/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11748098]

In The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant squared the circle of idealism (which held that we could know reality as it really was) and empiricism (which held that we could only know what we experienced) by reasoning that though we couldn’t know the thing-in-itself, we could know our inability to know it.

[Anonymous No.11748177]

>>11748098
>there are people who unironically think this is profound

[Anonymous No.11749198]

>>11748098
Did he though? How is Kant certain of the existence of the noumenal if we don't have access to it?

Empiricism is still the boss. You pragmatically accept the technical uncertainty (yet predictive power) of induction and note that deductive knowledge depends upon the experience of natural properties like logical consistency and distinctness.

[Anonymous No.11749213]

>>11748098
That man is not Kant

[Anonymous No.11750003]

>when Das Ding reveals its an sich

[Anonymous No.11750055]

>>11749198
>How is Kant certain of the existence of the noumenal if we don't have access to it?

With Reason, that there is a world beyond sense which is something the mind kind of indicates when experiencing the sublime.

[Anonymous No.11750111]

>>11748098
So,

Idealism: we know what we know

Empiricism: we know what we don't know

Kant: we know that we don't know what we don't know

Hegel: ?

[Anonymous No.11750184]

>this is the greatest philosopher of all time