>read schopenhauer. >says "object in itself" is impossible. >read Kant

>read schopenhauer
>says "object in itself" is impossible
>read Kant
>"object in itself" makes perfect sense if the intellect cognizing it also created it
>Read Schopenhauer
>says Kant misused the term "Noumena"
>Read Kant
>Makes perfect sense since noumena specifically things in themselves created through an intellect rather than generic things in themselves
I don't get it, was he stupid?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I really tried to read Schopenhauer but the first half of the world as will and representation really bored me to death. Even if he was on to something I don't care to be told by him about it. He's fricking lame.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      filtered

      https://i.imgur.com/75m6Q36.jpg

      >read schopenhauer
      >says "object in itself" is impossible
      >read Kant
      >"object in itself" makes perfect sense if the intellect cognizing it also created it
      >Read Schopenhauer
      >says Kant misused the term "Noumena"
      >Read Kant
      >Makes perfect sense since noumena specifically things in themselves created through an intellect rather than generic things in themselves
      I don't get it, was he stupid?

      >>"object in itself" makes perfect sense if the intellect cognizing it also created it
      Please elaborate (or just give me a page number). I was under the impression that Kant was the one arguing for the unknowability of noumena due to our being shackled in the phenomenal world (i.e. just repeating Plato). Have I been led astray? (No I didn't read all of CoPR)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        noumena are unknowable because we can't create an object through the understanding alone, they are just hypothetical. They would be something created through "intellectual intuition" rather than sensible intuition and Kant only brings up intellectual intuition to say that we don't have it

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Take the Hegel pill

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel is my arch enemy

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, euthanasia of reason sounds litty. Can't wait to become a troony.

        Stranger, I have a sale on Hegels, it'll be the last philosophy you ever need.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Kant and Schopenhauer are brainlets.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, euthanasia of reason sounds litty. Can't wait to become a troony.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What the frick does that even mean? There isn’t any to be found with these chuds, especially Kant.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, Schopenhauer was quite stupid (relatively speaking). This is what makes him fun to read though, especially his deranged rants.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I found it kind of weird when he barely spent any time on causality and then went into an endless rant against professors in fourfold root, makes it hard to take the book seriously

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >when he barely spent any time on causality
        On this matter go see On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schoppy is right. Kant makes word salads seem smart

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Loaded question.
    >object in itself" makes perfect sense
    How?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      if act of cognizing the object and the act of creating it are identical, then nothing outside the object is added to the object merely in the cognition of it, so it is as it is in itself.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The apple is red but it doesn't contain redness, your mind does. The representative parts like the colour are added by the act of observing and we only have access to the representation. If there were no other parts to the apple but what we perceive we would never discover new things about apples, or we would always be discovering new random things we made up. We do define what is an object, we declare the apple separate from the tree but there are rules defined by our goals as lifeforms that dictate that and our definition of the object emerges from those rules. In the case of the apple the goals of the tree helps define the form.

        that's why noumena are supposed to be created by a divine intellect

        Either way we don't have access to it. We can't perceive the apple itself, only its representation. Our attempts to recreate the apple fully will never end. The attempts of the tree to recreate the perfect apple will never end either. This perfect apple is defined by the entire context that defines apples, this context existed before the first physical apple.

        The apple it evolved beside us and the red colour is a "deliberate" message formed by a kind of intelligent process. The possibility space the intelligent process is exploring and allows this form of messaging is predefined and eternal, beyond time and space.
        Everything exists before time in its perfect form but it was cast from heaven into the physical world with time, decay and an adversarial lord. The semi-intelligent process that struggles to approach perfection is fallen like everything else, a fallen angel.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If there were no other parts to the apple but what we perceive we would never discover new things about apples, or we would always be discovering new random things we made up
          This doesn't follow. We only discover what is familiar to us not necessarily what is always there. This is why scientific discovery is possible. You don't look at an apple for the first time and start asking what aliens would think it tastes like? You first have to think about how it would be different from another fruit or how your family would think it tasted like and so on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This doesn't follow.
            It does and your post didn't even try to address that. Colour is a good example of the wider principle because we now know the apple reflects on more frequencies but we're tuned to detect red. The representation is not the object and we only have access to representations, like colour. If there was no object there would be no limitations on the representations, there would be no reason to think an apple is specifically red.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We perceive red because it is different from the other colours that are also available to our perceptions, what the frick are you talking about? There are precisely no other parts to the apple but what we perceive.What we discover is a different perspective to another perception, that's how we are even able to talk about these discoveries because they are associated with what we perceive.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >an experience is the same as the thing-in-itself

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Would be more accurate to say an experience is included in the thing-in-itself

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kys

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >if the intellect cognizing it also created it
    A human can't create without using already created building blocks. We can't know anything as it really is including our own creations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      that's why noumena are supposed to be created by a divine intellect

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    perfect sense since noumena specifically things in themselves created through an intellect rather than generic things in themselves
    Wow congrats you officially failed to understand either Kant or Schopenhauer.
    Kant never said the "noumena are created through an intellect", but that things in themselves can only be *known* as cognitive-sensory objects in the intellect as *phenomena*

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      did you read the whole critique?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >haven't read the thread
    >but know about Buddhism and Advaita and stuff
    >see this thread on the main board every time I refresh
    Convince me in one post that this thread isn't circular.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was a pessimist stupid?
    Rhetorical question.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >was he stupid?
    None of his contemporaries thought well of him. It was only in his old age when Kantian philosophy had declined, and thanks to promotors like von Hartmann, that anyone was fooled by him.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      On the contrary, it was state sponsored Hegelian nonsensical charlatanry which fooled the people at the time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is this different from what kant does. How can he know noumena are unknowable without his awareness of noumena being phenomenal?

Comments are closed.