/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16592975]

Kant is wrong in his Critique. Space and Time aren't Transcendentally Ideal.

[Anonymous No.16593000]

>>16592975
I had to stop reading him because of this shit

[Anonymous No.16593012]

>>16592975
NO KANT IS WRONG BECAUSE HE POSITS A FUCKING ""TRANSCENDENTAL"" SUBJECT WITH CATEGORIES LIKE SOME PRELOADED FUCKING IPHONE IN THE SKY SINCE HE WAS STILL POISONED BY THE BRAINLETISM OF KEKTIANITY. HE STILL BELIEVED IN GOD AND BUILT.HIS DEAD PHILOSOPHY ON THAT DEAD FAITH.

KANT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED WHOLESALE AND A SCHIZO-ANALYZED DETERRITORIALIZED-SUBJECT INTRODUCED AS FOUNDING RHIZOMATIC LINES OF FLIGHT INTO ANTI-CAPITAL ZONES OF INTENSITY

[Anonymous No.16593025]

>>16593012
Reads like Deleuzian schizo shit. Keep seething, I disagree with Kant but his thought created one of the coolest schools of Philosophy in existence. German Idealism.

[Anonymous No.16593030]

Space and time are a priori

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.16593036]

@16593012
why do dumb accfaggots all post exactly the same?

[Anonymous No.16593064]

>>16593012
>imagine getting KEK filtered any year outside 2016

[Anonymous No.16593070]

>>16593030
Umm no they aren't. Einstein BTFO'd Kant in this aspect.

[Anonymous No.16593073]

>>16593012
Reminder that Deleuze was a Kantian and you should read a book

[Anonymous No.16593111]

>>16593070
How's that, anon?

[Anonymous No.16593120]

>>16593111
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genrel-early/#KantNeoKantInte

[Anonymous No.16593139]

>>16593120
did you read the entry anon?
>As will be seen, it enabled Cassirer, some ten years later, to view even the general theory of relativity as a striking confirmation of the fundamental tenets of transcendental idealism. In 1910, however, Cassirer’s brief but diffuse discussion of “the problem of relativity” mentions neither the principle of relativity nor the light postulate nor the names of Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski. Rather it centers on the question of whether space and time are aggregates of sense impressions or “independent intellectual (gedankliche) forms”. Having decided in favor of the latter, Cassirer goes on to argue how and why these ideal mathematical presuppositions are necessarily related to measurable, empirical notions of space, time, and motion (1910: 228–9 [1923: 172–3]).

[Anonymous No.16593155]

>>16593120
You've linked to a section on neo-Kantians whose "revisionist tendency greatly transforms the meaning of Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic." This doesn't seem to support your assertion that Einstein BTFO'd kant on the subject of space and time being a priori. Maybe you can support this some other way.

[Anonymous No.16593156]

>>16593070
I've always thought relativity vindicated Kantianism. Don't get too hung up on Euclidean vs Riemannian.

[Anonymous No.16593182]

>>16593036
because they need to take their meds

[Anonymous No.16593184]

>>16593139
Are you serious dude? If we want to play this game no theory has ever been refuted because their is someone who believes they countered it with an argument. I mean Sam Harris says that he solved the Is-Ought gap so I guess he did. Cassirer is a brainlet of the highest order who still believed and tried to argue that Space and time where "independent intellectual forms" even when General relativity Empirically disproves this.

[Anonymous No.16593198]

>>16593155
>NeoKantians have to revision your philosophy to adapt to your theory of relativity
I don't know man that sounds like getting BTFO'd to me?

[Anonymous No.16593232]

>>16592975
>Kant is wrong in his Critique.
Debunked

[Anonymous No.16593246]

>>16593184
Sam Harris isn't the first guy to have said what he said on the is-ought gap, and he's right. Is-ought gap is BS. For oughtness to be anything, it can't be anything but a type of is. The problem is simply that no oughtness object like moral properties or moral laws can be shown to exist, which is different.

