
She looks like my ex but with better and bigger tits. I miss her so much bros

>>20991872
Susu?

>>20991886
yes, but they are neither small nor huge. Space is nothing more than an Anschauungsform, so tiddies don't have sizes in the noumenal world. + the noumenal world is tasteless, so the noumenal tiddies taste like nothingness

>>20991919
retard, Wahrheit ist die Übereinstimmung einer Erkenntnis mit ihrem Gegenstand. your e-girl is definitely worse

>>20991886
booba a phenomena of the noumena

>>20992065
ive never been with a woman. Im pushing 30. I dont feel bad for you cunt.

>>20991872
What phenotype is this? mexijap?

she aint blockin a fuckin thing she gettin them titties sucked

>>20991872
Pornstars that look like this?

>>20992192
Dumkopf, Wahrheit is die Gegebenheit des Sein - aletheia - nicht Ubereinstimmung zwischen Seienden

>>20991872
Kant and Berkeley preemptively debunked Hegel and Plato and any idea of the so called “noumenal realm” and you schizo faggots still seethe to this day and make up obscurantist copes. Face it, you literally believe in a fantasy land.

>>20991872
>that filename
kek good one

>>20992494
> Kant and Berkeley preemptively debunked Hegel and Plato and any idea of the so called “noumenal realm”
kant did? the guy who came up with it?

>>20992198
If it makes you feel any better we never had sex and I'm still a virgin with godawful game. The thing inkwells will never understand is that getting girls is a lot easier than keeping them

>>20992514
Kant came up with the noumenal realm only so he could explain that it’s impossible to know anything about it. Schopenhauer then rightly pointed out that not only can we not gain knowledge about it, it does not exist. The basic conclusion that people don’t seem to realize is that there actually is not even the concept of the noumenal realm, and therefore no objective reality. For you can never find anything that has your subject totally subtracted from it, you will only think you have abstracted all subject away when you haven’t. But since everything exists in time, everything is always changing and there is no eternal truth, and the incontrovertible aspects of your cognition such as math are not true because of any external world they correspond to but because you simply can’t think any other way than through them.

I'm still at Hume, maybe I can kantpost one day

>>20992213
Did you know Spain was a European nation?

>>20992530
>because you simply can’t think any other way than through them
What dictates this limitation? If cognition is limited then there's something beyond it.

>>20992530
so it sounds like Kant didn't debunk the the idea of the noumenal realm and instead you think Schopenhauer's critique of Kant holds. but Schopenhauer's view is not Kant's view. Also when you write:
> since everything exists in time, everything is always changing and there is no eternal truth
is the meaning expressed in this sentence also not eternally true, but only sometimes true? is it true now, but there will be a time when it is no longer the case that there will be eternal truths? idk if you're the same anon, but this also seems like cope to me.

>>20992539
Suppose there is some mode of cognition we do not possess. Not merely a quantitative difference but a qualitative one, a completely new logic not based on tautology or types or functions or anything. If we could imagine what it would look like to be able to think in that way, then we would effectively be able to think in that way and we would therefore possess it. Hence, if there is any mode of thinking outside our abilities, then we can not even conceive of it. Since it will never enter our perception, it does not exist. Therefore, there are no ways of cognizing outside of how we cognize. Our cognition is only limited in that we can’t cognize an object without the subject, and that we can’t step beyond our modes of cognition because there is nothing beyond them.

>>20992559
It is true because it comes from our incontrovertible methods of cognition, when I say there is no eternal truth I am speaking of truth that is outside of pure reason. All empirical truths are cognized in time, but the transcendental logic is the precondition of thinking so that is incontrovertible and therefore “true” but in a different way.

>>20992560
>Since it will never enter our perception, it does not exist
Sounds like a good way to keep yourself blind to possible alternative ways to perceive. You can't model with math or any of your faculties the entirety of reality therefore elements of reality exist outside your perception.
>we can’t step beyond our modes of cognition because there is nothing beyond them
That's not what our modes of cognition tell us.

