[ 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: 413 KB, 1080x1440, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18125865 No.18125865 [Reply] [Original]

Kant claims that 7+5=12 is a synthetic a priori judgement, because the object 12 is not contained in the objects 7 or 5. To reach 12 you must synthesize 7 and 5. Hegel claims that it is an analytic judgement, because you know the third object before you begin, so 7 and 5 are merely constituents of 12. But for Goethe it is neither synthetic or analytic. Here it is number that is the archetypal phenomenon. The objects 7, 5, and 12 are merely magnitudinal expressions of the Urphänomene of number. They are each "number" but consisting of different magnitudes. There is no need to synthesize, as they already flow from the same essence. Nor is it analytic for the same reason. When one makes the proposition 7+5=12, they hold all three objects in their mind at once. It is the relation between the magnitude 5, the magnitude 7, and the magnitude 12 that is considered.

>> No.18125882

>>18125865
Kant is right, as usual. Think about the first person to make a cake.

>> No.18125883

>>18125865
>John has 5 apples
>Mary has 7 apples
>If you count them together, you get 12 apples
Also, they're not objects, they're fucking numbers. Take your pseud philosophy somewhere else.

>> No.18125909

>>18125882
The first person to make a cake would have had to think about making something that resembles a cake. Anything further is a modification of this prime idea.
>>18125883
The prime phenomenon of number is the forest. Individual magnitudes are the trees. Synthetic theories are caught up in the particular.

>> No.18125910

>>18125865
If I have seven cakes
And Suzan has five cakes
And we put our cakes together
We will have 12 cakes in total

>> No.18125938

>>18125882
>Kant is right
Not even once

>> No.18125955

>kant creates his schema, makes a retarded claim according to the rules of his game
>hegel plays by the rules of that game, show how kants claim is retarded
>goethe says the game is retarded

yeah so kant is the retard, got it

>> No.18125968

>>18125938
Cope

>> No.18125985

>>18125909
>would have had to think about making something that resembles a cake
Nice, unfalsifiable and non-necessitory argument.

>> No.18125991

>The sum of 7 and 5 is 12
12 is known, true;
7 and 5 are known individually;
"is" is a logical relation and is thus not considered in our analysis;
sum is another concept seperate from the numerical concepts;
the sum of 7 and 5 must be understood as a synthesis of 7 and 5 whose identity is equivalent to but perhaps distinct from 12.

>> No.18125999

>>18125991
*as a synthesis of the concepts seven, five, and sum.

>> No.18126006

>>18125865
how come philosophers from the past could make such retarded claims and still be taken seriously? they sound like the pseuds on /lit/, is this why philosophy is viewed as a modern meme by everyone nowadays?

>> No.18126080

>>18126006
You won't entice a cat with a rotten fish.

>> No.18126086

So what are epistemological ramifications of Goethe's position

>> No.18126089

>>18125865
>the object 12
You got filtered in the introduction? Really?

>> No.18126094

>>18126080
Brb gonna throw a can of fish at my cat

>> No.18126108

>>18126094
Your cat could murder you in your sleep.

>> No.18126114

>>18126108
My cat sleeps outside

>> No.18126129

>>18125865
Kant's claim is that the concept of 12 is not in the concept of 5+7. It has to correspond to a possible intuition (Anschauung) to make sense, so you technically have to leave the concepts of 5 and 7 to break them up into unities that then make up 12. I think he should've better also claimed that the concept of a number at all is synthetic, so that the concept directly refers to something outside of it. So you can then combine Kant and Goethe and say that the Urphänomen of number is something like what Schopenhauer called Grund des Seins, it is the directly apparent succession in time and coexistence in space that always lies at the root of every mathematical concept from which you abstract it and which makes mathematics synthetic because every operation refers to something specific and true in your intuition and a priori because it always arises out of the pure forms of intuition. I'm actually positive that you could somehow combine this with platonism

>> No.18126135

>>18126129
never mind that second part. Concepts can't be synthetic, only judgements can. Just some thoughts on it

>> No.18126143

>>18126114
Fair enough.

>> No.18126179

>>18126086
Mainly that there is a unity in everything that conditions each individual thing. Nothing can be considered on its own but only in relation to other things.
>>18126129
I'm not overly familiar with Schopenhauer, but he was influenced by Goethe, they even had a personal relationship.

>> No.18126183
File: 68 KB, 1071x300, number.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18126183

>>18125865
>>18126129
>implying you're saying anything new to Kant

>> No.18126190

>>18125865
The entirety of the technology you enjoy today relies on the fact that you need 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 to make 12

>> No.18126282

>>18126183
That's not really the same thing is it.

>> No.18126290

>>18125882
always

>> No.18126364

>>18126282
It's the idea you're grasping for but in Kant's own terms and where it fits in his system.

>> No.18126376

>>18125865
on kants view thats basically taking it as analytic if it makes sense at all

>> No.18126386

>>18125991
>>18125999
to a new, concept not contained in 7, 5, and sum, so synthetic

>> No.18126393

>>18126089
this, please try again with ’concept’

>> No.18126404

>>18125865
Replace "12' with "75", but it still retains the value of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Now, 7+5 is contained within. Guess the philosopher that wins for bonus points.

>> No.18126614

>>18125865>>18126404
7+5 is the syntactic representation of the same semantic concept as 12. Gödel's arithmetization of syntax represents this pretty clearly with prime exponents. I'm guessing this is what you're talking about.

