[ 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: 114 KB, 964x964, IMG_20210101_194810_042.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19526863 No.19526863 [Reply] [Original]

"It is plainly not the effect of the levity, but of the matured judgement[2] of the age, which refuses to be any longer entertained with illusory knowledge, It is, in fact, a call to reason, again to undertake the most laborious of all tasks—that of self-examination—and to establish a tribunal, which may secure it in its well-grounded claims, while it pronounces against all baseless assumptions and pretensions, not in an arbitrary manner, but according to its own eternal and unchangeable laws. This tribunal is nothing less than the Critical Investigation of Pure Reason.

I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but a critical inquiry into the faculty of reason, with reference to the cognitions to which it strives to attain without the aid of experience; in other words, the solution of the question regarding the possibility or impossibility of Metaphysics, and the determination of the origin, as well as of the extent and limits of this science. All this must be done on the basis of principles.

This path—the only one now remaining—has been entered upon by me; and I flatter myself that I have, in this way, discovered the cause of—and consequently the mode of removing—all the errors which have hitherto set reason at variance with itself, in the sphere of non-empirical thought. I have not returned an evasive answer to the questions of reason, by alleging the inability and limitation of the faculties of the mind; I have, on the contrary, examined them completely in the light of principles, and, after having discovered the cause of the doubts and contradictions into which reason fell, have solved them to its perfect satisfaction. It is true, these questions have not been solved as dogmatism, in its vain fancies and desires, had expected; for it can only be satisfied by the exercise of magical arts, and of these I have no knowledge. But neither do these come within the compass of our mental powers; and it was the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. My chief aim in this work has been thoroughness; and I make bold to say that there is not a single metaphysical problem that does not find its solution, or at least the key to its solution, here. Pure reason is a perfect unity; and therefore, if the if the principle presented by it prove to be insufficient for the solution of even a single one of those questions to which the very nature of reason gives birth, we must reject it, as we could not be perfectly certain of its sufficiency in the case of the others."
-CPR first edition preface

>for it can only be satisfied by the >exercise of magical arts

My dogmatic mind refuses to accept Kants limitations on Metaphysics. What are these magical arts? Any philosophers address this passage before?

>> No.19528099
File: 62 KB, 523x771, aE1mdKG_700b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19528099

Bump to keep thread alive

>> No.19528133

Bump for same

>> No.19528142
File: 54 KB, 419x610, C-FYawOVYAA9_R1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19528142

>>19526863
By magical arts he is prophetically alluding to the man who destroyed him with his Absolute Magic. As you can see, pic related is monster card instead of a magical one; that is so because Hegel demonstrated that there is no magic or "infinite" beyond the manifestation of the physical, and the physical is the mediated corporification of God.

>> No.19528147

>>19528142
Go on...

>> No.19528262

>>19528099

i image searched this image and nothing came up? what is it?

>> No.19528275

>>19528262
YA NEVAH SEEN TITTIES BEFOWA?

>> No.19528408
File: 1.29 MB, 720x864, Emanuel_Swedenborg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19528408

>>19526863
>What are these magical arts?
I have never read Kant, but if I were to take a stab at it irrc he was intrigued by Emmanuel Swedenborg, who claimed to have been granted the ability to see heaven and the spirit world and converse with spirits there.
Kant had had Swedenborg's expensive eight volume book, Secrets of Heaven, mailed to himself.
He wrote and anonymously published Dreams of a Spirit-Seer in part as an extended critique of Swedenborg, but in letters to friends would later disparage the essay and claimed he wrote it in order to anticipate popular criticism of Swedenborg's thought.

>> No.19528696

>>19526863
I think he just made a hyperbolic statement. Can be only satisfied by the exercise of magical arts in the sense that it can never be truly known.

>> No.19528833

>>19528262
It appears to be an attractive woman with nice tits and a cuuute face. 10/10 would do.

>> No.19528844

>>19528408
>claimed
Anon, I...

>> No.19528977

>>19528142
>there is no magic or "infinite" beyond the manifestation of the physical
This much is easy to follow.
>and the physical is the mediated corporification of God.
But where does this one come from?

>> No.19529305

>>19528977
sounds like Spinozism

>> No.19529334

>>19528844
He was visited by a demon, anon.

>> No.19529620

>>19529334
Are demons not spirits?

