/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18452553]

Just finished reading CoPR and I honestly don't know if I'm in the top 0.0001% of humanity in terms of knowledge because of it or I was conned and wasted my time (I probably will have to go back and read some secondary sources for the bits I had more trouble)

[Anonymous No.18452567]

>>18452553
retroactively refuted by einstein

[Anonymous No.18452580]

>>18452567
Didn't einstein just further prove that Kant was right?

[Anonymous No.18452596]

How long did it take you and what did you read before to prepare yourself. I'm thinking about reading pic related before Kant.

[Anonymous No.18452635]

>>18452596
Not OP but it took me ~6 months, I had read some Marx and all of Plato before going in but nothing directly relevant to Kant, most of what he says can be teased apart if you're willing to take a few seconds after ever sentence and pay really close attention when he defines his terms but I also did speed through a lot of it and not do that. I definitely need to read it again properly at some point.

[Anonymous No.18452665]

>>18452580
>einstein proving anything
Search "einstein plagiarism"

[Anonymous No.18452760]

>>18452567
>this meme again
This was covered by the neokantians, sod off

[Anonymous No.18452781]

>>18452567
How do you retroactively refute something in the past?

[Anonymous No.18452827]

>>18452760
>>18452567
Last time it was me who posted this, all I got in response was a link to some obscure paper and wrote a wall of text why that paper was wrong and din't get a single (you). So fuck off with that "this again" bullshit, you are incapable of having a proper argument and just use the same dogshit strategy wokeists use and say: "if you disagree with me you are too stupid to argue with or just a terrible human being".

[Anonymous No.18452846]

>>18452665
All I get is buzzfeed-tier mainstream media bait articles

[Anonymous No.18452853]

>>18452781
thats what retroactively refuting someone means

[Anonymous No.18452855]

>>18452580
He literally said that he refuted Kant and ridiculed Kant on multiple occasions. Search "relativity a priori" on google scholar or something.

[Anonymous No.18452924]

>>18452827
Which one was you? On Kant's or Einstein's side?

[Anonymous No.18452964]

>>18452924
Einstein's. I don't understand how you can take that crap about space and time not being known in themselves seriously, after Einstein showed a priori that they exist (using principles Kant himself believed to be a priori).

[Anonymous No.18453022]

>>18452964
We may agree with Einstein that space-time is not merely a form of the understanding, but his geometrical theory of time is completely unintelligible and devoid of empirical content. And it shows how feeble a philosophy of science contemporary physicists uphold, that they take predictive power to be proof of a theory.

[Anonymous No.18453048]

>>18452553
Kant is a total fraud, not because he was wrong (I think reading philosophy to see who was wrong and who was right is just american-tier retardation) but because I can't see where his originality is supposed to be. Most of what he says is already present in Scholasticism and probably in Aristotle as well. Feel free to disprove me, /lit/cuck.

[Anonymous No.18453050]

>>18452964
Can you be more specific?
I'm pretty sure they talk about space and time in different contexts (epistemologically and ontologically).
Besides, space is inconsistent in Einstein's theories (and especially compared to more modern theories).

[Anonymous No.18453118]

>>18453048
Feel free to prove that.

[Anonymous No.18453130]

>>18453022
You have no idea just how retarded you look to anyone with an education in physics.

>>18453050
I have no idea what you are on about and what the fuck the "modern theories" are supposed to be, but relativity is not empirically founded. It essentially uses platonic algebraic laws we know a priori to demonstrate the existence of physical spacetime which conflicts with Kantian-Euclidean norms and even more so with the idea that time can't be known a priori.

>>18453118
pic related is your salvation

[Anonymous No.18453142]

>>18453048
reported for shitposting outside of /b/

[Anonymous No.18453150]

>>18453130
>You have no idea just how retarded you look to anyone with an education in physics.
So what, that doesn't prove Physicists are right about Einstein.

[Anonymous No.18453418]

>>18453142
>>18453118
I can't speak philosophish, sorry. English is not even my first language. I'm looking for someone who wants to explain to me why Kant is "original", "groundbreaking" and such, outside of the language he used, which was fundamentally different from the Christian language of previous philosophers. I want to see the greatness of the content, of the substance, not the greatness of the form, which is actually the only thing everyone seems to appreciate.

