/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13010413]

Does anybody take Kants ideas of the mind seriously anymore?

Given the critique is from 1781, I do imagine the answer is "no, not really". So that "out of the way", whatever remains of the idea that there are syntectic a priori nsights at all?

Thirdly, assuming syntectic a priori is indeed a void class, what remains valuable from the critique as text (as opposed to its historical impact)?

[Anonymous No.13010423]

What the fuck is this and where is it coming from? This is the 20th thread on Kant in the past few days after zero in about two years. Was it mentioned on TV, was Juden Peterson shilling it? And do tell me that organically a bunch of people here suddenly got interested in "phenomenology."

[Anonymous No.13010463]

>>13010423
retard

[Anonymous No.13010471]

>>13010423
Donno bro, I'm not responsible for any other Kant threads.
I suppose my route comes from reading into German Idealism recently and also to get into the cypher capitalist shit, which supposedly ties back to it.

I read the first 150 pages of the critique about 10 years ago but stopped at his characterization of time and space as innate to the human mind.

[Anonymous No.13010472]

>>13010423
>after zero in about two years
there have been constant Kant threads on this board since I can remember

[Anonymous No.13010614]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/#1

[Anonymous No.13010628]

>is this idea good?
>checks expiration date
literal retard coming through

[Anonymous No.13010666]

>So that "out of the way", whatever remains of the idea that there are syntectic a priori nsights at all?
Since Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, which attacked the analytic-synthetic distinction, this particular idea isn't all that fashionable.
>Thirdly, assuming syntectic a priori is indeed a void class, what remains valuable from the critique as text (as opposed to its historical impact)?
It's attack on pre-Kantian metaphysics and rationalism? The quest for the conditions for and limitations of knowledge in ordinary and ultimate things? Did you really think the synthetic a priori is all he talks about? Kant is one of the few thinkers whose influence in Western philosophy is as big as Plato and Aristotle. Philosophy after Kant is heavily concerned with responding to the guy, answering the question: "Ok, where do we go after Kant?"
>>13010423
lmfao

[Anonymous No.13010693]

>>13010413
The only reason to respond to this potential bait, likely idiocy is in case a wandering, still new anon is starting his journey on philosophy and literature. Critique from 1781 means irrelevancy? Is the Bible irrelevant? Is Plato irrelevant? Is Buddhism irrelevant? "SYNTECTIC?" What the fuck do you mean by void class? To anyone who has not read Kant and who still has hope: Start with the end of the first critique if you must: the discipline of pure reason. Re-read the prolegomena until you actually get a sense of what he's saying. Do not be like OP. Read before you judge.

[Anonymous No.13010721]

>>13010666
>Did you really think the synthetic a priori is all he talks about?
Wasn't implying that.

>>13010693
Why are you hostile?
I didn't claim "old means outdated", but I guess it's fair to say that the philosphy of the mind and also science/biologiy (as well as mathematics, that relates to this question) has been overworked again and again in the last 300 years.
I don't know what triggered you so much, but no it's not bait.

>What the fuck do you mean by void class?
That there would be no such thing.

[Anonymous No.13010790]

You have to distinguish between the really core concepts and the merely thematic "concepts" (images, discursive tropes or phrases) that make up a work. Kant's thematic ideas are pretty out of vogue, in that no one really argues about the "synthetic a priori" anymore (and it was already weird and unnecessary to do so in in Kripke's day, honestly). The last serious Kantians were the neo-Kantians and they were probably rightfully deconstructed, in their concern with Kant's thematic elements, at least, in the linguistic and ontological turns of the 20th century.

But the really core concepts underlying Kant are so taken for granted that they have practically become the bedrock of modern philosophy. This isn't just Kant's doing either. Part of why Kant is so influential and why he defines a watershed and an epoch in the history of Western philosophy is because he condensed these concepts, from their many variations and manifestations in the early modern period, and expressed them in singular and systematic form.

So no, nobody takes Kant's deduction of the categories very seriously anymore, but nobody took that seriously even in 1790 or 1810. And people are mostly too linguistically minded to think we can use an idea like an unproblematic, logical-phenomenological category of "synthetic a priori" judgments without presupposing too much. Hell, these days people would be afraid of using "judgment" without being careful to note that they are not referring to a metaphysically real function or faculty of the mind like the Judgment Centre.

But all that being said, Kant's basic concern with the problem of dualism, with Hume's problem of how we know our thoughts and language relates to reality, and even his concern with the possibility of certainty in deductive judgments (as opposed to merely "probable" judgments) are all still current, precisely because they are no less unsolved than they were in Kant's day, when they troubled Kant so much that he took them all up and tried to address them in a single framework.

If anything, we've actually regressed from Kant, because we are so discouraged by the death of certainty in logical deductions, and so thoroughly phenomenological and hermeneutic in our conception of mind, that we have mostly given up on doing true philosophy of mind.

[Anonymous No.13011343]

>>13010790
sounds good, thx

[Anonymous No.13011708]

>>13010790
I hate people who believe any linguistic word game horse shit ideas make philosophers like Kant irrelevant.
Kant obviously read plenty of Berkley (and leibniz-wolff) and he made a big deal about words and language, so implying Kant never thought of that is idiotic.
Maybe it says something that the smartest man who created the most pedantic system on the theory of knowledge, didn’t spent a single fucking second writing about language.
Only downy retards who are too retarded resort to the language issue.
No one is denying it, but therefore disavowing all efforts is so beyond an idiotic understanding of how we still use language is something truly only Anglos would harp on.
Kys faggot fuck, Kant was and still is right in +90% of what he wrote in his first Critique.