[Anonymous No.16593309]

>>16592975
He is right in the sense that in order to be a discursive apperceptive agent at all you need to be equipped with spatial and temporal forms that would allow you to be aware of spatial and temporal relations. These forms structure your experience in terms of up, down, left, right, past, present, future, etc. The use of simple spatiotemporal indices presupposes your cognitive ability to be aware of spatiotemporal relations.

If you think that space as it is in-itself is structured in terms of up, down, right, left, etc. Or think that time outside of being a form is structured in terms of past, present, future, etc. Then you're just projecting features of your subjective constitution onto the world as it is in-itself.

[Anonymous No.16593337]

>>16593309
>low iq anime poster trying to sound smart despite being obviously pseud subhuman trash
Always a good laugh

[Anonymous No.16593363]

>>16593309
>he is right in the sense that in order to be a discursive apperceptive agent at all you need to be equipped with spatial and temporal forms
only if you want to be an agent that understand the world through spatio temporal means. He fails in giving reasons that this is the only way understanding and reason could arise. So it ultimately fails in being transcendental

[Anonymous No.16593465]

>>16593246
Thinking that there are creatures with different forms of inuitions is plausible, sure. Kant hypothesizes this and discusses intellectual intuition (i.e. godly cognition), but they're ultimately incommensurable with respect to our cognition. No idea what an agent who does not perceive spatiotemporally would even be like.

Also,
>only if you want to be an agent that understand the world through spatio temporal means
>So it ultimately fails in being transcendental
Seems like you're contradicting yourself here bud. If you agree that we are agents that understand the world through spatiotemporal means then you're agreeing they're transcendental since they're part of our subjective constitution.

[Anonymous No.16593468]

>>16593465
Meant this nigga >>16593363

[Anonymous No.16593576]

>>16593184
congrats, you figured out why it's retarded to say Einstien BTFO'd Kant. this has been my dialectical ted talk

[Anonymous No.16593585]

>>16593246
Sam Harris isn't a philosopher and didn't understand (or possibly even read) Hume

[Anonymous No.16593592]

>>16593576
>dialectical
I will never forgive Zeno for starting this shit and I'll never forgive Hegel for making it retarded.

[Anonymous No.16593597]

>>16593198
Not to me. Can't you explain why you think the theory of relativity contradicts space and time being a priori forms of sensibility as Kant formulated it?

[Anonymous No.16593600]

>>16593592
this is a platonic dialectic though, not hegelian

[Anonymous No.16593601]

>>16593030
Theoretical deduction is part of observation / experience. All math and logic are just an expression of the brain producing them.

[Anonymous No.16593608]

>>16593198
>Newton has his theory of physics revised
LOL NEWTON BTFO ALL MY FRIENDS HATE NEWTON

[Anonymous No.16593620]

>>16593608
Yes, Einstein BTFO'd Newtons conception of Gravity as a force with General Relativity.

[Anonymous No.16593625]

>>16593601
Most of this post seems tangential and only indirectly addressing what I said. Experience leads to induction, not deduction; but why even go on that tangent? Space and time are a priori forms of sensibility meaning they are ways that it is possible for your mind to experience things.

[Anonymous No.16593639]

>>16593600
>and I'll never forgive Hegel for making it retarded.
Yes, I know you where referencing Hegelian Dialectic that's why I wrote this line.
>>16593597
What do you mean you don't think it refutes space and time being a priori forms of sensibility? It's literally an Empirical refutation of the entire Transcendental Aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.16593642]

>>16593620
And QM BTFO'd Einstein! He said God doesn't play dice LOL fucking retard all my friends hate Einstein

[Anonymous No.16593647]

>>16593642
>And QM BTFO'd Einstein!
Yes lol.

[Anonymous No.16593653]

>>16593639
I walked you into agreeing with me via dialog, that's Plato not Hegel.

[Anonymous No.16593661]

>>16593647
So you can't say Einstein BTFO'd Kant because Einstein was fucking wrong you hack LOL learn to know something

[Anonymous No.16593666]

What if I can think in 4d?

