/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23861023]

The the exoteric teaching of Kant is that human knowledge can only be partially known a priori and that there is still an element of knowledge that can only be arrived at a posteriori and there is an impassible chasm between two, resulting in two different types of knowledge per se. This need not be the case: that gap is a contrivance, a blind to fool thise belonging to a more unenlightened age. The esoteric teaching was the implicit suggestion towards THE COMPLETE A PRIORI DERIVATION OF THE SYSTEM OF ALL THE SCIENCES. There is, in truth, no difference between a priori and a posteriori KNOWLEDGE, only between the pure and empirical METHODS of ATTAINING that knowledge. Deeper reading of the Critique reveals the distinction is not of the knowledge itself, but rather of the means by which the knowledge is obtained. If I learn, empirically, Maxwell's equations, then I learned them a posteriori; if I derived them from pure a priori principles, then I learned them a priori, or rather, I already implicitly knew them in the pure a priori principle, and the explicit derivation of them turns out be a platonic anamnesis. The knowledge itself, the equations as propositions, are nonetheless the same, regardless of their source. This is the esoteric doctrine, the completion of the system, the true transition from the metaphysical principles of natural science to natural science proper, including psychology and beyond. What empirical scientists are slowly and painfully arriving at by the hard teacher of experience, metaphysicians have known since time immemorial.

[Anonymous No.23861040]

>>23861023
I like to say 'you can't stumble into truth, it must be revealed to you'.
y'ever heard of the hill climbing problem in sorting algorithms?

[Anonymous No.23861080]

>oh no my shitty thread got archived
>better make a new one
>surely this time everyone will slob on my knob for being le cool kant poster

[Anonymous No.23861134]

>>23861080
Your hating only makes me stronger.

[Anonymous No.23861400]

>>23861134

[Anonymous No.23861507]

>>23861400
Why is Schelling there?

[Anonymous No.23861516]

>>23861507
more importantly, why are they *in* the bowl? that's the shred zone. they're gonna get razzed

[Anonymous No.23861672]

>>23861023
nondualism mkay
all knowledge is already there within or higher above mkay tesla called it the source mkay hindoos called it akashic records mkay edison got his ideas from dreams mkay

[Anonymous No.23861975]

The Gremlin of Gonisberg

[wordcel No.23862045]

>>23861023
I wonder if the OP can provide anything to backup his claim.

For all others:
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

[Anonymous No.23862091]

>>23862045
My point is distinct from quine's. Quine's distinction is between analytic and synthetic knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23862101]

>>23861023
So there is nothing contingent in nature and the world. How are seemingly contingent events derived a priori?

[Anonymous No.23862102]

>>23861023
that's his personal opinion only

[Anonymous No.23862940]

Bump

[Anonymous No.23863822]

>>23862101
In effect, contingent things only appear contingent if you are ignorant of the pure a priori principles and their derivative knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23863827]

>>23862102
Whose?

[Anonymous No.23863888]

>>23863822
Ok, how is my stumbling upon the uneven part of the sidewalk deduced a priori?

[Anonymous No.23863906]

>>23863888
That's the hard path of science. No one said it was easy. I will only show you the way, you will have to walk it.

[Anonymous No.23863924]

>>23863906
Ok, how then? Let me just tell you that there is a guy before Kant that literally posited this, but on one condition that Kant denied, and because of that there is no way for this universal a priori knowledge to inhere in Kantian philosophy. If your next post replying to this one is the usual retardation of your “contributions” here I’ll be forced to call you a retard and ask for you to stop posting wrong things about Kant.

[Anonymous No.23863944]

>>23863924
>Let me just tell you that there is a guy before Kant that literally posited this, but on one condition that Kant denied
go on...

[Anonymous No.23863947]

>>23861023
Esoteric Kantianism is just crude Hegelianism then

[Anonymous No.23863975]

>>23863947
You have it backwards: Hegel was the most Kantian of Kantians.

[Anonymous No.23864665]

>>23863944
Retard, you didn’t show what I asked three times. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.23864950]

>>23864665
You can't do that in a 4chan post. The point is that it is in principle derivable, but the computational complexity is beyond your understanding. You are missing tje forest for the tree and seething over a pedantry.

[Anonymous No.23864967]

>missing the forest for the trees
Kant...

[Anonymous No.23864994]

>>23864950
You are just a retard then, yes, I get it. I’d advise you to stop misreading Kant so badly like this, otherwise you’ll become a joke (if you’re the retarded kantspammer I guess you already is).

