What is this nigga's point?

[Anonymous No.23447101]

If transcendental idealism is true, then why does science work? If it only works in projection (as causality is also le in the mind) then why would I care what's outside it? My ability to strive and thrive in life exists within the projection and not in some made up thing in itself so it might as well not be real

[Anonymous No.23447295]

https://youtu.be/YS4GXfJ5LI4?si=S6hSb2uw5RyYDqvw

this and the others in the series are good for kant. also checj out the book after finitude

[Anonymous No.23447313]

>>23447101
>why does science work?
What do you mean by science "works"?
Falsifiability is a requirement of science and empiricism, so science only "works" when it's observed to work, but theoretically and practically, it's often observed not to work, in which case science is revised. Hell, contemporary science is plagued with a replication crisis and the peer review process is a circle jerk farce. So, I'm rather confused as to what you mean by "science works". For that matter, what the hell do you mean by science? It's a pretty vague almost fetishistic term these days.

[Anonymous No.23447341]

>>23447313
Ok that makes sense... You're saying that we just observe and file phenomena and then mix and combine it to get any form of scientific results (like making a tv or somwething)

[Anonymous No.23447383]

>>23447313
If science didn't work, we would be able to communicate on computers, so the rare chance that it doesn't work doesn't discount the majority of times that it does work and continues to work. You have to decide what work means here, because if one takes that as an absolute statement, it becomes meaningless since we have been using scientific principles laid down over thousands of years past and they still work.

[Anonymous No.23447387]

>>23447313
If science didn't work, we wouldn't be able to communicate on computers, so the rare chance that it doesn't work doesn't discount the majority of times that it does work and continues to work. You have to decide what work means here, because if one takes that as an absolute statement, it becomes meaningless since we have been using scientific principles laid down over thousands of years past and they still work.

[Anonymous No.23447433]

>>23447387
I don't think you understood anon's post at all.

[Anonymous No.23447436]

>>23447433
how don't i understand him?

[Anonymous No.23447513]

>The secret of the critique of practical reason is that man is alone in the world, in tremendous eternal isolation.

>He has no object outside himself; lives for nothing else; he is far removed from being the slave of his wishes, of his abilities, of his necessities; he stands far above social ethics; he is alone.

>Thus he becomes one and all; he has the law in him, and so he himself is the law, and no mere changing caprice. The desire is in him to be only the law, to be the law that is himself, without afterthought or forethought. This is the awful conclusion, he has no longer the sense that there can be duty for him. Nothing is superior to him, to the isolated absolute unity. But there are no alternatives for him; he must respond to his own categorical imperatives, absolutely, impartially. "Freedom," he cries (for instance, Wagner, or Schopenhauer), "rest, peace from the enemy; peace, not this endless striving " ; and he is terrified. Even in this wish for freedom there is cowardice; in the ignominious lament there is desertion as if he were too small for the fight. What is the use of it all, he cries to the universe; and is at once ashamed, for he is demanding happiness, and that his own burden should rest on other shoulders. Kant's lonely man does not dance or laugh; he neither brawls nor makes merry; he feels no need to make a noise, because the universe is so silent around him. To acquiesce in his loneliness is the splendid supremacy of the Kantian

[Anonymous No.23447701]

>>23447101
Kant is not saying that we all live in subjective / solipsistic worlds. His claim is instead: There is mind-independant reality out there (Ding an sich), to which we have no access. Thus we can only speculate about it but we have access to a mind-dependent reality that is structured by reason and because we are connected beings in reason (2+2=4 is true for every reasonable person just the same). Science and every other aspect of human experience is located in this mind-dependant reality. You could speculate if there is really causality out there without us but according to Kant we can never know.

[Anonymous No.23447764]

>>23447701
Is scientific achievement (like aircrafts and bio weapons) part of our reality and not the independent one? Or Both? In either case, how is there anything other than the observable? If there was a gap somewhere which we could observe but not what is in front of it, I would get it. What reason do I have to believe that there are unobservable phenomena?

[Anonymous No.23447767]

>>23447436
You tellin me you computer never stopped working and nobody could figure why?

