The thing in itself, as MIND-INDEPENDENT cannot be actually thought. If you are thinking about the thing in itself, and think your thoughts about the thing in itself apply to the thing in itself, you have fallen into transcendental illusion: you are not actually thinking about the thing in itself. It's similar to "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao".
> It's similar to "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao”
No it isn’t. The Dao is not definite or demarcated. This does not mean you cannot experience the dao. Also, 5e dao de jung never says that. The line is “Tao ke dao fei Chang Tao” which means the way can be walked is not an enduring way.
>The Dao is not definite or demarcated.
and neither is the Ding an sich.
Neither is pic related, but the color spectrum is not analogous to the ding an sich.
>the color spectrum is not analogous to the ding an sich.
jokes on you anon
All experience is representation according to Kant because it all has to be brought under the conditions of sensibility. So no experience is analogous to the ding an sich.
>So no experience is analogous to the ding an sich.
no shit. but electromagnetic spectrum transcends experience.
>scientific. Mathematical hypothesis generated through analysis of sense data “transcends experience”
you are not a kantian
falsch. you have just not read picrel.
kindergarten stuff
Kant is just a boring, autistic, Prussian version of Laozi or Nagarjuna. It took Schop to inject some color into Kantianism.
Stop slandering Daoism
>Kant is just a boring
only for low iq smoothbrains like yourself
>kant is boring
I bet you think Schopenhauer was a deep mind stoic and not some emo kid for his time
>the missile must know where it isn't at all times
>the Objekt is more than the geometrical sum of my representations of it because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK??
Kantians are truly moronic
filtration has occurred
> if you think about a thing you thought you thunk it can't be MIND-INDEPENDENT!!!
> KANT
> KANT
> KANT
none of you would touch this nonsense if you had the brains to read someone who actually does use self-reference to demonstrate profound results, like godel. you've been filtered, not i.
but if the thing in itself goes through processes and the results are as expected, would one not dominate and know every quality of the thing in itself?
>Chinese box thought experiment
> you can't think without thinking
no shit sherlock
If the thing-in-itself can't be thought, can't be sensed, and can't be talked about, then positing it is useless.
posers.