[Anonymous No.16593676]

>>16593639
>What do you mean you don't think it refutes space and time being a priori forms of sensibility?
To start with, I don't even understand what the refutation is that seems so clear to you. So I ask once again if you can explain it?

[Anonymous No.16593677]

>>16593661
Huh? Being Btfo'd by someone else doesn't mean you couldn't have Btfo'd someone. We wouldn't Say Kant didn't BTFO leibniz because Einstein Btfo'd him would we? Also lol he hasn't been Btfo'd on General Relativity so keep on seething kantcel.
>>16593653
Who started the tradition of "Platonic" Dialectics? Also I'm sorry I misread your post.

[Anonymous No.16593678]

>>16593012
transcendental empiricism is also transcendental

[Anonymous No.16593699]

>>16593677
>We wouldn't Say Kant didn't BTFO leibniz because Einstein Btfo'd him would we?
according to this braindead train of logic, yes, of course you would. if you haven't realized by now, BTFO is a fucking meme word that means nothing, and no theory, scientific or philosophic, is BTFO by another theory. that's not how this stuff works lmao are you in high school or something

[Anonymous No.16593760]

>>16593699
>according to this braindead train of logic, yes, of course you would
Are you retarded? This isn't some either or, you can refute someones ideas while having other ideas of your own being refuted by someone else? Einstein was proven wrong in Quantum Theory but General Relativity still stands and hasn't been proven wrong.
>no theory, scientific or philosophic, is BTFO by another theory.
Fuck me man, I guess Flat earth theory wasn't btfo'd by Eratosthenes
>>16593676
How can you hold space and time to be separate a prior sensory intuitions when general relativity first unites space and time into a 4 dimensional manifolds and second proves that they aren't sensory intuition inherent to the mind and that they seems to exist independently from the mind. Another reason the Transcendental Aesthetic falls apart is that is proposes objects of outer intuition conforms to Euclidean Geometry while the general theory of relativity employs Riemann Geometry for Physical Phenomenon. This is literally all in the link I posted, did you try reading it?

[Anonymous No.16593800]

What he should have said is that Extension without length or depth, is a priori. Create a 'space' in your mind's eye: every location of that object has the same spatial location, our mind's are a singularity with extension, for it covers no spatial breadth. Or similarly, how all the vastness that you behold with your eyes are compressed to a point (the pupil).

[Anonymous No.16593802]

>>16593760
I was going to keep arguing with you about the nature of theory as the development of knowledge rather than some series of fucking anime protags beating eachother up but now I realize you don't even understand Kant lmao I hope you are in high school

[Anonymous No.16593832]

>>16593802
Ok bro whatever, General Theory of Relativity didn't disprove Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic, that's why most NeoKantians attempted to revise or rejected it.

[Anonymous No.16593879]

>>16593760
>How can you hold space and time to be separate a prior sensory intuitions when general relativity first unites space and time into a 4 dimensional manifolds and second proves that they aren't sensory intuition inherent to the mind and that they seems to exist independently from the mind
Because space and time (or spacetime, makes no difference) as a priori forms of sensibility refers to the way in which things can appear to us, that is, always in a space and always in an order before and after other appearances. It doesn't depend on the "actual" structure of the noumenal world and may not correspond to it at all. There is no claim made about the outer world.
Why do you think talking about what exists independently of the mind has anything to do with a discussion of the mind's sensory forms?

[Anonymous No.16593902]

>>16593832
>hold space and time to be separate a prior sensory intuitions
confirmed never made it past wiki articles

[Anonymous No.16593917]

>>16593879
>Why do you think talking about what exists independently of the mind has anything to do with a discussion of the mind's sensory forms?
Everything?!?!?!? Kant Claims Space and Time to be Mind Sensory forms but we've empirically proven they exist independently from Mind through relativity. If Kant Claims Space and Time to be Mind Sensory forms but Space and Time exist independently from the Mind as Spacetime, he's wrong. Why do you think no one holds a Transcendental Idealistic position anymore?