[Anonymous No.23447771]

>>23447764
When Kant says there is something "out there" one has to recognize this is pure metaphor. It is not the sensible; it is not nature; it is nothing that can be ordered with the categories of thought: the Ding an sich is unknown and in principle unknowable, and any claim that phenomena correspond in some way to the Ding an sich, whatever it may be, is to commit the error of applying the categories of substance and causality beyond (per Kant) their only legitimate domain. In other words, by claiming there is someting "out there" (metaphorically speaking of course since space is idiosyncratic to humans) you have already passed beyond applying the Categories to proximate causes and matter (what Kant calls 'phenomenal substance") and attempted the theoretical use of the Categories beyond phenomena to that which lies beyond phenomena, and therefore beyond experience. From the standpoint of the theoretical use of reason, even this use is forbidden according to Kantian principles.

Basically, for the same reasons that reason in its theoretical use cannot obtain knowledge about the Soul, Freedom, or God, reason in its theoretical use cannot obtain knowledge even of the Ding an sich. It is, in effect, an object of faith or belief, in the same way the other Ideas of Reason are.

As far as Spinoza's and Leibniz's speculations about what the Ding an sich is, for Kant that is a moot point, having no possible way to affirm their truth or falsity since they are beyond experience. And this is why Kant is so devastating to metaphysics in the traditional sense of "the science of Being qua Being" since we cannot know anything other than Being qua phenomena.

Let me emphasize: the Ding an sich , "the real world", is not an actuality for Kant-- we do NOT KNOW it actually exists or is or whatever (in fact, even using words like existence or being is already a misuse of the categories of reality, substance, causality, etc,) It is, effectively, for us humans NOTHING. To put even more clear, even our concept of nothing does not correspond to it, since it can never be an object of our thought-- if we think we are thinking or talking about it WE. ARE. NOT. It cannot be spoken about; it cannot be conceived. Not even the word "Nothing" corresponds to it.

This is the logical conclusion of the Kantian system-- the missing capstone of the Great Pyramid.

[Anonymous No.23447778]

>>23447764
How do you know aircrafts "really" work? As an honest empiricist you have to admit that you have only observed them working in the present or the past. What about the future? Maybe airplane tech was just a fluke and will not work anymore tomorrow. An honest empiricist has to admit like Hume that you can not capture the regularity of the world (into the future) from empiric facts.
How do you know that it is really the bio weapon killing the peopke? Maybe it is just a coincidence or a third factor that the bioweapon coincides with the death of the people. Again you have to do the Humean manoeuvre as an empiricist and admit that you can not induce causality. The only thing you can observe is coinciding events.
If you want the escape such a skepticism you have to do some philosophical legwork and Kant is one of the possible answers by relocating regularity and causality securely in the domain of human experience and being only skeptical about the mind-independant reality.

[Anonymous No.23447779]

>>23447764
>>23447771
Transcendental illusion, on the contrary, does not cease to exist, even after it has been exposed, and its nothingness clearly perceived by means of transcendental criticism. Take, for example, the illusion in the proposition: "The world must have a beginning in time." The cause of this is as follows. In our reason, subjectively considered as a faculty of human cognition, there exist fundamental rules and maxims of its exercise, which have completely the appearance of objective principles. Now from this cause it happens that the subjective necessity of a certain connection of our conceptions, is regarded as an objective necessity of the determination of things in themselves. This illusion it is impossible to avoid, just as we cannot avoid perceiving that the sea appears to be higher at a distance than it is near the shore, because we see the former by means of higher rays than the latter, or, which is a still stronger case, as even the astronomer cannot prevent himself from seeing the moon larger at its rising than some time afterwards, although he is not deceived by this illusion.
- Kant, Transcendental Dialectic

[Anonymous No.23447792]

>>23447778
I personally don't know enough to believe anything but that sounds like cope

[Anonymous No.23447796]

>>23447792
read. now.

[Anonymous No.23447803]

>>23447771
>>23447779
I think I get what you're saying but it sounds too esoteric to be meaningful? There may or may not be a "thing" outside the observable and that "thing" may or may not correspond to any meaningful model of understanding. Do I get it? If we cannot access it in the slightest, what makes Kant think it even exists

[Anonymous No.23447805]

>>23447771
>we do NOT KNOW it actually exists
This is incorrect because in a Kantian framework the existence of the Ding an sich and its affect regarding sensation is the ONLY thing you can know. Because if it did not exist, thought would have no content thus there would only be thought and Kant's position were solipsistic.