>>20992602
> Sounds like a good way to keep yourself blind to possible alternative ways to perceive
If there is an alternative way to perceive that we can perceive then we already possess it, I was speaking of ways to perceive that we can’t possess
> That's not what our modes of cognition tell us.
Nope, I literally am proving that there is no external world merely through the methods of cognizing. You are perceiving something that you call the “noumenal world” but what you call the noumenal world does not actually possess the properties that the noumenal world would have if you could conceive it, that is, all object and no subject. There is indeed something you are perceiving that you call the “object” but since it totally belongs to the subject it does not have the properties you assert it does, namely, that proofs about the object are true independent of the subject.

Is she the swimsuit succubus?

>>20992621
>it does not have the properties you assert it does
I didn't assert any properties so far, just that there is existence beyond what we perceive.
I don't think proofs about the object are true independent of the subject or in other words a given context, that's how logic works but this fact points at the limits of logic to represent whatever is really happening. It points to a reality external to logic.

>>20992570
thanks for clarifying

>>20991872
Imagine falling asleep on her tits.

wæt

>>20992651
>there is existence beyond what we perceive
In this context I mean beyond what we can possibly perceive using what we think of as logical means which is what we can make logical statements about. It's evident both by how logic works and the fact we already perceive beyond those logical means, the fundamental element of experience is not based on something else, it's not a logical construct.

>>20992622
I believe so.

>>20992651
>>20992683
Suppose there is something that exists which we can never perceive. If we never perceive it then we must not perceive it or its effects on us, for otherwise we would perceive it through its effects. If we never perceive its effects, or the effects of its effects or so on, then it never affects us in any way, and never enters any world we occupy. Hence, to say something exists beyond what we can perceive is like saying there is some ghost that exists in a parallel plane the existence of which plane can’t be shown in any system of physics and the ghost and its dimension never affects us in any way. How am I supposed to believe that?

Kant cleared a path for philosophy like no other. OP is a brainlet.

>>20992999
>Suppose there is something that exists which we can never perceive.
This fact is temporal and contingent. It is the state of the common understanding, the state of a man in his natural state. The point the German Idealists are making is you don't have to remain in this state. Knowledge of the Absolute is a gradual development- the evolution of what is essential in man, through his self development. Basically, don't prejudge that you can never perceive simply because so far in time you have been unable to. This progessive actualization of the Ideal of Absolute Knowledge is actually completely compatible with Kants philosophy.

>>20993045
>This fact is temporal and contingent.
For it to change would require a fundamental shift in my method of cognition and therefore the structure of my brain. Even if this were to happen, then it still doesn’t change the fact that everything I am now saying is valid for myself at this moment. Saying that it will all change is hypothesizing about the future and is effectively deliberating on fantasy worlds. Obviously if I was some alien in another dimension that didn’t even use a nervous system to think all my judgements would be totally different and totally different knowledge would be possible, but this is meaningless for me as I am now. A future where I change like that can’t be predicted to occur in any model of philosophy or science because the future would contain things totally contrary to our present modes of perception and therefore we can’t in any way conceive of it.

>>20992999
>there is something that exists which we can never perceive
Perceiving some evidence of a thing is not the same as perceiving the entirety of the thing. Logic points at things outside logic that I can't conceive of through logic.
If I attempt to describe a phenomena, an apple using logic I can only do it by starting with some axiomatic premise not accounted for by any logic. Tracing the existence of the phenomena back in logical steps leads to physical states that don't resemble the apple anymore but each state still contains the apple somehow or it couldn't be expressed in later steps. Same holds true when you trace the steps back beyond logic. The apple is contained in the realm beyond our perception and logic.

