Kant

[Anonymous No.15192236]

Someone explain the Transcendental Logic to me in small boy terms i'm currently getting filtered hard. Transcendental Aesthetic was easy, but i don't get the Transcendental Logic at all.

[Anonymous No.15192243]

>>15192236
>in small boy terms
I like you OP.

[Anonymous No.15192248]

pls explain critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.15192257]

What you think actually isn't what you think. What you think is what you do. And what you do is what you feel. And what you feel is whatever you want to think.

[Anonymous No.15192459]

>>15192236
>>15192257
feels>reals

[Anonymous No.15192476]

>>15192459
Both stem from the same kategoria of being

[Anonymous No.15192478]

>>15192257
How does this help me become an alpha? Can you just skip to that part, I want to transcend

[Anonymous No.15192493]

>>15192478
just bee yourself ©

[Anonymous No.15192511]

>>15192478
Kant was beta as fuck man. A philosopher who promotes people to be alpha as fuck would be Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15192571]

>>15192236
alright nigga so basically you have pure intuitions of space and time n shit, space is your outer intuition and time is your inner intuition. but without the categories of understanding to make sense of objects, all the perceptions that make up an object is gonna be meaningless, you feel me? otherwise its just a manifold, like humes bundle theory, fo real nigga. So all that data needs to be held in a unity of consciousness, right, also known as the unity of apperception or whatever. unity of experience implies a unity of self, which is just as much an object of perception as the objects of perception themselves. now this is where shit gets cray, nigga: in order to experience anything at all, whether that is the object of the self or objects of perception, we need to rely on syntheses that are the conditions of any experience, but are not themselves experienced. Yall still with me bro? so those syntheses, prior to our experience, are only made possible by the categories, or the pure concepts of the understanding, nigga. These are like the rules that necessarily underly the possibility of experience, because they also underly the necessity of nature. real shit, bro. crazy shit.

[Anonymous No.15192647]

>>15192571
thank you

[Anonymous No.15192657]

>>15192511
Based post.

[Anonymous No.15192664]

>>15192571
Wrong!

[Anonymous No.15192687]

>>15192664
Please explain in the correct way

[Anonymous No.15192925]

>>15192257
Do you seriously think that you 'will' your feelings?

[Anonymous No.15192989]

>>15192571
so is this what he was talking about in the prolegomena, it seems familiar

[Anonymous No.15193005]

>>15192571
Those 'syntheses' are physical processes of our brains, not some faggy categories. By all means though, have fun autistically compartmentalizing experience and imagining dichotomies which don't exist.

[Anonymous No.15193157]

>>15193005
Shut the fuck up, midwit. OP wanted to know about kant's transcendental logic, so I explained it to him. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Kant. No one gives a shit about your "hurrr reductive materialism" here.

[Anonymous No.15193166]

>>15192989
I haven't read the proglomena, just the critiques. But I would assume so, yes.

[Anonymous No.15193180]

>>15192925
Kant did

[Anonymous No.15193196]

>>15193166
thank you very much, i'll re-read it with this in mind

[Anonymous No.15193403]

>>15192571

This is a brilliant post. It conveys the important general aspects of Kant's theory whilst not getting bogged down in minutia.

Hopefully people will appreciate the differences between Kant's unity of apperception and Descartes cogito.

[Anonymous No.15193588]

>>15193157
Yeah, you explained it to him. So what... The thread should just be locked now? No further discussion permitted?

Get fucked you faggot.

[Anonymous No.15193667]

>>15193180
Did he? How could anyone know if we don't experience the provenance of our feelings? Maybe it was just a pragmatic assumption.

[Anonymous No.15193676]

>>15193588
Maybe

[Anonymous No.15193679]

What are they transcending?

[Anonymous No.15193841]

>>15193679
Appearances.

[Anonymous No.15193875]

>>15192571
Based. I'm reading the critique currently and this was a great summation so far. I just got to the section on reason so this helps a ton anon.

[Anonymous No.15194061]

>>15192571
thank you. he trusted his own phenomenology. this is what sets you off on the wrong foot and causes you to end up in fucksville sounds like. Not a mistake we would make currently I think, see dennett.

