[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 220x317, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11647685 No.11647685 [Reply] [Original]

Has there ever been a more autistic concept than the "thing-in-itself"

>> No.11647695

>>11647685
does anyone here want to take a crack at explaining what kant meant by this for us brainlets?

>> No.11647715

>>11647695
you only see things through a lense (senses, consciousness) the thing-in-itself is how things are and not how things are perceived. But it’s constituted of unknowable elements, because knowledge comes through the senses.

or something like that. I wouldn’t know lol I’m not a fag

>> No.11647731

>>11647695
The structures of consciousness constitute the object

>> No.11647815

>>11647685
He means that the Caramilk Secret TM is unknowable. And thus you are eating the TM which is also unknowable, and thus you are revalorised as the thing in itself outside of itself, and thus capital's invariance of the thing outside of itself once again becomes the thing in itself: (You).

>> No.11647822

>>11647815
>(You)
which is inexhaustible.

>> No.11647832

>>11647715
>>11647731
>>11647815
makes perfect sense to me, i dont see how this is 'autistic'

>> No.11647835

>>11647685
what one film independent of two people's completely different opinions about it

it doesn't actually exist "out there" according to kant, it's just what's presupposed for there to be a variance of perspective

>> No.11647837

>>11647715
It is basically this. That we are veiled by our own consciousness and never interact directly with noumena. We only interact with things as they appear, and not as they are.

>> No.11647847

>>11647685
we had a good thread yesterday with great write ups by one or two anons but ofc it got slided and died, contrary to a thread about the smell of man's piss. great job /lit/.

>> No.11647851

>>11647837
zizek inverts this by saying what things are is just what they appear as

the cave is all there is

>> No.11647858

>>11647731
>>11647715
So basically how the thing is objectively without being observed?

>> No.11647862

>>11647858
not just that, but the fact that consciousness represents a pre-representational medium. the question is where the link happens

>> No.11647871

>>11647851
I can touch Marx-adjacent or tangential thinkers like Foucault, but people like Zizek I have a hard time wanting to read. Read some Adorno and Eagleton in grad school and it really soured my open mind on it.

I've not actually read Zizek seriously. If I haven't liked any direct Marx lineage thinkers, would he actually be good? I'm intrigued because I like some of his essays but "the cave is all there is" seems like insanely unsound argumentation. I'm not sure how one circumvents phenomenology or deconstruction, both of which imo make such material statements impossible to make in good faith.

>> No.11647877

What's autistic about it? It (was) one of the main problems of philosophy until Kant solved it

>> No.11647887

>>11647851
>>11647871
He's just referring to Hegel. Read Hegel instead

>> No.11647892

>>11647832
Autistic when referred to concepts is always code-word for "thing I don't get because too complicated for my brain".

>> No.11647927

>>11647877
kant didn't solve it, he inaugurated it

>> No.11647942

>>11647685
It's not autistic, it's just futile.

>> No.11647954

>>11647715
Isn’t it similar to what Plato meant by his Theory of Forms?

>> No.11647965

>>11647954
no, because for plato intelligibility participates in a supersensible principle, in kant intelligibility is just the function of the synthesizing faculty of consciousness. plato thinks there's a backstage, etc.

>> No.11648072

>>11647965
So Plato has a happy ending while Kant dosen't ? Since at least with Plato you can actually perceive things as they really are when your body and soul get separated, while with Kant you never get to experience things truly. Am i understanding this correctly ?

>> No.11648105

>>11648072
yes plato believed appearances provided access to their Beyond in/through their formal qualities, beauty was always a door you could walk through just because it is beauty, kant denies we have access to anything other than the fact we don't have access. if my consciousness is an apparatus that inputs = x and spits out experience then I can never understand = x prior in terms of experience

>> No.11648107

>>11647858
objectivity is just convention

>> No.11648126

>>11647965
But isn’t consciousness a mere lense and, therefore, limited like other senses?

>> No.11648135

>>11648126
yes that's what kant says, with one important caveat: consciousness is limit as such, nothing outside can be made explicable because it is itself the condition of explicability

>> No.11648375

>>11647837
>we are veiled by our own consciousness and never interact directly with noumena.
I've directly interacted with your mum's noumena

>> No.11648430
File: 1.54 MB, 230x230, nani.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648430

>>11647685
Autistic? Thats one of the most normie concepts there is. Its the stereotype of the ignorant masses since Plato, thinking they have perfect access to the thing in front of them, without question

Autistic is skepticism, and Kant was responding to Hume, a skeptic

>> No.11648450

>>11647877
Because it's absolutely pointless. If something exists outside our reality then it is completely useless to us.

>> No.11648491

>>11648375
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>> No.11648500
File: 88 KB, 409x600, 1490189386359.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648500

Why do people still discuss this hack when he was btfo'd by his own contemporaries within like 10 years of releasing the Critique of Pure Reason?

>> No.11648553
File: 67 KB, 420x414, empiricus111617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11648553

>>11648430
>autistic is skepticism
prove it

>> No.11648613

>>11647851
>implying zizek thought of this
See Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc

>> No.11649942

>>11647685
Seems like a truism to me. We can’t know the nature of the world as it is in itself independent from us. Amazing insight!

>> No.11650537

>>11647685
>writes thousands of pages to reinvent the golden rule and "muh you can't know what things are like outside of what you know about them"

>> No.11650764

>>11647715
If that accurately captures what Kant meant by this, it's pretty understandable. Well said, anon.

>> No.11650776

>>11647832
It's very technical, I guess.

>> No.11650796

>>11647892
I take a more charitable view than that. To me Autistic means "Wow someone took the time to think about something in such an oddly specific way". It can be jarring to plebs.

>> No.11652050

>>11647685
See I keep reiterating this shit over & over about kant his whole theory of noumenon is bullshit because it presupposes that it consists of noumena which are apparently differentiable even though differentiation is after perception... maybe he's right, as many were, in saying there is a 'thing-in-itself' but what all these people aren't seeing is that any thing-in-itself has to be uniform, there's no logic to the noumenal world in the sense that there is in the phenomenal one i.e multiplicity... logic in the objective reality only exists as logic could in a total unity, in god... as a painting in the mind of the painter. Where's the painting before it hits the canvas? It isn't anywhere, it isn't anything but the totality of the one who imagines it...
The will, the thing-in-itself... none of these german losers really understand the implications of such concepts.

>> No.11652103

>>11647695
How is the noumena vs phenomena distinction difficult?

>>11647965
Based Plato giving a complete metaphysical system rather than brainlet Kant's "mind just exists lol."