ETERNAL REMINDER

[Anonymous No.22393335]

Read it today. Take notes. Share.

[Anonymous No.22393341]

INB4 Kant retard durr
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through it

[Anonymous No.22393346]

INB4 muh Hegel
>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently FOR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one MUST turn to that preceding exposition.

Hegel is the most Kantian of Kantians.

[Anonymous No.22393353]

INB4 have sex
>Sex is for materialist normalfags. It was the redirected orgone from his sex organs to his cognitive organs from voluntary celibacy that produced the supermind and the corresponding super thinking abilities of the great Kant. Develop the self discipline to resist sexual desire and thereby acheive the intellectual heights of the Empyrean like Kant did. The never ending chase on the hamster wheel of sexual gratification is mere cope for those that can't into Kant and their seetheposts against Kant are the only way they know how to release their pent up sexual frustration. I would tell them to kys but I am not so cruel, and instead I invite them to read a copy of the first critique today. Good day, sirs.

And of course St. Paul
>It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.
- 1 Corinthians 7:1

[Anonymous No.22393360]

Kant=Schopenhauer>shit>Hegel

[Anonymous No.22393393]

>>22393335
>>22393341
>>22393346
>>22393353
Didn't read.
Here's the philosiphy you need: touch grass.

[Anonymous No.22393415]

>>22393335
I'm a brainlet who never read philosophy, how am I supposed to understand this shit?

[Anonymous No.22393440]

>>22393393
Already did. And still managed to read Kant too.

[Anonymous No.22393445]

>>22393415
for the brainlets

[Anonymous No.22393725]

INB4 "ha you just contradicted Kant"
>The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law means enacting the intent behind the law.

There is a difference between the rote form of a philosophical science and its subjectively incorporated understanding, or what Fichte (following Kant, following St. Paul) referred to as the relation between the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit.’

[autism spammer thread No.22393729]

this is an autism spammer thread

[Anonymous No.22393735]

>>22393729
no. it's an ETERNAL REMINDER thread

[Anonymous No.22393802]

>>22393341
>>22393346
>>22393353
I hate when mom and dad fight

[Anonymous No.22393838]

What's with all the Kant threads?

[Anonymous No.22393843]

>>22393838
/lit/'s awakening from his dogmatic slumber

[Anonymous No.22393844]

>>22393838
are you a newfag or something?

[Anonymous No.22393885]

>>22393335
I recently started reading it and during the intro the authors say Kants table of 12 categories is a contested subject in modern philosophy. Whats the consensus on it on 4chan? Having read the prolegomena I already know how he uses them beautifully to bridge several logical gaps so im a fan

[Anonymous No.22393988]

>>22393885
We Kantians wholeheartedly accept the metaphysical and transcendentsl deductions of the categories.

[Anonymous No.22394468]

>He who wishes to understand my doctrine of religion sufficiently to have a competent judgment respecting it, must accurately know, and, as I believe, possess the system of transcendental idealism, and the pure moralism inseparably united therewith.

>I say, must possess it, that is, must occupy the transcendental stand-point. For, so far as I have been able to observe in my experience, though I would not definitely decide upon it, the mere historical knowledge of that system is not sufficient. For, whenever it is to be concretely applied, it is often forgotten, and those who talk about it as the only truth, suddenly let go their hold of it, and fall back upon the stand-point of realism.

[Anonymous No.22394647]

>>22394468
Kantbros holdfast to the standpoint of transcendental idealism; do not relapse into the normie realism.

[Anonymous No.22395002]

>>22393335
should i read monadology first if i'm kind of a moron?

[Anonymous No.22395041]

>>22395002
Wouldnt hurt. In his critique Kant primarily targets the viewpoints of Locke/Hume, Leibniz/Wolff and George Berkeley. But with a passing understanding of their views from wiki you can get by, since Kant is very thorough with his definitions. The Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason, since he wrote as an introduction and summary of his views when the people of his time failed to understand his points.

[Anonymous No.22395125]

>>22395041
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.22395248]

>>22395041
>>22395125
>The Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason
this is a midwit meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena:

>although a mere sketch PRECEDING the Critique of Pure Reason would be UNINTELLIGIBLE, UNRELIABLE, and USELESS, it is all the more useful as a SEQUEL. For so we are able to grasp the whole, to examine in detail the chief points of importance in the science, and to improve in many respects our exposition, as compared with the first execution of the work.