[Anonymous No.16593933]

>>16593902
What's wrong with what I said? Kant claims space and time to both be presuppositions necessary for sensory experience, but he doesn't claim them to be linked like general relativity links them.

[Anonymous No.16594008]

>>16593917
Are you seriously suggesting that you think your ability to experience senses exists independently of your own mind, and that special relativity proves that you do not experience things in space and in time? Insist it if you must, but you will have to experience it at a given time (after I post this) and at a given place (your phone or computer), so it seems futile to me.
>Why do you think no one holds a Transcendental Idealistic position anymore?
I don't even know if the premise of this fallacious appeal to popularity is true, and it doesn't particularly matter to me, since right and wrong aren't determined that way.

[Anonymous No.16594021]

>>16593012
>ready made theory-cel concepts, not even using Deleuze's own "buggery" of Kant
>anime
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.16594059]

>>16594008
>Are you seriously suggesting that you think your ability to experience senses exists independently of your own mind
Oh my god, you're so dogmatic to transcendental idealism you can't even conceive of the idea of space and time existing independent of sensory experience.
>and that special relativity proves that you do not experience things in space and in time
Are you an idiot? You can still experience things in space and time without them being presuppositions for your experience. Did you think before Kant people believed they weren't experiencing space and time because it wasn't presupposed
>you will have to experience it at a given time (after I post this) and at a given place (your phone or computer),
That doesn't mean they are inherent to our sensory faculties. You believe since we experience things in space and time they must be presuppositions to our experience. I'm claiming that while we do experience things in space and time, space and time aren't inherent to our faculties of mind and exist independently of us. Now the Theory of Relativity seems to empirically prove that spacetime exists independent from our experience.
>since right and wrong aren't determined that way
True I just think it's interesting you believe in transcendental idealism when there are far more superior forms of Idealism.

[Anonymous No.16594983]

>>16594059
>they are inherent to our sensory faculties
Not what Kant said lol they aren't sensory
>the Theory of Relativity seems to empirically prove that spacetime exists independent from our experience
lol this is just wrong, how did you come to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.16595126]

>>16594983
>Not what Kant said lol they aren't sensory
I'm sorry, what do you think Kant means when he says faculties of intuition? What do you think Kant means when he says Intuition? I'll answer that, when Kant uses intuition he means an immediate, non-conceptual presentation of a thing, sensory experience so to speak. So, yes Kant does believe that Space and Time are inherent to our faculties of sense, and that fact that you don't think so either makes you a troll or someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Kant literally argues that Space and Time are inherent to our faculties of sense, are you fucking with me? I can't believe you just said Kant doesn't believe space and time to be inherent to our faculties of sense, it's literally one of the main points he argues in his Transcendental Aesthetic.
>lol this is just wrong, how did you come to this conclusion?
I'm sorry, what do you think General Relativity proves? My understanding of it is it describes gravity as a geodesic along curved space time and that the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. If this is true (and it's been empirically verified so far) this would mean that space and time aren't sensory intuition inherent to our faculties of sense as they are influenced by existing mass and energy outside of our faculties of intuition. Space and time cannot be a priori sensory intuition under the framework of general relativity. I want you to write it out what you believe general relativity is and why it doesn't disprove Kant's conception of space and time. Even if I'm wrong, the theory of general relativity disproves others parts of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic so I should still be good.

[Anonymous No.16595164]

>>16592975
Laughing at all the
>muh einstein
faggots

[Anonymous No.16595451]

>>16593800
A point is an idealized notion of space. There is no single location of anything or breadthless point, so the space created in my mind is expanded to differentiated segments of the whole, or my vision an image of extended depth.

