DAILY KANT THREAD

[Anonymous No.22789080]

>Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.

[Anonymous No.22789246]

>>22789080
What is "pure" knowledge?

[Anonymous No.22789337]

>>22789246
>Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up.

[Anonymous No.22789503]

>>22789337
There is literally only one thing that is like that

[Anonymous No.22789602]

>>22789503

[Anonymous No.22789629]

>>22789602
is this truly the sacred cow of the transcendental deduction?

[Anonymous No.22789637]

>>22789629
No person who did not actually read the critique. This table appears before the deduction, but you wouldn't know about that.

[Anonymous No.22789639]

>>22789080
stupid big foreheaded fuck filtered me

[Anonymous No.22789644]

>>22789639
congratulations. I respect your honesty.

[Anonymous No.22789696]

>>22789637
tell me about this deduction then

[Anonymous No.22789736]

>>22789696
>Teachers of jurisprudence, when speaking of rights and claims, distinguish in a cause the question of right (quid juris) from the question of fact (quid facti), and while they demand proof of both, they give to the proof of the former, which goes to establish right or claim in law, the name of DEDUCTION.

>it is necessary to know how [pure] conceptions can apply to objects without being derived from experience. I term, therefore, an examination of the manner in which conceptions can apply a priori to objects, the transcendental deduction of conceptions

[Anonymous No.22790310]

bump

[Anonymous No.22790312]

>>22789639
>>22789696

[Anonymous No.22790326]

>>22789736
>transcendental

>I apply the term transcendental to all knowledge which is not so much occupied with objects as with the mode of our cognition of these objects, so far as this mode of cognition is possible a priori.

[Anonymous No.22790332]

Russell recommends Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics for beginners. Should I read it first?

[Anonymous No.22790370]

>>22790332
>Russell
god no

[Anonymous No.22790376]

>>22790332

[Anonymous No.22790383]

>>22790326
>cognition

>Intuition and conceptions constitute, therefore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither conceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cognition.

>Understanding is, to speak generally, the faculty Of cognitions. These consist in the determined relation of given representation to an object. But an object is that, in the conception of which the manifold in a given intuition is united. Now all union of representations requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently, it is the unity of consciousness alone that constitutes the possibility of representations relating to an object, and therefore of their objective validity, and of their becoming cognitions, and consequently, the possibility of the existence of the understanding itself.

[Anonymous No.22790432]

>>22790376
Noted

[Anonymous No.22791205]

bump

[Anonymous No.22791213]

>Our expositions accordingly teach the reality (i.e., objective validity) of space in regard to everything that can come before us externally as an object, but at the same time the ideality of space in regard to things when they are considered in themselves through reason, i.e., without taking account of the constitution of our sensibility. p. 178, B 44

Does Kant actually say that reason could actually reach the thing in itself?

[Anonymous No.22791218]

>>22790383
Intuitions don’t exist. His only reason for thinking a priori synthetic knowledge is possible is that math is apodeictic, but math isn’t apodeictic. Intuitions are just the last resort of dogmatists when faced with skeptical philosophy. They know everything devolves into infinite regress so they have to claim that there are judgements were not themselves the conclusion of an inference. In reality everything can be deconstructed and this negates Kant’s whole project.

[Anonymous No.22791225]

>>22791213
Reason assumes that the thing in itself exists as a regulative principle. Reason always wants to seek the unconditioned so it assumes there must be the absolutely unconditioned which would be the thing in itself. But every argument proving the existence of this absolute is invalid because it is not something that is a possibility for experience.

[Anonymous No.22791262]

>>22791218
>They know everything devolves into infinite regress so they have to claim that there are judgements were not themselves the conclusion of an inference.
>>22791225
>Reason always wants to seek the unconditioned so it assumes there must be the absolutely unconditioned which would be the thing in itself.
Please actually read the books you criticize before outing yourself as a pseud

[Anonymous No.22791265]

>>22791213
no

[Anonymous No.22791268]

>>22791225
>But every argument proving the existence of this absolute is invalid because it is not something that is a possibility for experience.
Why would proving the existence of the absolute require that it is a possibility for experience? Why couldn't it just be inferred? More precisely, what does 'a possibility for experience' actually mean here, because this simply makes me think of 20th century physics, where both quantum and relativistic effects are only observable through the mediation of some device, but in order to get to that, reason is required. So reason seems to be able to circumvent the limitations of what the subject could experience immediately.

[Anonymous No.22791274]

>>22791265
Why?

[Anonymous No.22791282]

>>22791262
How is what I said wrong? Perhaps it does not need to assume the absolutely unconditioned but it does prove that it exists in the theses of the antinomies. The theses don’t appeal to the possibility of experience so they are essentially proofs of reason. Regardless, it still assumes whatever is less conditioned than what you are dealing with so it will assume there is a thing in itself that is less conditioned than space and time.

[Anonymous No.22791351]

>>22791268
For Kant knowledge is composed both of Anschauung (intuition) and Begriff (concept), and for humans Kant affirms Anschauung is only sensible. Although you can rationally infer objects beyond sense experience, you cannot know them. This is a simplification.

[Anonymous No.22791459]

>>22791351
>knowledge is composed both of Anschauung (intuition) and Begriff (concept)
Interesting. What about pure mathematics? He states that it's based on a priori Anschaungen, so shouldn't it be knowledge? Going even further, can science, for Kant, not be knowledge, like metaphysics, for instance? What about truth and knowledge? Can something be true but not knowledge? What about the difference between Erkenntnis and Wissen?