[Anonymous No.22395259]

>>22393335
Is it even worth it reading this book if I'm not smart enough? I think you can only get something out of these philosophy books if your IQ is at least 130.
>inb4 IQ is not accurate measure of intelligence

[Anonymous No.22395278]

>>22395259
IQ meme aside, yes, many of you will get filtered, many of you may even be constitutionally incapable of understanding Kant

>should any reader find this plan, which I publish as the Prolegomena to any future Metaphysics, still obscure, let him consider that not every one is bound to study Metaphysics, that many minds will succeed very well, in the exact and even in deep sciences, more closely allied to intuition [what can be sensed], while they cannot succeed in investigations dealing exclusively with abstract concepts. In such cases men should apply their talents to other subjects.

But in the end success depends more on determation to achieve the goal and persistence in attaining than in innate ability. If you actually want to understand, you will.

[Anonymous No.22395283]

>>22395248
>These prolegomena are not for the use of apprentices, but of future teachers, and indeed are not to help them to organize the presentation of an
already existing science, but to discover this science itself for the first time.
>but to discover this science itself for the first time.
Idk anon sounds like an introduction to me :^)

It covers the essential -> the critique covers the details-> then reread to fully understand the essentials. Sounds like his plan
But yea it is the difference being an analytical approach versus a synthetic one. Getting the whole or starting with the pieces. Either way works since he really isnt that complicated once you adjust to his mindset desu

>>22395259
Philosophy is for people with an affinity for rationality. If that includes you, you will find enjoyment in it

[Anonymous No.22395323]

>>22395283
>yea it is the difference being an analytical approach versus a synthetic one.

Kant:
>I offer here such a plan which is sketched out after an analytical method, while the work itself [the Critique of Pure Reason] had to be executed in the synthetical style, in order that the science may present all its articulations, as the structure of a peculiar cognitive faculty, in their natural combination.

>Our representations must be given previously to any analysis of them; and no conceptions can arise, quoad their content, analytically. But the synthesis of a diversity (be it given a priori or empirically) is the first requisite for the production of a cognition, which in its beginning, indeed, may be crude and confused, and therefore in need of analysis,—still, synthesis is that by which alone the elements of our cognitions are collected and united into a certain content, consequently it is the first thing on which we must fix our attention, if we wish to investigate the origin of our knowledge.

Analysis always presupposes an antecedent synthesis, and the Prolegomena (the analysis) presupposes it's antecedent synthesis (the Critique).

[Anonymous No.22395349]

>>22395323
>>22395323
>Analysis always presupposes an antecedent synthesis, and the Prolegomena (the analysis) presupposes it's antecedent synthesis (the Critique).
Sure that makes sense but it doesnt change the fact that the work itself which meant as an abstract and approachable introduction to help guide understanding and "prepare" for the main Critique. Hence the order should be Prog->Critique->and Prog again to really solidify his views if you want to be a stickler

"The previous work, which presents the faculty of pure reason in its
entire extent and boundaries, thereby always remains the foundation to
which the Prolegomena refer only as preparatory exercises; for this critique
must stand forth as science, systematic and complete to its smallest parts,
before one can think of permitting metaphysics to come forward, or even
of forming only a distant hope for metaphysics."

"In the Critique of Pure Reason I worked on this question synthetically,
namely by inquiring within pure reason itself, and seeking to determine
within this source both the elements and the laws of its pure use, according
to principles. This work is difficult and requires a resolute reader to think
himself little by little into a system that takes no foundation as given
except reason itself, and that therefore tries to develop cognition out of its
original seeds without relying on any fact whatever. Prolegomena should
by contrast be preparatory exercises; they ought more to indicate what
needs to be done in order to bring a science into existence if possible,
than to present the science itself."

[Anonymous No.22395358]

>>22395248
>>22395323
>this is a midwit meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena
So in conclusion, maybe next time you should try to actually engage with Kant instead of skimming his texts for pointless prestige points.
Hopefully I have elucidated the folly of your ways, and rooted out your seed of arrogance before it grew too big

[Anonymous No.22395387]

>>22395349
>doesnt change the fact that the work itself which meant as an abstract and approachable introduction to help guide understanding and "prepare" for the main Critique.
it literally just refuted your supposed fact

[Anonymous No.22395391]

>space is a priori
I'm currently reading Kant and I disagree. He does not make any convincing argument why space can't be empirical.

