/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23594857]

Many of you call the Kantposter dogmatic because he asserts the truth of such claims as the transcendental ideality of space and time, or that the categories make self-consciousness possible, but actually these claims are only principles for him because he has already arrived at them by reasoning beforehand on the historical knowledge of Kant's demonstrations. He is only dogmatic in the relative sense that he does not often provide that demonstration to his interlocuters, and simply refers them to the text because he does not care to rephrase what Kant already said. Ironically, the one claim Kant is dogmatic about, namely, that humans do not have intellectual intuition, is dogmatic in the sense that Kant never proves it but simply accepts it as a given fact. And on this dogmatic point, Kantposter actually disagrees with this exoteric expression of the Kantian system. Kantposter yet is not dogmatic in his assertion of the opposite, because his proof is that Kant's negation of intellectual intuition and objective noumena in the positive sense, provided us with the idea which can serve as a template for practical reason to direct human action to actualize it. Kantposter's proof of intellectual intuition is the actual bringing of it about. This was Kantposter btw.

[Anonymous No.23594861]

There have been multiple "Kantposters" and you are by far the gayest and most shameless one.

[Anonymous No.23594872]

>>23594861
why come?

[Anonymous No.23594933]

>>23594872
Because you are an autist,and take Kant too serious, and act like you are smarter than everyone, and pretend you have intellectual intuion, that's why.

[Anonymous No.23594996]

sneed

[Anonymous No.23595108]

>>23594857
>Many of you call the Kantposter dogmatic because he asserts the truth of such claims as the transcendental ideality of space and time, or that the categories make self-consciousness possible, but actually these claims are only principles for him because he has already arrived at them by reasoning beforehand on the historical knowledge of Kant's demonstrations.
so what, if those claims were verily derivable all humans on earth would derive them

Atheists have to face the truth: their ramblings are inherently personal but they all share a deep craving for universalism and progressivism, because it was their propaganda and now they are trapped by it.

[Anonymous No.23595998]

>>23595108
Kant wasn't atheist
>Criticism alone can strike a blow at the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which are universally injurious—as well as of idealism and scepticism, which are dangerous to the schools, but can scarcely pass over to the public.
-2nd preface

[Anonymous No.23596013]

>guys look at me!!! look at me im so cool im the kantposter guys pay attention to me!!!

[Anonymous No.23596016]

>>23596013
thanks for the bump

[Anonymous No.23596939]

>>23594857
Deontology is cucked. Kant's racism is just a contradiction, not something that redeems his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23596949]

>>23596939
Kant isnt a deontogolist tho. He is more nuanced than that.

[Anonymous No.23598194]

>>23594857
How do I know you are the real Kantposter?

[Anonymous No.23598319]

>>23598194

[Anonymous No.23598350]

>>23594857
Kant should have smoked fucking weed

[Anonymous No.23598354]

The problem is that he's (you're) objectively wrong, and refuse(s) to engage with the refutations of him. Therefore he's (you're) either an idiot or dogmatic. saged

[Anonymous No.23598359]

>>23598354
>he has already arrived at them by reasoning beforehand on the historical knowledge of Kant's demonstrations. He is only dogmatic in the relative sense that he does not often provide that demonstration to his interlocuters, and simply refers them to the text because he does not care to rephrase what Kant already said.

[Anonymous No.23598363]

>>23598319
Have you by chance managed to read Friedensethik in Kriegszeiten yet?

[Anonymous No.23598406]

>>23598359
>The problem is that he's (you're) objectively wrong, and refuse(s) to engage with the refutations of him. Therefore he's (you're) either an idiot or dogmatic. saged

[Anonymous No.23598410]

>>23598363
Nein. Erkläre bitte.

[Anonymous No.23598413]

>>23598406
>>The problem is that he's (you're) objectively wrong,
I'm not
>>refuse(s) to engage with the refutations of him.
engaged and refuted

[sage No.23598437]

>>23594857
I can't get over the categories as concepts. Quantity can easily be explained by physiology. Regardless of their exact relation, the success of neural networks in extracting concepts from sense data implies it is the very structure of the brain that gives rise to unities and pluralities. Likewise it is the time dependence of cognitive processes that gives rise to inherence and community. Sense-data from a duration of time will be transmitted at any moment, the unity of time we experience is a filter we apply. It makes no sense to just constrain them into categories with BS like modality.

[Anonymous No.23598438]

>>23598410
Es ist ein neueres buch, das nach der Invasion der Ukraine veröffentlicht wurde. Es untersucht die Frage, ob es akzeptabel ist, dass die Macht Gesetze bricht, was eine alte frage ist, aber diese abhandlung verwendet Kant als eine der hauptquellen. Ich habe es noch nicht gelesen, aber ich habe es auf der Württembergische Landesbibliothek und war nur neugierig, ob sie es getan haben.