>It cannot be spoken about; it cannot be conceived.
If this were true about the Kantian position Jacobi would have been right and there is no connection between us and the Ding an sich -- again resulting in solipsism. Noumena, the Ding an sich are literally things of thought. You can think about the Ding an sich, you are affected by it but you can not know anything about it.

>>23447792
What do you mean? What is the cope?

[Anonymous No.23447813]

>>23447778
>>23447796
So you're saying causality is a concept of the mind because it cannot be induced, just observed?

[Anonymous No.23447817]

>>23447805
> What is the cope?
That laws of physics will change tomorrow

[Anonymous No.23447833]

>>23447803
>makes Kant think it even exists
He doesn't, but we are forced to THINK that it exists because of the nature of our mind. It is a transcendental illusion we can't get rid of no matter how hard we try.

[Anonymous No.23447840]

>>23447817
not that they will change, but that we confuse our limited understanding of natural laws with a complete understanding of natural law.

[Anonymous No.23447846]

>>23447813
No, causality can not be observed. This is the point. You only see how event A and event B coincide but not that A follows necassary from B. If you want to link your observations with causality you have to do some philosophy like Kant or do the Pragmatist avoidance of the problem by just saying: I assume the causality -- good enough.

>>23447817
Can you prove that they will not? You only have empiric knowledge about the laws of physics of the past and present. If you want to talk about the future, you have to go beyond empiricism and take a Kantian or another approach that avoids the problem of induction.

[Anonymous No.23447849]

>>23447101
The thing in itself, which because it being what it really is is logically prior to our conceptualization of it, can also not be called an unknowable chaos since this would be a subreptive application of the categories of thought to that which we want to know as it is prior to that application. Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rocks, etc., which exists externally. And, according to Kant, it will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future because we do not now at this point in history have the mental capacity to determine whether our subjective categories of thought have an exactly corresponding objective correlate which would allow us to legitimately apply our categories of thought to it since, in that case, the thing in itself would then also have to be a subject (an ego, an I, soul, mind) in some larger sense with the same categories of thought as ours: a microcosm to macrocosm relation, or more simply, as above, so below. This being the case, ironically, the best way to arrive at an understanding of objective reality would be by understanding our own selves, recalling the ancient famous injunction: Know Thyself.

[Anonymous No.23447851]

>>23447833
Ahh so there has to be the thing because otherwise there is nothing to experience, but where does our manipulation of it (ala science) fit into this? Is it a part of the ding? an illusion?

[Anonymous No.23447853]

>>23447846
>the Pragmatist avoidance of the problem by just saying: I assume the causality -- good enough.
TIL Pragmatism is a joke.

[Anonymous No.23447857]

>>23447851
It's all in your mind.

[Anonymous No.23447858]

>>23447853
Yeah, exactly. The funny thing is though: Pragmatism is still the most held position on this matter.

[Anonymous No.23447863]

>>23447857
So if I get a fever my temperature rises up in my mind? and then when I take medicine and it goes down? that's also just in my mind?

[Anonymous No.23447871]

>>23447863
yes

[Anonymous No.23447872]

>>23447857
You are reading Kant from the German Idealist perspective, yet OP asked about the Kantian position. Why do you want to confuse him? You could have just said this is only a biased interpretation of Kant but I think it is true.

[Anonymous No.23447876]

>>23447846
> causality can not be observed
Isn't causality self evident tho, otherwise all of understanding crumble and we seem to be throwing it away it for no discernable reason

[Anonymous No.23447878]

>>23447863
literally everything in space and time are in your mind because space and time are "in" your mind.

[Anonymous No.23447885]

>>23447871
So if I die from the fever that was also just a mind thing

[Anonymous No.23447892]

>>23447872
>You are reading Kant from the German Idealist perspective
That IS the Kantian perspective.

>By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
- Kant, CPR 2nd Preface

[Anonymous No.23447896]

>>23447876
Causality is self evident but not in the empiricist framework. You can not observe or induce causality. So you need an actual account of how we think causality is self evident. Hume's answer is to say we can not not think in causal terms, this is just a fact about human psychology. Kant instead says you have to think causally and the reality that is constructed in this way is objective and meaningful contrasted to Hume's position. And there are a ton of other solutions out there and the only thing that they have in common is that they btfo naive realism.

[Anonymous No.23447897]

>>23447878
What is the rationale behind believing this though? We are able to effect pretty much everything observable within observable means, I don't "see" the crack which proves something beyond it exists

[Anonymous No.23447909]

>>23447885
pretty much, and then you get know the truth of the thing in itself, maybe.