[Anonymous No.16595460]

>>16593064
the most based of all filters. it strikes like thief in the night

[Anonymous No.16595514]

>>16593012
this post is transcendental trannyism

[Anonymous No.16595584]

>>16595126
>when Kant uses intuition he means an immediate, non-conceptual presentation of a thing, sensory experience so to speak
it is pre-sensory, it doesn't relate to any "thing", pure forms of intuition come before things, experience, sensory information, ect. (a priori)
>it describes gravity as a geodesic along curved space time and that the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present
you need to address the issues in epistemology here anon you can't just repeat the theory lol I am not convinced you understand Kant

[Anonymous No.16595630]

>>16593917
You are autistic as hell lmao

[Anonymous No.16595655]

>>16595584
>you need to address the issues in epistemology here anon you can't just repeat the theory lol I am not convinced you understand Kant
Are you serious dude? You literally tried to to tell me earlier that Kant didn't claim space and time were inherent to our faculties of sense and then you're trying to say I don't understand Kant? I explain why General Relativity Disproves Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and you're response is "You keep repeating the theory and not dealing with the epistemology" like what? I've already explained why it disproves Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic. Kant claims space and time are presuppositions necessary for sensory experience however general relativity proves that Spacetime isn't a presupposition but is actually a 4 dimensional manifold that exists outside of our faculties of sense which is demonstrated by the symmetric stress–energy tensor which acts as a source of spacetime curvature. General Relativity and Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic literally aren't compatible unless you revision Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic.

Even if you disagree with this, you still must agree the Kant claims objects of outer intuition conforms to Euclidean Geometry while the general theory of relativity shows the spacetime we exist in works in Riemann Geometry, another fault in the Transcendental Aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.16595666]

>>16593246

> Sam Harris
> Is-ought gap is BS

What? And before you say some retarded shit, please think about what "oughtness" is supposed to be. When philosophers talk about the is-ought gap they are talking about the problem of arriving at normative claims on the basis of non-normative claims. Even naive logical views of "is-is" are difficult to explain; take for example Carrolls' paradox of belief. Hume's view, or at least the "Humean view," is that the is-ought gap isn't rational and only moves from one to the other in the presence of desires.

[Anonymous No.16595675]

>>16595655
>general relativity proves that Spacetime isn't a presupposition but is actually a 4 dimensional manifold that exists outside of our faculties
no it doesn't, it describes it as such. look anon I don't think you even understand where you are going wrong and I don't have the effort to try and explain Kant to you

[Anonymous No.16595689]

>>16595655
>Kant claims space and time are presuppositions necessary for sensory experience however general relativity proves that Spacetime isn't a presupposition but is actually a 4 dimensional manifold that exists outside of our faculties of sense
Anon, you seem to have a very baffling and esoteric notion of spacetime. I truly cannot decode why you think that Einstein finding a new way to model the empirical world changes anything whatsoever about how we experience sensation.

[Anonymous No.16595691]

>>16593917

Sorry, what? Kant's view is that the concepts of those things are needed to even structure basic empirical concepts like causation and, further, observation.

[Anonymous No.16595693]

>>16595675
>no it doesn't, it describes it as such. look anon I don't think you even understand where you are going wrong and I don't have the effort to try and explain Kant to you
Oh my god you absolute fucking faggot, their is actual empirical evidence backing the theory of general relativity, and you have the audacity to claim you won't waste the effort explaining Kant to me when you've actually made the claim that Kant didn't believe space and time where inherent to our faculties of sense. You're either a troll or an idiot and no one can possibly be this dumb. I hope you and your entire family dies.

[Anonymous No.16595700]

>>16595689
Ok bro, Neo-Kantians literally revisioned the Transcendental Aesthetic to fit with General Relativity but sure, Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic is immune to it all, even to the criticism of Euclidean space.

[Anonymous No.16595720]

>>16593699
>>16593902
>>16595164
>>16594983
"Space and time are a priori. Oughtness is a type of is. No theory disproves another theory."

[Anonymous No.16595728]

>>16595720
"Here is a mathematical proof that Spacetime isn't a presupposition but is actually a 4 dimensional manifold that exists outside of our faculties of sense which is demonstrated by the symmetric stress–energy tensor which acts as a source of spacetime curvature."

