[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 78 KB, 640x921, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5277018 No.5277018 [Reply] [Original]

So space and time and all so-called material objects, including my body, are all phenomenal, and all phenomena are mere qualia, not things-in-themselves.

What then is the fundamental nature of independent reality? Is it total nothingness?

That table over there, in what form does it exist in itself? Any property I imagine it to have is fundamentally a percept, which is by nature a dependent phenomenon, and thus, no matter how hard I try, I can only ever conceive of it in subjective terms. Its supposed objective nature remains completely inaccessible to me.

Please help, I think my mind is melting.

>> No.5277028

Are you studying phrenology?

>> No.5277034

Learn some science.

>> No.5277042

>>5277018
holy shit, I never knew someone could totally misrepresent Kant. OP, are you legitimately retarded?

>> No.5277047

>>5277018

Sobjectivity is the answer for everything

>> No.5277049
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5277049

>> No.5277056

>>5277034
All empirical data are phenomena. As far as the natural sciences are studies of phenomena they are valid. But isn't materiality a presupposition? Why should I assume space as it is perceived is objective?

>> No.5277060

>>5277049

Scientific method: systematically checking a scientist's credentials to determine the value of their findings

>> No.5277063

>>5277042
I don't know Kant very well and am not trying to represent anyone's ideas but mine. That said, pic is semi related because did he not come up with the noumenal/phenomenal split and also essentially say that space and time are products of our perceptive apparatus?

>> No.5277075

It's 'fundamental nature' (whatever that means..) is language. "Table" is a word/discourse.

>That table over there, in what form does it exist in itself?

See you're saying in what way does the table exist without human being around, except "the table" is language and requires the existence of a human to be spoken/thought.

>> No.5277096

>>5277075
So 'table' is a nonexistent concept. What about its phenomenal counterpart?

>> No.5277100

Or you could just grow out of infantile pseudo-intellectualism and stop being a useless NEET. How about accepting reality and getting a job, huh? Ever thought about that?

>> No.5277103

>>5277060
this is bulshit, you can fasify anything any scientist says if you can properly back it up, the only rule of course, following the scientific method.

>> No.5277106

>>5277096
what the fuck are you on about

>> No.5277114

>>5277106
the concept follows the phenomenon, as all concepts at heart do. The concept comes after the phenomenon.

>> No.5277125

>>5277114
so the concept of a table comes after we perceive the phenomena of a table