[Anonymous No.23865074]

>>23864994
>I’d advise you to stop misreading Kant
On the contrary, I have seen through the blinds. He left clues for those with eyes to see. He presented an exoterically incomplete system as a suggestive push towards its completion by each individual student of the system. He leaves the esoteric teaching as an exercise to the reader.

> when we compare the thoughts that an author expresses about a subject, in ordinary speech as well as in writing, it is not at all unusual to find that we understand him even better than he understood himself, since he may not have determined his concept sufficiently and hence sometimes spoke, or even thought, contrary to his own intention”
-KrV A 314/B 370, tr. 396

[Anonymous No.23865107]

>>23861023
>German Idealism is implicit in Kantianism
Wow I've never heard this before

[Anonymous No.23865226]

>>23865074
There is no suggestion of an “esoteric” construction in line with the a priori derivation of all phenomena you are positing here in Kant’s work. On the contrary, seeing how Kant admired Newton, the value of experience is not to be dismissed, but to be counted as a substantial part of constituting knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23865236]

>>23865226
>To wit, all knowledge has two ends of which you can take hold, the one a priori, the other a posteriori. It is true, several modern scientists have pretended that one must, of necessity, begin at the latter. They think they can catch the eel of science at the tail, by first procuring enough knowledges from experience, and then ascending gradually to general and higher conceptions. But although this may not be unwise, it is not nearly learned enough, nor philosophical. For in this manner one soon arrives at a why which cannot be answered, and that is just as creditable for a philosopher as it is for a merchant to pleasantly ask one to come some other time when a bill of exchange is presented to him for payment. To avoid this inconvenience acute men have begun at the opposite farthest border, the outmost point of metaphysics.
>I come to the point, the works of my hero. If many authors who are now forgotten, or, at least, in future will be without fame, deserve no small credit because, in the composition of big works, they took no heed of the expenditure of their reason, Mr. Swedenborg doubtless should carry highest honours among them all. For, surely, his bottle in the lunar world is quite full, and is inferior to none among all those which Ariosto has seen there, filled with the reason that was lost here, and which the owners one day will have to seek again; so utterly empty of the last drop of reason is his big work.

[Anonymous No.23865266]

>>23865226
>There is no suggestion
Then you haven't read Kant thoroughly enough
>Kant admired Newton
He also btfo Newtonian space, but irrelevant.
>experience not to be dismissed
only at the beginning, but at the end experience (i.e. sense knowledge) reveals itself to be superfluous.

You are stuck at an exoteric reading. Upon attaining the esoteric key the following passage is given a deeper meaning:
>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.

In fact, experience is like the training wheels of a bicycle: you do away with them because you no longer need them.

[Anonymous No.23865273]

>>23865236
These excerpts you are posting are from a book he published in 1766. It is known that Kant had a mystic (or incorporated a lot of mysticism) phase, and not only that but even accepted the ontological argument as proof of God. His Critical turn obviously goes in the opposite direction of many of his earlier positions.

[Anonymous No.23865302]

>>23865266
>He also btfo Newtonian space, but irrelevant
Yes, Kant’s departing from Newtonian conception of space is irrelevant to the known fact that Kant admired Newton and wanted to salvage a lot of Newton’s views in his work.
>only at the beginning, at the end experience reveals itself to be superfluous
You won’t find any of this in Kant, sorry.
>by no means follows that all arises out of experience
Yes? Do you think this is a rebuttal? Kant is obviously going against extreme forms of empiricism as Lockean tabula rasa. The experience that gives knowledge of how flies reproduce, how they behave when you take off one of their legs, is not contradicted that each fly can only be perceived as one fly.

[Anonymous No.23865327]

>>23865273
That wasn't me (OP) btw, but I agree with the sentiment. What you must understand is that the Critical period was itself a phase or stage in the development of the esoteric system, i.e., the System of Science, or Science itself, that Kant had to go through to refine, purify, and thoroughly ground the system beyond his rationalist predecessors, taking into account and responding to the empiricist school and ultimately overcoming it. In the the first Critique the esoteric doctrine is only found in implicit form as suggested by its internal contradictions, but when thoroughly worked out the true system can be made explicitly comminicable. Kant himself realized this by the end of his and was working it out in the Opus Postumum, where he realized the gap between the metaphysical foundations of natural science and natural science proper had to be bridged. German idealism is not the rejection of Kant it is the development of the germ of the true system of science within his incomplete system. The various developments of German idealism are developments of this esoteric kernel, which Kant himself in his final days recognized. The exoteric system is not complete.

