/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16218215]

>Transcendental deduction
what THE fuck was that?

[Anonymous No.16218228]

>>16218215
tough to say

[Anonymous No.16218269]

Shit you don't understand and few others have any business trying. Philosophy texts are often obfuscated to confuse to throw off non-philosophers. To get Kant you better have your shit together because it does get worse from there on. Kierkegaard can sometimes be more challenging, perhaps Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche. The sheer level of abstract thought is enough to make smoothbrains want to kill themselves. Philosophy is a dirty fucker to contend with no matter your intelligence and Schoppy often said that philosophical texts have to be fought through to grasp them.

Kant wanted to argue against empiricism with a priori concepts having bearing on our knowledge as opposed to just experience (I think). It's a mean bitch to wrestle with and old Kanty had a mind to tackle it with.

[Anonymous No.16218359]

>>16218215
Kant's big idea is that if all people say something is right, then it is right. Performativity is literally the pinnacle of the so called enlightened bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.16218488]

>>16218359
Yes, apart from the fact that he never said this

[Anonymous No.16219214]

>>16218269
>it gets worse from there
The only part of the book worse than the Deduction is the Schema (and arguably the amphiboly if you don't know your Leibniz), everything afterwards is pretty smooth sailing, especially the Dialectic.

[Anonymous No.16219225]

Doesn't the transcendental deduction beg the question?

[Anonymous No.16220055]

bump, because I know this is a good thread and it has potential--: by this command and excellent use of punctuation, hereby only intelligent remarks can be posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sken4RHX9FY

[Anonymous No.16220063]

>>16218215
You start with the possibility of experience then go back from that. What do you logically need for experience to be.

[Anonymous No.16220369]

>>16220063
Being?

[Anonymous No.16222195]

>>16218359
retard

[Anonymous No.16222205]

the most based chapter in western philosophy

[Anonymous No.16222208]

>>16222205
based

[Anonymous No.16222520]

>>16218359
he literally rejected exactly this.

[Anonymous No.16222643]

>>1621821
Basically the arguments that he used to justify space and time exist independently of the empirical experience in our mind, transcendental because he deduces it from not experience, but from our ability to experience ourselves (what he calls space and time a priori ), and from there he builds the transcendental idealism extrapolating that space and time aren't the only thing that exists and creates our minds, but also scientifical statements (aristotelic concepts of judgement), who cames from a conjugation of our a priority capacity and our empirical experience (and with this he absorbed the dialect between empirism and rationalism, and over all he btfo of sceptical empirists)

[Anonymous No.16222685]

>>16218359
No, his idea was that all humans have inherent mind properties, and cause this is why is possible the scientific knowledge (he parts from the fact that science exists (he acknowledged Newton physics)), and he proceed to justify why it is objectively right and proceeded to refutate all the senseless that Hume followers spit about the impossibility of science

So yeah, if you don't read Kant books or historical context you can't misunderstand him

[Anonymous No.16222690]

>>16222685
can* lol

[Anonymous No.16222778]

>>16222205
true

[Anonymous No.16222956]

>>16219225
Not really. To prove the claims, all one needs to do is try to imagine not having a synthetic unity of apperception. That's the advantage of transcendental arguments - to try to prove something is a condition of the possibility of thought or experience, all you need to do is try to imagine thinking or experiencing without those things to see if the claim is true. Try thinking without a synthetic unity of apperception or imagining anything sensuously perceptible without time and space. So to argue that the synthetic unity of apperception is a condition of the possibility of thought, yes you have to assume you are thinking but to think you aren't thinking would violate the law of noncontradiction. Then why is the synthetic unity of apperception justify the pure concepts of the understanding? Because they are nothing but manners of organizing the manifold of sensory experience under the synthetic unity of apperception, so they're conditions of the possibility of discursive thought.

The genius of the transcendental deduction is it does what foundationalists try to do but doesn't lead to a foundationalist conclusion because it carefully separates transcendental knowledge from metaphysical or ontological knowledge. Foundationalists (including empiricists) have to beg the question when they claim ontological knowledge follows from their foundation, because their foundation has to assume the ontological knowledge their conclusions do. But transcendental knowledge does not claim even to be knowledge of what the subject is in itself, only what it necessarily is for itself. I hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.16223306]

>>16219225

Nigga yo mom begs the question no cap

[Anonymous No.16223846]

>>16222205
That would be the Transcendental Aesthetic, anon

[Anonymous No.16223858]

>>16222956
Good post

[Anonymous No.16223882]

>>16218228
stop posting this thot

[Anonymous No.16225032]

>>16223846
Having already digested the Prolegomena I could just blitz through the Transcendental Aesthetic, but the Transcendental Deduction needed a lot more chewing over

[Anonymous No.16225491]

>>16218215
Essentially what you get when the most based and the highest iq is put in one body