>> No.18127075

>>18125882
Disprove OP then

>> No.18128155

>>18127075
op didnt offer a proof, and misrepresented kants view

>> No.18128168

>>18126404
No dummy, 7=1+1+1+1+1+1+1 is still synthetic

>> No.18128484

I suspect that most of the critiques made towards Kant's claim, for which 5+7=12 is a synthetic judgement, stem from an interpretation of his logic that I am increasingly dubious about.
Namely, many commentators seem to assume that the analytic/synthetic distinction pertains to pure logic, rather than to transcendental logic (which is to say, when people talk about this distinction they often do so without any reference to our sources of knowledge). This is made even more evident by the fact that people usually use the logicist definition of analyticity, for which "a proposition is analytic if it is true in virtue of the meaning of the terms contained in it": while this is a necessary condition for Kantian analiticity, it does not seem to be a sufficient one.
The relationship of conceptual inclusion seems to entail a number of transcendental conditions, which are usually treated as psychologistic by modern logician. The main one is that, in actu, if I am thinking about the concept x without thinking about the concept y, which is to say, if I am able to think about x without thinking about y, then y is not included in x (otherwise thinking x would be ALSO thinking y): at best it is connected to it.
The example Kant gives is not the best one, because it is too familiar (most of us can instinctively guess what 5+7 is equal to), and he certainly noticed it. That's why he also presented another example, which is often ignored: the one of sums between big numbers. I can have a clear conception of all the terms in the sum "5364373+5345637=?" without knowing what the result of the sum actually is. If sums were to be analytic, just by thinking in successions the concepts of "5 millions 364 thousands 373", "plus", "5 millions 345 thousands 637" and "equal", I would have to immediately think and know the result of the sum (in the same way that when I think about the concept "bachelor" I am already thinking about "unmarried man" - and if I'm not, then I'm not thinking at all about the concept "bachelor"). But this does not happen, and this, according to Kant, proves on a factual and logical basis that those concepts are not immediately identical to the result of the sum (rather, they are mediately identical to the result of the same: to establish the identity I need a middle term, which, in this case, is the act of counting), and therefore that is not an analytic judgement: rather, it is a synthetic a priori judgement.

>> No.18128694

>>18128484
Good point. Also just a good way of thinking about it. Also, starting from Kant's conception of numbers and arithmetic without first going through his conception of the synthetic/analytic distinction and his a priori/a posteriori distinction, and then through how he understands geometry as a synthetic a priori activity will leave you very confused. Posts like OP's aren't going to convince anyone of anything.

>> No.18128697

am i missing something? the concept of 12 isnt contained in "7" or "5" but it is contained in "7+5" no?

>> No.18128719

>>18128697
Not that anon, but I think he gave a good explanation >>18128484

>> No.18128744

>>18125865
It isnt, it is a convention, underpinning the modus of expression.

>> No.18128795

>>18128697
Not for Kant. '7 + 5' can be broken down into the concepts '7,' '5,' and 'sum.' But to get to the concept '12,' we need to operate on those concepts (for Kant, with the involvement of the intuition). The judgement '7 + 5 = 12' is synthetic because we get 'new knowledge,' sort of, either a novel bridging of concepts or a new concept entirely. It's a priori because it doesn't rest on experience. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

>> No.18128856

>>18126006
its more of a you problem. you are using common sense on an initially mundane topic, but the subject of the discourse is more technical. Same happens in science.

>> No.18128882

>>18125865
>There is no need to synthesize, as they already flow from the same essence
No shit there's no "need" to synthesize. We don't "need" to perform addition. But, when you add two numbers, even if they flow from the prime phenomenon, there has to be a type of synthetic judgement used to link the additives to the sum. The fact that you could argue there is a Urnummer doesn't change this.

>> No.18128892

>>18128697
Explain to me how 12 is at all related to the idea of 7 + 5 without using intuitive judgement (which is inherently synthetic).

>> No.18128960

So basically all of philosophy is Germans arguing about word salads. No wonder Hitler came around and argued 5 ovens +7 Jews = build two more ovens.

The only thing that should matter is the utility of the concepts. Do you get anywhere faster or higher with synthetic a priori or analytic judgement or magnitude phenomenon? No, it's just, "Oh look, I rewrote your sentence with different words and now my useless abstraction is better than yours." This shit gave us nothing. Nothing at all.

>> No.18128985

>>18126006
do you even know what their claims are? or do they just sound retarded to you?

>> No.18128997

>>18128960
You could have just said you don't care about philosophy. If so, why engage?

>> No.18129011

>>18128960
>t. bridge builder

>> No.18129043

>>18128997
I do care about philosophy. I don't care for philosophy to be the exclusive domain of masterbatory gnosticism. Which is all this is. Ancient scripts with zero applicable or appreciable utility. You may was well argue about religion or politics.and call it philosophy!

>Dude, chill, it's philosophy.
No, it's not.

>> No.18129055

>>18129011
A bridge is a defiance of gravity, a conduit of human promise, and a stroke of genius written on the tablet of Earth. Few things could represent the collective will and potential of man better. There is more philosophy in a single glimpse of a bridge than in all this collected shit-grinned book of the month YaYa Sister-hood of the traveling epistemology.

>> No.18129103

>>18128960
>5 ovens +7 Jews = build two more ovens.