[Anonymous No.23447910]

>>23447896
So does rationalism of any form btfo of realists because why can't we rationalize causality's self efficacy and then observe it?

[Anonymous No.23447916]

>>23447892
>That IS the Kantian perspective.
Why was Kant so mad about Fichte's position then? Listen you are not wrong, you can interpret Kant that way but this is not what Kant intended and it downplays the achievements of the German Idealists. They were not mere Kantians. They were genuises who transformed the Kantian position into something radically new.

[Anonymous No.23447920]

>>23447897
we run into major contradictions in the metaphysics of space and time if we assume their objective reality. That was a major reason for his transcendal idealist ontology.

[Anonymous No.23447923]

>>23447909
But then I break through my mind right? And we can stretch that break to include no afterlife because that's not relevant. This breaking must extend outside projection and into the ding, so that means that the ding can be effected through pure observation?

[Anonymous No.23447928]

>>23447910
Yes, every rationalist position trumps naive realism (not a achievement though because naive realism is the bottom of the barrel). Rationalism is very beautiful but has a completly different set of problems that you can for example find in the Kantian framework. If you can solve the antinomies of pure reason, for example, such a rationalist position would be very strong.

[Anonymous No.23447932]

>>23447920
Can you name some contradictions

[Anonymous No.23447934]

>>23447916
You have to be subtle about these things or you end up like Wolff and Fichte. There is an art of esoteric writing.

[Anonymous No.23447938]

>>23447923
>But then I break through my mind right?
we can't be sure this side of the veil-- not by human means anyways...

[Anonymous No.23447946]

>>23447938
Basically then isn't the ding just a separate dimension which informs our dimension through the senses?

[Anonymous No.23447956]

>>23447946
Whether it is or isn't we can't know, but we are forced to think of it in that way because of the pure concepts (think system programs) of the pre-installed operating system of our mind.

[Anonymous No.23447961]

>>23447956
So here's transcendental idealism - the senses process and construct a reality from the information observed from the ding an sich

[Anonymous No.23447968]

>>23447932
Is space finite or infinite as a whole? Does it have atomic units, or is it infinitely divisible? and the same with time. He addresses it in the Transcendental Aesthetic and the Antinomy chapter.

[Anonymous No.23447969]

>>23447961
>>23447956
and observation requires time, space and causality to function, so it is part of the mind and not the ding

[Anonymous No.23447975]

>>23447961
not quite. the mind synthesizes reality from the material of the senses which comes from who knows the fuck where, a.k.a. the Ding an sich.

[Anonymous No.23447983]

>>23447969
it is part of the mind, whether it is part of the Ding an sich we don't know.

[Anonymous No.23448000]

>>23447983
Ok That made it click, Ding an sich may as well be a walrus' penis but our senses perceive it as the world we see, hear feel etc.

[Anonymous No.23448011]

>>23448000
You got it! The only important addition is that this "perception" of the Ding an sich ("affection by it" would be the more correct Kantian term) is not a subjective, personal mode. Reason works for every (healthy) human the same and structures the walrus' penis the same way.

[Anonymous No.23448021]

>>23447101
Because the question of causality is a question of triviality. Whether A influences B or B simply follows A, we should not care, for we seek sequences at the end of the day. The pattern of how things unfold is the only thing that matters because it gives us the ability to make our lives better.Qualities are just the result of change, representing a vast range of events happening beyond your skull, so drop the "is my red your blue?" or you will become dull.

[Anonymous No.23448025]

>>23448011
Right...making science and kant compatible as well. Thanks anon!!!!

[Anonymous No.23448038]

>>23448000
There is a "moderate realist" reading of Kant (Karl Ameriks') that, to me, makes more sense than the radical sceptic Kant. The moderate realists think that Kant does basically think the world as we experience it is probably the way it actually is, at least to a good extent.

[Anonymous No.23448043]

>>23448038
>The moderate realists think that Kant does basically think the world as we experience it is probably the way it actually is, at least to a good extent.

Realists are whores

[Anonymous No.23448056]

>>23448043
What does realism have to do with seeling your body for money?

