[ 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: 8 KB, 225x225, 1552858599949.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12790540 No.12790540[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Who/what is the transcendental ego?

>> No.12790582

Speaking transcendentally, it is the transcendental (i.e., descriptive, not constitutive) "fact" that consciousness appears to us under the condition of a unity

Speaking constitutively, which Kant did not want people to do, it's basically the soul, but with its actual essence grounded out in inaccessible (i.e., to human cognition) noumenal reality, and only visible to itself under the conditions of transcendental logic, i.e., as the necessary unity of apperception and through inner intuition (which is not intellectual self-intuition)

To Fichte and his successors, it is accessible, but through a different sort of intellectual intuition which is NOT a conceptual or determinate form of apprehension (i.e., it is "intuition" without being "intellectual," in the Kantian sense, though Fichte does call it "intellectual intuition")

>> No.12790807

Reminder there is no such thing as noumenal reality or things-in-themselves.

>> No.12790813

>>12790807
prove it

>> No.12790827

>>12790807
>there is no distinction between how I experience reality and how it really is.

>> No.12790849

>>12790807
Thank you for this.

>>12790807
LOL okay, prove there's something out there which you can never know of in the first place or experience in any way.

>>12790827
Experience is reality.

>> No.12790869

>>12790849
>>12790827
Experience logically entail a series of conditions of possibility that include thing-in-themselves.

At least, that's what Kant would say.

>> No.12790886

>>12790869
I humbly disagree, but I respect his independent positions and your acting as a faithful translator for them :)

>> No.12790888

>>12790849
>Experience is reality.
Are you an objectivist or a subjective idealist? I need to know this so I know what arguments I should make.

>> No.12790893

>>12790540
Kant, Emmanuel. Loathe him

>> No.12791007

>>12790888
The first one, if that's what Plato would be considered. Not a Berkeleyan at all. I look forward to possibly having my views changed.

>> No.12791172

>>12791007
If you are platonist then you'd agree with that there is a difference between reality and how reality appears considering the whole form thing.

>> No.12791209

>>12791172
Well I'm not sure how my views align to Platonism exactly, but I'll say that any conceptual reality we can ever speak of we can only do so by it's connection to ourselves. Perhaps there is such a realm out there beyond our minds, but the abstracts we know - ex. number, can only be known by our minds, and if numbers have a noumenal-dimension to them it would still have to be somehow connected to the mental object we know as "numbers" in the first place. You can't speak of something you have no knowledge of to speak of, so anything we could describe as noumenal must have a mental component to itself as well. And I'm not sure what value there is in the concept of noumena, if neither the existence of such a thing allows itself to be known, by nature, nor could it ever affect our dealings in any way.

>> No.12791269
File: 571 KB, 900x750, 1527491086147.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12791269

"The world is my representation."

>> No.12791366
File: 391 KB, 500x508, 1535359028107.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12791366

Me

>> No.12791367

>>12790827
There is no "how it really is".

>> No.12791503

>>12791209
I don't think I need to argue with you as you already get the kantian concept of noumena.
>>12791367
YIKES

>> No.12791568

>>12791503
But didn't Kant include the very objects in front of us as being appearances too, and having noumena to them? That part I disagree with completely.

>> No.12791582

>>12791568
Well appearance is caused by the noumenal world, but any statement about the noumenal world is meaningless, as we can only know about the interaction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal, not the noumenal in itself.

>> No.12791623

>>12790540
I don't know what Kant really meant by that but to me it seems to be equivalent to buddhi in Indian philosophy.

>> No.12792334
File: 26 KB, 360x360, 322894.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12792334

>>12790807
based redpilled and checked
i am also an ontological nihilist too. 'being' only manifests itself by perception. identity only 'exists' by a coupling of sameness and difference. the fundamental identity of reality is pure nothingness, ontological (in the information theoretic notion of ontology) potential. nothing be my god

>> No.12792580

>>12790807
t. NPC