/lit/ - Literature

>>23523328
how do abstract objects interact with concrete objects?

>>23523334
Are you implying concrete objects interact with abstract objects? They do not.

>>23523334
Schematism. There’s a whole chapter on it

>>23523334
time

>>23523350
>>23523363
these

>>23523347
Yes it does. Mind interacts with body every day.

>>23523347
So the mind doesn't have any connection to the material brain?
>>23523350
>>23523363
Elaborate.

>>23523381
A schema is a rule for applying the categories of the understanding. e.g. it applies the categories to to time in order to “successively synthesize” it to create tje concepts of numbers. Similar to how mathematical objects (magnitude and number) were supposed to be what allows the forms to split up and inhabit various different bodies in Plato’s philosophy.

>>23523381
>it is quite clear that there must be some third thing, which on the one side is homogeneous with the category, and with the phenomenon on the other, and so makes the application of the former to the latter possible. This mediating representation must be pure (without any empirical content), and yet must on the one side be intellectual, on the other sensuous. Such a representation is the transcendental schema.

>>23523381
>So the mind doesn't have any connection to the material brain?
No, I mean abstract objects only "interact" with abstract objects (in a logical way), and concrete objects with other concrete objects (in a causal way).

>>23523392
>it applies the categories to to time in order to “successively synthesize” it to create tje concepts of numbers
close but not quite. Time is the universal condition of all sensation, and therefore anything that applies to time necessarily applies to all sense experience. Although the categories cannot be applied directly to sense because the pure and the empirical are heterogenous, they can be applied to the pure form of all intuition whatsoever, namely time, and by means of time apply to all that is in time, which means they have legitimate authority in the world of sense.

>>23523328
Hehehe iirc he had some good lines about the sceptic barbarians showing up periodically to raid and violently bash the queen's head in. The last part is not something he actually said, Kant probably would not have spoken with that sort of vulgarity. He opted for elucidating on the Herculean struggle cognition imposes on us all, but that sceptic barbarian raider line still solicits a chuckle from me everytime.

>>23523415
>the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan.

>>23523404
If the brain is a material (concrete) object, then how can it interact with mathematical forms?
>>23523392
>>23523395
I don't get it.

>>23523461
>I don't get it.
few do

>>23523461
The brain is just a representation of the mind

>>23523422
He mentions time as queen, the analogy was that she was subjugated by the dogmatists and left to rot. He derives certain mathematics as synthetic and expresses physics cannot be derived that way, which is understandable. Gauss and Riemann were after Kant so we can remove them from consideration. His claim is not entirely without merit given time of the piece, and the TD still can be used to eviscerate dogmatism, I suppose we can say he liberated the queen, but that could also make Kantian barbarian of sorts, except now bashing dogmatist queen head in.

>>23523509
>He mentions time as queen
He is not talking about time. The Queen is Metaphysics.

>>23523509
>expresses physics cannot be derived that way
Kant believed in a priori physics.

>>23523409
Praise be upon him, the one true kantposter.

>>23523515
As long as some queen is getting her head bashed in, whatever has a crown is worthwhile.

>>23523518
He said physics was partially a priori.

>>23523328
Okay, but isn't Kant empirical because his brain had to do metaphysics?

>>23523561
>his brain had to do metaphysics
oh you mean his empirically real althoughbeit transcendentally ideal brain? that brain?

>tfw when you realize critical philosophy is speculative philosophy