>> No.19529748

>>19528262
Fucking embarrassing not to know Jayden Jaymes, anon. I'm gonna need your coomer badge, and your other badge

>> No.19529931

>>19526863
Clearly the 'exercise of magical arts' is associated with certain 'fancies and desires' and 'hopes and expectations'. What are these desires and hopes? They are hopes about what metaphysics might promise, which cannot be given in an immanent experience. We would go to see a magician where cannot effect our wishes by mechanical means, no? E.g., to talk to the dead, to bring about someone's ruin without our being discovered, etc. Now Kant has not solved the associated metaphysical difficulties by showing how such things are possible, i.e., by giving a system of magic. Rather he has shown that any investigation on the ground of these hopes is bound by such desires to become involved in 'dialectical illusion'. Kant's God is not one we could talk to, nor does it reveal the nature of the soul; rather these are only given positive significance in his practical philosophy, which is only the regulation of conduct by freedom and does not open the way to any special powers.

Still, the nature of the imagination, in a way, offers certain possibilities beyond what we usually find in reality. Imagination can create fictions and fantasies which presumably could never be encountered in actual experience. So there is a question about the extent to which the mind can 'interact' with such fictions. There is commonplace information about such things, e.g., in the 'power of positive thinking' or of the use of the 'creative imagination' for personal success, and so on. Such things would have probably been placed by Kant in psychology or perhaps in some kind of applied (practical) science or art, so they would not for him merit any consideration in a critique of pure reason. Still, his transcendental system in no way hinders or precludes such use of the imagination, though he would deny that any such fictionalizing or fantasizing could serve as proof for the reality of another or transcendent world of entities.

>> No.19529979
File: 408 KB, 2119x1393, 1637880567310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19529979

>>19528142
dense charlatains can't into magic and the paranormal, not surprised even a bit

>> No.19530182

>>19529979
Nice. Where does Kant talk about reincarnating on other planets? Wanna read that.

>> No.19530196

>>19529931
Effortful reply. Thanks empathetic to my post anon. Do you know of any philosopher who did inquire into a system of magic?

>> No.19530309

>>19526863
that which cannot be understood via reason, can only be mystical, or magical, or whatever, in principle

>> No.19530358

>>19530309
My question to you is: why can't everything be understood by reason? Is the magical simply the yet to be understood? Could it all in principle be understood by reason?

>> No.19530373

Does Kant ever address the problem miracles pose to his system?

>> No.19530379

>>19530358
In principle, everything that is, can be understood via reason I guess. And anything, any potentiality above, can only be mystical. Its not that there are gaps in knowledge which are in principle magical.

>> No.19530830
File: 54 KB, 640x714, t3ugB65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530830

Bump for thread preservation

>> No.19530861
File: 27 KB, 600x600, 41VSNXMW28L._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530861

>>19529931
>Now Kant has not solved the associated metaphysical difficulties by showing how such things are possible, i.e., by giving a system of magic.

Is picrel what you mean here? Has anyone read this?

>> No.19530870
File: 40 KB, 333x500, 51srttVhMbL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530870

>>19530861
Or this?

>> No.19530878

>>19530379
I think it is useful to consider the ability of animals to understand reality. They obviously cant grasp much of what we do, but they arent totally bereft of reason; they make logical inferences. It seems unlikely that our own faculty of reason should be able to apprehend anything at all in reality, when it evolved for a set of particular and contingent purposes. This doesn't apply of course if you think God created us and gave us reason.

>> No.19530879
File: 386 KB, 1461x2280, MU_1113_Fg_Eckartshausen_-_Aufschluesse_zur_Magie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530879

>>19530870
Or this?

>> No.19530886

>>19530878
yea I agree completely with what you are thinking but I have this magical anthropocentric belief in that human reason is something more than that of a fox.
But honestly I think that I should try to understand Kant better.

>> No.19530890

>>19530878
>This doesn't apply of course if you think God created us and gave us reason.

In which case, all is capable of being understood rationally? Even say, magic?

>> No.19530905

>>19530890
no, if its understandable via reason, its not magic

>> No.19530948
File: 272 KB, 1200x1694, the-signature-of-all-things-9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19530948

>>19528977
From Jacob Boehme, although Hegel formalized the essential elements of what he discovered in mystical ecstacy through the formalism of the Dialectical advancing towards the Absolute Idea. The power of sublation in definition, and the semiotics of negation give rise to the logical movement of being having to posit itself to have being, or that is, to advance forwards from pure unmediated being, which is pure abstraction and thus nothing, a contradiction of being, it must result in becoming.

Look at the Stanford Encyclopedia on Hegelian dialectical to start. It's unfortunately impossible to explain easily and you always end up sounding like a schizo trying to phrase these sentences quickly. I am sure I have failed here....

The Absolute is Being knowing Itself.

>> No.19530980

>>19528408
>I have never read Kant, but if I were to take a stab at it irrc he was intrigued by Emmanuel Swedenborg, who claimed to have been granted the ability to see heaven and the spirit world and converse with spirits there.
This sounds like the right answer. Where's one of the house Kant experts to chime in on the matter?

>> No.19531019

>>19530905
So are you just defining magic as irrational?