His dichotomy between phenomenon and noumenon is nothing new. His idea that the noumenon (basically the transcendental) is thinkable but unknowable is nothing new. His idea that we have within us the conditions of what we can know is nothing new. His idea that time and space exist a priori is nothing new. His idea that there is something inherent in man that ensures knowledge in man is nothing new.

Where's the epic shit? I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.18453440]

>>18453150
ofc it doesn't, surely you, the sublime highschool graduate would know better, deaspite clearly being mathematically illiterate

[Anonymous No.18453569]

>>18453418
He was a farmer boy, thats pretty epic lad

[Anonymous No.18453661]

>>18452635
>It took me 6 months
>I sped through a lot of it
You wasted your time

[Anonymous No.18453716]

>>18453418
>Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this presupposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition.

[Anonymous No.18453720]

>>18452553
>Just finished reading CoPR and I honestly don't know if I'm in the top 0.0001% of humanity in terms of knowledge because of it or I was conned and wasted my time (I probably will have to go back and read some secondary sources for the bits I had more trouble)
read it at least 6 more times + secondary sources. you worthless piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.18453815]

>>18453048
>Most of what he says is already present in Scholasticism and probably in Aristotle as well.
You could have just admitted that you didn't read/understand Kant.

[Anonymous No.18453951]

>>18453815
>You could have just admitted that you didn't read/understand Kant.
this

[Anonymous No.18454062]

>>18452853
are you fucking retarded?
Are you genuinely retarded?
Do you remember ever having to take an aptitude test that the other kids in class didnt need to do?
Did you have someone always walk you to your bus after school?

[Anonymous No.18454091]

>>18452853
retroactively refuted by >>18454062

[Anonymous No.18454108]

>>18452553
>and I honestly don't know if I'm in the top 0.0001% of humanity in terms of knowledge
Not yet, but you are ready anon.

[Anonymous No.18454301]

>>18452553
> I was conned and wasted my time
Yes, you were conned by a long line of philosophers leading up to and extending from Kant. You'd have been better of re-reading the categories a hundred times over than reading CoPR.

[Anonymous No.18454510]

>>18454108
schoppy is gay

[Anonymous No.18454556]

Listen to >>18454108
Keep going until you reach Hegel.

[Anonymous No.18454583]

>>18453022
>they take predictive power to be proof of a theory.
How the fuck are you supposed to prove shit in the empirical sciences then?

[Anonymous No.18454597]

>>18452665
>>18452846
>>18452580
I didn't know Einstein was a hack. Now I am depressed. I knew he was a Jew shill, but knowing he was corrupt and a liar is even worse.

[Anonymous No.18454823]

>>18453130
What the prerequisites for the book? Is it worthwhile for non-physics majors?

[Anonymous No.18454867]

>>18452567
nah

[Anonymous No.18456694]

>>18454556
then realize that all this was in preparation for Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.18456717]

>>18456694
And after him you're finally ready for Peterson

[Anonymous No.18456752]

>>18452553
Critique of Judgement is a far better work
but Kantian epistemology got retroactively fucked by Plotinus (see Ennead V, the tractates on the Intellect - representationalism undoes itself reductio ad absurdum).
Kant also breaks his own rules by trying to argue that causality is a function interior to cognition by that the phenomenal is caused by the noumenal.
As Fichte points out, either then causality is wholly interior and the noumenal doesn't exist or causality truly does extend out of the mind and the things in themselves are directly accessible by intellect.

[Anonymous No.18456907]

>>18454556
>unironically recommending hugel
based motherfucking retard

[Anonymous No.18457064]

>>18456694
Meh. Heidegger is just Buddhism to 500ce with western terms.

[Anonymous No.18457906]

>>18452567
kys

[Anonymous No.18458094]

>>18452855
Einstein had a very sophomoric understanding of Kant's philosophy. You're free to read "Metaphysical Foundation of Natural Science" to see Kant affirm that every determination of space is relative to a determination of time, and vice versa, and that there is no determinstion/observation/representation of absolute, non-relative time.

[Anonymous No.18458107]

>>18453130
>You have no idea just how retarded you look to anyone with an education in physics
Who cares? Physicists wre wholly unprepared when it comes to ascertain the metaphysical and ontological implications of their theories.

[Anonymous No.18458127]

>>18458094
That has literally nothing to do with what I said nor anything to do with Einstein's criticism of Kant. Are you retarded?

>>18458107
Kant made a bunch of very specific statements about physics. They are verifiably incorrect. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.18458128]

>>18458107
>>>18453130
>>You have no idea just how retarded you look to anyone with an education in physics
>Who cares?
Stupid woman

[Anonymous No.18458148]

>>18458127
>That has literally nothing to do with what I said nor anything to do with Einstein's criticism of Kant. Are you retarded?
It's the only meaningful criticism that could be made. Criticisms concerning euclidean space miss the point. I assumed that you were not talking about those because you were talking about Einstein proving something a priori, and he certainly did not prove a priori that space is non-euclidean.
Also, do you have to be so fucking rude? Chill

[Anonymous No.18458163]

>>18458127
>Kant made a bunch of very specific statements about physics. They are verifiably incorrect. Seethe
The mistakes Kant made are not relevant to his transcendental aesthetics.
>>18458128
Meds. Now.

[Anonymous No.18458164]

>>18452567
No. Retroactively refuted by Hegel (PBUH) and Nietzsche (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.18458169]

You got conned. The only philosophy books in human history that are worth reading are Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Aristotle's Politics. Everything after that is just footnotes to Aristotle and seething that Aristotle was right about everything.

[Anonymous No.18458176]

>>18458148
>and he certainly did not prove a priori that space is non-euclidean
>Also, do you have to be so fucking rude? Chill
See, sure, it doesn't do any good for me to be rude, but it is difficult to stop. You clearly are completely unqualified to talk about this, yet you shit up these threads with these dogshit, mathematically idiotic opinions. Yes, he DID prove that, its literally the fucking point. Relativity can be derived from peano axioms or any other reasonable mathematical foundation you may be willing to accept, and shows that the axiom of parallel lines (as an example) doesn't hold.
That's not even the criticism Einstein makes in his book and that one paper review, but I won't elaborate because, please, just fucking read what you are criticising before shitting up my canadian board.

>>18458163
If so, his transcendental aesthetic is not relevant to anything.

[Anonymous No.18458190]

>>18458148
If you move at a very high speed you will experience space as non-euclidean yourself. Kant BTFO.

[Anonymous No.18458208]

>>18458163
>>18458176
>>18458190
Has any of you faggots read this book?
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/reichenbach-thry-rel-apriori-know.pdf
Is it good? Do I need to be a physicist to understand it, or is knowing undergrad level math enough?

[Anonymous No.18458240]

>>18458190
No, you won't "experience" space as non-euclidean, since we can only represent euclidean spaces. What you're probably trying to say is that we have non-euclidean mathematical models which are used to describe motion at really high velocity. That is fine and dandy, but that's not an a priori proof, and I'll also remember that every conceivable item of physical knowledge is fully compatible with non-realist interpretations of said items. Either way, Einstein did not prove anything a priori, nor he could have had done so without abandoning scientific research, and turning into a full-time philosopher.
>>18458176
>Yes, he DID prove that, its literally the fucking point. Relativity can be derived from peano axioms or any other reasonable mathematical foundation you may be willing to accept, and shows that the axiom of parallel lines (as an example) doesn't hold.
With this bit you have demonstrated of not knowing what "a priori" means. It's embarassing really.
>If so, his transcendental aesthetic is not relevant to anything
Not really, for the reasons stated above.

Now, for the Love of God, will you finally take your meds? Me and your mom are worried for you

[Anonymous No.18458268]

>>18458240
>since we can only represent euclidean spaces
t. never been on acid

[Anonymous No.18458273]

>>18458240
It is disgusting just how unaware you are of the philosophic developments of the 20th century. take your meds, pseud.

[Anonymous No.18458277]

>>18458268
I've been on acid and I don't think we experience non-euclidean spaces in that state (rather, especially in closed-eyes hallucinations, we experience euclidean shapes that are complex enough for us to get confused by them and their nature).

[Anonymous No.18458294]

>>18458273
That's pretty vague, isn't it. Who am I supposedly unaware of?
>inb4 neokantian copers
>inb4 analytic philosophers

[Anonymous No.18458295]

>>18452553
Literally I dont know why people bother with og sources before reading secondaries. You ain't gonna understand anything, just read a textbook about it.

[Anonymous No.18458300]

>>18458277
I heard/saw curved space while on psylocybin once. When your senses merge, your sense-perception is twisted greatly. I do not see why humans would be hard wired to experience space as Euclidean, and I am either delusional or I am a walking proof that it isn't the case. You can find a lot of people on youtube claiming similar experiences as well.