[Anonymous No.15194064]

>>15193588
Okay, here's some discussion for ya:
>Those 'syntheses' are physical processes of our brains, not some faggy categories
What you said here sets up a dichotomy that isn't actually real. The beauty of kant's logic is that it doesn't necessarily go against the grain of the materialist position you're endorsing here. The unity of apperception (IE, self-consciousness) is only ever an appearance; this means we can only ever encounter the self as an appearance, and never the self as the thing-in-itself. So when Kant is speaking about the pure concepts/categories, etc. he is not saying anything at all about the actual physical processes that underlie cognition; what he is doing is describing how the self comes to know itself as an object of perception, and the precise rules which underly the way we come to know it. The fact that those categories (quantity, quality, relation and modality) conform to the laws of nature as we understand them only furthers the idea that your resistance to Kant's metaphysics is unsound.

What kant stresses is that we can never know the thing-in-itself, that is, we can never talk directly about the world of objects as they really exist beyond appearances. But that there is this correspondence between the categories and the laws of nature shows exactly why we can still talk about the relation between world and self without descending into solipsism on the one hand, or base materialism on the other. Kant is fucking based.

[Anonymous No.15194135]

>>15192478
>>15192511
learning Kant will give you a strong foundation for learning Hegel, who's philosophy is the peak of the german idealist movement and he was a Chad IRL

[Anonymous No.15194158]

intuition a priori gives stuff but hmhh how can stuff be in units and how can i think of it???
hmhh well lets look at how he engage in logical deductions involving units... if we abstract from the singular operations (think x -> y, remove the x and the y you got [ ] -> [ ]) does something stay there?

oh fuck... i gut a priori concepts for synthesis!!!!

ie if you abstract from the logical move x -> y you got [ ] -> [ ]... hmhh but what happens when we apply this form to actual experience? OwO!!!!!!!!! cause -> effect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15194189]

>>15192511
>Nietzsce=Alpha

Ye right buddy, "Im friendzoned but my will to power is strong, my will to love her allows me to kidnap her if no one has the will to stop me", alpha af shit

[Anonymous No.15194291]

>>15192236
/mVNUytg

[Anonymous No.15194621]

>>15194064
Not quite. Yes, his epistemology does leave room for a physicalist interpretation, but he didn't establish the certainty of universals and/or his transcendental ideals. Without such a certainty, I submit that empiricism (our only recourse) more strongly supports transcendental realism.

He does not prove that his categories are 'pure' or universal or truly discrete from eachother (so much for 'precise' rules). Nor does he demonstrate that we can't know anything of the thing-in-itself, only that we can't know it completely.

I don't object to Kant's basics (space/time as necessary conditions of experience, our limited perception), my resistance is to accepting his subsequent web of abstractions (his reach for the ideal) which are not likewise apodictic, nor convincingly demonstrated. There is no reason to accept his idealized schema as gospel just because he framed the basics well.

Those categories don't conform to the laws of nature. There is absolutely no evidence of a concrete thing that is 'quality'.

[Anonymous No.15195086]

>>15194189
>fucking random vaginas is alpha
That's where Nietzsches alphaness comes in, you "letzter Mensch".
Create some beauty, you disgusting hedonistic nigger; -- or fucking die

[Anonymous No.15195520]

>>15195086
nothing more über than spending time calling people on the internet letzter

[Anonymous No.15195662]

>>15195520
I would never call my behaviour "Über".
But I surely know which is "Letzter"

Learn how to argue, disgusting Guter und Gerechter

[Anonymous No.15195675]

>>15195662
arguing is for broad noses

[Anonymous No.15195680]

>>15195675

[Anonymous No.15195724]

>>15192571
this

Or easier said:

We need a priori categories (time and space) to understand shit.

[Anonymous No.15195907]

>>15195724
time and space are not categories, they are intuitions. Get your shit together.

[Anonymous No.15197018]

>>15194621
>There is absolutely no evidence of a concrete thing that is 'quality'.
"Quality" is in reference to a logical quality (not a concrete thing) about the kind of statements that can be made about the object in question. He breaks it down into three answers– Affirmation, negation and limited affirmation. The question of the thing-in-itself falls into the last category, because we can say it exists, but only to the extent that we can apprehend an appearance of it. The same goes for the unity of apperception, IE. the self only knows the self as an appearance. But I can say the categories of the understanding conform to nature (although Kant would say it the other way around) because they literally do, because a "thing" can only be in three states of existence (to our knowledge): really existent, non-existent or potentially (limited) existent. It can only be one of these things, and that is its "quality". Although we are still caught in appearances, we can think about the world of objects in exactly the same way with think about the object of the self.