/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17376812]

Can someone explain Kants “thing in of itself” ?

Trying to impress this art hoe in my humanities class

[Anonymous No.17376826]

>>17376812
A meme reason for wanting to know gets a meme response, watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKKEZ7X9rY

[Anonymous No.17376833]

>>17376812
read plato

[Anonymous No.17376842]

>>17376812
Imagine you are wearing rose colored glasses and looking at something. It looks sort of purple to you. However, since you know that your glasses influence your color experiences, you can ask yourself what color the thing is in itself, apart from the way you experience it (due to your glasses).

Similarly, Kant thought that all of our experiences are influenced by our cognitive apparatus. Things appear certain ways to us because of the way that they are interpreted by that apparatus. So, knowing this, we can ask of any object what it is like in itself, apart from our cognitive apparatus. As others have noted, this question was once impossible to answer since we cannot get outside of our own cognitive apparatus but now with technological leaps made throughout the years we can be given data seen purely objectively through machines.

[Anonymous No.17376864]

>>17376812
Very fugly.

[Anonymous No.17376869]

>>17376842
>the noumenon
>objective
No.

[Anonymous No.17376952]

>>17376812
easy, the "thing" is your dick and "of itself" is her pussy: you just gotta trust your dick inside her pussy so you'll both understand Kant

[Anonymous No.17376985]

>>17376812
I wish this girl to sit on my face as her feet stomps my dick

[Anonymous No.17376999]

>>17376842
>As others have noted, this question was once impossible to answer since we cannot get outside of our own cognitive apparatus but now with technological leaps made throughout the years we can be given data seen purely objectively through machines.
retard take.
1) we built the machine through our reasoning and our cognitive apparatus therefore they share our deepest biases.
2) the mind that observes the data is still biased.

[Anonymous No.17377010]

>>17376999
this. even 'evolved' machines are originated by our minds and therefore subject to our biases. in reality, machines can't even see beyond the arbitration of our mathematics.

[Anonymous No.17377015]

>>17376812
Ask her if you can put your noumena into her phenomena

[Anonymous No.17377026]

>>17376842
>we can be given data seen purely objectively through machines.
huh? what a shit take. It's exactly this kind of misunderstanding that tricks people to derive naive realism from watching a movie. It's not like Kant didn't think about invisible forces, things like magnetism are still part of the world of appearances, the noumenon is only posited negatively, it's not part of natural laws, it isn't even an object as we would know it (there is no noumenal chair).

[Anonymous No.17377029]

>>17377015
>hey! can I put my noumena in your phenomena?
>what do you mean?
>I-I'm not sure...
>Oh you want to have sex?
>N-no, K-Kant was a virgin

[Anonymous No.17377038]

>>17376812
Noumena is an ad-hoc construction that takes Humean skepticism instead of refuting it as obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.17377041]

>>17376999
>>17377010
Math has no bias, it’s a natural law. Machines operate on this.
Pseuds.

[Anonymous No.17377080]

>>17377041
>m-math has no b-bias!
sure it has, people seem to reach all kind of phylosophical conclusions from, for instance, goedel's incompleteness theorem (also called the "logic breaks if you use recursion you little retard" theorem) despite everyone knowing that you can't drag a ought out of an is.

[Anonymous No.17377111]

>>17377041
... we're talking about Kant and you don't understand him at all if you claim this. Math and causality etc. are a priori certainties that necessarily need to be universally true for all experience, but that doesn't change that its objects are still only phenomenal. That's the thing with Kant. You can know things objectively, but that doesn't mean that they exist if you don't have the same concept of an object in time and space under the synthetic apperception. His entire epistemology has a giant modus tollens in front of it.

[Anonymous No.17377115]

>>17377111
well done

[Anonymous No.17377121]

>>17377041
sorry buddy but there are on integer or perfect shapes

[Anonymous No.17377124]

>>17377038
Please shew your refutation

[Anonymous No.17377126]

... we're talking about Kant and you don't understand him at all if you claim this. Math and causality etc. are a priori certainties that necessarily need to be universally true for all experience, but that doesn't change that its objects are still only phenomenal. That's the thing with Kant. You can know things objectively, but that doesn't mean that they exist if you don't have the same concept of an object in time and space under the synthetic apperception. His entire epistemology has a giant modus ponens in front of it.

[Anonymous No.17377150]

>>17377124
Kant never proved the assertion

[Anonymous No.17377203]

>>17377126
>>17377041

[Anonymous No.17377224]

>>17376842
>now with technological leaps made throughout the years we can be given data seen purely objectively through machines.
How can you write this unironically considered the sentences that came before? Did someone else take over the keyboard here?

[Anonymous No.17377233]

>>17376812
Parmenides vs. Heraclit. Parmenides is the thing in itself guy, mention Heraclit to sound impressive, he's the flux guy who argues against the thing in itself.