[Anonymous No.23865366]

>>23865107
>>23865327
This is the mainstream reading of Fichte and Hegel though. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.23865527]

>>23865366
Fichte and Hegel are esoteric Kantians.

[Anonymous No.23865544]

>>23865302
You are stuck at an exoteric reading. Taking Kant's word at face value. You must read between the lines. Grapple with the text. I told you that passage takes on a new meaning in light of the esoteric teaching. Yes, he is arguing against Locke, but in the end if he leaves an empirical component to knowledge he leaves duality between the pure and empirical which must be resolved according to the unifying nature of reason which Kant himself affirms. He obviously is against the Empiricist tabula rasa position, and therefore the solution can only lie in either subsuming the empirical content under an intellectual category, i,e., the empirical is itself really only a type of thought, or subsuming both the sensible and intellectual components of knowledge under a higher genus. (Which he does suggest btw even as early as the first critique if you didn't know that). In the first case, knowing the intelligible principles, can reproduce all empirically obtained knowledge through derivation from those principles. If there is a higher genus that grounds both sensibility and intellect, then the question of how by means of this tertium quid we could arrive by an alternative means to the same knowledge obtained emprically or through purely intellectual means would require first coming, in some way, in to contact and knowledge of that thing whatever it may be, and then beginning from those (for now subconscious) principles. But with that said, The passage quoted takes on new meaning because although we immediately find ourselves as having sensible experience and therefore our knowledge (temporally) begins with this experience, by means of critical philosophy we come to realize that not only does not all knowledge arise from experience, but all knowledge (experientially gained and otherwise) can be derived through pure a priori principles: the Platonic anamnesis. The issue is not that there is no emprically obtained knowledge, but rather that it is a means that can be put aside when he have the more secure means of pure apriori principles.

[Anonymous No.23865546]

>>23865527
You should be able to prove this with a brief reading of Hegel, Encyclopedia Logic, paragraph 41, addition 2 (citing the hackett translation i happened to have on hand at the moment but use whatever you want)

[Anonymous No.23865557]

>>23865546
I've already read Hegel. I know. My point is Kant HIMSELF knew.

[Anonymous No.23865569]

>>23865366
He's being ironic autist.

[Anonymous No.23865571]

>>23865557
So you should have no problem showing how Hegel's criticisms of Kant in the passage cited suggest an esoteric meaning.

[Anonymous No.23865583]

>>23865544
>if he leaves an empirical component to knowledge he leaves duality between the pure and empirical which must be resolved according to the unifying nature of reason which Kant himself affirms
And this is how Practical Reason comes into play. Kant’s epistemology is obviously dualist, everyone recognizes this, from his contemporaries to current scholars.
> subsuming the empirical content under an intellectual category
Yes, this is what he does when he says that intuition purveys the material for cognition and the understanding gives universal/intersubjective categories or rules to the presentation and cognition of such phenomena.
> subsuming both the sensible and intellectual components of knowledge under a higher genus
There is no higher genus in the Critique.
> The issue is not that there is no emprically obtained knowledge, but rather that it is a means that can be put aside when he have the more secure means of pure apriori principles.
Again, how can what I said about flies be derived a priori? You won’t have an answer.

[Anonymous No.23865589]

>>23865583
You don't get it.

[Anonymous No.23865592]

>>23865583
Fool. Empirica as such are posited in/as thinghood.

[Anonymous No.23865612]

>>23865327
To truly complete something is to kill something.

[Anonymous No.23865616]

>>23865583
>Kant’s epistemology is obviously dualist
Hence, the suggestion to unify implied by the continuous reiteration by Kant emphasized over and over again that Reason is a UNITY.
>there is no higher genus in the Critique
smfh

> there are two sources of human knowledge (WHICH PROBABLY SPRING FROM A COMMON, BUT TO US UNKNOWN ROOT), namely, sense and understanding.

Your small intellect is not comprehending THE Kantian idea of the unity of the whole. Again, you are missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous No.23865620]

>>23865612
Every end is a beginning.

