/mg/ - metaphysics general

[Anonymous No.23479604]

discuss books on metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23479626]

Hegel

[Anonymous No.23480314]

Can being and becoming be the same thing?

[Anonymous No.23480354]

bruh this skibity?

[Anonymous No.23480368]

>>23479604
>bros...bros what if....what if bros...what if everything is....THE SAME THING????
>holy fuck...holy FUCK bro that seems, that seems almost right, pass the wine
>and like, if there is one thing, then that one thing, that's like oneness, right, that's 'the one' or something, that sounds cool
>you are blowing my mind bro
>but wait, isn't the one thing also like a bunch of things?
>it's ok bro, no really, listen, the 'one' is like....beyond reason....it's the thing but also exactly the opposite thing
>i dig it
>wait...wait...aren't we like...a mind? like we think? and we're part of everything right, so like...wait what if EVERYTHING is mind? what if the "one' is mind
>fucking far out bro
>but get this, get this bro, things also, they CHANGE, it's not even the same moment to moment, so like maybe the ONE is actually CHANGE
>oh my god i need more wine
>how about this...how about this- we change but it's actually the same, because like the changingness remains itself...which is the same
>you're kinda stepping one my oneness turf here bro
>hold up, what if there is like a thing we can't even think of beyond all this....and....and that's also 'the one'
>awwww shit that's nice
>we are so smart bro
>we're going to get so much athenian bussy
>what if...there are 2 things?
>fuck off empedocles, jump in a volcano
>what a retard, 2 things lmfao
>2 things bro, me hitting you, you hitting the ground
>well, i heard there weren't things at all
>'you' heard?
>you 'heard'?
>'things'?

Bravo, metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23481142]

Metaphysics of the toilet, of the skibidi variation
DISCUSS

[Crona: my blood is black No.23481266]

>>23479626
Just bought Phenomenology of Spirit. Hopefully, I will gain some valuable insights

[Anonymous No.23481346]

>>23479604
I tried reading OPs pic and it filtered me hard. Am I supposed to learn german? Why doesn't it make sense? I thought it's supposed be Kant's easiest work

[Anonymous No.23481403]

>>23481346
>Am I supposed to learn german?
kek you got me

[Anonymous No.23481907]

>>23479604
>semiotics
seems similar
the intro stuff is easy
but then it quickly launches into impenetrable blather

[Anonymous No.23481942]

Wrong

[Anonymous No.23482865]

>>23481346
That the Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason is a 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.23482893]

>>23479604
Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.23482936]

>>23480314
yes and no

[Anonymous No.23482947]

time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not in themselves things. They are nothing but representations and cannot exist out of and apart from the mind.

[Anonymous No.23482979]

>>23482947
>time and space, with all phenomena therein, are not things in themselves
fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.23482991]

>>23482979
that was a direct quote actually from picrel

[Anonymous No.23483009]

>>23482991

[Anonymous No.23483019]

>>23483009
you left me with no choice

[Anonymous No.23483031]

>>23482947
Ok, but how do we perceive space and time? In the transcendental aesthetic, he rejects both the idea that space and time are themselves sense-data (obvious), AND that they are abstract/symbolic constructs. They are the "form" of sensory information in some way, but they are not universal conceptions like "red" or "motion". What is the mental status of these intuitions?

[Anonymous No.23483044]

>>23483031
they are the pure form of intuition

[Anonymous No.23483047]

>>23483019
I see. I thought it was a passage from around the Aesthetic but I didn't read that far into the Critique. Kind of feels like he's falling off the deep end here.

[Anonymous No.23483049]

>>23483047
>he's falling off the deep end here.
a deep end indeed

[Anonymous No.23483054]

>>23483044
If they were nothing but the antecedent relations of all sense-data, then they would be universals in the Platonic sense, then I would understand. But Kant speaks of us perceiving space directly, as a particular thing, and explicitly rejects the idea of these being "discursive", in his words. How can they be perceived?

[Anonymous No.23483078]

>>23483054
>Kant speaks of us perceiving space directly, as a particular thing, and explicitly rejects the idea of these being "discursive", in his words. How can they be perceived?
indeed this is true. they are percieved directly, immediately as in seeing. thus the German term 'Anschauung': an instance directly looking at something.

>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.

They are unique in that they are both particular and universal. In effect, perceivable universals, the medium which allows for the connection between pure concepts and the empirical world explored in the Schematism chapter, especially time.

[Anonymous No.23483091]

>>23483054
>if they were nothing but the antecedent relations of all sense-data,
also I would like to clarify that they are not relations (since would already presuppose thinking and concepts). they are pre-conceptual.

[Anonymous No.23483128]

>>23483078
>they are directly perceivable universals
But I myself can't force myself to perceive space and time outside of any particular instance. If I imagine space, I must imagine some color, sound, or other sensory thing filling it. Even if I could imagine it completely empty of colour, this would only be one particular instance of space, not a universal.

[Anonymous No.23483227]

>>23483128
>if I could imagine it completely empty of colour, this would only be one particular instance of space, not a universal.
you don't imagine it. it is an ever present reality. it is present before you as we speak. that is what is meant by intuition. it ever present before you even when you're not imagining it, even when you work, when study, when you jerk it porn, there standing before you in all it glory is space and time.

[Anonymous No.23483242]

>>23483128
>if I could imagine it completely empty of colour, this would only be one particular instance of space, not a universal.
you don't imagine it. it is an ever present reality. it is present before you even as we speak. that is what is meant by intuition. it is ever present before you even when you're not imagining it, even when you're working, when you're studying, when you're hanging out with friends, when you're jerking it to porn, there standing before you in all its glory is space and time.

[Anonymous No.23483346]

>>23481907
that 'introducing semiotics' sucks ass. i mean have you even read the books in your image

[Anonymous No.23483649]

bump

[Anonymous No.23483829]

>>23479604
Metaphysics is impossible. You should all give up. Trust me, I put more psychic energy into this endeavor than you will expend on anything in your whole life time. There is no explanation of why the eternal present exists. All understanding can only be understanding of what has already passed. Furthermore although you can imitate, replicate, remember, manipulate, you will never understand the essence of what is. Thought can only grasp symbols. I cannot even give to you my apprehension of the impossibility of knowledge, I don't even know how I arrived at the knowledge that knowledge is impossible. You will not even be able to learn this by studying metaphysics. You will just go deeper into books and become trapped further and further into the symbolic order.

[Anonymous No.23483836]

>>23483128
Kant agrees with this, no thought is occasioned until empirical perception happens. The fact that the pure intuitions exist is supposed to be proved by the fact that synthetic a priori knowledge exists, but how exactly we abstract the fact that space and time are our particular intuitions from our empirical perceptions isn't exactly clear in the critique.

[Anonymous No.23484067]

Metaphysics is easy. Everything is, simple as.

[Anonymous No.23484076]

[Anonymous No.23484129]

>>23484076
They don't teach Kripke to freshmen?

[Anonymous No.23484295]

>>23484067
Cool, no need to buy your shitty self-published pamphlet then.

[Anonymous No.23484335]

>>23484076
Any philosophy department, really, and whatever political slop they're peddling.