[Anonymous No.22395407]

>>22395387
>Blatantly ignores my point and Kant's own writing
Please stick to only posting neat pictures if you are gonna behave like this >:(

[Anonymous No.22395416]

>>22395391
Then explain how experience is possible without A Priori like time and space.

[Anonymous No.22395425]

>>22395416
Space and time are contained in the experience, not prerequisites. It seems Kant never addresses this point.

[Anonymous No.22395441]

>>22395425
>Space and time are contained in the experience, not prerequisites
Kant would say that Space and time are the pure forms of sensitivity. The tools of sensing. Without them you couldn't experience experience.

[Anonymous No.22395442]

>>22393335
>boomers clinging to Eternity

[Anonymous No.22395464]

>>22395441
Consider a pure consciousnesses without a body and hence without sensory input. Without having experienced the world, on what basis would such a consciousness consider space to be 3-dimensional? In an abstract a priori sense it could imagine an arbitrary number of dimensions with all of these spaces equally valid. Consider this my first argument.

In a second argument I'd like to go even deeper and question the assumption of the first argument. Why or how would a pure consciousness without body come up with the idea of spatial distance at all? While it is possible a priori to conceptualize "self" and "other", I don't see where this abstract distinction necessarily implies spatial separation to be among its defining characteristics. The notion of spatial separation/distance requires empirical experience.

[Anonymous No.22395474]

>>22395391
Have you read the Transcendental Aesthetic? He has two main arguments but a lot of other evidence for space being a priori.

1) You must have a representation of space to begin with in order to experience other objects, therefore it cannot be from the objects themselves. An analogy would be that you cannot learn how to see from objects, you must already have the faculty of sight in order to even know there are objects.

2) You can imagine empty space but never no space. That is, you can take all of the objects away from space but not ever space itself. This is because space is a priori ie. universal and necessary.

[Anonymous No.22395477]

whatever you do, DO NOT WASTE TIME READING THIS

[Anonymous No.22395493]

>>22395474
How can you imagine space of any kind without the concept of objects?

Space and time are intuitions. Intuitions forms thoughts/concepts through understanding.
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind"

So a pure consciousness without sensory input would not have the notion of space, dimension nor spatial distance.

[Anonymous No.22395495]

>>22395493
meant for >>22395464

>>22395474
ur cute and valid tho

[Anonymous No.22395499]

>>22395464
It could not imagine an abstract arbitrary amount of dimensions. The rules of space still apply outside of sensory experience of objects in space. You don’t need to experience objects to know that two straight lines can never make a closed shape in Euclidian geometry.

Additionally, when you say no sensory input, it seems to me you don’t understand Kant. Space and time are the forms of intuitions in sensibility. If you have no space or time in your mind and especially no intuitions appearing in it, there is no thought at all, but this does only reinforces that space is a priori to experience because you need the intuition to experience anything.

[Anonymous No.22395503]

>>22395499
Sorry for the retarded grammar I’m typing from my phone kek

[Anonymous No.22395510]

>>22395474
That's exactly the argument I've read and which I'm referring to. I don't consider it convincing.

ad 1)
Why does space have to be prerequisite? What is wrong with first experiencing the objects and their relations and then extracting space as an abstract generalization? Then space wouldn't be a priori. As an analogy: You first observe different animals and then create the abstract classification of mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. Kant's argument sounds like dogmatically asserting that we have an innate notion of mammals, reptiles and birds before having seen the first animal.

ad 2)
A lot of experience happens without space. Emotions for example. Where does happiness, fear or love reside? Can you quantify the distance between them?

[Anonymous No.22395525]

>>22395493
>How can you imagine space of any kind without the concept of objects?
That's what I'm saying. I think space is an a posteriori abstraction extracted from experience.

[Anonymous No.22395532]

>>22395407
your point was refuted by Kant's own words. also use greentext newfag.