>>18458294
I think he means that the way you are using the word a prior is different then the way the berlin circle did. Might be something else as well, this is not my area of expertise.

[Anonymous No.18458306]

>>18458294
stop pretending you know what you are talking about and don't give me any more (you)s

[Anonymous No.18458309]

>>18458176
this is my nomination for stupidest post on /lit/ this week

[Anonymous No.18458317]

>>18458309
Like 20 different philosophers BTFO

[Anonymous No.18458342]

>>18458306
Of course as soon as you have to substantiate your claim (after having abstractly referred to some vague, unidentified consensus) you cower down and run away. Again, embarassing.
>>18458300
>I think he means that the way you are using the word a prior is different then the way the berlin circle did.
You mean the Vienna circle, I suppose. That would be at best a semantic disagreement, nothing to lose our minds over
>I heard/saw curved space while on psylocybin once. When your senses merge, your sense-perception is twisted greatly. I do not see why humans would be hard wired to experience space as Euclidean, and I am either delusional or I am a walking proof that it isn't the case. You can find a lot of people on youtube claiming similar experiences as well.
I'll just point out that although I do not believe that we see different geometries when we use psychedelics, I still think it would not be problematic for a Kantian. Our representation of space depends on our constitution. In the same way that there's nothing contradictory in the idea of an alien with a different pure intuition of space, I think there's nothing contradictory in assuming that radical changes in our constitution can affect our pure intuition of space.
That said, it would be irrelevant as long as most of our scientific research is done without psychedelics (I assume this will always be the case, but who knows).

[Anonymous No.18458344]

>>18458309
You know that Einstein would have agreed with that post, right?

[Anonymous No.18458351]

>>18458344
Einstein, like most scientists, was a philosophical midget

[Anonymous No.18458358]

>>18458342
you have literally ignored every single argument I presented and just ad hominemed me without any explanation "haha you don't even know what a priori means". I don't want to talk with you anymore. Have fun pretending to be knowledgeable. Some more pleasant anon than me is trying to have a proper discussion and you reveal that you do not even know the difference between the vienna circle and berlin circle. Closing the tab now, fuck you Kantlets.

[Anonymous No.18458381]

>>18458342
I think that I might have been filtered by Kant because it looked to me as if he was saying spacetime is Euclidean by necessity? Furthermore, the Berlin circle believed an axiomatic foundation of mathematics to be a priori viable. At least that's what i remember from reading Hilbert.

[Anonymous No.18458414]

>>18458351
The virgin Einstein vs the chad /lit/ poster

[Anonymous No.18458432]

>>18458176
>Relativity can be derived from Peano axioms
I'd be very impressed with any mathematician who could derive the principle of equivalence or the assumptions that c has the same value in every inertial frame and the Ricci tensor vanishes in vacuum purely from the construction of natural numbers (how do you derive assumptions anyway?).

[Anonymous No.18458472]

>>18458381
>I think that I might have been filtered by Kant because it looked to me as if he was saying spacetime is Euclidean by necessity?
Kant thinks we can be sure that our pure intuition of space is euclidean. That said, he is also willing to admit that any pure intuition is constitution-dependent. The only cognitive constant between us and aliens is 1) the 12 categories and 2) the presence of at least one pure intuition (regardless of whether it is spatial, temporal, or whatever else aliens - or us under certain drugs - might cognize).
>>18458358
I actually have responded to all your objections. Take your meds for memory too.
Also you can talk about ad hominem only when an insult is meant to constitute and replace a critique to a given argument. I have never done any such thing in this thread: I would usually give you a counter argument and THEN tell you o take your meds.
Also I know the difference between the Vienna and the Berlin circle, but since we were talking about definitions of "a priori" I assumed that anon was talking about the former. On the other hand you're still the one who has demonstrated that he does not know what "a priori" means after having written like 10 ranting posts against Kant. Now, that's really embarassing. No wonder as soon as I pointed that out you stopped giving substantiated answers

[Anonymous No.18458689]

>>18456752
Kant didn't have access to the Upanishadic thought to fully reconcile this matter. The german idealists however have no excuse.

[Anonymous No.18459017]

>>18454583
By observation. Everything else is guesswork.