[Anonymous No.17377255]

>>17377041
>Math has no bias,
It's a human made system that can't even be formalised lmao stfu dumb fanatic. If you let them, those machines will wash away your petty number games too.

[Anonymous No.17377296]

>>17377150
I thought you said Kant should have refuted humean skepticism. Please shew your thoughts on Hume.

[Anonymous No.17377301]

>>17377115
did you report the post lmao

[Anonymous No.17377323]

>>17376826
Please ignore all the college freshmen who pummeled my post with their (you) vomiting, Pure Mathematics and programming have no bias. If it’s still up in the air or is being contested then it isn’t a natural law(I.e 2+2=4). With applied mathematics we only used proven and undebatable math. So naturally with certain machines operating on this logic, we can finally know objects through a 100% completely objective view. Numbers don’t lie to us.

[Anonymous No.17377337]

>>17377323
>>17376812

[Anonymous No.17377352]

>>17376812
The thing in of itself, is how the thing is without your perceptions. How the thing looks, when no one is looking.
Then you look at it, and your senses is in the way of you and the thing in of itself. Your eyes can lie, and your touch deceive.

So man is cut off from perceiving phenomena as they appear in themself, as we are limited by our senses to perceive phenomena in the world.

This is pretty much as basic as I can describe it, and a horde of Kantians will probably start arguing about math and shit, but honestly if youre trying to impress some chick, I dont think youre interested in more than my surface level understanding anyways.

[Anonymous No.17377373]

>>17377323
Doesnt machines measure things, by how theyre programmed to measure?
Machines dont calculate by themselves, they have been programmed with our formulaes, and their output is just the computation of that logic?
So we can put whatever in, and then it will do that, but a machine can't help us perceive or describe phenomena?

[Anonymous No.17377379]

>>17377352
Does any living organism in this world view things as they truly are? Or can only God do that?

[Anonymous No.17377383]

>>17377301
no I deleted it and reposted it >>17377126 to fix something

[Anonymous No.17377386]

>>17377323
I'm gonna have to ask how you perceive numbers bucko

[Anonymous No.17377413]

>>17377373
Here is an example, take colors for instance. The actual color of llight is objective. It is a specific wavelength or combination of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. A machine can tell us this data, a colorblind human cannot. A colorblind human can however make a machine that tells him what color certain wavelengths of light are. This is just one of the many things a “machine” can objectively tell us. More and more is on the way. We can also use technology to strip humans down to their very nucleotides and building blocks and build them back up. This way we can objectively understand black people or women. As opposed to just seeing them by their crime statistics or emotional outbursts.

[Anonymous No.17377422]

>>17377379
I think Kant was not outright sceptical of God, but refused more or less ro commentate on it. Which might hint that he was sceptical of the idea of God, since it cant be proven in any kind of way. But im not sure, im not very into Kant.

Hegel would say that turning to things in themself and gaining full understanding of things in themself, is the absolute knowledge and the goal of Spirit, which is the God like force.

[Anonymous No.17377421]

I am trying to enlighten OP. Please go and shit up a foucault, Hume or Hegel instead.
Freshmen.

[Anonymous No.17377430]

Just make a pants of different other colorful pants, preferably hemp, and she'll be impressed with your style OP

[Anonymous No.17377445]

>>17377430
This is the girl in question, purty cute huh?

[Anonymous No.17377479]

>>17377080
>>17377121
>>17377255
Kant believed that math was the only example of a synthetic a priori.

[Anonymous No.17377483]

>>17377379
that would require a mind without senses that either directly perceives the objects or creates them through it's thought (God). For us, the only way of knowing things is through synthesizing sensory perception and thought. But this goes further than just giving names to "things" you see, since the categories of thought are basically every relation you can think of. The rules of nature are generated by the Spontaneity of mind, they can't be empirically derived. This is why you can understand an object by analysis: the mind previously synthezised it itself under its own rules, so the act of understanding is just understanding of your own act of synthesis. Thus you know a priori that you can encounter nothing in nature that doesn't behave according to the law of causality for example. Just perception without thought is nothing and just thought without something to think about is nothing (this is basically what leads to the noumenon, thought steps out of its boundaries and imposes noumenal existence on the appearance, while ignoring that what makes this object an object is its appearance to a thinking being, so the subject-object-relation) .

[Anonymous No.17377502]

>>17377479
Priori?

[Anonymous No.17377507]

>>17377479
yes that doesn'tesm what you think it means, pseud.

[Anonymous No.17377516]

>>17377413
Why would you post such retarded shit, you fucking mongoloid. Why even bring up the last braindead sentences?
I would have asked further about how machines interpret the data they get, but its clear youre a troll. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.17377521]

>>17376812
It's basically Plato's world of forms bro

[Anonymous No.17377524]

>>17377502
never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.17377529]

>>17376842
lmao fucking retard

[Anonymous No.17377532]

>>17377516
>btfo by a coherent argument
>responds with ad hom and pure emotion

It’s no fun when butterfly isn’t around.

