[ 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: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6252862 No.6252862 [Reply] [Original]

>reading the trancendental logic
>dialectic vs analytic
>canon vs organon
>Okay what the fuck is he talking about
>Google it
>mentions epicurus critiquing Aristotles logic

Guess I should've started with the Greeks

>> No.6252884

Kant ignores a lot of greek philosophy.
I had a teacher who said Kant was philosophically illiterate.

>> No.6252888

>>6252884
You had a teacher who, ironically, was philosophically illiterate.

>> No.6252896

>>6252884

Ignore >>6252888

Kant wasn't as philosophically illiterate as someone like Rorty or most Analytics/Empiricists, but there was a lot of stuff he didn't know about because he spent most of his life being a dogmatic Wolffian and he was only responding directly to newton and Leibniz because they were what he was familiar with due to their popularity at the time.

>> No.6252901

Can someone explain what the fuck dialectic means? Apparently it's a way of debating for the Greeks, which kant calls illusory, and something completely different for hegel

>> No.6252920

>>6252901
analytics = taking rigid definitions and seeing what logically stems from it
dialectics = discussing and debating the definitions themselves

>> No.6252929

>>6252901

Question, you don't go to graduate school in southern california by any chance do you?

Anyways, Dialectic for the Greeks was a method of philosophical investigation that basically used Socratic questioning in order to inquire about the essence of some given kind of thing. In the passage you're talking about, Kant uses dialectic to refer to any philosophy that attempts to deduce knowledge about the thing itself. In the Transcendental Dialectic, he shows why this it is in principle impossible to have synthetic a priori truths about propositions which don't relate to sensibility with the paralogisms.

Hegel invented what he called dialectical logic, which is supposed to be some kind of explanation of why there is becoming instead of just pure being, and how change happens. The details are maddeningly complicated, so I won't go into them on 4chan. I'm also by no means a Hegel scholar so I probably couldn't even explain it if I tried. Hegel is an absolute madman.

>> No.6252934

>>6252901
analytics = the circle is round
dialectics = the circle is imperfect

>> No.6252936

>>6252920
So you can halfway relate it to synthetic knowledge?
I see analytic as being directly related to the initial aesthetic dichotomy, predicates of the concept blah blah
So would you say dialectic means working the logic out in a synthetic manner? So you add knowledge that wasn't contained in the concept?

>> No.6252946

>>6252936

>So would you say dialectic means working the logic out in a synthetic manner? So you add knowledge that wasn't contained in the concept?

No, quite the opposite. You're trying to find out what is contained in the concept.

>> No.6252965

>>6252929
No, undergrad in Ohio

Isn't every concept a totality in our minds? How can there be a noumenal part of a concept?
Or (I believe) kant is saying with the trancendental aspect, that we can't ignore the source of our conceptions, so we need to talk about the conditions on which that is possible.
But isn't all of that empirical, and therefore not a priori?

>> No.6252968

>>6252946
So analytic is just assuming you know all the predicates, and dialectic is not being sure and debating it.

>> No.6252989

>>6252968

a proposition is analytic if the predicate is predicated of the subject by definition. Dialectic is a method of philosophical inquiry.

>>6252965

>Isn't every concept a totality in our minds?

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

>How can there be a noumenal part of a concept?

For Kant, there isn't. We have access to our concepts.

>But isn't all of that empirical, and therefore not a priori?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we gain concepts from experience, therefore it is invalid to speak of a priori understanding or knowledge. This is wrong. For Kant, it's a priori if the justification does not rely upon experience. I know that elephants are animals without having to verify this, whereas I don't know if my shoes are tied without checking to see if they are tied or not.

>> No.6253009

>>6252989
Ah I understand the second point more, the concepts may have originated from experience, but judging the truths of relation between the concepts is a priori (or atleast that's what kant wants to prove correct? Or is that common knowledge/assumption/evident?).
How does this relate to the goal (of dialectical philosophy ) to understand the object in itself?
Also what is kant trying to prove here? I understand his aesthetics argument, trying to overcome hume induction problem, but maybe I'm just too early in to see it.
Sorry I have to go to bed after this but I will definitely check this thread and respond as soon as I wake up.

>> No.6253871

>>6252989

>
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we gain concepts from experience, therefore it is invalid to speak of a priori understanding or knowledge. This is wrong. For Kant, it's a priori if the justification does not rely upon experience. I know that elephants are animals without having to verify this, whereas I don't know if my shoes are tied without checking to see if they are tied or not.

Kant totally forgets about how was the concept "elephant" and "animal" formed in the first place, they aren't a priori

>> No.6253973

>>6252901
Dialectic is the mental operation used by philosophers to arrive at first principles. Definitions vary greatly depending on who you're talking to, which dialectic you're talking about (Hegel's and Plato's are very different), and when the philosopher in question lived. There is no rigid definition, since philosophers have disagreed about its nature and value since the dawn of the discipline. It's basically supralogical logic.

>> No.6253978

>>6252862
Kant was an autist. Which is why he is recognized as a leading figure in all other fields apart from ethics.

The categorical imperative is literally a sperglord's ethics.