Underrated.

>> No.18129110

>>18128892
>>18128795
as far as i understood from the other anon, he means a psychologistic knowledge? 7+5 is just another way of writing 12? i wouldnt even say theyre related but equal

>> No.18129136

>>18125865
>because the object 12 is not contained in the objects 7 or 5.

It's pretty retarded to say that 7 or 5 *themselves* don't contain 12 when the whole point is that 7 and 5 together are 12.

>> No.18129137

>>18129110
This is kind of just begging the question though, taking '=' to be a relation of analytic containment or identity. That's the very thing in question though: what's the nature of '7 + 5 = 12' as a judgement? How do we acquire it, what makes it true, etc. If '7 + 5' is just another way of writing '12,' why does it have to be learned? Honestly, this is one of the less intuitive Kantian positions, but it makes a lot more sense with bigger numbers, as the other anon explained above.

>> No.18129151

>>18129043
>Kant isn't philosophy
At the very least, you have to have a coherent reason for thinking that. I mean, I'm not categorically opposed to pragmatism, but you have to *at least* understand why he's important and how he fits into the whole picture of the history of philosophy. Too many people forget philosophy is a dialectical process, a long fucking chain where every link is significant, even if 'wrong.' 'Start with the Greeks' is a meme with literature, but barely so with philosophy.

>> No.18129156

>>18127075
>Disprove OP
He did.

>> No.18129157

>>18129043
>philosophy must have real world uses!
Idiotic materialist

>> No.18129160

>>18128697
You have to enact the process of addition, stare at 5+7 and you won't have 12, it's only when you enact the addition, and so is thus synthetic

>> No.18129168

>>18125865
Mental masturbation.

Thanks for posting, OP.

>> No.18129176

Saying a piece of philosophy is stupid because you don't understand the technical terms in play and the concepts they're meant to pick out is the exact same as reading a scientific paper and calling it gibberish because you don't understand the equations and big science words.

>> No.18129182

>>18125865
>the object 12 is not contained in the objects 7 or 5
actually, 7 twelfths of 12 are contained in 7, and 5 twelfths of 12 are contained in 5

>> No.18129190

>>18129176
lol why dont you directly refute the person you're disagreeing with rather than than vaguely calling them ignorant

>> No.18129194

>>18129182
yes, but by that logic every number is contained in any other number and so their concepts are infinitely large

>> No.18129198

>>18129190
I've commented a bunch of shit already:
>>18128694
>>18128795
>>18129137
>>18129151

>> No.18129207

>>18129176
Calling mathematics a priori is retarded anyway because it's not like people just know math by default; in other words, even creating a priori propositions require experience.

>> No.18129218

>>18129207
Well that's why Kant's notion of the synthetic a priori is important, because it allows for new knowledge not based on particular experience, like in math. How is this possible? That's where his transcendental idealism comes into play.

>> No.18129276

>>18125865
>Kant claims that 7+5=12 is a synthetic a priori judgement, because the object 12 is not contained in the objects 7 or 5. To reach 12 you must synthesize 7 and 5. Hegel claims that it is an analytic judgement, because you know the third object before you begin, so 7 and 5 are merely constituents of 12. But for Goethe it is neither synthetic or analytic.
von Neuman 's construction of the natural numbers prove that 5 is included in 7 which is included in 12

basically if you know 0 and believe in the axiom of the successor, you know all the numbers

>> No.18129285

>>18129276
How can a finite mind know an infinite number of things?

>> No.18129289

>>18129285
you just call it the sublime and wank to it like joshua reynolds

>> No.18129328

>>18129207
Mathematics are independent of empiricism and is therefore a priori (by definition). The way you reach the truth of 'John is happy' is different than how you reach the truth of 'If n such that 5|n then 5|[(n+2)^2 - 9]'. Mathematics are just logic and definitions (that is all it is) and once you know the definition of your needed mathematical concepts you can reach the truth by logic (reason) alone, that is, a priori (you do not need to ask the external world for the truth i.e. empiricism). However, that is not the case with 'John is happy' (you need to ask the external word for the truth).

What makes '7 + 5 = 12' true? It is true by virtue of logic and the definitions used (i.e. the definition of numbers and addition, the definition of identity and so forth).

>> No.18129336 [DELETED] 

>>18129328
>once you know the definition of your needed mathematical concepts
emphasis there

>> No.18129347
File: 54 KB, 393x409, pure_convergence1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18129347

>>18125955

GALAXY BRAIN: 7+5=A FATAL MISTAKE. NUMBER IS THE COGNITION OF YALDABAOTH WHEREBY THINGS ARE LITERALLY UNMADE: THE CROSS AS THE PROMINENT MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT, THE 1 FORMS THE 0 AS THE NAIL FORMS THE WOUND, THE WHOLE PHENOMENAL WORLD AN INTRUSION INTO THE UNNUMBERED RATIONAL AS THE NAILS DRIVEN IN HIS HANDS AND FEET, THE INFINITY OF NUMBER AS THE ETERNAL DEATH OF "BECOMING" NAILED TO THE PHENOMENAL CROSS MASQUERADING AS "NATURAL REVELATION", THE "HARMONY" OF NUMBER USED TO PERVERSELY CLAIM THAT THE MIND OF GOD ITSELF IS COMPLICIT THEREIN, WHEREAS ANY KIND OF ANALYSIS REVEALS HARMONY TO BE INHERENTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY RATIONAL AND ANY AND EVERY THING IT IS CLAIMED TO "HARMONIZE" TO BE INHERENTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY NUMERIC, I.E. THE LATTER IS A PARASITE.

>> No.18129376 [DELETED] 

>>18128484
>I would have to immediately think and know the result of the sum (in the same way that when I think about the concept "bachelor" I am already thinking about "unmarried man"
Untrue, you first have to learn what a bachelor is before you can equate it to an unmarried man (and learning that takes time).

>> No.18129381

>>18129328
However, on a Kantian view, you still need to conceptually 'produce' something in a mathematical judgement in addition to the concepts and rules in play. That's why it's synthetic and not analytic.

>> No.18129392

>>18129347
i love you, how big are your feet?

>> No.18129450

>>18129392

About 26 cm from big toe to heel.

>> No.18129463

>>18129381
Yeah ok but see in his day numbers were just bullshit that goes on a chalkboard but now we know that we can create an entire world with it in the form of hardware and software, and it simply doesnt work the same way with letters

>> No.18129500

>>18129463
Check this post >>18128484

>> No.18129555

>>18129500
Nice post, a few stupid questions

Logic = a proposition that is true on the basis of itself
Transcendental logic = a real thing, independent of propositions

This is of course, in terms of imagining an object and imagining a number as an object

For me, numbers are real, and in fact things are ONLY numbers, there is not carbon and hydrogen and then numbers bunched up between, its just numbers

Does a number require an interpreter to exist? I say no, I say we have discovered them rather than created them.

Hopefully I have been so accidentally retarded in this post you can easily answer me and help me understand

>> No.18129571

>>18129463
What about Kant's conception of numbers doesn't allow for their use in engineering? Note that for Kant the reason mathematics can be applied to well to the world is because the spatial character of the world is something we bring to the table; the reason we can have synthetic a priori knowledge like that found in geometry is because we have space as a pure intuition already available to us by virtue of our minds. Sorry, I'm not very good at explaining and my grasp is tentative. Ask any questions.

>> No.18129578

>>18129555
How are numbers more real than anything else? Can you tell me why you think that? There are many things in the world that are not numerical. You can't reduce shape or space to numbers, no matter how hard you try. Neither can you reduce time to numbers.

>> No.18129582

>>18129571
So I guess im trying to say that Kant himself, is simply made of numbers. It cant be synthetic in that they exist prior to your conception, and are the literal structure allowing for the conception

>> No.18129601

>>18129582
See:
>>18129578

>> No.18129604

>>18129578
Humans have found it to be too much work for them to do these things, we are kind of a very minor part of this universe. Its all numbers all the way down, rather than Russell's turtles. You must expect that humans wouldnt be able to find them all. A number is just information. Humans are describing the information, we woke up the moment we could reduce something to 1.

>> No.18129613

>>18129601
If youre asking for some world breaking proof you are silly if you think youll get it from me or anyone else im just here to state the theory that i find most likely

>> No.18129623

>>18129604
>>18129613
Why do you find it likely? I don't expect a proof from you, it's just a weird way of looking at the world that's hard to respond to unless I understand your motivation. It seems that you're assigning numbers some sort of status as fundamental entities; but why assign 'numbers' this status, and not just units, i.e., fundamental particles? In what way is '5' more real than 5 individual units of whatever you consider the most fundamental constitutive element of existence?

>> No.18129647

>>18129623
The concept of "building blocks", for example. I'm a determinist and I take to heart the microcosm/macrocosm way of seeing the world. Nothing is just on the large scale, everything has a consistent smaller scale. 5 is not more real than 5 individual ones, you misunderstood me. It all starts with 1. Perhaps there is a number humans havent recognized, that is simpler than 1. Look at the elemental table, these things exist by virtue of an exact amount of protons and electrons. When you change this exact amount, you fundamentally change the molecule.

>> No.18129658

>>18129647
why do you think these building blocks are numbers, and not just units? numbers are abstract concepts that let us generalize the world. e.g., '2' lets me think something in common between two people and two atoms. are you sure using the word 'number' is necessary here?

>> No.18129659

>>18129555
Nice trips. I'm the guy you were responding to
Kant does not think that numbers are discovered, nor they are invented (they're not the result of any conventional practice). Rather, they are a direct product of our pure forms of intuition (dunno if you're familiar with kantian terminology, please tell me if you're not), and our entire experience is grounded on those pure forms. For Kant it can be certainly said that the natural world is structured mathematically, but it must be remembered that the world has this structure only as it appears to us, and not in itself.

Personally I think Kant did not properly understand some of the implications of his philosophy, and that regardless of what he said, mathematical concepts still apply to things in themselves. I think this can be easily deduced by the fact that his theory entails a multiplicity in the noumenal world, and as such we can do (for example) sums of noumena (e.g. in the second critique it is said that to every rational agent correspond a "causa noumenon": as such, if there are 2 rational agents, I can also say that there are two causa noumena). But this is very speculative, I doubt Kant would have accepted this consideration.

>> No.18129661

>>18129658
Numbers are what we call units, anon.