[Anonymous No.23448059]

>>23448056
Selling mind for body vs selling body for mind

[Anonymous No.23448074]

>>23447101
> nigga

fuck yall man I come here for fun you dont know how shitty my life is and even on here gotta deal with this fuck shit. Go back to /pol/ Kant is too big brained for you anyways

[Anonymous No.23448094]

>>23448074
bad b8 nigga

[Anonymous No.23448400]

>>23447101
Science is phenomenological. It “works” in the sense of describing phenomena, but nothing more. Every decent scientist will tell you that no experiment can be 100% conclusive and science is an eternal process of recurring experiment-theory cycle. Nothing to do with what Kant was talking about, which transcends science.

[Anonymous No.23448416]

>>23448400
>Nothing to do with what Kant was talking about, which transcends science.
What are talking about? Kant talks all the time about science and how it has to be grounded in his framework. He even suggests that the laws Newtonian physics have synthetic a priori status in his framework.

[Anonymous No.23448448]

>>23448416
Yes, how it is to be GROUNDED in his framework. I just told you how it is grounded as a PART of this framework. There is absolutely nothing science can tell us about noumena. The entire premise of science is phenomenological, it hinges on empirical observations and explicitly rejects any theory that does not agree with the experiment.

Let’s take your example of Newton’s laws. Their “status” is synthetic and a priori due to their mathematical nature. They are postulated without prior experience. However, they do not HAVE to agree with phenomenological observations and in fact they do not. Newton’s laws are only approximate. They fail to describe quantum mechanical and relativistic phenomena. We came up with different a priori synthetic frameworks to fit phenomenological observations called quantum mechanics and general relativity respectively. Both are mathematical and have their own postulates. The world is nothing but group representations acting on manifolds according to both. However, the moment we have an experiment disproving either one of these, we need a whole different framework.

This is why science is merely a tool in the Kantian system and not something that can tell you anything about noumena. There are fringe crackpots out there who call themselves string theorists, who have been corrupted by grant whoring so much that they assert that their useless shit is noumenological. Disregard those retards.

[Anonymous No.23448455]

>>23448448
Thank you for clarifying! I misinterpreted your post and actually agree with your position as you elaborated it.

[Anonymous No.23448472]

>>23448448
>There is absolutely nothing science can tell us about noumena.
Anytime a theory goes beyond what is sensible in order to explain the sensible it does this whether it intends to or not.

[Anonymous No.23448481]

>>23448472
General relativity tells you nothing about the diffeomorphism group of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. It is, in fact, the exact opposite. Our knowledge of mathematics allows us to describe the phenomena we observe such as precession of Mercury’s perihelion or bending of light by the Sun.

[Anonymous No.23448545]

>>23448481
I should clarify, whenever science tries to explain phenomena in terms of supersensible entities in principle, i.e., in principle impossible to ever be confirmed empirically, it has become pure fantasy.

[Anonymous No.23448546]

>>23448481
General relativity can be a thorny issue in Kantian terms, it is a sort of occam's razor in and of itself in relation to its experimental corpus and technically it's explanation of time is still within Kantian bounds and if anything sort of confirmed what Kant concluded on it in so far as it is concerned with limits of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23448569]

>>23448481
>Our knowledge of mathematics allows us to describe the phenomena we observe such as precession of Mercury’s perihelion or bending of light by the Sun.
I'm not disagreeing that. I am just pointing out that scientists don't see math like Kant did and think they are peaking into noumena as objective reality. Science today is not done from the Kantian critical standpoint. I don't very many scientists today read Kant or care about him, to their discredit.

[Anonymous No.23448589]

>>23448546
It doesn’t matter. You can apply my argument to Kepler’s laws if you want. It was just an example.
>>23448545
It doesn’t explain them, but merely describes them. We record a trajectory of a particle, that is phenomenological. We then extrapolate its behavior using mathematics. However, this modelling tells us nothing about the true cause of motion, nor whether our model truly describes the trajectory precisely and universally. So it’s not noumenogical in itself, even though it uses the mathematical apparatus, which is a priori and synthetic. Mathematics acts as the medium here, not the integral part of a scientific theory. Neither experiment nor theory answers the “why”, it only answers the “how”.

Moreover, once you get into upper division undergrad physics, you realize that 99% of models beyond the simplest ones are intentional approximations done for prudence’s sake. We cannot solve the Schrödinger equation for all atoms except hydrogen, for example. We know the solution must exist, but we don’t have the expression. We have developed a number of intricate schemes, numerical and analytical, to approximately describe such solutions, but the benchmark is always phenomenological reality. And reality does not care if your model is “exact” or “approximate”, because phenomenological observations are approximate themselves and always contain error.