>>20993104
A similar argument to the one I already showed will prove that insofar as a thing does not affect us in any way it does not exist. Therefore I’m justified in sayi an object is entirely known through its effects because there is no thing outside of tgr part of it we are affected by. Any other parts of it belong to the same ghost fantasy dimensions. When you judge that there is an apple and then deduce that the apple must have an inside, even though you aren’t perceiving the inside right now it still exists because a conception of the inside is required for any model of the apple to be coherent and to not contradict the rest of your conception of the world.

>>20993067
>For it to change would require a fundamental shift in my method of cognition and therefore the structure of my brain.
Exactly. That's the point. Your only holding yourself back. Basically everything impossible is only impossible until we prove ourselves wrong by making it possible. Our limitations are self imposed.

>A future where I change like that can’t be predicted to occur in any model of philosophy or science because the future would contain things totally contrary to our present modes of perception

Which are again contingent and temporal. Our understanding of what is posdible has changed many times before and is perfectly capable of changing again. Simply put, if you want to know you just keep on searching till you find. Or you give up. But saying it's is inconceivable is not an excuse. Many times has what was at one time been thought inconceivable been made conceivable, even what was thought inconceivable in principle.

>>20993122
>>20993104
that is, we arrive at physics because we find things are affecting us in a way that can’t be coherently explained without these deeper physical models. The deeper models exist because they are affecting us, insofar as they are taken to be the cause of the appearances they are modeling

>>20993122
>insofar as a thing does not affect us in any way it does not exist
Insofar as it can't possibly affect us but the existence of logic affects us and it can't be accounted for by using logic. There are things outside our "perception" that still do affect us.
>an object is entirely known through its effects
All we know are effects but we can't entirely know the thing because the effects don't account for themselves.
>a conception of the inside is required for any model of the apple to be coherent
And a concept of what is outside logic is required for any model accounting for logic to be coherent.

>>20993144
The only thing that is outside of logic is unmediated, pure experience. Logic doesn’t have to model the objects themselves, only the appearances we find in immediate experience.

>>20993155
>The only thing that is outside of logic is unmediated, pure experience
Not according to logic. The experience also demonstrates that there are things that affect us which we can't explain or "perceive" using any methods.

>>20993132
Personally I don’t believe that the future exists or that modal logic is valid, but let’s say that it is possible that in the future I will be able to gain knowledge that I am now incapable of gaining. The problem is that this has never happened in history and science has pretty well shown at this point that our cognition is dependent on the fundamental structure of neurons in the brain. You say that things which were once inconceivable are now conceivable, but that’s not strictly true. The human brain has always had the physical capability of conceiving general relativity, it just never was conceived of before. New particular objects have entered our knowledge, but no object that was completely contrary to our previous modes of thinking has ever entered our knowledge.

>>20991872
I want to do sex things to her. Not for her pleasure or for mine. To debase and degrade and humiliate this neotinic Pixar-faced cumslut to the point that she never feels pretty or desireable again.

>>20993192
No it doesn’t, we perceive the effect and then create a conceptual model of its cause. The conceptual model itself is a perception and something being experienced, and logic doesnt point to the existence of anything but the existence of a cause of what you perceive, and the cause will always be something else you perceive, some concept or idea, never an object in itself.

>>20993213
How's that working out for you.

>>20993220
>the cause will always be something else you perceive
The way logic works says this has to be false. Since any logical statement or model rests on axioms there is something external to any describable model including how we conceive of the methods of logic. Logic can't account for logic. People relate this to Godel but I don't need math to tell me this. It's the basic premise behind all logical statements. Given x then y. Where do you get the original x from?