[Anonymous No.23865705]

>>23865616
>the suggestion to unify implied by the continuous reiteration by Kant emphasized over and over again that Reason is a UNITY
He emphasises it through the Practical Reason, not through some obscure not explicitly said but hinted at though only for pneumatics way.
> there are two sources of human knowledge (WHICH PROBABLY SPRING FROM A COMMON, BUT TO US UNKNOWN ROOT), namely, sense and understanding.
Yes, Kant agrees with me here, I know. He is explictly saying that our constitutive arrangement for cognition is not necessarily apoditic, knowledge is not dependent on it necessarily, but any other form that is not the dualist sense-understanding form is UNKNOWN to us.

>y-you’re too hylic to grasp what I’m saying.

[Anonymous No.23865745]

>>23865705
Who are the "we" of the "us" know and do not know? You're just not even reading. You're regurgitating.

[Anonymous No.23865792]

>>23865745
What is your problem? Us as in our empirical self.

[Anonymous No.23866019]

>>23865792
That wasn't me.

[Anonymous No.23866034]

>>23865705
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.23866082]

>>23865616
Literally smartest anon on /lit/. Why he wastes his time with these retards I'll never know.

[Anonymous No.23866178]

>>23866034
My opinion literally goes along with the most well estimated scholars on Kant and German Idealism.

[Anonymous No.23866336]

>>23865620
Kant:
>start with "I" and forget what you knew about how that "I" works, lest our jolly friend from the Isles let's us know we're being daft.
>Interaction of "I" and object form unity of apperception.
>Forget about knowing the object, for accounting purposes.
>From this point on everything comes down to the sophistication of your judgement, classification, and logical abilities.
>Most efficient route is the route. Forget the other routes.

Hegel:
>See above.
>No beginnings. The end is when you can't keep going.
>Add knowing objects back into the equation.
>Absolute mode: switch everything to necessary. Absolutely everything.
>Most efficient route is less ideal than the most comprehensive. All Logic, 3 or nothing, or everything.

Hume:
>incomplete.
>No miracle men. No bullshit.
>hope you did your stats and probability homework.

[Anonymous No.23866956]

bump

[Anonymous No.23866995]

>>23866336
Moral of the story: westoids can’t philosophise.

[Anonymous No.23867197]

>>23866178
Well-estimated according to you. There are well-estimated scholars who rather agree with me. Vaihinger. von Hartmann. Du Prel. Greg Johnson.

[Anonymous No.23868120]

>>23867197
According to the academia. If you’re not familiar with someone like Beiser, you have a very narrow view of German Idealism and its interpretations.
>Vaihinger
What? The guy who liked Lange?
>du Prel
Wew a shcizophrenic occultist agreed with another schizophrenic!
>Greg Johnson
Literally who
>Hartmann
This guy was destroyed by Nietzsche, but regarding Kant, I have never seen what he says about him, probably just copycats Schopenhauer’s take.

[Anonymous No.23868143]

>>23868120
So your well-estimated scholars is literally just Beiser. lol.

[Anonymous No.23868144]

>>23867197
Post the Greg Johnson article then, fag
>>23868120
>Literally who
lurk moar

[Anonymous No.23868153]

>>23861040
>y'ever heard of the hill climbing problem in sorting algorithms?
No. Tell me more, anon

[Anonymous No.23868175]

>>23865226
I'm trans btw, if that matters

[Anonymous No.23868215]

>>23868143
>gives an example of a very well known scholar
>hahaha so only this one!
Retard

>>23868144
What has the guy done that is relevant? Translanted an early text from Kant?

>>23868175
Uh ok?

[Anonymous No.23868272]

>>23868215
>t. ignoramus

[Anonymous No.23868291]

>>23868215
like I said, lurk moar

[Anonymous No.23868304]

>>23868272
>>23868291
You lost. Besides holding a totally alien view from that of Kant’s philosophy, you couldn’t even sustain your fantasy of absolute a priori derivation of all knowledge, since I asked you three or four times and you only gave cowardly evasive replies.

[Anonymous No.23868334]

>>23868304
cope. You don't understand Kant's philosophy. I doubt you've actually read it and are going entirely off of the secondhand accounts by your "well estimated" scholars. You're missing the whole point and obsessing like a pedant over a particular derivation when the point at issue is the foundations that in principle make it possible. You have not mastered the IDEA behind the system like I have. Again, your tiny intellect misses the forest for a worse than a tree, for a barely sprouting weed.