[Anonymous No.23448599]

>>23448569
I don’t care what “modern scientists” say, I left the academia precisely because of the behavior you’re describing. We went from natural philosophers who were concerned with epistemology and other philosophical branches to glorified office plankton who care about nothing but publishing schlock for grants. I had mentioned string theorists in my previous post for a reason.

[Anonymous No.23448611]

>>23447767
You are the one who doesn't get it. He says science does not work which is a contradiction because if the statement was true, computers would not be possible to build, since they rely on science.

[Anonymous No.23450655]

>>23447833
>He doesn't, but we are forced to THINK that it exists because of the nature of our mind.
How so? I still don’t think it exists. How am I forced to believe this? There is no sound reason to believe such a thing exists.

[Anonymous No.23450841]

>>23450655
You observe phenomena. They must have a root cause, because they cannot exist on their own. They are merely mediated. You have two options: they are manifestations of noumena mediated through your senses (the Kantian view) or phenomena are entirely figments of your mind (solipsism).

[Anonymous No.23451865]

>>23450841
>They must have a root cause, because they cannot exist on their own.
They can exist on their own. Why am I to believe they can’t?

[Anonymous No.23452330]

>>23451865
Because they are something that is intrinsically tied to your sense perception and thus are subjective. Did you read the fucking book, nigger?

[Anonymous No.23452348]

>>23452330
I remember once reading the wiki. Anyway, if it’s subjective, than it doesn’t have to have a root cause.

[Anonymous No.23452355]

>>23452348
Yes, that's the solipsistic position. Any more questions?

[Anonymous No.23452364]

>>23452355
So what’s kants point? Wtf is he going on about?

[Anonymous No.23452380]

>>23452364
I suggest you read the actual fucking book instead of asking people to spoon feed you.

[Anonymous No.23452386]

>>23452380
But I want to FEEL it!

[Anonymous No.23452433]

>>23447853
That anon didn't explain things properly. Pragmatism does not just assume it and that's it without discussion. Pragmatism, at least James's kind (or the humanist kind) will say that we see how assuming inductive reasoning the effects of such assumption are seen to work very well in how we deal with the world and our own lives, biologically, epistemologically. Plus, there is what is called a ''Pragmatic'' vindication of induction, proposed by Reichenbach.

[Anonymous No.23452510]

>>23447101
>then why would I care what's outside it?
You don't, that's the whole point

[Anonymous No.23452521]

>>23447876
>otherwise all of understanding crumbles
Understanding crumble all the time, we never really know anything, all our knowledge is partial, and the only real proof of our understanding is that same understanding, so your proof that you know something is just a tautological vicious circle, "i know because i know that i know", the judge and the defendant are the same person

[Anonymous No.23452542]

>>23452510
Did he have to write a door stopper for something a toddler knows?

[Anonymous No.23452564]

>>23447968
>Is space finite or infinite as a whole? Does it have atomic units, or is it infinitely divisible? and the same with time.
nta, but those are not contradictions, they are simply questions about the nature of reality, which Kant's system - a tortured theory that rests on an unproven and unprovable hypothesis, i.e., the existence of a noumenal world that is "strictly unknowable to us" - does nothing to resolve.

[Anonymous No.23452606]

>>23452542
Are you sure that's an insight everyone posess? See what motivates people and how discourse is created and ask yourself if those things are molded by this kind of insight

[Anonymous No.23452722]

>>23452564
they are contradictions because without transcendental idealism a priori reasoning affirms both.

[Anonymous No.23452726]

>>23452433
so just ignoring Hume?

[Anonymous No.23452741]

>>23450655
>How am I forced to believe this?
You can't exist as a self-conscious identity without certain pure concepts, two of which at least, force you to think of phenomena as dependent on something supraphenomenal.

[Anonymous No.23452853]

>>23452741
>certain pure concepts
What are these pure concepts?

[Anonymous No.23452856]

>>23452853

[Anonymous No.23452975]

>>23452856
In English?

[Anonymous No.23452990]

>>23452726
Well, one could say that Hume is the one ignoring some problems with the Cartesian commitment to certain justified true beliefs as the only justification for knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23453027]

>>23452975
it is in English

[Anonymous No.23453137]

>>23453027
In PLAIN english