>> No.18129677

>>18129661
but they arent, when i say unit i mean an individual of something, a number is something different, '456' is not an individual of anything, you might say it is 456 units, but then you're just using numbers conceptually to describe units, elements, entities, whatever

>> No.18129679

>>18125865
Hegel's basically making Leibniz's argument that the numbers are contained in the concept of 12, but justifying it by arguing that we already know how 12 is constituted by its laws. I'm partial to Leibniz so I'll have to go with Hegel. I think Kant's idea of Synthetic judgements are generally problematic because I don't think he really justifies the actual existence of such a phenomenon(means of a means), although I'm taking a seminar on Kant's mathematical cognition next semester so that may change.

>> No.18129692

>>18129659
I am somewhat familiar with his terms, it has been a few years since I looked into Kant.

I would say that if all humans disappeared, elements would still be elements, and thus they would have their corresponding patterns that are directly tied to numbers. Water doesnt cease to exist simply because we arent there to imagine the numbers that represent that structure of water. The numbers are there regardless of us, they remain uniform.

>> No.18129700

>>18129677
I would say that the fibonacci sequence that is so common in our universe shows that 1 builds off of itself independent of our minds, and the same with how elements often require more than 1 of something. Imagine an element with 456 protons, you take 1 away, now it is a different element.

>> No.18129704

>>18129659
I think one way Kant can get around this (and how a lot of neo-Kantians tend to do it) is to simply bite the bullet and accept the possibility of our concepts being legitimately employed in 'thought' about the noumenal world. You're totally right that there's this fundamental tension between his claims of noumenal ignorance and his extensive discussion of the noumenal world (for example, claiming that the noumenal world isn't spatial or temporal), but if you want to strictly accord with noumenal ignorance, you can just deny that under Kantian idealism you are justified in claiming things such as "there is multiplicity in the noumenal world."

>> No.18129709

>>18129700
As the other anon points out, the Kantian would say: the reason the Fibonacci sequence is so common in the universe is because the universe is structured according to our pure forms of intuition, and the Fibonacci sequence is also a phenomenon that is a result of our pure forms of intuition. A good place to start with this is Kant's understanding of geometrical proof as a synthetic a priori process.

>> No.18129718

>>18129700
You have to think about it on Kant's terms, we mediate the world in itself through our process of cognition. The existence of mathematical patterning in nature is basically just intuition(sense perception).

>> No.18129725

>>18125865
Goethe is the least wrong here.

>> No.18129742

>>18129700
It really depends, I mean, I'm both trying to give a Kantian view and respond to you on your own terms, but it is hard because I think your understanding of the universe is quite a strongly physicalist one (albeit with a strange understanding of its fundamental building blocks), whereas Kant is an idealist, at least in a limited sense.

>> No.18129762

>>18129692
I fundamentally agree (as the second part of my post shows), although i would still deny that things in themselves have spatial properties (I would concede only arithmetic properties, and deny all geometrical ones).
>>18129704
I think the first two Antinomies justify his choice of denying spatio-temporal properties to noumena (since they seem to prove that space and time are inconsistent ontological structures).
>but if you want to strictly accord with noumenal ignorance, you can just deny that under Kantian idealism you are justified in claiming things such as "there is multiplicity in the noumenal world."
Maybe, but this would mean losing most of his system. For a starter, such a multiplicity is already entailed by the transcendental deduction and the Refutation of Idealism (since in these sections the distinction between the noumenon we are and the noumena that cause the contents of our experience is made explicit). You would also lose the entirety of his practical philosophy, since for Kant it is really important that a rational agent is also a causa noumenon. In fact, even if you claimed that there is only a rational agent, if said agent has any subjective inclination you can already be sure, according to Kant, that there are at least two noumena: one related to the self-determining causa noumenon, and one related to the external reality which necessitates in him said subjective inclinations (which cannot have been produced by the causa noumenon itself).

All these points make me very sympathetic to Fichte's project, and what came after him.

>> No.18129769

>>18126129
This, too, is mistaken.

>> No.18129781

>>18129679
Can you elaborate a bit more on that comparing it to Kant? It's really painful to read Hegel alone

>> No.18129789

>>18125865
And you wonder why the Germans lost all the world wars they ever started...

>> No.18129790

>>18129157
Wanting the most useful and powerful minds in history to use those powerful minds to advance the human condition and contribute to lessening human suffering, isn't materialism. It's humanism.

Those same minds masturbating over number theory abstraction isn't philosophy, it's a disgusting misuse of natural gifts and talents.

>> No.18129795

>>18128484
I am now convinced that Kant was an autistic moron. Philosophy beyond Plato is simply not worth reading.

>> No.18129796

>>18129709
I would say that our consciousness is a result of the fundamentality of numbers, that if you imagine this world as a video game, consciousness is just a code. I say that were in the matrix. That a video game character, if coded for consciousness would swear that the loot he picked up was real.
>>18129718
See above, other animals do counting in totally different and even more efficient ways than us, and so our mind and the monkey mind are simply two different codes, but these codes are just values, just numbers composed in a certain way, we could have NO ability to perceive numbers at all and our minds would still be the result of numbers
>>18129742
Yeah I am very physicalist, no worries I enjoy the conversation and I just ultimately want to know the truth thanks for being patient with my dumb ass
>>18129762
Yeah I think its all just numbers too, muh matrix. The difference between 0 and 1 is existing.

>> No.18129798

>>18129762
Thanks for the reply! You make great points. Did you self-study or study academically?