[Anonymous No.23868353]

>>23868304
I'm not that guy bro. I even got warned for making fun of him and his stupid intellecktuale ack-schaung philosophy. I'm just saying that you need to lurk moar because you overplayed your hand. not knowing who greg johnson is on /lit/ is embarrassing. you don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.23868376]

>>23868353
>I even got warned for making fun of him
What? Why?

[Anonymous No.23868424]

>>23868353
Imagine being so distant from actual scholarly engagement that you think belonging to /lit/ has any intellectual merit. You just ousted yourself.

>>23868334
Beiser doesn’t simply offer his own view of Kant, he presents the main currents of interpretations of Kant’s thought. You should know this. Also, I had to correct you several times in this thread, your quoting excerpts of Kant’s books had to be duly interpreted by me to correct your distortions.

[Anonymous No.23868432]

>>23868424
>you think belonging to /lit/ has any intellectual merit
nobody said this. go back to your fagademic circlejerk lol. your pseudcreds can't be cashed in here.

[Anonymous No.23868442]

>>23868424
>your quoting excerpts of Kant’s books had to be duly interpreted by me to correct your distortions.
delusional

[Anonymous No.23868445]

>>23868424
>Beiser doesn’t simply offer his own view of Kant, he presents the main currents of interpretations of Kant’s thought.
So you haven't actually read Kant and it shows. All I needed to know.

[Anonymous No.23868486]

>>23868445
As I said, I had to correct your views about him several times, I could only have done this by knowing Kant better than you. Reading the guy is a given obviously.

[Anonymous No.23868493]

>>23868486
>this guy still reads the primary sources
ask me how I know you went to a shit-tier school. I went to a Russell group university and we only read excerpts and secondary sources. that's all you need.

[Anonymous No.23868523]

>>23868486
>I misunderstood him several times
ftfy

You haven't understood him. I doubt you've actually read him. You definitely don't know about the Opus Postumun. And the only "well established" scholar you've mentioned (which I'm guessing is where get your entire reading of Kant from) is Beiser. You just keep saying I'm wrong in my esoteric reading all the while arguing from an obviously very shallow second hand understanding of him. You haven't read him, at best you've skimmed portions of him in some one-semester seminar where you had to have someone hold your hand.

[Anonymous No.23868527]

>>23868493
>we only read excerpts and secondary sources.
cringe

[Anonymous No.23868540]

stfu kantposer

[Anonymous No.23868552]

>>23868523
I corrected you here >>23865705. You don’t even know how and why Kant has the Practical Reason as center of his philosophy. Yes I gave you one name since you insisted so much, I could give you more names but what for? Just read more and stop distorting Kant to your own will.

[Anonymous No.23868582]

>>23868552
You do not know about the OPUS POSTUMUM. You are stuck at an exoteric level reading of the first Critique because you are interpreting it from an early stage in the development of the Kantian philosophy. Reason strives for unity, you simply stopping at duality, but that leaves the system incomplete and it must be completed. Kant knew this; you do not. Practical reason does not yield knowledge it can only direct the will; again you entirely miss the point. At the stage at which the first Critique was written Kant resorted to depending on Practical reason as a crutch to sustain faith in the ideas of reason which his critique of the theoretical faculty had denied knowledge of to that faculty. But Kant's philosophy was an organic development, it did not stop their you mental midget. The Critique must be read in the context of the complete organic development, and in that context the seeds of that development are seen in the earlier works that would have been overlooked otherwise (like dimwits as yourself). This development was undertaken by Kant himself, but also by Fichte and Schelling in their development of that esoteric kernel. You are distorting Kant because you are stuck staring at the letter of the doctrine, rather than the Spirit. You are literally just reiterating the memed version of Kant.

[Anonymous No.23868769]

>>23868582
>Practical reason does not yield knowledge it can only direct the will
Practical reason is what unifies the conflict between theoretical knowledge and moral action. Kant in the First Critique repeatedly emphasizes how the theoretical program of the First Critique is to open the path to the unification via practical reason, otherwise, as he himself acknowledged, we wouldn't have nothing besides the natural determinism against any will, we would not need to posit the thing in itself.

[Anonymous No.23869092]

>>23868582
Have you read de Man's essays on Kant

[Anonymous No.23869257]

>>23869092
no. why?

[Anonymous No.23869262]

KANT IS ALIVE. KANT LIVES.

[Anonymous No.23869290]

>>23865107
>>23865366
Exoteric message: “I have not heard that before.”
Esoteric message: “I have heard that before.”