[Anonymous No.22791550]

>>22789080
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.22791559]

>>22791459
That's a lot of questions buddy and people literally get paid to answer them- I ain't so I'll answer one and then tell you to fuck off and read the book or read >>22790312 or >>22790376

>What about pure mathematics? He states that it's based on a priori Anschaungen, so shouldn't it be knowledge?
Math is based on a priori intuition AND the construction of concepts from those a priori intuitions.

>mathematical cognition is cognition by means of the construction of conceptions. The construction of a conception is the presentation a priori of the intuition which corresponds to the conception.

Kant gives examples of what he means:
>I construct a triangle, by the presentation of the object which corresponds to this conception, either by mere imagination—in pure intuition, or upon paper—in empirical intuition, in both cases completely a priori, without borrowing the type of that figure from any experience. The individual figure drawn upon paper is empirical; but it serves, notwithstanding, to indicate the conception, even in its universality, because in this empirical intuition we keep our eye merely on the act of the construction of the conception, and pay no attention to the various modes of determining it, for example, its size, the length of its sides, the size of its angles, these not in the least affecting the essential character of the conception.

>The reason why mathematical cognition can relate only to quantity is to be found in its form alone. For it is the conception of quantities only that is capable of being constructed, that is, presented a priori in intuition

>We can form an intuition, by means of the mere conception of it, of a cone, without the aid of experience; but the colour of the cone we cannot know except from experience.

>In this intuition it regards the conception in concreto, not empirically, but in an a priori intuition, which it has constructed; and in which, all the results which follow from the general conditions of the construction of the conception are in all cases valid for the object of the constructed conception.

[Anonymous No.22791563]

>>22791550
>necessary a posteriori
>contradiction in terms
not even

[Anonymous No.22791700]

>>22791559
>Math is based on a priori intuition AND the construction of concepts from those a priori intuitions.
I got this backwards
Math is based on a priori concepts AND the construction if those concepts in intuition- either in imagination or physicsl construction,i.e., literally drawing with pen on paper.

[Anonymous No.22792060]

bump

[Anonymous No.22792286]

bump

[Anonymous No.22792673]

>>22789696
In simple terms:

The Transcendental Deduction shows that experience follows rules (the Categories) that can be known synthetically a priori. Kant does this by starting with the unity of apperception. All of your representations belong to this unity (they are your representations), but for these representations to be so you must synthesize the manifold of intuitions and give them structure, and what Kant argues is that you use the Categories to do so. Because all experience is given through the Categories, you can know that they apply to everything necessarily.

[Anonymous No.22793776]

b

[Anonymous No.22794853]

>>22791559
Do you get paid to answer them?

[Anonymous No.22794919]

What is this nigga even saying? I just tried starting with the preface and he just goes all over the place.

[Anonymous No.22794945]

>>22794919
In summary that there is limit beyond which we cannot know things followed by very nice structural summary of human mind.

[Anonymous No.22794953]

>>22794919
The preface is less articulate than the rest. He'll still be autistic but much more specific.

[Anonymous No.22795111]

>>22792673
these are not simple terms

[Anonymous No.22795140]

>>22789080
Daily Kant thread? Hope you can keep this up anon, unironically.

[Anonymous No.22795803]

>At thirteen, when his range of enthusiasms had broadened to include music and philosophy, Einstein was introduced to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Kant became his favorite philosopher; according to his tutor, "At the time he was still a child, only thirteen years old, yet Kant's works, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, seemed to be clear to him."

[Anonymous No.22795835]

>>22795803
>seemed

I came.

[Anonymous No.22795938]

bump

[Anonymous No.22796075]

>>22795803
>It was only later, when Einstein was coming up with his own theories, that his pseud status became apparent.

[Anonymous No.22796087]

>>22796075
I don't think you know what pseud means

[Anonymous No.22796309]

>>22796087
think he does

[Anonymous No.22796523]

>>22794953
stfu dude

[Anonymous No.22796544]

>>22792673
This anon is not Kantposter. He is a poor imitation.

[Anonymous No.22796549]

>>22796523
Anon, have you ever left your mom's basement?

[Anonymous No.22796558]

>>22796549
I have a job, a gf, my own place and still manage to read Kant everyday. seethe more faggot

[Anonymous No.22796639]

>>22796075
was einstein really as smart as everyone says? i mean what is all this business about relativity even? wooo space is a medium and time is different when you move at different speeds... wooo so impressive.
im kidding ofc but i honestly don't know why einstein specifically is so revered. his name is synonymous with genius

[Anonymous No.22796649]

>>22796639
e=mc^2

[Anonymous No.22796667]

>>22796558
Does your gf know you're a bitch? What about those at your job? No? Ok then. It's good that you manage to read Kant everyday though. Keep it up.

[Anonymous No.22796672]

>>22796649
Most useless answer in the history of answers. Ever.

[Anonymous No.22796731]

>>22796639
>his name is synonymous with genius
I'm not an expert, but this seems quite deserved. At least for the general public. There's a romantic aura about him. The man was an outsider, he managed to develop his theories pretty much just by thinking, instead of some elaborate experiments, and his theories relate to something everyone experiences directly (light, time, space etc.). I think that it's primarily that he showed how far reason could take you.

[Anonymous No.22796853]

>>22796731
fair enough

[Anonymous No.22797908]

>>22796544
Was never trying to be

[Anonymous No.22797947]

>>22795803
I don't get this meme, surface level kant is easy to understand it just interferes with the goals of ideologues who correctly perceive the categorical imperative as a threat