[ 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: 64 KB, 800x445, 1_XJEb03sJQYynx595f0v_hA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21289259 No.21289259 [Reply] [Original]

>Sense represents appearances empirically in perception, imagination in association (and reproduction), apperception in the empirical consciousness of the identity of the reproduced representation with the appearances whereby they were given, that is, in recognition.
what

>> No.21289278

seriously it feels like I'm having a stroke someone help

>> No.21289379

>>21289259
>all those latin words
that’s why englandos will never into philosophy proper. Anschauung, Bewusstsein, Vorstellung, Erfahrung, usw. needs to be understood in german, and only in german. Unless you use latin/greek solely as crutches for your language’s words you are wasting your time.

>> No.21289393

>>21289379
What's wrong with Latin words?

>> No.21289397

>>21289379
Also explain apperception to me right now

>> No.21289401

>>21289379
Kant inaugurates a new philosophical tradition, but he was following an older one, that is the scholastic tradition.

>> No.21289421

>>21289393
they have no meaning to you. You use them for daily shit, but they don’t allow a moment to ponder on them the way
>An-schau-ung
allows Kant to develop a basis for concepts of space and time.
spacial-temporal-visualization I once saw a translation attempt. kek
you probably couldn’t even construct a greater theory from the word consciousness because even attempting an etymological approach you wouldn’t have nearly the same grasp and reach as a Heidegger would with something as “dull” as Schicksal/geschickt or Fug, usw.
>>21289401
no. in his forward he criticizes the dogmatic wordsmiths of the scholastic

>> No.21289429

>>21289397
Transcendental apperception is simply the experience of consciousness. Insomuchfaras consciousness is the repository of experience, it is also in itself experienced via self-recognition.

>> No.21289431

>>21289421
>you probably couldn’t even construct a greater theory from the word consciousness because even attempting an etymological approach you wouldn’t have nearly the same grasp and reach as a Heidegger would with something as “dull” as Schicksal/geschickt or Fug, usw.
Is this why so many Anglos throughout the last two centuries have been Orientalists and especially drawn to Hinduism and Buddhism? Because it allows them to get past that sort of dull philosophical autism without losing face to the continentals?

>> No.21289436

>>21289429
Does the unknowability of the subject come into this concept at all?

>> No.21289442

>>21289421
I'll explain again: he was engaged with scholastic philosophy, he confronted the problems posed by this tradition. I didn't mean to say he was following it literally and repeating their values, this is not even what is being discussed here.

>> No.21289454

>>21289436
The experience of the self is subject to the same conditions of appearance as the objects of the senses. So according to Kant, we only experience the self *as* appearance. The self in itself (awkward phrase) is outside the sphere of apprehensible phenomenon. In other words, the unification of all experiences as the experiencer is itself an object of experience alongside the others, so it is phenomenon, subject to the categories and not above or below them.