CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON DISCUSSION THREAD

[Anonymous No.12462499]

How do we know concepts? Do concepts come from intuition?

[Anonymous No.12462510]

you can't know nuffin

[Anonymous No.12462516]

>>12462499
Fuck off. Lit is not the place for philosophy. It is full of wrongheaded, cocksure dabblers who've never read more than two pages of any philosopher or understood more than half a sentence. I am an exception, but I won't discuss philosophy for those very reasons. Consult SEP for your philosophical questions.

[Anonymous No.12462529]

>>12462516
I need someone to dumb it down for me, retard. SEP has the tendency to be as difficult to understand as the primary work itself, especially regarding Kant.

[Anonymous No.12462554]

>>12462499
>How
Wrong question.

[Anonymous No.12462570]

>>12462516
t. pleb who got btfo'd once and never got over it

[Anonymous No.12462636]

bump

[Anonymous No.12462895]

bumpp

[Anonymous No.12462919]

>>12462499
Why does it matter?

[Anonymous No.12462920]

>>12462499
got this book for my birthday 12 years ago - still can't understand it or get past the first page

[Anonymous No.12462945]

>>12462499
something something categories. something something manifold. something something synthetic unity.

[Anonymous No.12462964]

>>12462945
>>12462920
>>12462919
Maybe this retard>>12462516 is correct. Maybe /lit/ is a board full of retards who pretend to be smarter than they actually are.

[Anonymous No.12462966]

whats the big fucking problem with our Verstandbegriffe (kategorien/categories) correlating exactly to the categories which make up the world; as in perhaps by God as augustinus believed bestowed in all things and in us to understand. (does he simply not like the answers that might be drawn from this?)
Why is it necessary that these categories are selbstgedacht (self-thought /taught?); wouldnt that leave up the question as to how the categories were possible to have been thought off by our Verstand (understanding, idk how it is translated)?
I haven't gotten further than the Analytic of Terms(?)/ die Analytik der Begriffe, so I don't really doubt that Kant won't at some point elaborate on this further than one page of quickly mentioning this, to refute the sceptics.

I also find it impossible to question what he says, whcih leaves me with incredible doubt because even if this is the greatest work of western philosophy, it seems as though Kant, didn't just come up with the accurate understanding of reason but he never makes mistakes or exaggerations. I feel like I am being revealed what is unquestionably true.

[Anonymous No.12463015]

>>12462499
>>12462966
No, Kant's reversal of perception and conception is his foundational error. Demolish that and you undo the totality of the man.

[Anonymous No.12463016]

>>12462964
Or maybe we are the very best our generation had to offer but grown in an age of laziness and depravity, without strife or real goal to work towards to; maybe we are the lost sons of history, without chance to ever do anything really great because the spirit of courage and conquest is now dead and long forgotten by many.

Or maybe not and we are all a bunch of autists, it's more probable yeah

[Anonymous No.12463024]

How do I get into Kant? I can't really start with Critique, can I?

[Anonymous No.12463033]

>>12463024
>can I
start with "Warum alle Neger stinken"

[Anonymous No.12464370]

>>12462499
The categories are fundamentally unknowable since they are themselves the condition for all possible knowledge, to fundamentally know an object the categories must be applied which changes the object of knowledge, so if you were to know the categories you would have to apply the categories in knowing them which changes the object of knowledge, rendering them unknowable. Just have to take them as something given

[Anonymous No.12464633]

>>12462516
SEP?

[Anonymous No.12464637]

>>12462499
A PRIORI A PRIORI A PRIORI

[Anonymous No.12464643]

>>12464370
what.

[Anonymous No.12464667]

>>12464643
He means that the categories are the grounding for the categories. This is where Hegel got the tendency to bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12464808]

>>12463024
Start with Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic, it is a much more understandable digestion of the main ideas, he wrote it for normies after nobody understood the Critique.

[Anonymous No.12465307]

Why fo people read this autist? jordan peterson of midlle ages....

[Anonymous No.12465320]

>>12464667
but they aren't self-grounding; they are derived from the table of (possible) judgments

[Anonymous No.12465357]

>>12462499
Is there any reason for someone somewhat well-read in Phenomenology to read this? Every book I’ve read so far makes Kant sound ridiculously convoluted in some ways and overly simplistic in others (and autistic in all).

