/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23466239]

>an intuition can take place only in so far as the object is given to us. This, again, is only possible, to man at least, on condition that the object affect the mind in a certain manner.
In humans intuition is passive and receptive because we cannot intuit at will whatever we want, as opposed to the spontaneity of thinking through which we CAN think whatever we want; we have FREEDOM to exercise our will upon thought which we cannot exercise upon intuition because (due to our having to apply the Categories of the understanding to even think at all) we must think of it as DEPENDENT on and CAUSALLY DETERMINED by sensation.
Intuition does act upon that which is given it by sensation, but this act occurs regardless of our will, i.e., it is involuntary, and therefore passive and receptive in relation to some cause other than our personal will.

And while Sensibility is also passive, and imagination may be both active AND passive, in either case, intuition is distinct from both, and is passive in relation to both since it must be given real or imagined sensations and is therefore, again, DEPENDENT on sensations, real or imagined.

[Anonymous No.23466243]

>>23466239
Your point being?

[Anonymous No.23466255]

>>23466239
At what point do we say "these are all just retarded word games"?

[Anonymous No.23466269]

>>23466255
Not OP but it makes sense. You are the retard here for not getting it. That said I don't know where OP is going with that and he might be a bit autistic.

[Anonymous No.23466284]

>>23466269
Sorry, but HOW can you understand OP without even the word "intuition" and "imagination" being properly defined? I assume you're acting on a shared basis of definitions within the literature.

But then again, different works of philosophy have different definitions, so when people argue with different definitions and things become conflated with each other, not even among different minds, but within the same thinking mind, these arguments, then, do in fact resemble word games

[Anonymous No.23466298]

>>23466284
>In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition.

>Imagination is the faculty of representing an object even without its presence in intuition. Now, as all our intuition is sensuous, imagination, by reason of the subjective condition under which alone it can give a corresponding intuition to the conceptions of the understanding, belongs to sensibility.

[Anonymous No.23466303]

>>23466298
Wow, Kant is way better at writing than OP. Too bad neuroscience and psychoanalysis made many of these works obsolete

[Anonymous No.23466320]

>>23466284
Well you could have at least read an encyclopedia article on Kant before arrogantly assuming what you read was 'just word games'.

Here's one: https://iep.utm.edu/kantmind/

Intuition is a Kantian technical term. Examples would be a picture or part of a song. It means an immediate cognition (=structured mental item) as opposed to unstructured sensation (=sensorial stimuli), or non-immediate cognition or concepts.

Imagination has pretty much the common meaning and can be technically defined as intuition not caused by sensory input.

[Anonymous No.23466346]

>>23466320
>picture or part of a song
meant their mental representations not an actual picture or song

[Anonymous No.23466350]

>>23466303
>Too bad neuroscience and psychoanalysis made many of these works obsolete
No those are clear regressions from the Kantian conceptual framework.

[Anonymous No.23466630]

>>23466303
empirical investigations can never refute an apriori science.

[Anonymous No.23467517]

>>23466630
this

[Anonymous No.23467641]

[Anonymous No.23467646]

You're not saying anything profound or interesting. Some people get too excited finding out basic stuff that everyone already knows and think they need to share their "knowledge" in the most insufferable wordcel fashion, that philosophy.