/lit/ - Literature

>>22822321
Did you not read Hume? Remember experience per Hume can never give us necessary truths. If we have them, where did they come from? Kant answers:

>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it.

>he only thinks in representations
Filtered

I've never read kant but nonetheless I have a hatred for kant, what's kants shortest work that I can read so that I can join the conversation and better shit on kant?

>>22822351
Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

>>22822351
yes read this >>22822372
and then come back and appreciate him

>>22822338
I don't think that's the problem I'm having here. How can we derive anything from experience independently of experience?

>>22822372
Thanks

>>22822372
That the Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason is a midwit meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena:

>although a mere sketch PRECEDING the Critique of Pure Reason would be UNINTELLIGIBLE, UNRELIABLE, and USELESS, it is all the more useful as a SEQUEL. For so we are able to grasp the whole, to examine in detail the chief points of importance in the science, and to improve in many respects our exposition, as compared with the first execution of the work.

>>22822391
>How can we derive anything from experience independently of experience?
Anon you're completely missing the point. Kant is saying there are concepts that are NOT DERIVED FROM EXPERIENCE AT ALL.

>>22822351
>proceeds to get ruthlessly filtered
seethe threads incoming

>>22822321
>For if we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgements derived from them which must have arisen completely a priori
The only thing confusing me here is the difficulty concerning the fact that a priori concepts and judgments are at the same time derived from experience. How can that be? I understand that we need intuitions to ''actualize'' the concepts of the understanding and we need the concepts of the understanding to make sense of, give form to intuitions. But that an a priori faculty is derived from the other seems confusing.

Kant's project is a synthesis of the Rationalist and Empiricist positions. Keep in mind the milieu that motivated Kant's project.

Kant wants to preserve the ability of the Mind to know things that are "a priori synthetic judgements" i.e. stuff that is 'known' beyond an analytical unpackaging as well as experience e.g. basically all of metaphysics and that which Philosophy has concerned itself with in a major way. It's difficult to be a metaphysician when you have empiricists claiming that it's all "habit of the mind" and/or 'inscribed on a tabla rasa' as opposed to actual Wisdom, and it's difficult with Rationalists saying that the empirical world cannot offer any semblance of Wisdom as such since it is obviously always in flux and circumstantiality abounds.

Kant wants to preserve the Rationalist account that Human Reason is capable of producing respectable Wisdom, as well as preserve the ontological significance of the material world, even if he ultimately states that we are unable to comprehend "the-thing-in-and-of-itself" which is the data that is packaged up and interpreted by the categories of mind before our rational mind is able to comprehend it.

It will be difficult to comprehend Kant when assuming that we truly learn everything from the material world, as opposed to seeing in the mind's eye how the thing-in-and-of-itself is formed by the "programmed" concepts of the rational mind to interpret sense data for us.

Interpret Kant's writing with the notion that he wants to defend the rational mind's ability to know that a God, or ultimate source exists, and that we can know this independent of experience 'a priori' even if we were just a floating, mute consciousness with rationality and no sensory input. By virtue of existing as a non-created being and along also with the concept of causation (which exists as the 'programming' of the mind) we could still know a priori synthetically that God exists. He further extrapolates this line of reasoning to morality, aesthetics, and really anything in which there is a concern or celebration of 'Goodness".

>>22822441
>a priori concepts and judgments are at the same time derived from experience.
THEY ARE NOT DERIVED FROM EXPERIENCE.

>>22822445
>midwit chatgpt reply

>>22822446
That's literally what the quote in OP says you fucking retard.

>there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgements derived from them [EXPERIENCE]

>>22822445
EDIT in the last paragraph:

I mean to say "by virtue of existing as a being that did not ultimately cause itself"

>>22822450
My grammar is not always the best and I can be quite wordy, however I think this reply will at least point OP in the right direction with proper assumptions

>>22822453
read more faggot instead of getting caught up on one fucking passage out of context. A PRIORI means NOT derived from experience. Kemp Smith is shit btw. Meiklejohn is the superior translation.

>it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
- Kant, CPR 2nd Preface

>>22822477
I know a priori means not derived from experience, but that is just my point. Kant contradicts its a priority in a single sentence. Why are you always so fucking retarded? This is proof that those who worship Kant are just braindead retards because they can't even understand what they are reading and think of Kant as a giant, enlightened thinker.

>>22822488
>inasmuch as they enable us to say, or at least lead us to believe that we can say, in regard to the objects which appear to the senses

He is at getting under the hood of human experience here; consider the faculties that exist in order that we get a sensible Idea of what being even is as opposed to a clusterfuck of quantum foam

>>22822488
>Kant contradicts its a priority in a single sentence
literally BTFO'd in the quote in my previous post.

>think of Kant as a giant, enlightened thinker.
yes

>>22822488
>can't even understand what they are reading
kek and ironic

>>22822500
Yeah, I get what he wants to say, but the inclusion of the part saying that original concepts and certain judgements derive from experience/senses made the sentence completely confusing. This may be a translation blunder though.

>>22822432
>Kant is saying there are concepts that are NOT DERIVED FROM EXPERIENCE AT ALL.

I'm aware of Kant's synthetic a priori, but that's not what he's saying here. He literally writes:

>"[. . . .] If we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgements ******derived from them****** which must have arisen completely a priori, independently of experience[. . . .]"

What is the "them" referring to here, if not experience or senses? If "derived from them" was not in this sentence, I would find this perfectly internally coherent, and wouldn't've made this post.