>>20993259
Anon, the axioms are based on our modes of perception. When I am talking about incontrovertibly and methods of thinking, I am talking about thinks like tautology, or the ideas of sameness and difference, the source of the logical axiom that a is a. That is what I mean when I say that our cognition is “true” because it is incontrovertible. The axioms of logic are that way because we simply cannot possibly conceive of them being any other way and that is how they are immediately experienced as being. There is no other reason than this, no other ground for them can be found. We only say that a is a because it is not possible to conceive differently, the only reason we can’t deny it or go beyond it is that it’s not possible to conceive differently. That is what an axioms is

>>20993259
Anon, the axioms are based on our modes of perception. When I am talking about incontrovertibly and methods of thinking, I am talking about thinks like tautology, or the ideas of sameness and difference, the source of the logical axiom that a is a. That is what I mean when I say that our cognition is “true” because it is incontrovertible. The axioms of logic are that way because we simply cannot possibly conceive of them being any other way and that is how they are immediately experienced as being. There is no other reason than this, no other ground for them can be found. We only say that a is a because it is not possible to conceive differently, the only reason we can’t deny it or go beyond it is that it’s not possible to conceive differently. That is what an axioms is, and the reason they are valid and useful for modeling reality is that everything that enters our perception has to correspond to them or else it couldn’t enter our perception since then it would be contrary to our modes of perception and therefore not perceivable.

>>20992621
Different anon but
>what you call the noumenal world does not actually possess the properties that the noumenal world would have if you could conceive it, that is, all object and no subject.
Is it not the case that the noumenal is all subject and no object? Whereas the phenomenal is all object and no subject. With the phenomenal being merely an objectified appearance of the noumenal. That is phenomena is apparent things, whereas noumena is not thing(s) or is "no-thing". As such our subjectivity is fundamentally the propertyless noumena, and therefore we cannot conceive noumena since that's like trying to see your own eyes, but we can know our self, i.e. noumenon, to be.
Perhaps this is not Kant's view however.

>>20993280
>We only say that a is a because it is not possible to conceive differently
You just did conceive differently. There are even logical models of phenomena that don't demand these sorts of rules of thumb.
The reason I assume that a is a when modeling the world is precisely because it's proven more useful to model the world, not because I can't conceive of using other methods or abstractions.
A is a superposition of A and B.

>>20993301
>A is a superposition of A and B.
Is recursive just to make it even more confusing and "illogical". An axiom like this could still be used in logical models, it's conceivable despite not making much sense in relationship to our experience of reality.

>>20993301
No, when I say “there could be a world where a is not a” I am not actually conceiving of a not being a. Not even close.

>>20991872
Can her eyes, and their uncanny disenchanting lifelessness (despite her having desireable and, for a female, enviable breasts) tell us something about the nature of noumena? I feel like I'm cheated by looking into them, like I'm looking at a video game character or something.

>>20993299
that is closer to fucking adi shankara than anything. The whole point of trying to gain knowledge about noumenal world is that the knowledge would be true whether you exist or not, if you reduce noumena to transcendental consciousness then you don’t gain any knowledge from it. Of course, if you define noumena as “true reality” the phenomenal reality and noumenal reality end up being identical since there is no external reality, and therefore noumena is experience, but this doesn’t offer objectivity.

>>20992065
>pic rel
no wonder she dumped you, loser

>>20993328
>I am not actually conceiving of a not being a
I agree in the sense that the brain is built around certain axioms but A being A is an axiom. we can describe different systems using logic than the one implemented in the brain. If they have the ability to "run" over time like in math models or computers each step is logically leading from the other. What system runs and what stops is not derived from our perspectives but external rules.

>>20992198
I've been with 6 or 7 and im 40. you aint missing much, thats why I made that thread asking for books that remove female autonomy. Glad I pissed lit off with that one. Though I must admit the e-girls posted have such nice titties.