>> No.18129800

>>18125865
>When one makes the proposition 7+5=12, they hold all three objects in their mind at once. It is the relation between the magnitude 5, the magnitude 7, and the magnitude 12 that is considered.
Yep, that's what most mathematicians would say. 5,7, and 12 are elements of the set of the natural numbers and addition and equivalence are relations.

>> No.18129826

>>18129800
>It is the relation between the magnitude 5, the magnitude 7, and the magnitude 12 that is considered.
That should have been a no shit statement from the beginning.

>> No.18129827

>>18129381
Yes, a priori simply means that the truths are acquired through reason and not experience (the senses) or more commonly known as empiricism. It is all about how you acquire knowledge (a priori or a posteriori). The way you determine whether a mathematical statement is true or false for example.


A mathematical statement such as 'All primes less than 10 are equal to 17 if summed' is synthetic and rather different from 'All bachelors are unmarried.' The property of being unmarried is in the concept bachelor - you define bachelor in terms of being unmarried. That is not the case with 'All primes less than 10 are equal to 17 if summed' because the property of being 'equal to 17 if summed' is not part of the defintion of prime nor the definition of less than 10.

>> No.18129877

>>18129798
The latter
>>18129795
:(
I mean, I love Plato A LOT too (I've spent much of 2020 studying his later dialogues) but I still disagree with your diagnosis. That said, I can see why you mentioned Plato: once you get deeper into Kantian philosophy you can start seeing many similarities between their systems. It's a shame Kant never studied him seriously (as he did with Leibniz, Wolff and Hume)

>> No.18129906

>>18128484
So when Kant says a concept is analytic he basically means it is true by definition?

>> No.18129918

Can someone make a list of Kants terms and their definitions we can make this easy for everyone guys

>> No.18129919

>>18129328
This post really reads like someone who never read Quine's criticism of Kant.

>> No.18129934

>>18129919
>Quine
ahistorical shitfucker

>> No.18129936

>>18129906
No, this is what logicists say
>>18129919
Quine did not really deal with Kant, he attacked the analytic/synthetic distinction as it was formulated by logical positivists, especially Carnap. Anyway he probably would have regarded transcendental logic as psychologistic nonsense

>> No.18129982

>>18129781
So the way that I remember the argument(I think it was from the early section on Sense-Perception in the Phenomenology) is that Kant has 12 as a middle term which mediates the laws of mathematics which are self contained in the concept of 12, so 11+1, 10+2, 9+3, etc. are all predicates in the subject of 12.

>>18129796
> we could have NO ability to perceive numbers at all and our minds would still be the result of numbers
That doesn't contradict Kant's claim. The epistemological claim is that you cannot separate yourself from your perception. So numbers are things we cognize, but which are necessarily cognized through the mind. That is to say, you don't have direct access to the thing in itself.

>> No.18129986

>>18128856
It has nothing to do with science, in mathematics you have the fundamentals of logic and you can achieve anything you want using these. The point they're making is just abstraction of something ultimately meaningless.

>>18128985
Making out a problem that can be nulled by common sense the second it's been spit out is retarded in the first place. I'm not against philosophy, but neither am I in the favor of masturbatory things like that. It's because of people like you that philosophy and rhetoric is a meme nowadays.

>> No.18129989

>>18129936
>No, this is what logicists say
Oh. The analogy of the synonymous nature of bachelor and unmarried man seems to have confused me.

>> No.18130031

>>18129982
I honestly would prefer Kant and myself be aligned. Why is it "necessarily cognized", though? Why isn't this more of a "happens to be cognized"? For the record, I think life itself is a force multiplier of sorts, where the phenomenon simply assists in a process of energy conversion/phases.

>> No.18130033

>>18129989
Concepts aren’t analytic; judgements are. A concept is something like ‘bachelor,’ while a judgement is something like ‘all bachelors are male.’ This is an analytic truth because the concept ‘male’ is contained in the concept ‘bachelor.’ That’s what it means for a judgement to be analytic—for the predicate-concept to be contained in the subject-concept.

>> No.18130047

>>18129877
Cool, I’m studying Kant right now, starting honours work this summer. You seem pretty knowledgeable.

>> No.18130057

>>18129919
Do you determine the truth of mathematical statements by using empiricism? Do you solve all your mathematical problems empirically? You are able to determine whether 2^67 - 1 is prime or not prime by using empiricism? The Quine-Putnam indispensability, for example, is about the ontological nature of mathematical objects as such and not how you determine the truth of a mathematical statement.

Mathematical objects are in the same category as moral facts - you cannot perceive with your senses the property of being a prime number.

>> No.18130092

>>18130033
I see. Thank you. I suppose that distinction could get tricky in situations where it isn't clear if the predicate-concept is inside the subject-concept. For example, is 1+1=2 an analytic judgement? In contemporary mathematics 2 is defined axiomatically as the successor of 1, so I'd imagine going by that definition adding one to one is sort of in the concept of 2. Though, I am may be lacking some nuance with that assessment.

>> No.18130106

>>18130092
Er, wait. I suppose that axiomatic approach is a logicist thing, so I probably messed up there.

>> No.18130121

>>18125865
Kant was not even 5 feet tall. Hence why he is so conflicted about numbers.