>>22822508
>>think of Kant as a giant, enlightened thinker.
>yes
>retard accepts the inference from a premise calling him retard
>retard confirms being retarded

>>22822537
Thank you for showing I'm not the only one seeing that this sentence is absolutely meaningless and contradictory with the inclusion of that part.

>>22822537
>If "derived from them" was not in this sentence, I would find this perfectly internally coherent, and wouldn't've made this post.
you're getting caught up on one fucking sentence. Read the quote I gave you again. First, as you acknowledge, you're reading a translation-- by someone who was unsympathetic to Kant; second, even if it appears to contradict, once you mastered the system and know what his terms mean you can use your fucking brain to resolve apparent contradictions just by knowing that obviously since these "original concepts and judgments" are a priori they are NOT derived from experience so in this passage do not be a retard and read the passage LITERALLY.

>The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law means enacting the intent behind the law.

There is a difference between the rote form of a philosophical science and its subjectively incorporated understanding, or what Fichte (following Kant, following St. Paul) referred to as the relation between the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit.’

READ MORE.

>>22822477
That's all I was really asking: if that sentence was miswritten, a mistranslation, or if it actually had an intended meaning,

Do you have a link to Meiklejohn version of the Idea of Transcendental Philosophy in the Introduction? Or was it removed from later editions for this reason?

>>22822593
>Do you have a link to Meiklejohn version of the Idea of Transcendental Philosophy in the Introduction?

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason_(Meiklejohn)/Introduction

>>22822589
>you're reading a translation-- by someone who was unsympathetic to Kant
>do not be a retard and read the passage LITERALLY.

So is it a mistranslation, or not a mistranslation and meant to be read in some non "literal" figurative sense which you have alluded to but not yet explained? I asked a pretty simple question, and you've come up with two contradictory answers. You seem awfully worked up, btw.

>>22822612
>https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason_(Meiklejohn)/Introduction

The Idea of Transcendental Philosophy is omitted here, which is the section we're discussing.

>>22822589
You're saying *don't* read it literally, right? Because that's what we've been doing.

>>22822625
Meiklejohn only translated the second edition. The portion you're referring is only in the first edition.

>>22822589
Give us the original and explain each term there then.

>>22822615
>You seem awfully worked up, btw.
I always get worked up about Kant. I AM KANTPOSTER.

>>22822641
Ironic that the legacy of Kant is in the hands of such a retarded poster?

>>22822639
wtf you think I am? your mom? lol do your own work faggot

I summon my boi Hegel to rebuke you
>Everybody allows that to know any other science you must have first studied it, and that you can only claim to express a judgment upon it in virtue of such knowledge. Everybody allows that to make a shoe you must have learned and practised the craft of the shoemaker, though every man has a model in his own foot, and possesses in his hands the natural endowments for the operations required. For philosophy alone, it seems to be imagined, such study, care, and application are not in the least requisite.
- Hegel, Encyclopedia Logic, Intro. Section 5

>>22822645
>calls me retarded
>is actually the one getting filtered
that is the real irony

>>22822630
I'm saying read the whole thing first before embrassing yourself

>>22822321
This supposed to be a shitting on Kant thread? I kinda liked this passage. He seems to talking about how there is a universality that isn't learned through experience of the senses. Now it's kinda confusing though. I've never read kant.

>>22822654
You can't even provide the original to clear up the confusion, instead you resort to out of context quotes, which, besides, have nothing to do with what we're pointing out to you, and worse, keep saying that we should just ignore a blatant contradiction in a sentence.

>>22822680
>just ignore
not ignore-- think through it.

>>22822637
So Kant probably had it removed for this reason?

>>22822534
Well we cannot very well experience the Categories as such, but we can intuit them from experience and know that they would be there even without experience.

This is not the same thing as knowing them and extrapolating the accidental characteristics of reality as the basis for how we 'know' things in our Being

>>22822673
>He seems to talking about how there is a universality that isn't learned through experience of the senses.
That's what the work is about, but I'm taking issue with the sentence I quoted because it says the exact opposite, and is paradoxical. I noticed it was removed in later editions, though, so perhaps it was a mistake.

>>22822685
>not ignore-- think through it.
Bro what is your position? You have alleged:

1. That the sentence is not meant literally
2. That the sentence makes sense in the wider context of the work
3. That the sentence is an intentional mistranslation by Smith

>>22822707
naw it's way more clear in the German.

>>22822537
Pretty sure "them" refers to "concepts" here, makes sense contextually that "original concepts" would be the things from which judgments are derived.

>>22822759

>Pretty sure "them" refers to "concepts" here, makes sense contextually that "original concepts" would be the things from which judgments are derived.

So your version would read:

>"For if we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgements derived from [said original concepts] which must have arisen completely a priori, independently of experience[. . . .]"

That actually makes total sense. Thank you. Was this the Kantposter?

-OP

>>22822827
Right, and no I'm not him.

>>22822922
Damn. That's what he should have been saying the whole time. Looks like you have a better understanding of Kant than the Kantposters do. You put more effort into the hermeneutics than any of them did.

>>22822958
Yeah that guy is just gimmick posting, best not to engage, he's just going to spout his predetermined spiel without reading what you're actually saying/asking.

>>22822321
It's just a turgid way of saying "All knowledge begins with experience, but not all knowledge arises from experience." You can be stripped of everything derived from sensory experience and still retain Kant's necessary, universal, a priori judgments about the *contents* of sense, apprehension of which does not depend on their empirical instantiation.

>>22822445
Very good high effort post. Points for stepping back from the passages and giving a high level view of what's going on in Kant's mind, it makes understanding the work much easier.