[Anonymous No.23598468]

>>23598438
Interessant. Danke bruder. Ist es nur verfügbar auf Deutsch?

[Anonymous No.23598497]

>>23598468
Das ist eine gute frage, bruder. Es gibt keine English Version auf der site, aber ich kann nicht sagen, dass es keine English Version gibt.

[Anonymous No.23598513]

>>23598350
who's to say he didn't

[Anonymous No.23598781]

>>23598513
was there weed in 18th century Königsberg? Someone not me should investigate this.

[Anonymous No.23598797]

>>23598513
His books indicate he didn't. Shit gives me a headache to read. Starting st page 1
"Hey guys i wrote a book of endless recursion, turbosperg babble, on and on for hours upon hours, where I invent like sixty different fake constructions of le Mind, and they all logically add up to things I already believed in. The proof was always there, I just had to invent it!"
-Kant

"lol fuckin nerd. Last night I smoked weed and got laid. That's my Critique of Pure Sperging. Smoke weed bitch."
- Some other German

"*seething* I....I must write more books..."
-Kant

90% of western philosophers would be perma-gamers in 2024. Philosophy was how we kept spergs busy before strategy games came out

[Anonymous No.23598836]

>>23598797
>90% of western philosophers would be perma-gamers in 2024. Philosophy was how we kept spergs busy before strategy games came out
True true. That aligns pretty good with 95 % of "philosophy" being worthless schizo babble

[Anonymous No.23600048]

>>23598797
why are you on this board. only losers read it seems, so go do drugs and game since you love it so much

[Anonymous No.23600076]

>>23595108
The most anti-universalist, anti-globalist stance is to be found in the ghettos of USA, where even different blocks have decentralized into independent systems of governance, with assholes reaping the profits all the way and with low level chumps trying to gain cred by participating in wars. It's not that inspiring.

[Anonymous No.23600340]

>>23600048
Missed the point entirely
Fiction is great. Reading is good
Sperg rambling for thousands of pages while discovering or achieving nothing at all, then patting yourself on the back for it, is what it is. Its playing a strategy game or playing with train sets by proxy
And with less joy

[Anonymous No.23600353]

>>23600340
>Fiction is great.
Why? According to you, there's no meaningful themes. Just go smoke weed, nerd

[Anonymous No.23601487]

Weed and philosophy is actually a good combo.

[Anonymous No.23601735]

>>23598437
>it is the very structure of the brain that gives rise to unities and pluralities.
yes and those structures are, at least, the pure intuitions of transcendental aesthetic and the pure concepts of transcendental logic; they are those structures explored subjectively instead of objectively, as viewed within our own concrete selves as opposed to in some abstract or concrete other.

[Anonymous No.23601822]

>>23601735
>the physiological structures are pure intuition and pure concepts
We have good reason to believe that it is the physical lattice of neurons that enables us to take the manifold of sense data and abstract from homogenous elements concepts and objects. The lattice is not a concept, it is a physical entity. It doesn't matter for this discussion if the higher forms of consciousness are physical or immaterial but the most you are entitled to say is that the structure is what furnishes us with concepts of space and time. These are neither pure nor apriori.

[Anonymous No.23601829]

>>23601822
Ah. And what furnishes that structure?
If something furnishes a structure, is it logically proper to say that the structure furnishes its effects?
Its not necessarily false, but rather, incomplete.

[Anonymous No.23601840]

>>23601829
What furnishes the structure of the physical lattice of neurons that is the brain? DNA I suppose. You need to be more clear about what you say because I fail to see your point.

[Anonymous No.23601851]

>>23601840
Where does the material structure of our bodies arise from?

[Anonymous No.23601856]

>>23601851
As in a material cause? From chemicals, proteins, and the like

[Anonymous No.23601860]

>>23601856
No.
What causes those? What is the origin point of materiality?

[Anonymous No.23601867]

>>23601860
>What causes chemicals
Orher chemicals from various sources. I can cut to rhe chase and say the big bang if that is what you want

[Anonymous No.23601870]

>>23601867
The big bang is a material phenomenon. Also, a hypothetical one. What caused it, presuming it happened?

[Anonymous No.23601874]

>>23601870
I dont know. Maybe it didn't need a cause. Maybe it did and there was something before it.

[Anonymous No.23601876]

>>23601874
Very possible. Nobody really knows. So extend that back to your claim about the causative nature of the lattice.

[Anonymous No.23601883]

>>23601876
What claim about the lattice? That it is the structure of the brain that brings forth objects and concepts from the manifold of sense-data? How does not knowing the origin of the universe mean we can't be reasonably sure about thhe origin of parts of cognition. I thought you werea Kant anon not a Socratic anon, answer in a kantian way

[Anonymous No.23601893]

>>23601822
>The lattice is not a concept, it is a physical entity
That physical entity has a form, and that form understood concretely in your very own subjective mind is the pure logic of the synthetic unity of that form acheiving self awareness by means of self analysis. They are the pure concepts.