>> No.18130134

>>18130121
protofemboy qtkant

>> No.18130208

>>18130092
Honestly, see what the other guy says haha, my understanding of Kant on numbers is a bit shaky. But I suppose you can understand the judgement ‘1 + 1 = 2’ as the judgement that the concept ‘1’ operated on a certain way is equivalent to the concept ‘2’—the question here is whether the concept ‘2’ is contained in the concept ‘1’ and the concept of whatever operation is involved (in this case, summation). Since it isn’t (according to Kant), the judgement is synthetic. Rough take. Also, you’re right that Kant wouldn’t understand the concept ‘2’ as *defined* through operation on the concept ‘1.’ I think he’d take it to have an independence from that concept, even though it’s inextricably linked to it.

>> No.18130241

>>18125865
dude just take a walk and look at birds and trees

>> No.18130247

>>18125865
goethe makes sense to me but seems like an overly complicated way of saying that 7, 5, and 12 are numbers that relate to each other

>> No.18130313

>>18129762
>>18129798
To follow up with a reply, I guess I lean towards less aggressive readings of Kant; I’m more willing to throw away the certainty of his practical philosophy, and I don’t think the Antinomies necessarily rule out the question of the spatiality and temporality of the noumenal world. Also, I think they’re generally kind of weak. I do agree that total noumenal ignorance is hard to reconcile with the TD, but I’m not sure why its essential that he make claims about having cognitions about the noumenal world for the TD to function. Could you maybe say why you think it would be possible for the noumenal world to be mathematical but not spatial, given how integrally Kant links the two? You split off geometry from arithmetic; isn’t this a revisionary reading of Kant, since for him both involve the forms of our intuition? Finally, isn’t even considering noumena as causally connected to our perceptions is an application of the categories to the noumenal world; this certainly can’t approach cognition (thought it might be legitimate ‘thought’). I think asserting that the noumenal world is mathematically characterized but not spatial or temporal, and asserting that we can cognize this, is a huge overstep under Kant’s system. Thanks.

>> No.18130370

>>18130031
It's necessarily cognized because you can't understand anything sans the understanding.

>> No.18130374

>>18130247
Goethe wants to set out primal archetypes as mathematical axioms of things. So the prime archetype of color is light and all color is a modification of the archetype of light. Same with numbers.

>> No.18130436

>>18129986
The whole point of philosophy is that you can’t take anything for granted, really. So there’s no consistent language (to some extent, but not really) and many philosophers create their own technical language to communicate their ideas. In Kant’s case, he literally invented the synthetic/analytic distinction. Nebulous appeals to common sense don’t reduce the difficulty of working with first principles or trying to build coherent systems that understand the world. I get that it’s especially difficult when OP misrepresents shit that by the time you’d get to in the Critique you’d have been introduced to the terminology needed to understand properly, but you’re just trying to force Kantian technical terms into their common English meaning, it sounds like to me.

>> No.18130454

>>18125865
I think 7+5 is an example if it was a poorly chosen example it doesn’t undermine Kants general purpose of laying out the types of judgements that can be made.

Clearly in an initial problem solving situation you would be able synthesize 12 from 7 and 5 but in another context it could be analyzed as well.

>> No.18130463

>>18125865
what is the relation of 7+5=12 to emotion & belief
what do the Emotivists say??

>> No.18130499

>>18130313
>but I’m not sure why its essential that he make claims about having cognitions about the noumenal world for the TD to function.
I'm not sure I would make this claim, namely that we have cognition of noumena. Rather, I think that we can infer some of their properties from our transcendental structures. So, for example, I still don't know what the noumena I am is in itself, but I can infer from the TD that this noumena is different from the ones that cause my experience, and I can infer that these noumena cause my experience (I can expand a lot on this point - if you're a regular you've probably already seen me making this argument in other Kant threads) etc. Basically, I can say something about noumena when I find in my experience a datum that can be explained only in reference to noumena having certain properties (e.g. them being real, them having causal power). This is usually due to an insufficiency in our transcendental structures ( basically, when we find a datum of some sort that could have not been produced all by ourselves)
>Could you maybe say why you think it would be possible for the noumenal world to be mathematical but not spatial, given how integrally Kant links the two?
It seems to me that Kant splits the two, since they are derived from different forms of intuition (geometry is related to space, arithmetic isn't). The main problem, imho, is that spatial determinations are determinate, while mathematical determinations aren't: describing a noumenon as rectangular is to attribute to it a positive determination; when instead I just say that the noumenon is one, I am not saying anything about what the noumenon positively is. More in general, to tie it with the previous paragraph, the real limit of transcendental idealism is the positive determination of noumena, which is simply impossible in Kant's system. Negative determinations instead are fair game.
>Finally, isn’t even considering noumena as causally connected to our perceptions is an application of the categories to the noumenal world; this certainly can’t approach cognition (thought it might be legitimate ‘thought’).
I don't think so, if this causal power can be described in terms of negative determinations of the noumenon (this Is the point I have mentioned in the first paragraph, if you want later on I can expand on this).

>> No.18130506 [DELETED] 

>>18129762
>I think the first two Antinomies justify his choice of denying spatio-temporal properties to noumena
the first two antinomies are pretty stupid, they rely on a lot of unjustified assumptions

>> No.18130555

>>18125865

Isn't your whole point making an arbitrary opposition between 2 separate forms of knowledge?