[Anonymous No.22395541]

>>22395391
>brainlet gets filtered by the Transcendental Aesthetic
too many such cases

[Anonymous No.22395542]

>>22395499
>It could not imagine an abstract arbitrary amount of dimensions.
Skill issue ;)

>You don’t need to experience objects to know that two straight lines can never make a closed shape in Euclidian geometry.
I do need to experience objects to come up with Euclidean geometry in the first place. Euclidean geometry as an abstract geometric system gains its relevance only from the intuition of it locally describing the exterior world around us. How would a consciousness without sensory experience determine whether euclidean or non-euclidean geometry is more intuitive? Or how would it have an intuitive interpretation of geometry at all, beyond treating it as yet another purely symbolic axiomatic system in formal logic?

>Additionally, when you say no sensory input, it seems to me you don’t understand Kant. Space and time are the forms of intuitions in sensibility. If you have no space or time in your mind and especially no intuitions appearing in it, there is no thought at all, but this does only reinforces that space is a priori to experience because you need the intuition to experience anything.
Well, that's a metaphysical or epistemological assertion. I don't see Kant justifying it with a convincing argument though.

[Anonymous No.22395552]

>>22395525
>That's what I'm saying. I think space is an a posteriori abstraction extracted from experience.
The concept of space is a posteriori abstraction extracted from experience is different from the intuition of space which comes a priori,

[Anonymous No.22395553]

>>22395407
Kant himself refuted your point

[Anonymous No.22395566]

>>22395349
>Prolegomena should by contrast be preparatory exercises
preparatory exercises to the actuall building of the system of pure reason, i.e., not the Critique. the Critique is the propadeutic to building the system. It's position in Kant's system is AFTER the first critque to clarify the misunderstandings of it so that AFTERWARDS you can enter into the development of the science of metsphysics proper, according to the discipline of the first critique. It's called prolegomena to any future METAPHYSICS, and not prolegomena to the critique, for a reason.

[Anonymous No.22395584]

>>22395407
>blatantly ignores Kant's writing
already refuted
see>>22393725

[Anonymous No.22395593]

>>22395552
I'm asking for proof of this "intuition of space which comes a priori".

[Anonymous No.22395604]

>>22395593
the proof is the universal application of mathematics to the sendible world? Only space as an a priori condition of phenomena existing a priori in the mind can account for it. Hume demonstrated knowledge derived from experienced does not contain necessity, yet math does and moreover it does in relation to experience. The transcendental ideality of space solves this problem.

[Anonymous No.22395635]

>>22395604
>the proof is the universal application of mathematics to the sendible world?
What does this have to do with the question? Please explain.

>Only space as an a priori condition of phenomena existing a priori in the mind can account for it.
How?


>Hume demonstrated knowledge derived from experienced does not contain necessity, yet math does and moreover it does in relation to experience.
Math is abstracted from experience. Most of math was developed to describe physical processes. Math which contradicts experience is not pursued further.

>The transcendental ideality of space solves this problem.
How?

[Anonymous No.22395640]

>>22395635
>Math is abstracted from experience.
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22395650]

>>22395635
>explain
there was a time I would have debated with retards to show them the error of their ways, but now I'm content to give book recs and post relevant quotes.

[Anonymous No.22395667]

>>22395640
Symplectic geometry wouldn't exist without Hamiltonian mechanics. Noncummative geometry would have never been researched if it wasn't for quantum mechanics. String theory is the driving force behind progress in complex geometry.

[Anonymous No.22395670]

>>22395650
>I have no arguments but surely this book I've never read will contain some. It has to, because otherwise I would be wrong which is a priori impossible.

[Anonymous No.22395673]

>>22395650
If you can't explain the argument you didn't understand it.

[Anonymous No.22395682]

>>22395670
>doesn't get free knowledge gibs
>seethes
don't care

[Anonymous No.22395694]

>>22395673
just because I choose not to explain it to someone for free doesn't mean I don't understand it. Shit bait. Pay me then we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.22395696]

>>22395694
Alright. I'll pay you 50 euros if you manage to convince me with your arguments. I promise not to be intentionally dishonest.

[Anonymous No.22395699]

>>22395667
>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.
literal second paragraph of the critique

[Anonymous No.22395705]

>>22395699
Go on. Explain how this allegedly refutes my point.

[Anonymous No.22395712]

>>22395696
>republic credits

[Anonymous No.22395734]

>>22395553
>>22395566
>What do you mean he wrote the book to serve BOTH as an introduction to his innovative ideas for the unimpressed masses AND as an concise overview to be used for veterans of his thoughts for future metaphysics?? Kant was smart but he wasnt that smart!