[Anonymous No.23601895]

>>23601883
that wasn't kantposter btw
>>23601893
that sounds like him

[Anonymous No.23601904]

>>23601893
What is a form? I'm not familiar with that terminology. It certainly doesn't sound like we have a mental lattice of neurons inside our head. I assume you mean that homogeneous sense data is brought into what is essentially our subjective space-time grid, and that the form is the way in which the sense data is filtered. The "form" is thus causally a direct result of the structure and neither pure nor a priori.

[Anonymous No.23601915]

>>23598319
This isn't Kant poster but Kant's "man servant"

look into it

[Anonymous No.23601931]

>>23601883
I never claimed to be a kant anon. I think Kants a fucking geriatric idiot.
>how does not knowing anything mean we can't know anything
Idk, big mystery

[Anonymous No.23601982]

>>23601904
>that the form is the way in which the sense data is filtered. The "form" is thus causally a direct result of the structure and neither pure nor a priori.
It is the activity of the structures abstracted from the a posteriori content, i.e., the sense data. It is pure and a priori because this activity is already present in the transcendental realm waiting to be activated by the sense data. Your assumption that the activity is dependent on the physical structure is just that, an assumption.

[Anonymous No.23602022]

>>23601982
Activities occur only when they occur, not prior. That is to say activity occurs in the neural structure when the sense data is being transmitted through them. If you mean by "it is already present in the transcendental realm" as it is potentialy present in some aristotelian sense, I would call that an abuse of Aristotelian metaphysics. Otherwise I don't understand what you mean by transcendental realm.

[Anonymous No.23602066]

>>23602022
>If you mean by "it is already present in the transcendental realm" as it is potentialy present in some aristotelian sense, I would call that an abuse of Aristotelian metaphysics. Otherwise I don't understand what you mean by transcendental realm.
This potential activity prior to its combination with sense data is actual in the transcendental realm. It is the realm of pure a priori activity independent of it's application to matter or sense data.

[Anonymous No.23602083]

>>23602022
>>23602066
Start smoking weed

[Anonymous No.23602091]

>>23602022
>That is to say activity occurs in the neural structure when the sense data is being transmitted through them
In other words, the types of activities that occur in the neural structure when the sense data is transmitted to them already exist pure activity prior to interacting with the sense data, and the sense merely activates them when the pure activity actual in transcendental realm, but merely potential in the physical world, is actualized and embodied in the physical realm.

[Anonymous No.23602107]

>>23602066
So to get this straight
>Things that are potentially active are transcendentally active
>Things that are transcendentally active are a priori
If this is generally the case, any activity is potentially active and so a priori. A new brain can also potentially make a specific cognition but then any cognition is a priori. You could make the case that this latter activity is not a priori as it precedes a previous a priori act. I cam grant this. But then take the activity of the brain structure existing as a brain structure. It actively does this but also potentially does this and therefore is a priori and also precedes the abstracting activity. By the same argument the abstracting activity isn't a priori.

[Anonymous No.23602112]

>>23602022
>That is to say activity occurs in the neural structure when the sense data is being transmitted through them
In other words, the types of activities that occur in the neural structures when the sense data is transmitted to them already exists as pure activity prior to interacting with the sense data, and the senses or mattter merely activates them when the pure activity actual in transcendental realm, but merely potential in the physical world, is actualized and embodied in the physical realm.

[Anonymous No.23602150]

>>23602112
What do you mean by activity existing prior to sense data. Its like saying an engine is actively running in the transcendental realm even when its off. Refer to >>23602107 showing how by same logic the brain structure also exists in the transcendental realm, and prior to the abstraction of space and unity.

[Anonymous No.23602565]

>>23602150
>Its like saying an engine is actively running in the transcendental realm even when its off
not the physical, but idea of rhe engines activity is irl

[Anonymous No.23603466]

>>23602565
The idea of anything at all occurs after whatever induces the idea, be it an engine or the structure of a brain. To say that ideas exist, potentially or actually, prior to what induces them would be to admit every idea as a priori which is surely not what you mean.

[Anonymous No.23603570]

Why can't the Kantposter seem to know about Schopenhauer while knowing so much about Kant? Boggles the mind.

[Anonymous No.23603574]

Kantposter btfo here in his other shill thread:

>>23603368

[Anonymous No.23603579]

>>23594857
Based
>The noumena are coming!

[Anonymous No.23604426]

bump

[Anonymous No.23604610]

>>23603466
>to admit every idea as a priori which is surely not what you mean.
not every idea, only the pure mental activities that logically antecede material reality and make it and those (empirical) concepts derived from it possible.