Do you think that all things have an "archetypal" nature where they are distinguished by logical classes such as in mathematics? I think there can be a set of things which have that nature, then there can be a set of things where the elements may be composed in a way to generate new information. Where things are bound by free contingencies, such as practical cause and effect. But I haven't read Kant or Goethe ;)

>> No.18130592

>>18130370
But non-living things are perfectly responsive to quantity in a uniform way

No cognition required

>> No.18130626

>>18130241
Kant went on daily walks

>> No.18130650

>>18130555
>Do you think that all things have an "archetypal" nature where they are distinguished by logical classes such as in mathematics?
Goethe did.

>> No.18130857

>>18125865
I don't like Hegel but I believe he's right on here.

>But for Goethe it is neither synthetic or analytic
No one but ignorant and illiterate people cares about what Goethe has to say about anything.

>> No.18130877

>>18130499
>It seems to me that Kant splits the two, since they are derived from different forms of intuition (geometry is related to space, arithmetic isn't).
How can you account for the construction of arithmetical concepts if it doesn't involve either space or time? There aren't any other manifolds of intuition that we can work with to generate synthetic a priori knowledge, are there? As I understand it (I can do some digging in Kant to back this up), philosophical cognition deals with concepts, but all mathematical cognition involves intuition.
>the real limit of transcendental idealism is the positive determination of noumena, which is simply impossible in Kant's system. Negative determinations instead are fair game.
Maybe I'm much more of a conservative when it comes to noumenal ignorance; though the need for a noumenal 'something' is clear, the attribution of causal power to it, given that causation can only be properly understood (and, as I think the TD shows, is made possible by) the structures of space and time, seems like an overreach. Perhaps it's better to say that the noumenon must be related to us in some way, and that we can try to understand its relation to us through the category of cause and effect, but since the noumenon's 'affection' of us would not be in time, we can't properly say that it's a causal relation like the causal relations we cognize all around us.
Also, I don't see why knowledge of a positive determination of a noumenon would count as a cognition while a knowledge of a negative determination wouldn't.
I've learned to get around a lot of this issue by distinguishing between cognition and thought, where thought has fewer requirements but falls short of the mark of certainty or knowledge.
>if you're a regular you've probably already seen me making this argument in other Kant threads
Not a regular, just a student surprised to see some legitimate discussion of Kant on this board; might drop by more often then :)
Still learning, but my initial thought is that our awareness of ourselves as having distinct noumenal correlates falls short of cognition. I mean, in the end, the Critique is significantly an epistemic project; we're going to be left with gaps that result from the strict limiting of metaphysics proper to the phenomenal realm, right?

>> No.18130895

>>18130592
Being responsive to quantity =/= having the concept of number.

>> No.18130948

>>18130895
Are you sure? I would say responsiveness is simply a less complicated version of consciousness.

>> No.18130956

>>18130948
Critically for Kant, the possession of concepts requires an understanding, which requires a rational being. Responsiveness doesn't make the cut basically. There are no numbers in the world, the world is just numerically characterizable and characterized.

>> No.18130968

>>18130956
Unfortunately for me, this is just not compatible with what we understand about life and reality in the modern era. It may have been consistent at the time, but not even DNA or the periodic table of elements was understood at this point in history. In his era, I agree with you it wouldn't make the cut but this is simply outdated.

>> No.18131017

>>18125865
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Aristotelian terms 5+7 would be these two numbers acting out their potential, being 12 the actualization of said potential.
Right?

>> No.18131089

>>18130968
That's fair. Understanding how Kant's view would fit into the modern world of science is not easy, and whether you want to try hinges on whether you think the problems that motivate his critical philosophy are still relevant, or can't be answered satisfactorily in a physicalist way. Pragmatism is always an option haha

>> No.18131123
File: 82 KB, 719x863, 1548889661342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18131123

>>18125865
All I'm getting is that post the Greeks "philosophy" is just the diaries of wankers with nothing to do that doubled as mental masturbation for them.

>> No.18131141

>>18131123
Europeans were literally naked and in mudhuts for at least a thousand years after the greeks

>> No.18131157

>>18131141
But that's what the Greeks were doing during the Enlightenment

>> No.18131172

>>18131157
the circle of liiiiiiiiiife

may we return

>> No.18131175
File: 41 KB, 798x644, cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18131175

>>18131141
read a book, ew

>> No.18131179

>>18131175
lol books

>> No.18131187

>>18131175
>he doesnt get his education from /his/ memes

low IQ detected

>> No.18131194

>>18125865
>a priori judgement
Toddler learning to count on his fingers doesn't already know what the answer is "supposed to be" and try deliberately to reach it. It's not a priori. Every human, including the person reading this, had to figure it out from a place of ignorance once.

>you know the third object before you begin
A baby doesn't. The first pre-human ancestor capable of simple addition didn't, he had to figure it out.

>There is no need to synthesize, as they already flow from the same essence
*hits bong* aren't numbers all like, the same, bro?

>> No.18131196
File: 315 KB, 728x546, 1557103200892.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18131196

>>18131187
>he goes to /his/

>> No.18131200

>>18125938
Nigger think right here

>> No.18131207

>>18129347
Take your meds

>> No.18131268

>>18129762
>the transcendental deduction and the Refutation of Idealism
The Transcendental Deduction begs the question by assuming "normal empirical conditions" and the Refutation of Idealism only proves that idealists also need to be memory skeptics in order to be consistent.

>> No.18131786

>>18131207

>Renounce all unknowing, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the servitors of Yaldabaōth and the fire-seas.