Yeah... Im going to side with the certified Kant historian on this one instead of random 4chan dwellers looking for excuses to vainly demonstrate their "intelligence". Sorry boys

[Anonymous No.22395761]

>>22395734
>an introduction to his innovative ideas for the unimpressed masses
except it's not and never was. you fell for the meme.
see
>>22395248
and
>>22395323

[Anonymous No.22395773]

Kant bros, been working through CoPR a third time, this time taking super detailed notes in word. Ive been exposed to freges foundations of arithmatic and his theory regarding synethical/analytical conceptions being a result of a 'logical statement', instead of psycholoigical statement (however you would articulate it, i know im doing it poorly) has kinda struck me. I really wanna get started in hard logic so i can understand freges analysis of kant and mathematics more generally. Would you guys recommend reading kants logic to get started. i dont know anything about it other than its connected to artistotles logic, which I already dont know much about.

Pic realted is some of my kant notes

[Anonymous No.22395791]

>>22395761
>no Im still right because I said so!
stop being autistic and learn to think abstractly please
So yeah... Im still going to side with the certified Kant historian instead of s random 4chan dweller looking for excuses to vainly demonstrate his "intelligence".
Any further response will be taken as bait and an absence of a reply will be taken as a concession. Good day to you sir

[Anonymous No.22395850]

>>22395510
1) Please explain how it would be possible for you to cognize objects without a representation of space. An object is whatever is outside of you or not you, if you have no representation of space there is no way you could know of anything outside of you affecting you as you would not know there is anything outside of you or what that concept even entails. Again, I don’t know that you are understanding the argument correctly. I can try to lay it out step by step.

>Space is either a priori or a posteriori
>If space was a posteriori, you would learn it by experiencing objects
>If you experience objects outside of yourself, you already have the concept of space because to even know there is anything outside of yourself or multiple things coexisting at the same time is spatial knowledge
>Your representation of space must be a priori

2) You are on the right track. That is your inner sense, which is not spatial but is temporal. Kant is only referring to outer sense when you are affected by objects, emotions and thoughts are the mind affecting itself and therefore are only subject to time.

[Anonymous No.22395857]

>>22395699
KEK

[Anonymous No.22395903]

>>22395850
>Space is either a priori or a posteriori
Okay
>If space was a posteriori, you would learn it by experiencing objects
Okay
>If you experience objects outside of yourself, you already have the concept of space because to even know there is anything outside of yourself or multiple things coexisting at the same time is spatial knowledge
Non sequitur. Why can't the "inside vs outside" distinction be established a posteriori after experiencing something outside?

[Anonymous No.22395946]

>>22395791
>I said so!
Kant said so but whatever I tried. Review my posts to see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.22396144]

>>22395903
Because how the fuck would experience something outside? Again, go back to the sight metaphor. If you are blind (without a priori representation of space) you cannot learn how objects look like from experience because you simply cannot see them.

[Anonymous No.22396190]

>>22396144
>Because how the fuck would experience something outside?
By looking? I really don't see why this would have any a priori prerequisites.

[Anonymous No.22396206]

>>22393335
Ugh, I'm still midway through The Republic.

[Anonymous No.22396263]

>>22396190
You cannot make sense of sensory data without some kind of framework

[Anonymous No.22396332]

>>22396263
Okay, kinda makes sense. But this then raises the question: Don't all qualia have to be a priori? Nothing about a certain range of wave lengths of visible light implies that we render it as red in our mind. Color then has to be a priori as well, right?

[Anonymous No.22396401]

>Contemporary "Science" presupposes the brainlet transcendental realism instead of the dual-view high iq transcendentual idealism/realism
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22396409]

>Contemporary "Science" presupposes the brainlet transcendental realism instead of the dual-view high iq transcendentual idealism/realism
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22396446]

>>22396332
A different anon responded to you but the possibility of all experience is a priori. This should make sense to you because even if space and time were real, color would still be a subjective and purely sensual phenomena. You have a certain range of colors you could possibly experience and these of course are a priori. For example, even if you were somehow born into a universe where only wavelengths corresponding from yellow to blue were present, you would still be capable of seeing red it would just never happen.