[Anonymous No.16595732]

>>16595700
I don't care much what Neo-Kantians say, nor, really, for whatever is the academic fashion these days. No authority can tell me what to think. And what I think is that Kant was right that space and time are a priori. And this thread has not yet budged me, or does your pseudo-mystical notion of Spacetime, which, I repeat, is just another way of modeling the empirical world, and far downstream of something so basic as the ability to have a sensation.

[Anonymous No.16595733]

>>16595700

Keep in mind that the "neo-Kantian" revisionists on this deal with things like non-Euclidian space, and Kant himself was wrong about particular details. He thought that a certain kind of spatial relativity implied the impossibility of enantiomorphs (left/right handed versions of things). But I don't think there's much else there in terms of a "refutation" of Kant's basic idea. (I'm not suggesting you agree/disagree with that, just clarifying.)

[Anonymous No.16595736]

>>16595728
"Laughing out loud at Einsteinfag, I hope you're in high school, read Kant."

[Anonymous No.16595747]

>>16595732
How can Space and Time be presuppositions inherent to our faculties of sense if they curve in the presence of Mass and Energy?
>>16595733
I agree. I'm just getting really annoyed.

[Anonymous No.16595761]

>>16595747
You're still talking about the empirical characteristics of space and time, and matter in spacetime. But don't you understand that an a priori sensibility is something needed to even have an empirical notion? The point of saying that space and time are a priori is to say that your mind is wired to understand things in a space and time. The particulars of the model are not even the subject of the question, just the fact that you are able to sense anything at all and the specific ways that sense can be given to you, is the point here.

[Anonymous No.16595776]

>>16595761
>But don't you understand that an a priori sensibility is something needed to even have an empirical notion?
That's my point, how can Space and time be a priori and necessary for empirical notion if it's effected by matter and we can determine the empirical characteristics of space and time. It cannot. That's why I believe Kant is wrong.

[Anonymous No.16595800]

>>16595776

I think you are talking around the point. Kant thinks those are transcendental concepts that frame our cognition. Even if we have a theory that says Space and Time have quirky properties, that doesn't alter our cognition of anything. Even when you learn about 4D, you can't "see" 4D or see causation as 4D or see "up" in "curved space." You still see curved space, not "space."

[Anonymous No.16595806]

>>16595761
Oh crap I think I get it now. You're not saying "spacetime doesn't really exist"... you're just saying our minds are innately wired to perceive it a certain way.

[Anonymous No.16595810]

>>16595800

Just to clarify: "you still see curved space, not 'space'" means you see curved space AS curved, not as a pure "space" in which things like "up" fit properly. I agree there are mathematical notions that lock us into those topics but they don't impose much (if any) reordering on our view of things.
Contrast this with, e.g., the change in paradigm when we learn that we live in an atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.16595848]

>>16595806
Basicaly. and the fact is that all experience. even the experience we use to form the probability of spacetime existing and we scientifically believe, must first come through the form of sense perception and epistomological framework that Kant deals with. He is (largely, as in his core argument) is not talking about science itself, but the concepts that need to be understood before you can engage in likelyhoods and ideas.

The tinted glasses thing. What you see through green lenses is all well and good, but you must understand you are wearing those glasses.

[Anonymous No.16595857]

>>16595800
>>16595810
This setup is so weird? How can you claim Space and Time to be Transcendental when they both are effected by mass and energy, it feels as if you're simply defining Space and Time as something other then Space and Time. We've Empirically verified Space and Time are effected by Mass and Energy, your response to this is, well Space and Time are presuppositions and since this discovery doesn't alter our perception we can still hold that Space and Time are presuppositions when in reality the rational thought process would be, it seems as if Space and Time are effected by Mass and Energy, if this holds true Space and Time can't possibly be presuppositions. It feels like you're starting from the conclusion that Space and Time are presuppositions rather then deciding on whether it is or not based on our understanding of space and time. I just can't possibly see how you can justify the claim that Space and Time are transcendental when it seems that they are effected by mass and energy.