[Anonymous No.12465366]

>>12462499
Why would I answer these when theyre in the book? I dont have the answers at the ready because that shit was a slog to get through. Im not convinced that anyone other than Kant specialists and legit autists can conversationally remember Kant’s arguments to speak beyond platitudes in casual conversation. If this is some sort of quiz who the fuck died and made you my undergrad TA?If you didnt comprehend it from the text, why not pick up Bennett’s guide? It’s immensley more comprehensible than a shitpost on /lit/. What did you think you would accompolish by making this thread OP?

[Anonymous No.12465372]

>>12465320
"Principles a priori are so named not merely because they contain in themselves the grounds of other judgements, but also because they are not themselves grounded in higher and more universal cognitions", the categories are the minimal standards by which we can then proceed to make synthetic judgements, they have no grounding outside of themselves, they are the starting point for all knowledge about anything

[Anonymous No.12465406]

>>12462920
damn, not even 24 hours out of the womb and your parents were already expecting you to read Kant. Also, reported.

[Anonymous No.12465446]

>>12465320
That was a stupid thing to write, I apologize. It's truer to say, despite what I personally think of the categories, that in his mind the categories cannot be applied to the categories. We can't analyze a "pure category" of unity, for example, unless we apply the category of unity to the concept of unity, which would treat the category as an object of itself.

I do think he says that the pure categories theoretically exist, but that they are useless in the cognition of objects. Although it's been a while since I read the First Critique, I'm skimming a bad translation of the second edition at the moment

[Anonymous No.12465653]

>>12465372
what translation is that from? it's all over the place, using different words for the same german term. this isn't a mark against you or anything, it's just like--what?
anyway, so, sure, the categories of the understanding are not grounded in other, more abstract categories, nor in any universal judgment. but they *are* determined by the *form* of (what kant understands to be) any possible judgment. so judgment and category are, i guess, 'parallel', in the sense that they are not separable; yet, even so, as the categories *are* derived from the forms of possible judgments, judgment itself seems to be ontologically prior. This makes intuitive sense as well--ain't nothing to judge without no capacity for judgement.
>>12465446
not stupid, i'm swinging blind here, too. haven't read the thing in over eight years, and my copy's in storage.

[Anonymous No.12465918]

>>12462516
DAB?

[Anonymous No.12465952]

>>12465307
9/10

[Anonymous No.12466316]

>>12462570
Haha, exactly this... Actual pseuds don't bother him because they can't threaten his assumptions.

[Anonymous No.12466365]

>>12465372
Those minimal standards (pure intuitions) are very limited though... It's really just space, time and the indisputable fact of existence. Everything else must be constructed via observation. It's a good insight, but I think Kant made too much hay out of it.

[Anonymous No.12466483]

>>12466365
i'm sorry, but please shut up

[Anonymous No.12466499]

>>12463015
Nigga according to kant you first percieve and then concept but perception has some qualities inherent in the aparatus of perception. If you take a picture with a 2D camera theb the picture will be 2D

[Anonymous No.12466501]

>>12463015
Fuck you brainlet

[Anonymous No.12466706]

>>12466483
Prove me wrong oh learned one.

[Anonymous No.12466744]

>>12466706
there's nothing to prove wrong, you're confused about a number of things
1) space and time are not 'pure intuitions' but rather the *form* of intuition, pure or not.
2) 'the indisputable fact of existence' is also not a 'pure intuition'. no fact can be exhibited a priori. nor would kant accede to a naive realism such as this phrasing suggests.
3) the faculty of intuition is distinct from the faculty of the understanding. the categories--which is what the poster you were responding to was referring to with the term 'minimal standards'--are, i guess you could say, functions of the faculty of understanding, not that of intuition.
>oh learned one
you've dropped the meme arrow faggotry, but i know exactly who you are.

[Anonymous No.12466764]

>>12462516

[Anonymous No.12466784]

>>12465918
Kant dabs on Hume

[Anonymous No.12466801]

>I've been meaning to ask you /lit/, where do you get your concepts from?

[Anonymous No.12466899]

>>12466499
So? That certain quantities are inherent to our perception (space/time) does not prove or even strongly imply that anything transcendental is going on. The man believed in god and free will and tied himself into categorical knots attempting to square those notions with the empirical.