Another way of putting it is that you will only cognize what you could POSSIBLY cognize, which seems obvious, but it explains why we cannot imagine or coherently think of anything spaceless and timeless, everything will inherently fit into space and time because there is no other way you could intuit let alone think about it.

[Anonymous No.22396453]

>>22396409
What do you mean by “dual view transcendental realism/idealism”? Just that space and time are sensibility AND real?

[Anonymous No.22396457]

>>22396453
what do you mean, anon isn't gonna get mean about this

[Anonymous No.22396461]

>>22396457
I don’t understand your sentence

[Anonymous No.22396567]

>>22396453
space and time are real empirically, but transcendentally they are ideal.

[Anonymous No.22396644]

I haven't read Kant nor have I read Heidegger but I am wise enough to know that Heidegger is the end-point of philosophy so I would like to know whether or not I have to read Kant before reading Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.22396714]

>>22393885
A lot of Kant's successors accepted the possibility of a table of categories to delineate how our experience is structured, but many tried to change them. Reinhold tried to ground all the categories in a more fundamental "principle of consciousness," Fichte tried to ground the categories in the self-positing I=I, Hegel tried to show the categories were fluid and changed with time.

In the analytic tradition, some philosophers hold that Kantian categories reflect the structure of language as opposed to directly representing how experience can be "chopped up."

There are a lot of different consensuses, I gravitate towards the language theory, not because language can't fully describe experience, but because a delineation of categories would primarily showcase the structure of language and secondarily showcase the structure of experience.

[Anonymous No.22396790]

>>22396567
Yes, but you said transcendental realism/idealism, not just transcendental idealism

[Anonymous No.22396908]

>>22396790
the realism meant to be qualified as empirical, transcendental idealism and empirical realism are two sides of one coin.

>We maintain, therefore, the empirical reality of space in regard to all possible external experience, although we must admit its transcendental ideality; in other words, that it is nothing, so soon as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all experience depends and look upon space as something that belongs to things in themselves.

[brutusanon No.22397245]

>>22396714
Language can never showcase the structure of experience. Experience precedes language. Experience is not a construct. Language is a construct on top of it.

>>22396446
The very search of the a priori is by definition recursive and solipsistic. Kant deliberately ignores the fact that transcendental reason cannot be based on experience. As Godel proved any formal system fails at the boundary of it's definitions of formality. You cannot prove a priori because of the interdependence of both physical and mental phenomena, just as Hume only proves temporal precedence and nothing more. They cannot be untied. You are dealing with an emergent system, that refers to time-space as well.
"Kant rediscovered triplicity and, though he found it only by instinct and it was, in his hands, still dead, still unconceptualized, it has since been elevated to its absolute meaning, so that the genuine form is at the same time displayed in its genuine content and the concept of science has emerged. Nevertheless, we sometimes see this form used in a way that degrades it to a lifeless schema, to a veritable shadow, reducing scientific organization to a chart; this use too is not to be regarded as anything to do with science.—This formalism, of which we have already spoken generally and whose style we wish here to specify in more detail, supposes that it has comprehended and expressed the nature and the life of a shape when it has affirmed of it some determination of the schema as a predicate—it may be subjectivity or objectivity or, again, magnetism, electricity, etc., contraction or expansion, east or west, and the like. This can be multiplied to infinity, since in this way each determination or shape can be used again as a form or moment of the schema in the case of the other determination or shape, and each can gratefully perform the same service for the other—a circle of reciprocity by which one does not experience what the Thing itself is, not what the one is nor what the other is. Here, sometimes sensory determinations are taken up from ordinary intuition, and they are supposed, of course, to mean something other than what they say; sometimes what is in itself meaningful, the pure determinations of thought, such as subject, object, substance, cause, the universal, etc., are used just as indiscriminately and uncritically as they are in ordinary life, and as are strengths and weaknesses, expansion and contraction, so that this metaphysics is as unscientific as these sensory representations"
>>22395903
What is mental is not only temporal but also spatial, just as what is outside if both spatial and temporal, you cannot untie the two, they are when analyzed separately proven one, just as physics proves them to be.
Replace the transcendental with implicate order and you are onto something. That you can experience, it's just you can't put it into words. Wonder why.
https://pastebin.com/P3rVFrue

[Anonymous No.22397851]

bump

[Anonymous No.22399075]

One of the few good recurring threads on here

[Anonymous No.22399081]

Kant is gay bro