/lit/ - Literature

>>22725841
You wouldn't. What's the point?

>>22725846
just for the meme

>>22725841
It says the only reason that things have causes is that we can’t perceive anything without assuming that they do. And that’s because we can only perceive things by putting them in space and time, and without assuming things have causes, we can’t order them in time. Also, our minds want us to ask about the beginning of the universe and God and shit, but every possible proof about those things is invalid.

It's a easy: a bourgeois created a personal morality without god after having spent his whole being a racist. Of course is morality narrative is only his opinion and it can be safely discarded.

>>22725841
It is as simple as this :

You cant make any progress through thinking about the world... you need experience, too.
Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without conceptions are blind.

That are the most important conclusions out of it.
Because it follows that the whole philosophy as a project to get to know reality is impossible... only thing we can grasp are some ideas about how it could be that are basically just thoughts without content because the intuitions are missing...

>>22726616
I have to add one more thing :

You wouldn't find the order in this world if it wasn't for yourself to lay it upon it.

That means even through experience you can't get through to reality because experience is something you structured yourself.

That means as both answers of me show... Kant says you can't know reality... there is no way... not the rational way and not the empirical way...

Therefor metaphysics is basically dead.

>>22725841
CPR is a book on epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge. There are three primary distinctions that Kant makes in this work: a priori vs a posteriori knowledge and synthetic vs analytic judgements, and phenomena vs noumena.

A priori knowledge means that one does not need sense experience to gain it. A posteriori assumes that one has to use their senses to gather such knowledge. It then follows that any a posteriori knowledge presupposes a priori knowledge, while the converse is not true.

When we gather any forms of knowledge, we construct logical links between these forms to create a coherent worldview. Analytic judgments are basically Aristotle’s syllogisms: logical constructs where something follows from something else, because otherwise one would contradict themselves. On the other hand, synthetic judgements are constructed in an axiomatic fashion, with no immediate link between the statements. Kant argues that synthetic judgements are more fundamental than analytic ones, because one cannot construct a coherent system out of analytic judgements only without running circles or ad infinitum.

It then follows that the most fundamental kind of knowledge there is are a priori synthetic judgements, independent of either sense experience or logic. Kant then asks the question: is there such thing as a priori synthetic judgements? He argues that the answer is yes: space, time, and causality are such judgments. They are intrinsically connected to our sense perception and hence precede it and at the same time they are at the basis of our mathematical and scientific theories.

Now comes the distinction between phenomena and noumena. By the argument above, all a posteriori knowledge is gained by rationalising it as occupying some space at certain time and following causal relationships. Kant calls all such knowledge phenomena. He then proceeds to argue that because space, time, and causality are a priori and synthetic, they are peculiar to the rational agent gathering such knowledge. Hence the phenomena are purely subjective (immanent) knowledge and if we are to accept that reality exists independently of the subject, then it must be that the objective reality itself and everything in it is unknowable (transcendental) to us in its “true” objective sense. Kant calls such “true” objects noumena. Noumena exist outside of space, time, and causality as they are independent of the observing subject and his sense perception. The only thing that the subject can observe is a “representation” of such a noumenon, its phenomenon. He then proceeds to identify noumena with Platonic ideas. This is why he calls his philosophy transcendental idealism.

Schopenhauer then goes one step further and assumes that the notion of plurality is phenomenological and hence there is only one noumenon, the Will, which manifests itself to itself through phenomena, something Schopenhauer calls “the Will’s objectification.”

I hate epistemology

>>22725841
Who cares about critiquin' pure reason when you could be in the strip club sleazin'? Hahaha, sheeee-it.
Kant was a sperg who never knew the simple pleasure of slippin' a dollar bill into the thong of a girl who claims to be named after a luxury car and hearing the crisp snap of elastic that follows. Therefore, his opinions can be discarded without second thought.

>>22727250
>ebonic philosophy 101

>>22725841
I probably wouldn't desu.

>>22727196
>nothing you know is le real ooooo the true nature of reality is 2transcendental4u
lame

>>22727196
>There are three primary distinctions that Kant makes in this work: a priori vs a posteriori knowledge and synthetic vs analytic judgements, and phenomena vs noumena.
that is just the introduction, it's just the set up, why do people dwell on this, he does in fact reach Aristotle and beyond

>>22725841
Literally me

>>22725841
ok it's funny, but if a woman said it you would only be trying to fuck her, not one up her completely

>>22728167
>just the introduction
the distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge alone already refutes every proof of god, immortality, and freedom.

>>22728292
it makes them modal and you cannot know what the thing that makes them actual or necessary is?

>>22725841
I learned about Kant’s metaphysics because he was mentioned in an article about how reality “breaks down” at the quantum level with things seemingly phasing in and out of reality (or something).
The metaphor they used was that our perception is like the UI on a computer. Although the “world” of the computer is simply 1s and 0s, the UI organizes it in a way that is easily digestible and practical to use. The folder on your desktop isn’t truly “there,” as in there isn’t literally a folder with files inside it resting on the thighs of a giant anime girl that covers your desktop background. Our brains have simply evolved to show us what is most important to our survival and the “thing in itself” is unknowable.

