Kant categories of understanding

[Anonymous No.15927060]

Kant mentions that his 12 Categories are fundamental ones but there derivatives and it's possible to create full genealogy of derivative categories. However he said it's not his purpose at the time.
I wonder were there any attempts at this, maybe someone can point me to the right direction? Any examples of derivatives of categories?

[Anonymous No.15927066]

That's not a picture of Kant, retard.

[Anonymous No.15927074]

>>15927066
That is indeed a picture of Kant, stop spreading rumors. The man himself came to me in a dream in precisely this shape and told me this is his actual appearance and all other paintings are fabrications. Now you autistic fags can shut the fuck up about it in every Kant thread.

[Anonymous No.15927085]

Sounds like Husserl's transcendental phenomenology

[Anonymous No.15927090]

>>15927074
Kant was an ugly goblin creature just like you

[Anonymous No.15927095]

>>15927090
Cope and projection. I am the personified Chad and so is Kant.

[Anonymous No.15927107]

>>15927074
This testimony should be put in wikipedia.
As to your question, why even bother? Their number is potentially indefinite.You can decompose any notion to these categories.

[Anonymous No.15927250]

>>15927066
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.15927269]

Any pre-requisite to reading cunt

[Anonymous No.15927274]

>>15927269
Of course:
>Descartes (Meditations, Principles of Philosophy, optionally the Discourse on Method)
>Locke (not super necessary for Kant)
>Berkeley (Kant makes a number of arguments against him)
>Spinoza (read his Ethics and maybe Tractatus)
>Leibniz (very important for Kant, make sure you have read the Monadology and his other essays on metaphysics)
>Hume (again very important, you should at minimum read his Enquiry Into Human Understanding)
To start with Kant read the Prolegomena and Critique of Pure Reason, after that you can do whatever interests you but typically you would want to finish the Critical trilogy to get the full picture of Kantian philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15927281]

>>15927085
Thanks, it's in my todo. Another question is there something that Kant really got wrong? Are there some serious fundamental critisisms, not misunderstandings (e.g. that new geometry systems disproves Kant aestetics)?

[Anonymous No.15927283]

>>15927274
If you want to autistically prepare for Kant then you should also read Baumgarten's metaphysics and Kant's own Lectures on Metaphysics before the Critique. But neither of these are really necessary pre-reqs, although they can be valuable resources for understanding Kantian metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15927295]

>>15927281
Yes Kant was wrong on a number of topics, but none of these really disprove his core philosophy imo. There are a lot of other philosophers who have critiques Kant: Frege, Deleuze, Maimon, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Jacobi etc... I tend to find the Maimon/Deleuze critique to be very interesting and would definitely recommend reading both to challenge what you take from the Critique.

[Anonymous No.15927323]

>>15927295
Thanks, didn't have Maimon/Deleuze in my list, I will check them out.

[Anonymous No.15927549]

>>15927060
What would be the point? In abstracting further away from fundamentals, you would inevitably introduce confounding assumptions and false dichotomies. The philosophical value of the categories lies in their ostensibly fundamental nature.

[Anonymous No.15927761]

>>15927549
You would not be abstracting but opposite - learning more concrete and detailed means the mind uses to understand the world.