[Anonymous No.17377535]

>>17377445
Tell her you will put your big Dasein cock in her dusk ring to reveal it as the being-in-her-womb.

[Anonymous No.17377545]

>>17376842
>prints out datasheet
>datasheet is still purplish
wtf

[Anonymous No.17377546]

>>17377445
You should talk about Kant's aesthetics and teleological judgment of living organisms instead, maybe quote some Schiller. will make her drip

[Anonymous No.17377549]

>>17377413
So Kant was held back by his lack of foresight into what the future holds then? Similar to most philosophers I guess

[Anonymous No.17377552]

>>17377224
I was thinking the exact same shit.

[Anonymous No.17377559]

>>17376842
>>17376999
You're both idiots. Kant, while stating things-in-themselves were unknowable, asserted that sensibility was still objective due to the conditions required for the possibility of experience being simultaneously the conditions for the objects of experience. Ergo, even though we experience reality as representation, that representation is equivalent between subjects (ie, scientific objectivity).

>Just another thread where everyone pretends they know anything about Kant, or philosophy for that matter.
>>17377521
I hope this one is a joke

[Anonymous No.17377562]

>>17377532
>by a coherent argument
you are on drugs if you believe that.

[Anonymous No.17377567]

>>17377549
no, he's a sophist. It's not like Kant didn't know Newton. Wavelengths of light are still phenomenal. If you don't believe me, describe wavelengths without using space and time.

[Anonymous No.17377570]

>>17377413
>The actual color of light is objective
No they're not you fucking retard. The wavelength of the light is what it is, but the color of light of such wavelength is only in our perception. Fucking retard. A computer doesn't know light of wavelength 450 nm is blue unless we tell it it's blue, and we only know it's blue from our perception.
>We can also use technology to strip humans down to their very nucleotides and building blocks and build them back up
no we can't

[Anonymous No.17377579]

>>17377532
I was trying to learn more about machines you retard, not everything is a fucking meme reddit argument online.
Go outside and talk to people for once, your mind has been opened and used as a toilet for internet culture for so long, you cant even have a conversation without meme arrows or mentioning women or black people.

[Anonymous No.17377582]

>>17377570
Dont bother, you can read from his last sentences that hes a pseud neckbeard, and doesnt know shit.

[Anonymous No.17377587]

>>17377582
I didn't even read his last two sentences. Wish he had put those in the beginning so I could've disregarded the post instantly.

[Anonymous No.17377597]

>>17377559
and whoever said anything about that you fucking retard? can you read what the argument being made by the other guy is or not, kek.

[Anonymous No.17377598]

>>17377559
>Ergo, even though we experience reality as representation, that representation is equivalent between subjects (ie, scientific objectivity)
How can we know this?

[Anonymous No.17377608]

>>17377041
Math may exist platonically but the answer to the question “which of its parts can we access” is totally influenced by the way our brains are structured.

[Anonymous No.17377615]

I have nothing to say to people who overanalyze and nitpick arguments and ignore the main points. It’s so obvious to tell who did and didn’t start with the Greeks lol. No (you)’s for you. Machines have gotten us closer to understand the true forms than man ever will.

[Anonymous No.17377617]

>>17376812
I hope that's not her anon.

[Anonymous No.17377619]

don't give it attention

[Anonymous No.17377620]

>>17377598
because of the transcendental deduction, we know that whosoever knows what an object is, also necessarily shares the categories, the synthetic unity of apperception and perceives through space and time.

[Anonymous No.17377635]

>>17376812
Kant thought that "reality" was a world of appearances (the phenomenal world), and that we cannot access the "actual" world (the noumenal world). The thing-in-itself is what the object exists as independently from our senses. It may or may not be different than how we perceive it. Only through Natural Laws can we make the breakthroughs needed to reach such a point.

[Anonymous No.17377638]

>>17377323
>certain machines operating on this logic
Have humans simply never operated under this logic?

[Anonymous No.17377640]

>>17377617
This is here hehe I’m in love I swear I’ll make her mine.

[Anonymous No.17377649]

>>17377598
Because the conditions for experience of objects are the same as the conditions for existence of those objects. If the objects exist to be experienced (even as mere representations), then they conform to laws which are the same as those required for your experiencing (the basic principles of the sensibility: space and time, the categories and principles of the understanding, etc.). Have you even read the Critique? Kant was not an epistemological relativist.

[Anonymous No.17377654]

>>17377617
Whoops 4got img
This is here hehe I’m in love I swear I’ll make her mine.