Obviously a dumbed-down metaphor for one section of Kant’s philosophy, but it worked for me and got me interested in him. Read Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals and reading the first Critique now.

>>22728624
yes anon, it would be true in virtue of you.

>>22726427
Kys

>>22728624
>reading the first Critique now.
based.

>>22726427
>Retard leftoid
>Is ESL
Like clockwork, don’t forget to make enough to eat today you pathetic monkey.

>>22727267
ebonic philosophy is basically being a hylic.

I was always confused by the title. Is Kant saying that he's critiquing pure reason, or that his critique itself possesses the quality of pure reason?

>>22731341
>he's critiquing pure reason, or that his critique itself possesses the quality of pure reason?
both

>>22730798
not really. when you come for something you come for a twist. if you don't get a twist, you know what you get? your umbrella

>>22731341
Critical just means self-conscious, deliberate taking stock, without any unexamined assumptions. Pure reason means the part of reason (thought/cognition) that is pre-experiential, i.e., what the mind knows or tries to know or thinks it knows just by thinking on its own rather than taking data from experience.

A simple example could be that pure reason might try to deduce the nature of how many entities there are in the world (just one big entity? or many?) purely by thinking about it logically. Whereas a thought guided by experience would be studying the actual features of particular things we find in the world, for example, studying the mathematical relationships between the different objects we find. Mathematics has a strong "pure" component or is entirely pure, in that all its features can be thought out purely logically using only thought and no experience, no empirical data of the world. Or at least at Kant's time it was normal to assume this. But mathematical physics studies the actual empirically observed constants and relationships we find in nature.

Kant means metaphysics in the sense of the attempt to similarly apply pure reasoning to the nature of things like the world, the soul, ultimate reality, God, and to figure out their nature. For example we know we have logical thoughts about the nature and relationships of unities and substances. So Kant's critique is a systematic deliberate attempt to examine our tendencies of pure thinking, to see if metaphysics is possible. For example to see if the purely logical proofs of God's existence, such as the ontological proof, can actually tell us anything about objective reality, or whether they are just inevitable "built in" conclusions we come to within PURE thought, but have no necessary relation to experience.

What Kant meant by all this is more controversial. The answer is really far less extreme than how some people read Kant, as a total nihilist and sceptic. He is not. The key to understanding him is understanding that just because he denies CERTAIN, LOGICAL knowledge of God or the world derived purely from metaphysical thinking, doesn't mean he denies any practical relationship whatsoever with things like belief in the goodness or unity of the world, God's existence, the immortality of the soul, etc. It's only when you go into reading Kant with the false dichotomy that one can either derive certain and immediate knowledge of these things via metaphysics alone OR you must have utter non-knowledge of them, that you end up with the radically sceptical and nihilistic version of Kant. But of course, anyone who does want something like certain knowledge of God and the soul will be very very disturbed by Kant, since they will be nowhere near as comfortable as Kant was just accepting that we can't have such certain scientific knowledge.

>>22731386
Thank you, Anon, I appreciate the high effort response.

>>22725841
Can someone post all those funny Kant stories?

>>22725841
I think, therefore I filter.

/// Sit down and have some lunch, then go round and do the glad-handing afterwards /// If you need help, just call on Mike. He can come at the drop of a hat /// That rinky-dink shelf is likely to collapse if you fill it with books /// James Addison Baker was the consummate master at actually getting things done in Washington /// I could hear the champagne fizz as he poured it into my glass /// In all human affairs, there is virtue in a successor's not being a precise simulacrum of the predecessor whom he or she follows /// The country's criminal and civil courts were creaking at the seams in spite of efforts to shore them up /// The boat was hit by a squall north of the island /// This is a draft manuscript waiting for an editor to impose coherence and to smooth over mangled grammar, malapropisms and political oversimplifications /// Children who expect a supportive response to their emotional displays are more likely to express emotion, whereas children who expect a negative interpersonal response report dissembling emotional expression /// People left so much food on their plates and crumpled a few dollar bills down, as though it were an offering, expiation for the wasted food /// The most erudite people in medical research attended the conference /// In issue two, Chang wanders around gibbering like a raw-meat lunatic /// Hope you got enough poontang to last you till next time /// Companies blame the economy for the lay offs, while workers chalk it up to bad management /// He was reeling a little. He must be very drunk /// Two new natural-gas plants should help slake the country's demand for power /// Roses climbed the trellises /// In 37 years with British Rail, I saw how station staff always bore the brunt of public anger over fare rises /// He's constantly switching up his cadence and his delivery /// Red, white and blue bunting hung in the city's renovated train station /// The 82-year-old songwriter mixes serious contemplation with mordant humor on his new album /// She threw him a look of haughty disdain /// This recognition frees logic from the epistemological discussion of secondary qualities /// Was there no postman or postmaster whom he could suborn to intercept them for him? /// As to syllogism specifically, Locke in a passage, 8 which has an obviously Cartesian ring, lays down four stages or degrees of reasoning, and points out that syllogism serves us in but one of these /// Littoral warfare includes amphibious landings /// He's a science-fiction maven who can talk for hours about fictional technology ///

>>22733128
calm down anon