[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 157 KB, 760x1165, 71qAQbN+uVL._AC_SL1500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16613495 No.16613495 [Reply] [Original]

Now that the dust has settled: Was it autism?

>> No.16613507

>>16613495
i hate this little nigga like you wouldn't believe.

>> No.16613509
File: 153 KB, 564x849, 5+7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16613509

>>16613495
I actually agree with him, but it's unquestionably autism.

>> No.16613515

I hate it you guys memed me into reading Kant. F*ck. I’ll never forgive you guys. Now I’m autistic

>> No.16613532

>>16613509
What point is he even trying to make?

>> No.16613543

>>16613532
He's arguing that math is not purely analytical, as is often supposed (people think it all derives from axioms), but actually composed of synthetic statements.

>> No.16613551

>>16613495
Based. Autists are the safeguards of humanity.

>> No.16613574

>>16613509
What the fuck is he saying?

>> No.16613602

>>16613574
In a nutshell, he's saying that [7+5] and [12] are different concepts, and that we consider them to be the same thing is not implied by either on its own.

It's probably the single hardest concept he expresses in CPR, every time we bring it up on /lit/ an argument starts lol.

>> No.16613622

Why the dust settled only now?

>> No.16613636

>>16613602
Ok, that kind of makes sense, but is it supposed to be the set up for some other concept, or is that it?

>> No.16613656

>>16613636
Well the broader theme of the book is whether or not synthetic a priori knowledge is possible, and he's arguing this point in order to show that many mathematical concepts are synthetic a priori, which is counter to what most people intuitively think.

>> No.16613690
File: 8 KB, 261x193, aristotle-bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16613690

>>16613532

Kant's view of mathematics was pretty short-lived. I still don't quite understand what it is supposed to be. I get the motivation for saying that things like mathematical equivalences are "synthetic" but the rest of the account, regarding how we come to know mathematical truths, is a little thin. I prefer Frege's view in the Foundations of Arithmetic, particularly his anti-cognitivism, but even then there's a big lurking problem with his view of numbers being extensions of concepts (e.g., Russell's paradox shows up right away).
These issues about mathematics though are one of the true sources of mystery.

>> No.16613749

>>16613636
this video explains this exact passage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w

>> No.16613792

>>16613749
Introduction to Metaphysics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKq0Afmsj-U

>> No.16614185

Try to explain antinomy in 100 words or less.

>> No.16615354

>>16613690
You putting scare quotes around synthetic makes me think you haven't read kant in any sort of depth

>> No.16615363

>>16614185
No.

>> No.16615366

>>16613509
>>16613532
ITT: smoothbrains who don't understand transcendental deduction

>> No.16615385

>>16613509
Based. Love how Frege was like "NO, Kant wrong, mathematics is logical and analytic, let me show you!" Epic fail. Same thing with Russell and Whitehead with their neo-logicist project. The failure of logicism is enough evidence that mathematics is synthetic a priori. This Kant nigga never miss.

>> No.16615393

>>16613749
>>16613792
Cringe. Get the fuck out.

>> No.16615395
File: 93 KB, 960x561, cringe_fiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16615395

>>16615393

>> No.16615401

>>16615395
Okay, sorry. :)

>> No.16615411

>>16613495
Chad Hume:
>lol you can't prove induction, all metaphysics is unfalsifiable garbage
Virgin Kant:
>b-but what if we just assume that our mental processes are magically aligned with physical laws but without explaining how???

>> No.16615443

>>16613602
Can't you visualize it to be more intuitive? Let's say you picture a set of 5 points and a set of 7 points in your head, paint the points in different colours if you want. They are two different unities with different names (Begriffe) ascribed to them (5 and 7). Now bring them close together and you'll wonder at what point they become 12. If you do nothing you'll just have 2 entities of points/numbers before you, otherwise they aren't 5 and 7 anymore. There needs to be a synthesis where you stop considering them as 2 numbers/things and combine them into one (the 12), but once you break them up into ones and add them up, these ones are part of the 12 and can't be assigned to either the 5 or 7 anymore. Of course that's just my understanding and I haven't even finished the CPR so I could be wrong.

>> No.16615446

>>16615411
unpopular opinion: you're wrong and shut the fuck up

>> No.16615859

>>16615411
>our mental processes are magically aligned with physical laws
Our mental processes are not alligned with physical laws, they create them.

>> No.16615881

>>16615385
based brother, Kant (pbuh) retroactively refuted analytic philosophy before it even began.

>> No.16615942

>>16615859
and these mental processes magically align with some magical otherworld that we can not say anything about?

>> No.16615943

>>16613509
stemfags absolutely BTFO

>> No.16615961

>>16615881
>Kant (pbuh) retroactively refuted analytic philosophy before it even began.
How can one man be so based?

>> No.16616013

>>16615942
There is no alignment. What you call the magical world is the realm of things-in-itselves. We cannot perceive them, we only attach them our mental forms of space and time, along with the categories of judgement, in order to fashion phenomena.

>> No.16616042

>>16616013
but why does our attaching our mental forms onto the things-in-itself produce a coherent experience of reality and not complete gibberish?
the fact of our orientation within the world of categories is proof of their (at least partial) appropriateness for describing the noumenal world. the point at which they cease to be appropriate would itself become a clue as to the true nature of reality.

>> No.16616396

>>16616042
>the fact of our orientation within the world of categories
The world of phenomena is a result of our a priori knowledge coupled sensibility. It is coherent and allows orientation by virtue of being a product of the subject itself.

>> No.16616416

>>16616396
I'm fairly sure you didn't address my point in any capacity, you just repeated the initial assertion of coherence as a simple fact.

>> No.16616592

>>16615393
Watch them, you might learn something.

>> No.16617465

>>16616416
I think that's what he means; it is a simple fact, all synthetic a priori knowledge (of the noumenal world) is contingent upon the assumption of a (somewhat) coherent, derivative phenomenal world. The why just "is" because it has to be in order for you to ask in the first place. I feel like you even implied that in your first post, so maybe I'm missing your point.