[Anonymous No.18459031]

>>18453418
You clearly don't know much about philosophy, so trying to explain it to you would be pointless. What does it even mean to say that his language was "fundamentally different from previous Christian philosophers". What philosophers have you read?

[Anonymous No.18459034]

>>18454597
Calling Einstein a hack is going a bit far. Much stuff that is traditionally put to his name came from somewhere else but he's still in a top ten physicists of his century. Attribution in that time (if not today) was a clusterfuck of personal connections, "philosophical" cliques, translation issues and nationalism. Einstein did purposefully not cite obvious sources though, and played the public persona bit that most of his colleagues refused (was very conscious of the PR aspect).

[Anonymous No.18459039]

>>18452567
literally the opposite

[Anonymous No.18459043]

>>18453440
Aren't you embarrassed writing like a schoolboy? What part of what I said is mathematically illiterate.

[Anonymous No.18459072]

>>18458472
so are animals not conscious or able to understand anything according to kant because they don't have the 12 categories
this has always bugged me about kant although I haven't read him yet so I don't know if he addresses this or not

[Anonymous No.18459369]

>>18459072
Frankly I don't think Kant had really thought that problem through. On one hand he absolutely says that animals are conscious and have no intellect, on the other hand this claim seems to be completely at odd with his transcendental philosophy, which clearly states that every act of cognition, including purely perceptive ones, presupposes a synthesis operated by the intellect through the 12 categories.
Contemporary kantian scholars are still divided on this issue. Personally, I am a cognitivist, which means that I think that if animals are conscious, then they must have an intellect too. In fact certain behaviours would simply be unexplainable otherwise (unless you flat out deny that animals are consciousness): for example, the fact that dogs can dream (which already presupposes a faculty of imagination, which in turns presuppose a synthetic unity of perception), or thr fact that most animals can differentiate objects. The cognitive differences between humans and, say, dogs, is not an intellectual one: rather, the difference concerns the power of judgement (which is much more limited in non-human animals we know of).

[Anonymous No.18459401]

>>18452827
We get this objection in almost every Kant thread, check warosu.

[Anonymous No.18459477]

>>18459369
I would say a large party of it too might in practice. Can dogs effectively engage in similar mental operations as people engaging in a kantian diologue. Since assuming other parties besides the one authorizing the conscious is suspect. We in some manner have a suspension of disbelief with other human individuals as we suppose they as objects might function as subjects for the sake of expediency of dialogue.

While its somewhat of a moot point with other objects such as a dog or a rock which very well might have a similar capacity, but they are not things we seem to be able to communicate these specific conceptualizations with.

So its not so much a point if a dog or conscious or not, simply that that object is not quite apparently as roughly supposedly similar to the subject (which is always practically a human from a particularly human pov which I, and ostensibly you, might share aspects of. This might change of course if a dog starts talking about the subject)

[Anonymous No.18459882]

>>18459477
I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry

[Anonymous No.18460647]

>>18458344
no

[Anonymous No.18460884]

Einstein himself said he was something of a Kantian but with flexible categories

[Anonymous No.18460938]

>>18459031
>What philosophers have you read?
More than you. If you are a German piece of shit do not reply to my post.

[Anonymous No.18460942]

>>18460884
sounds like people who say they're spiritual but not religious

[Anonymous No.18460951]

>>18460942
Nothing wrong with this

[Anonymous No.18461004]

>>18457064
Buddhism is pretty nihilistic in a Heideggerian context - giving up desire means giving up care for being and beings, and death is seen through reincarnation rather than as a fundamental finitude

[Anonymous No.18461020]

>>18461004
In Buddhism, isn't the goal to ultimately ascend to Nirvana which means an end to the reincarnation cycle and essentially nihilism? Or am I off base here?

[Anonymous No.18461024]

>Buddhism is pretty nihilistic in a Heideggerian context

[Anonymous No.18461050]

>>18461004
Death being a fundamental finitude is nihilism.
>>18461020
They're trying to escape Samsara which is marked by impermanence, non-self and unsatisfactoriness or suffering so Nirvana is pretty much the opposite of that.

[Anonymous No.18461052]

>>18461024
He's right

[Anonymous No.18461075]

>>18461052
>He's right
God you're so fucking pathetic. I bet you're all fat ugly incels who never kissed a woman in your lives – not even your mum.