[Anonymous No.17377655]

>>17377615
>people see in accordance with their territory
>woah
Yikes

[Anonymous No.17377661]

>>17377654
What are you doing?

[Anonymous No.17377665]

>>17377524
I’m trying

[Anonymous No.17377677]

>>17377661
flexing

[Anonymous No.17377680]

>>17377615
lol, subhuman retard can't even read what is being said

[Anonymous No.17377757]

>>17377521
What is the difference between platos WOF and Das ding an sich ? Did Kant not know who Plato was?

[Anonymous No.17377857]

>>17377757
Nothing really, Plato believed the demiurge was Kant's sensibility, which constructed representations from the forms. So whenever you see Kant use "sensibility", just remember that Plato uses the term "demiurge"

[Anonymous No.17378146]

>>17377665
Hint: it's related to the word prior

[Anonymous No.17378473]

>>17376999
Good one man

>>17377559
Yeah but that doesn't have to be important

[Anonymous No.17378540]

>>17376842
moron

[Anonymous No.17378783]

>>17377857
The Demiurge has nothing to do with Kant's sensibility lmao.
>>17377757
Forma are determinate, in fact they are the only thing that can determine the essence of an object (or to be more precise, they're that essence). As such, since actually existing objects depend on them for their essence, they're treated as having a separate, independent existence, in the world of Ideas.
Kant literally mogs this idea for the whole first critique.
>>17377649
This is not true at all, Kant never claimed we knew the conditions for existence of any object, especially thihgs-in-themselves. The existence of "noumena" is proved with the claim for which the intellect is a purely synthetic faculty (since at that point our receptivity has to be activated by an external source for us tk have representations in the first place). At no point the ground of existence is determined (in fact in the refutations of the ontological argument it is conclusively proven that such a ground can never be established conceptually)
>>17377635
It is necessarily different from how we percieve it. The Antinomies prove that space and time could not possibly be forms of a noumenal world
>>17377620
No, the TD is not dependant on our pure intuitions of space and time. It applies too to rational aliens who possess different oure intuitions (and therrfore different trascendental schemes)

[Anonymous No.17378962]

>>17376842
Does anyone have a link to Hegel' theses on Africa? Searching only yields articles written by salty journalists.

[Anonymous No.17379137]

>>17376864
why are you gay

[Anonymous No.17379291]

>>17378783
>No, the TD is not dependant on our pure intuitions of space and time. It applies too to rational aliens who possess different oure intuitions (and therrfore different trascendental schemes)
not sure about that. Since the objective knowledge (not thought) of things relies on the synthesis of intuition and concepts, every thought concept of an object outside of that is noumenal and thus can't be a known object. He says something in §23 about the possibility of the categories coinciding with other unknown forms of intuition, but that it would mean that our concepts of their objects would be noumenal since we can't refer to their form of intuition so we can't know their objects.

[Anonymous No.17379568]

>>17377352
how do you even know a thing is a thing?How isnt that just a construction of the mind as well?

[Anonymous No.17379593]

>>17377535

[Anonymous No.17379707]

>>17377445
>>17377654
Going to attempt with all my will to find the Instagram post this originated from and then send her this thread, your fucked OP.

[Anonymous No.17379725]

>>17379707
big if true

[Anonymous No.17380449]

>>17379707
Shut up fag

[Anonymous No.17380569]

>>17376812
Kant was literally 5 feet tall. That's all you need to know about the guy.

[Anonymous No.17380647]

>>17377038
>Noumena is an ad-hoc construction that takes Humean skepticism instead of refuting it as obviously wrong.

What specifically in Hume's writings drove Kant to devise his noumena construct?

[Anonymous No.17380754]

>>17376842
Chud moment

[Anonymous No.17381930]

/lit/'s still arguing 'bout Kant while chad already conquered the cunt.

[Anonymous No.17381940]

>>17376864
>>17376985
>>17377015
>>17377430
>>17377445
>>17377617
>>17377654
>>17377661
>>17377677
>>17379137
>>17380449
Hi

[Anonymous No.17381948]

>>17380647
The Trascendental Deduction literally starts with the bundle theory ("the I think accompanies all my representations), and it basically just look for the conditions of possibility of his theory. There are two: the intellect is a purely synthetic faculty; synthesis cannot be derived from unsynthetized intuitions.
This rules out the case for which the intellect could possibly produce an intuition (the "life is all a dream" solypsistic hypothesis), and it proves that noumena must exist, insofar as something external to me must activate my receptivity (producing therefore intuitions which can then be synthetized in an experience - otherwise we would remain unconscious), and everything that is external to menis a noumenon.

[Anonymous No.17381952]

>>17380449
>>17381940
I told you OP.

[Anonymous No.17381972]

>>17381952
Im even worse then op due to my preferences of women

[Anonymous No.17383642]

>>17377126
That's almost like Meinong's nonexistent objects