>>20993222
Let people enjoy things. Anyways I'd contribute more to this thread but my knowledge of German idealism is limited to Kant and Schopenhauer

dann gibt es aber auch ohne Dasein keine Korrektheit, da es auch ohne Dasein keine Entbergung gibt. Das würde dazu führen, dass nicht alle Instanzen des Schemas

> "p" ist wahr gdw p

wahr wären. Nämlich wäre dann

> "Es gibt kein Dasein (mehr)" ist wahr gdw es kein Dasein mehr gibt

falsch. Und das ist ganz schön retarded. Halt also deine dumme Fresse, du mongo neger jude

>>20992483
dann gibt es aber auch ohne Dasein keine Korrektheit, da es auch ohne Dasein keine Entbergung gibt. Das würde dazu führen, dass nicht alle Instanzen des Schemas

> "p" ist wahr gdw p

wahr wären. Nämlich wäre dann

> "Es gibt kein Dasein (mehr)" ist wahr gdw es kein Dasein mehr gibt

falsch. Und das ist ganz schön retarded. Halt also deine dumme Fresse, du mongo neger jude

cykeln

>>20991872
When is this Cuban weeb bitch gonna get nude? That's the only reason anybody cares about this tight little fuck slut.

>>20992530
sorry to tell you that you are retarded, anon who thinking about thst Kant "deBUnKeD" the noumenal world. Die Menschheit in seiner Person ist das Objekt der Achtung. Jeder Mensch auch als Zweck ein Ding an sich und damit ein Teil der erkennbaren noumenalen Welt. Read past the transcendental logic, you fucking nigger kike faggot poltard. everything written in German is rubbish anyway, except for except for the the divine Frege

generosamente

>>20991886
Interesting question.
There is a definite hyletic essence which is constitutive of booba, which I have not encountered phenomenally anywhere else. Then there is the various normative forces at play with any instance of booba, such that some booba is indubitably better boobas than others. This itself is but a moment of the monad of the booba, the absolute totality of potentiality and actuality of booba. The Ur-booba is then the final ungrasped booba, the untouchable titty which lies beyond any motorboating.

>>20991907
They hurt by not being and this pain is universe.

>>20992533
make sure you do some leibniz too before you kantsition

>>20992530
there's no way of knowing that the noumenal realm doesn't exist. more concretely, for example, we have no way of knowing whether space is actually 4 dimensional and we're merely only able to experience space in 3 dimensions

>>20991872
>>20991898
>>20991917
>>20991941
>>20994220
Made for BWC

>>20991872
imagine being the guy that gets to suck on her asshole bros, fuck

>>20994296
there's no "real space" there's just the idea of space in our heads, and one idea may more accurately corresponds to the shifting appearances of the world than the other. That is, the idea of a 4d manifold, general relativity, accurately corresponds to the appearance of light deflection during the eclipse, and the idea of a 3d euclidean dimension accurately corresponds to every day life, though general relativity is consistent with both the appearances of space and the appearances of the every day, which is why it said to be closer to how "real" space is. Importantly, the appearances also are only in our mind, and the idea that their source is "external" to our mind is just another model of the appearances.

>>20994341
The fuck is wrong with you.

>>20994400
it's not fair bro

>>20994400
You’ve never wanted to give a girl a rimjob?
What’s wrong with YOU?

>>20992065
>women
lol. lmao even.

>>20994126
Imagine being obsessed with an egirl for years hoping for a nude when you could just watch porn and see millions of naked women in the time you spent waiting for one who doesnt know you exist. You’re a simp and no amount of you trying to disguise it with your cringey attempts to sound alpha will change that.

Also the fact that you know her country of origin and interests shows you care about more than the hope for nudes, simp boy.

You can’t hide your true nature.

>>20991898
You posted a white chick with fake tits and tons of makeup. Your e-girl is infinitely lower tier.

>>20991917
>so much makeup her eyelashes are clumped together
>fake freckles
>wig
>copying belle delphine’s weird nose makeup

Anon you are clearly a virgin falling for smoke and mirrors.

>>20993213
You should feel humiliated for letting any woman have this much power over your emotions. Pathetic.

>>20992192
The egirl you posted looks older than OP’s so that makes yours worse

me want milky booba want milk give me milk!!

>>20995073
>projection the post

>>20994126
She's Puerto Rican.

>>20995202
Orbiting e-girls and expecting nudes like you are currently doing is something simps do.

This board sucks