>> No.6253995

>>6253973
Just to be clear, even in the most general definition, dialectic is a mental operation?

>> No.6254002

>>6253995
Yes. Even Hegel's, which upon first inspection appears to transcend the mind, isn't more than mental, if you understand what Geist truly is meant to be.

>> No.6254049

>>6252901
>Can someone explain what the fuck dialectic means?

Dialectic is a 'conversation' (as Rorty put it, although ultimately a hack whose musings naturally attract post-structurialists, those inept at math. logic and so forth) among philosophers where they weigh each others' arguments for and against some problem P of some subject S (case in point: justified true belief (problem), epistemology (subject)). So, in retrospect, there exist numerous types and tokens of dialectic some of which have a long, say, >2000, year history, extending back to the ancient Greeks.

>> No.6254055

>>6254049
You're right, but the fact that you couldn't say that without coupling it with a subtle smear against continental philosophers makes your grade go down to a 8/10.

>> No.6254062

Why am I reading this shit instead of cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology? All this book seems to be saying is 'we can't know about things in themselves' but using a lot of words and a lot of nonsense to say it.
I'll freely admit that I'm probably missing something and not really understanding it, but this hasn't been a very interesting 300 pages so far

>> No.6254069

>>6254062

Just read Hume's inquiry and set the thing done until you want more

>> No.6254077

>>6254062
>All this book seems to be saying is 'we can't know about things in themselves' but using a lot of words and a lot of nonsense to say it.

Well when you put it that way, no, you shouldn't be reading it. We can know Things In Themselves through the operation of reason through dialectic.

>> No.6254111

>>6254062
Because cognitive science is all about facts, and not about thinking about how things hang up in the broadest sense of the term.

If you only read cognitive science you'd fall into the "I have it all figured out" trap; it's a good way of avoiding actual thinking and bashing philosophy for "not keeping up". Philosophy is not about churning out facts about the world --- that's what the natural sciences are for; rather, it's more about how we can construct a coherent and logically consistent picture of many, interrelated subjects, their problems, and so forth. Think about getting the bird's view of something when you think of philosophy.

Anyway, judging solely from your writing, it doesn't seem that you are ready for philosophy at this point. For now, I suggest reading around it, so that someday when something clicks, you might come to appreciate philosophy for what it is.

>> No.6254114

>>6254077
What, how?

>> No.6254124

>>6254114
He means just talking to other people.

>> No.6254132

>>6254111
Say that to me face faggot n see wot appens.

Seriously though, I'm not saying 'why am I reading philosophy when science is the truth' or some shit. I'm talking about Kant's book. The categories and concepts and everything seem pretty arbitrary and he doesn't provide any insight into how he came up with them, he just says 'trust me, these are all there are'. I understand he's trying to create a structure for metaphysics, but it seems rather sloppy and obvious once you get past the big words and weird sentences

>> No.6254148

>>6254077
You're wrong, that's the point of transcendental philosophy. Hegel is the one who made the claim you're attributing to Kant. Kant claims we can know phenomena with a degree of certitude, but not noumena. Hegel says there are ONLY noumena, and Spirit accesses them as it develops.

>> No.6254151

>>6254077
>We can know Things In Themselves through the operation of reason through dialectic.
hegel pls go

>>6254124
that isn't knowing things in themselves. intersubjective agreement is essentially a substitute for a hypothetical pure objectivity, but Kant clearly states that things in themselves are beyond the bounds of knowledge. transcendental apperception is still mind-dependent.

>> No.6254159

>>6254132
Did you read the Prolegomena first? Do you know anything about the book's context?

>> No.6254168

>>6254159
Yes. Are you saying that it's only significant historically and is now essentially useless to read for its ideas? Because that's essentially what I'm claiming, and instead of people offering insight, they're just saying 'hurr ur not ready to join the sekrit club!'

>> No.6254179

>>6254168
BTW I am op and this
>>6253995
Was my last post

But I slightly agree with the idea that it's only useful to read this in a historical sense, but I agree more with>>6254111
It seems there are some things "facts" cannot explain

>> No.6254184

>>6254168
No, I was suggesting that you may not have appreciated the arguments for what they were understood to be when they were made. But now that I see you're just writing them off as incoherent when every philosopher since Kant has engaged with them critically and seriously and claimed that there's a lot of good stuff in there, I have to assume you're just not ready to join the secret club.
Do you have more substantial criticism, or are you just another /lit/fag calling someone smarter than himself incoherent because he doesn't want to actually engage with the text? You have to admit, there are quite a few such individuals here.

>> No.6254308

>>6252862
Please. Most of these things should have an apriori meaning to you. You are just genetically inferior.

>> No.6254345

>>6254308
Thank you for memeing with me

>> No.6254425

>>6254184
Never said it was incoherent or devoid of value (actually, I guess I said that, but I was just being flippant, posturing). It just seems a bit overwrought and after reading secondary literature and trying to engage with the book itself (in translation) I'm beginning to realize that it's a bit archaic and not as methodical as it claims to be. It's a "great" book, and I understand how influential it's been, but slogging through it seems a bit pointless when the really good ideas can be gleaned from reading the wikipedia entry