[Anonymous No.16595867]

>>16595857
I'll be going to sleep cause it's late at night. I hope this thread is still open tomorrow so I can continue the conversation. if it isn't I'll probably make a new thread.

[Anonymous No.16595879]

>>16595857
>We've Empirically verified Space and Time are effected by Mass and Energy
Thats not the point guy. We are talking about the very knowledge necessary for empirical analysis in the first place. you are kinda using orders of logic above the more basic more formal logic that is being dissected.

[Anonymous No.16595900]

>>16595857

Again, they are not "presuppositions" in the view, they are how cognition is arranged. I don't see any conflict in saying that space and time can be affected by mass and energy and that our cognition of ordinary empirical things is organized in a way that leaves the "theory" as something that will continue to simply persist as a theory, i.e., as a non-cognizable tool to do this or that. Again, take simple cases. Even if mass warps space, you are still thinking about the space -as warped-. Even if we come across a powerful theory that space is curved everywhere, we'd still probably have to think about space as curved and not be able to simply think about "space in a curved way."

[Anonymous No.16595920]

>>16595900
I think you may be the person I was arguing with a few days ago. If so, I completely misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for acting like a complete nonce.

[Anonymous No.16595990]

>>16595857
>We've Empirically verified Space and Time are effected by Mass and Energy
>Empirically verified

[Anonymous No.16596018]

Let me help you retards out.
There is the formal definition of space - the one of math and logic. It's what is meant by something like a vector space, logical space, or universe of discourse.
Then there is the intuitive defintion of space. This is the realm of most modern philosophy. It's how space manifests itself in experience. How we come to know space as it appears to us.
Then there is the physical defintion of space, the one that's been discussed in absolute vs relative space and the like. This is the realm of physics.
The physical presupposes the intuitive presupposes the formal. You cannot have a conception of physical space without defining the conditions possible for the experience of space in the first place, and you can't do this without some sort of logical space to work under. Einstein didn't "BTFO" Kant because they were operating in fundamentally different conceptions of space. Read Der Raum by Carnap.

[Anonymous No.16596030]

>>16596018
Also, I saw someone say that Kant said that space in-itself is Euclidean. This is not true. It's how space manifests itself in experience. Also another anon pointed this out but space and time are not "presuppositions" in the Kantian framework. Please at least do the basic reading.

[Anonymous No.16596056]

Relativity of simultaneity - time is not an absolute ticking clock that ticks at the same rate at every point; it depends on the inertial frame of reference. Instead of going through the cost of something akin to eternalism, why not deny the fact that time is "out there" as an object of cognition and not something like a condition for experience? It would make sense that when we look at a certain reference frame or assign certain properties to systems that we are smuggling in sensory information that doesn't belong to the system itself noumenally. When we attribute a time "t" to an event, and time "t+1" to another event in one reference frame and we see that in another reference frame the events are simultaneous, wouldn't this lead us to believe that doing something such as assigning "time" to a system is illegitimate as a description of an objective state of affairs?

[Anonymous No.16596101]

>>16595879
The two are not as separate as you may think. If you were to go really fast in space, 1/8 of the speed of light, you would experience time moving slower. You could have two atomic clocks - one on Earth and one with you in space. When you come back to Earth you will find that they have become unsynchronized greatly even if they are atomic clocks. You would literally, physically, be younger than if you were moving normally. This cannot be explained away as time being an a priori condition of the mind because you were in reality experiencing time moving slower due to your velocity, a physical property. This may not destroy Kant's system or even do a whole lot of damage, but it certainly paints a different picture of the world than what he was aiming at.
It is also a more optimistic one. Kant shut down any metaphysics that claimed noumenal certainty. This should crush you if you have a truly philosophical spirit. Certain discoveries make you think twice, though.