He didn't demonstrate that there's a concrete schism between the phenomenal and noumenal, nor between mind and reality, nor that actual concepts (abstractions of perception) can form a priori. He did demonstrate the apodicticity of some fundamental logic, but then fallaciously extended that paradigm to more complex abstractions.

[Anonymous No.12466916]

>>12466899
seriously, shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.12466932]

>>12466899
This is the worst reading of Kant I've ever come across, did you skim across a Very Short Introduction or something?

[Anonymous No.12466953]

>>12466744
1. "Pure intuition consequently contains merely the form under which something is intuited..." --Immanuel Kant

2.I would argue that the brute fact of existence is the only self-evident fact. If you can perceive at all, then you and everything you perceive must exist in some form. It does require experience (being awake), but then so do all of our supposedly 'a priori' intuitions.

3.Fair enough, that anon did suggest that these 'standards' were very fundamental though, which seems more in line with intuition. I would say that the categories are at least a little bit abstract, and so can't be the true starting point of knowledge.

Obviously you don't know who I am, because I never use 'meme arrows'.

[Anti-/lit/ !N4bnZoKwfU No.12466955]

Nobody in this thread has read Critique of Reason.

Shame. Shame.


Shame


Cringe

[Anonymous No.12466964]

>>12466916
>>12466932

Why are you in this thread if you won't share your well-honed understanding?

[Anonymous No.12466971]

>>12466953
Pure intuition--as a faculty; that is, the capacity to intuit prior to the introduction of any empirical 'data'.
You don't even know what it is you're reading, what it actually means.
Everything else in your post is worthless, just an opinion. It's far too late to get into the reasons Kant felt compelled to mount a 'critique of pure reason'. You aren't interested, anyway, so what would be the point? You have your little box of borrowed certainties. Go play, boy.

[Anonymous No.12466991]

>>12466971
Yes, space/time shape the form of our perception before we ever begin to perceive. I do understand, perhaps you do not.

That's funny, I'm the one with a 'box of borrowed certainties' when you're then one sucking the cock of authority. Yes, you're not intelligent enough to engage so you must dismiss. I understand.

[Anonymous No.12466995]

>>12466971
>Go play, boy.
cringe

[Anonymous No.12467043]

>>12466991
No, you don't understand, and it's clear that you don't from everything you've written. In this post, for instance, you're introducing an element of temporality in perception that is irrelevant to Kant's argument. And you don't even know what I could possibly mean by that.
>>12466995
...play: thy mother plays, and I
Play too, but so disgraced a part, whose issue
Will hiss me to my grave: contempt and clamour
Will be my knell. Go, play, boy, play.

[Anonymous No.12467055]

>>12462966

>whats the big fucking problem with our Verstandbegriffe (kategorien/categories) correlating exactly to the categories which make up the world

The problem is that you only ever see the world from your perspective, that is, in the way in which it was build into something you can experience by your categories. The only thing you can ever know is your experience and the way your mind structures it. Whether the world is ordered - or even there - is a question you cannot answer because everything you experience is build in relation to your own formal structures.
No one has solved this problem.

[Anonymous No.12467056]

>>12467043
Stop larping
>>12466991
Go to bed

[Anonymous No.12467059]

>>12464370

The categories are not concepts, read the book. Concepts are made possible by how the categories build experience (namely from the categories of relation)

[Anonymous No.12467072]

>>12467059
Wasn't answering OP's question, title of the thread seemed to permit general discussion

[Anonymous No.12467145]

>>12467043
Sure, and if I strike you down you'll become more powerful than I could possibly imagine.

I find your lack of specificity disturbing.

[Anonymous No.12467152]

>>12467056
Yes father.

[Anonymous No.12467180]

>>12467055
Exactly, no one has solved that problem -- including Kant. It doesn't matter anyhow, because an expectation of perfect knowledge is both unreasonable and unnecessary. It's not much of a problem really, just a technical uncertainty which has no practical bearing on the predictive effectiveness of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.12467529]

>>12467059
Are you sure? They seem like abstractions upon more basic intuitions.

Intuition of space -- concepts of quantity
Intuiton of time & space -- concept of causality

Existence is a valid non-conceptual category, as any perception at all implies existence... But the others are more ambiguous. The 'quality' category appears highly conceptual... Trope theory argues strongly that there isn't even such a thing as 'quality', and when someone perceives an attribute I don't think any notion of quality vs. quantity is inherent to that perception.