[Anonymous No.18461092]

>>18461050
ah yes the monks who want to "escape" the world because it is marked by impermanence are not nihilistic...

[Anonymous No.18461104]

>>18461075
Wrong again: I've fucked 9's.

[Anonymous No.18461115]

[Anonymous No.18461118]

[Anonymous No.18461124]

>>18461104
Looks like your grading system may be broken.

[Anonymous No.18461126]

[Anonymous No.18461135]

[Anonymous No.18461141]

>>18461092
Actively taking up the fight against the accepted nature of reality in order to overcome it or uncovering and seeing its true nature to achieve the goal of liberation is nihilistic? Buddhist monks are basically breaking the chains of Plato's cave and forcing themselves up to the surface.

[Anonymous No.18461142]

>>18461124
Her cunt was delightful. I could eat it for hours.

[Anonymous No.18461148]

[Anonymous No.18461154]

[Anonymous No.18461157]

[Anonymous No.18461158]

>melting down so hard over Kant you post your entire bug pics folder

[Anonymous No.18461160]

[Anonymous No.18461164]

>>18461158
Derailing puke-tier threads is a pleasure.

[Anonymous No.18461168]

[Anonymous No.18461179]

>>18461164
It wasn't that bad. The same debate was had by the actual intelligentsia.

[Anonymous No.18461180]

[Anonymous No.18461193]

[Anonymous No.18461197]

[Anonymous No.18461201]

[Anonymous No.18461205]

[Anonymous No.18461208]

>>18461141
You're being insensitive to what Nietzsche and Heidegger mean with nihilism, of course Buddhists and Platonists are suffused with "meaning" in their philosophies, it's just that they are preoccupied with - as you say - "overcoming" and "liberating" themselves from reality, which just means that you negate reality (a kind of nihilism)

>A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos – at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

[Anonymous No.18461209]

>>18461193
I like these little guys. They're pretty.

[Anonymous No.18461211]

[Anonymous No.18461219]

[Anonymous No.18461226]

[Anonymous No.18461231]

[Anonymous No.18461234]

[Anonymous No.18461247]

[Anonymous No.18461250]

[Anonymous No.18461299]

>>18461208
Maybe you are correct I haven't really gotten into Heidegger that much yet except basically at a glance :) thanks fren

[Anonymous No.18462689]

you underestimate how many people have read this book

[Anonymous No.18462730]

>>18452567
>The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is – insofar as it is thinkable at all – primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research.

[Anonymous No.18462902]

>>18459882
Sorry.
We in some respects have a suspension of disbelief with other human individuals as we suppose they function similarly as subjects (in terms of an object-subject relationship) for the sake of expediency of dialogue.

[Anonymous No.18462912]

>>18462730
>primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the
good post. What from?

[Anonymous No.18463145]

>>18454062
>he still doesn't know what retroactively refuting someone means

[Anonymous No.18463243]

>>18452553
Now you gotta complete the system of german idealism and raise thule

[Anonymous No.18463330]

>>18452553
CoPR is a book that even the best of professors don't fully comprehend. It's a field of study in its own right.

[Anonymous No.18463356]

>>18463330
I'm sure OP's going to fill us in on the schematism soon

[Anonymous No.18463644]

>>18456717

And then and ONLY THEN will you have enough knowledge to finally clean your room.

[Anonymous No.18463866]

>>18452567
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.18464243]

>>18458176
>Relativity can be derived from peano axioms or any other reasonable mathematical foundation you may be willing to accept, and shows that the axiom of parallel lines (as an example) doesn't hold.
Are you implying this refutes the transcendental aesthetic? This is the argument FOR compatibility between relativity and transcendental idealism.

[Anonymous No.18464657]

>>18453418
The whole transcedental thing was new. Like extremely new. The way he used language and arguments was innovative.

[Anonymous No.18464689]

>>18452781
Time is relative

[Anonymous No.18465799]

what would I get out of reading this book? a psychology?

[Anonymous No.18466092]

>>18452553
Hello since you finished reading CoPR and I just started reading it can you please help me by explaining the difference between Verstand and Vernunft? Thank you friend.

[Anonymous No.18467244]

>>18452553
>Just finished reading CoPR

[Anonymous No.18467250]

>>18464657
Leibniz came close to it. He was already calling space and time ideals.

[Anonymous No.18467463]

>>18462912
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/