[Anonymous No.16596132]

>>16596101
I don't see how it impacts time as a priori at all. It just means our notion of time is a bit different(not as we experience it moment to moment anyway). It's still true that we can't conceive of reality except as in space and time. It's still true that we can't state anything about the Noumenon based on what are phenomenal necessities.

Then again I never quite understood what Kant was saying about the Noumenon being intelligible by a different sort of understanding.

[Anonymous No.16596140]

>>16596132
It points towards there being a real thing out there called "time" that can be affected by physical processes and has properties that can be known regardless of the a priori configurations of our mind. It points to this notion of time - as an actual object - as affecting our intuitions and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.16596150]

>>16596140
>a real thing out there called "time" that can be affected by physical processes and has properties
Yes but isn't that all phenomenal? it's just data taken in a form we can interpret. Time itself remains a necessary quality for our phenomenal experience, as in the basic notion of succession, even if time is now relating to space in the phenomenal world in a new abstract way.

[Anonymous No.16596156]

>>16596150
>>16596140
To be more specific, I don't think the universality of time wrt space(as opposed to its relativity) is part of the core concept of how Kant viewed time, which was more basic, just the very bare idea of successive moments. So relativity doesn't impact the core idea, only our phenomenal understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.16596161]

>>16596150
Every knowledge claim boils down to phenomena. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with Kant saying that the true nature of time is inaccessible when we have experimental data that gives us a new type of knowledge that, while phenomenal in both its source and content, gives us a greater sense of certainty than any other proposition regarding time thus far.

[Anonymous No.16596695]

>>16596161
Brainlet cope

[Anonymous No.16596724]

>>16592975
>>16593012

Are we supposed to take these claims of yours at face value? Ffs just give us an argument

[Anonymous No.16596922]

>>16596161
He doesn't merely claim that, he gives actual arguments in both the trascendental aesthetics (where it is argued that our experimental data cannot actually refer to the forms that are required for experimental data to be given in the first place) and the section rregarding the antinomies (where he argues that space and time, if taken as noumenical, lead to necessarily contradictory non-concepts).

What's your sctual objrction to his arguments.

[Anonymous No.16596969]

>>16596018
2d space is a priori
the third dimension is subject to interpretation

It's obvious that Kant is referring to the space of mathematical geometry and not physical space.

[Anonymous No.16596975]

>>16592975
he never writes that

>>16593012
stop reading ayn rand, and try to answer Meno's paradox you absolute brainlet

[Anonymous No.16597034]

>>16596969
3d space is a priori too lmao. Geomettical space deals with depth too.

[Anonymous No.16597050]

i don't kare lol

[Anonymous No.16597183]

>>16593917
everything kant says about geometry anticipates your arguments for the "independencey" of space and time. relativity, like all other scientific theorems, would for kant rest upon emprical cognition as an a priori synthetic judgement made about space and time. spacetime as forms of the intuition would not affected.
youd have to explain, i guess, how relativity definitively proves that spacetime is independent of the mind. the unity of space and time in 4d manifolds would not surpise kant, nor contribute to proof of their independency. it's a synthesis anticipated in the transcendental logic that occurs in empirical cognition.

[Anonymous No.16597261]

>>16597183
I just want to point out thzt 4d manifolds would indeed surprise Kant, insofar as we cannot represent them intuitively. In fact, 4d space would refute Kant's whole trascendrntal aesthetics. That said, I don't see how we could prove a priori that a 4d space exists (even if 4d space proved to be the
Best predictive model we've got), and in absence of such a proof a good Kantian would simply claim that while useful, that model is simply a result of our imperfect instruments of misurations, and that it will eventually be emendated with an intuitive 3d model, once we will have actually understood what is really going on in those phaenomena.
Your interpretation is more of a neo-Kantian one (which, frankly, seems legitimate to me: Kant's system does not bind us to euclidean geometry, even though he thought it did - a mathematical mistake, more than a philosophical one).

[Anonymous No.16598143]

Bumping to read this when I wake up