If you kant summarize the critique of pure reason in one sentence then you didn't understand it.

If you kant summarize the critique of pure reason in one sentence then you didn't understand it.

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    boring

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Filtered

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A priori fallacies

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Manlets always win in the end.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Synthetic a priori knowledge exists.

    If you actually understand the consequences of this then the whole critique follows. You either deny synthetic a priori knowledge or you’re a Kantian.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This dude got, completely, utterly, and exactly.
      Well, done.
      Though, I’m going to clock, this bullshit, like it’s nothing.

      Synthetic a priori knowledge does not exist; in fact, it is completely self-contradictory.

      Session Ended, douchebags!

      -Elohim, the Night Dragon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        true... synthetic knowledge a priori doesn't exist... the whole copernican revolution and therefore transcendental idealism is false...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Boring, but yes, exactly.
          I don’t know if YOU, expected, to contradict my conclusion, by restating the premise, in a shitty, pseudo-sophisticated “way.”
          But, man, that was fricking beyond garbage.
          That was fricking molten hot bullshit.
          Weird turn of events, huh?
          Process that, for eternity, dipshit.

          -Elohim, the Night Dragon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            wtf are you talking about... hahaha...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How you reek of piss and diarrhea, homosexual.

            Nice self-conscious laughter, dumbass.

            Go frick yourself, with your inside-out dick.

            Wi’dya.
            Fricking.
            Termite.

            -Elohim, the Night Dragon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            whatever... even if we falsify Kant for his idealism the problem of how to proceed a priori without synthetic judgements and the problem of empty concepts still exist... can you solve those ?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anyway, Philip.
            The initial crux of your pathetic “argument,” is just another restatement of my own premise, without contradiction my initial point.
            What follows, afterwards, is entirely irrelevant, and isn’t even a coherent logical sequence, on top of that, homosexual.
            The only “empty concept,” in this conversation, is everything you think of, in your brain dead, fricking, mind.
            Gross, and they self-replicate, incestuously, in a corrosive ball of moronic mush.
            Discern reality, in any sense of the Word, through THAT category.
            Ignorant, asswipe.

            -Elohim, the Night Dragon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            By, they way, homosexual.

            Before, your sick, demented, homosexual brain, tries to say, a god damn thing…

            HEXOS CRUCOS, ULTIMA INFERNUS

            Suck it, douchebag.

            -Elohim, the Night Dragon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We don't sign posts here, you pretentious newbie c**t. What's the point of signing the stupid shit you're writing anyway? Frick off back to your sign-in forums, grandpa.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I've literally never had any interaction with you, but to read this post and I already hate your guts, you pretentious homosexual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what's the argument against synthetic a priori knowledge?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Read these articles by CS Peirce. Besides that Deleuze is probably the place to go. There is also JS Mill’s boom “A system of logic” which argues that all knowledge is inductive.

        These papers argue that intuitions don’t exist, which is equivalent to arguing that synthetic a priori knowledge doesn’t exist. The crux is that every cognition is determined in some measure by a previous cognition.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice, on, Jon Bat.

          Everyone here, should read up, on this.

          Immediately, or whenever, they are ready.

          -Elohim, the Nighf Dragon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/UaMB09K.jpeg

        Read these articles by CS Peirce. Besides that Deleuze is probably the place to go. There is also JS Mill’s boom “A system of logic” which argues that all knowledge is inductive.

        These papers argue that intuitions don’t exist, which is equivalent to arguing that synthetic a priori knowledge doesn’t exist. The crux is that every cognition is determined in some measure by a previous cognition.

        the point is, that Kant needs space and time to be a priori for synthetic knowledge a priori to exist... but that premise is already false... of course space and time are not a priori but a reality

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It’s the opposite. Kant uses the fact that synthetic a priori knowledge exists to argue that space and time are a priori. Since math is certain, he says space and time must be a priori or else math, which contains propositions about space and time, must be empirical and therefore not certain. The false premise is that math is certain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Although perhaps I should clarify the false premise is not just that math is certain but that it is universally valid. Kant believed that the propositions of Euclidean geometry would hold in the actual universe, whereas they don’t if the universe is non-euclidean. But it is also true that math is fallible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Although perhaps I should clarify the false premise is not just that math is certain but that it is universally valid. Kant believed that the propositions of Euclidean geometry would hold in the actual universe, whereas they don’t if the universe is non-euclidean. But it is also true that math is fallible.

            true that... but isn't it insane that Kant concluded Math has to be certain and universal so space and time have to be a priori ?... instead of just concluding that math is in fact fallible ?... for me this whole space and time a priori thing is the biggest scandal in philosophy... it is absolutely absurd to assume that...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            after Hume kant thought that if you didn't conclude that then there was no way to explain why nature had any regularity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >math is in fact fallible
            how?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Synthetic a priori knowledge exists.
      does this just mean that there are facts that we cant materially prove? like axioms or whatever

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Two words: Space and Time.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reality is always filtered through perception and mental constructs - noumenal reality is unatainable.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the prodigious and labyrinthine work that is Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the sagacious Prussian philosopher embarks upon a most formidable intellectual odyssey, traversing the vast and nebulous realms of metaphysics and epistemology, wherein he meticulously erects a towering edifice of transcendental idealism, crafted with the fastidious precision of a master mason, striving to demarcate the immutable boundaries between the noumenal world of things as they are in themselves, utterly inscrutable to human inquiry, and the phenomenal world of things as they appear through the variegated lens of human perception, thus endeavoring to reconcile the perennial and thorny dichotomy between pure reason and empirical experience through a series of intricate, often convoluted, but undeniably profound arguments and ruminations that seek to establish the conditions under which knowledge itself is possible, positing that all our speculative ventures are inescapably confined within the limits of our own cognitive faculties, which alone dictate the form and content of all that we can ever hope to know, thereby inaugurating a monumental paradigm shift in the annals of philosophical thought, one that would irrevocably alter the course of Western philosophy and cement Kant's reputation as an indomitable titan whose colossal shadow looms large over the intellectual landscape, challenging and enlightening the minds of earnest seekers of truth across successive generations.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts blind

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We can’t know things as they are, but we can perceive them through categories, which we have a priori and synthesis with sensory data to produce our perception of the world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      “Categories,” are useful scripting tools, but they ultimately do not interfere with reality itself.
      To separate a thing as it seems and in it self is actually a false, pointless dichotomy.
      There is no way of knowing, therefore it does not exist.
      We’ll get to Nietzsche, later.

      -Elohim, the Night Dragon

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Black person

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How the frick do I tackle him? He uses big words and I don't understand them. What the frick is a priori?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand Kant.

    -Dark Haxx0r Ninja King, the Dread Lord of Cyberspace

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *