Kant refutes himself, claiming to investigate the limits of reason by starting from reason itself, all the while knowing the obvious fact that the limiting cannot be the limited. It is impossible to know the limits of reason a priori; we can only know them when it realizes, through contact with something other than itself, that it is mistaken. Even more obviously, his theory of transcendental illusion is paradoxical: if all knowledge is biased and informed by the conditions of its production, and is therefore subjective, then how can the knowledge that Kant claims to unveil of the reality of transcendental illusion be objectively true? It's the same kind of paradox that would later flourish in Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Lévi-Strauss and many others. By what unheard-of privilege does Kant escape transcendental illusion when he develops this theory of transcendental illusion?
I'm very sick of these low effort threads where OP puts in minimal effort and expects engagement. When someone like replies, they are completely ignored.
There are no “Kantians” anywhere. The one guy obsessed with Kant on this board is actually a Hegelian who thinks Kant was actually a Hegelian as well but was only “trolling” when he contradicted Hegel
>transcendental illusion be objectively true?
I think the crux of it is the way Kant uses objectively. If he says the transcendental illusion is objectively true, he means that its truth criterion is contained within reason itself and has validity only for the transcendental subject. He can’t speak or an asubjective objectivity, but neither have other thinkers been able to prove statements of that kind. I believe Kant also relies heavily on the faith in language to transpose concepts between subjects in order to communicate their “objectivity” (intersubjective homology). That’s my interpretation at any rate.
Hegel actually touches on this problem in a brilliant way in the first 100 pages of the Phenomenology (it’s outlined even in just the introduction). Reason continually finds criteria it sets up by which it evaluate its knowledge of an object, but as it does this, it eventually realizes these criteria came from within itself and were a product of consciousness after all. The key difference of course is that Kant sets up his transcendental and synthetic principles of consciousness to be absolute grounds for an transcendental aesthetic and analytic, meaning they must hold eternally, whereas Hegel sees the realizations of consciousness and self-consciousness to be moments in a development, therefore certain judgements such as the transcendental illusion or the search for the pure object are valid only at a certain moment or perspective and invalid further along in the development of spirit.
>I believe Kant also relies heavily on the faith in language to transpose concepts between subjects in order to communicate their “objectivity”
I think Hamann points this out, that the concepts of the understanding cannot be produced and attached to intuitions by this innate particular faculty, since these concepts are derived from language and language from sense perception, culture.
>I believe Kant also relies heavily on the faith in language to transpose concepts between subjects in order to communicate their “objectivity”
I think Hamann points this out, that the concepts of the understanding cannot be produced and attached to intuitions by this innate particular faculty, since these concepts are derived from language and language from sense perception, culture.
Yeah it's always funny how atheists want relativism to hold true but at the same time they want a objective truths...
Hegel being an atheist, he should have stick to shagging bourgeois bawds.
the transcendental illusion is just the natural operation of reason to delude itself by believing transcendental categories that shape our experience exist in themselves / are able to extend their concepts to what is beyond experience, thus substance becomes something in itself that exists and underlies everything; causality explains that there is an unmoved mover, etc...
It's not really necessary. Kant's critique is largely just irrelevant to metaphysics the way it's typically done today among analytic philosophers. His project really only targets metaphysics in the continental rationalist tradition.
He doesn't consider even once the ossibility of intellectual intuition for humans, although the phenomenon has been attested in every single religion.
is also good. Kant forgot to start by actually discerning powers of the mind and justifying them.
>How would you, in your own thoughts, refute Kants Critique of pure reason ?
that's super easy. everything is says his is personal opinion and nothing else.
intro a
analytic vs synthetic: analytic statements are what they are by not being synthetic states. so their truth is true in virtue of something else.
division of tp: the aesthetic and elements are a 1:2 relation for no reason, there should be a form for every category- this might have been fixed by making three forms of intuition and getting rid of modality or something.
intro b:
i: empirical cognition is actually thought that creates motion. pure cognition is static thought.
ii: our a priori cognitions are uncertain until they become true in virtue of empirical cognition as i have outlined it
iii: that science is the dialectic, which Kant thinks leads to illusion. Kant was mislead by the essential static nature of pure cognition, ensnared by an obsession with death and nothingness
iv: see intro a
v: if this is true, there is a table of concepts on the other side of judgment
vi: indeed
vii: does in fact lead to practical reason, he was right about this. but he did not take the project far enough.
doctrine of elements:
I: the aesthetic should be 4 , or space and time correspond to category and judgement
ii: this part is fine
d1:
b1: Kqnt should deduce judgement from category
i've read more but i don't remember the later parts as much.
The whole synthetic judgement a priori thing means that we can not realize something new by thinking about it.. we can not proceed from just thinking...
that is what hurt philosophy most since then...
Now isn't that just false ?
I mean if I think about the world and come to a conclusion, to a theory about it all... and then I think about it again and come to an even better conclusion... didn't I make a progress by just thinking about it ?
I judge both theories with reason and come to the conclusion that the second one is even better than the first one... I made a pogress... I have a knowledge expansion...
Also you never think about something a priori... what you do is to reflect about your experience of the world... a priori there is nothing to even think about... so of course there is no progress if you think a priori... but why should you do that ? You first need an impression from the outer world to think about that... like Aristotle did...
Also there is no thing in itself... the whole transzendental idealism is wrong... you can grasp reality through experience and thinking about that experience...
Kant was a piece of shit and did not understand a single line of maths. He was like the atheists today , the punk ass b***h who raves 'I FRICKIN LOVE SCIENCE NOW ZOMG even though he never did a single scientific experiment and never studied maths ever.
So this kunt said omg newton is like my idol now and guess what, his little atheist gymnastics is a vain attempt to justify newton as the guy who got it right FOREVER.
look I am going to be clear. The atheists rejected god and the theist scholars. Instead they replaced god with something else: society. They replaced religions with 'ideology. The priests in atheism are the ones who 'study society'.
And the language of the atheists is maths. So the priests must use maths all the time.
Of course this son of a b***h was later on RKT by other atheists who went all oomg einstein is so right guys, he's our israelite idol now with the exact same reasoning lol.
Ultimately Kant is part of the atheist canon. But like with anything atheist, you know it's created for bugmen by bugmen in order for them to dive deep into self indulgence. Egalitarism is true because WHY WONT EVERYONE WANT IT TO BE TRUE. SO it's jsut is OKAYYYY. There that's fricking Kant for you.
>kant is an atheist >born emmanuel kant but who deliberately attended a German courthouse to change his name to the Biblical Hebrew Immanuel out of his religious zeal
So Bach was a fan of Ed Sheeran and Nicki Minaj dudes
Kant refutes himself by suggesting you a more readable and assertive project in his greater body of work which for some reason goes unsung since his CoPR had more historic notoriety because of the catchy ding an sich.
I am fine with lectures and the Prolegomena in addition to skimming my dusty copy of CoPR whenever it comes up in my Enlightenment historic mentions I am exposed to. Kant's CoPR is not an approachable book nor is it meant to be. The book is as brain dump cloistered navel gazing as it gets.
Knowable things are known by God and to know them would place humanity on the same level which we are clearly not, otherwise we would be able to control space and time.
Spends literally thousands of pages discussing reason.
Never actually sits down and says what reason is, and how we could actually differentiate it from something else beyond passing mentions of vague theoretical distinctions between it and knowing something.
If any Kantian truly spent time enough to actually give a lengthy account of reason, they'd realize it as a process is just stupid as used in Kant's project.
Georg kan what Immanuel kant
By refusing to read it in the first place.
pro tip: you Kant
/thread
Time will never be space, and space will never be time. Period.
I assume you think spacetime isn't real
lol but aren;t they trying to make more of them?
More of what?
it shouldn't be
Build more burrows
Kant refutes himself, claiming to investigate the limits of reason by starting from reason itself, all the while knowing the obvious fact that the limiting cannot be the limited. It is impossible to know the limits of reason a priori; we can only know them when it realizes, through contact with something other than itself, that it is mistaken. Even more obviously, his theory of transcendental illusion is paradoxical: if all knowledge is biased and informed by the conditions of its production, and is therefore subjective, then how can the knowledge that Kant claims to unveil of the reality of transcendental illusion be objectively true? It's the same kind of paradox that would later flourish in Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Lévi-Strauss and many others. By what unheard-of privilege does Kant escape transcendental illusion when he develops this theory of transcendental illusion?
I'm very sick of these low effort threads where OP puts in minimal effort and expects engagement. When someone like replies, they are completely ignored.
So gay.
I have wondered this since first starting the Critique as well. Would be interested to see a Kantian answer.
There are no “Kantians” anywhere. The one guy obsessed with Kant on this board is actually a Hegelian who thinks Kant was actually a Hegelian as well but was only “trolling” when he contradicted Hegel
Hegel is the same kantian garbage, the lineage is direct.
what exactly do you wanna know ?
>transcendental illusion be objectively true?
I think the crux of it is the way Kant uses objectively. If he says the transcendental illusion is objectively true, he means that its truth criterion is contained within reason itself and has validity only for the transcendental subject. He can’t speak or an asubjective objectivity, but neither have other thinkers been able to prove statements of that kind. I believe Kant also relies heavily on the faith in language to transpose concepts between subjects in order to communicate their “objectivity” (intersubjective homology). That’s my interpretation at any rate.
Hegel actually touches on this problem in a brilliant way in the first 100 pages of the Phenomenology (it’s outlined even in just the introduction). Reason continually finds criteria it sets up by which it evaluate its knowledge of an object, but as it does this, it eventually realizes these criteria came from within itself and were a product of consciousness after all. The key difference of course is that Kant sets up his transcendental and synthetic principles of consciousness to be absolute grounds for an transcendental aesthetic and analytic, meaning they must hold eternally, whereas Hegel sees the realizations of consciousness and self-consciousness to be moments in a development, therefore certain judgements such as the transcendental illusion or the search for the pure object are valid only at a certain moment or perspective and invalid further along in the development of spirit.
>I believe Kant also relies heavily on the faith in language to transpose concepts between subjects in order to communicate their “objectivity”
I think Hamann points this out, that the concepts of the understanding cannot be produced and attached to intuitions by this innate particular faculty, since these concepts are derived from language and language from sense perception, culture.
Yeah it's always funny how atheists want relativism to hold true but at the same time they want a objective truths...
Hegel being an atheist, he should have stick to shagging bourgeois bawds.
the transcendental illusion is just the natural operation of reason to delude itself by believing transcendental categories that shape our experience exist in themselves / are able to extend their concepts to what is beyond experience, thus substance becomes something in itself that exists and underlies everything; causality explains that there is an unmoved mover, etc...
It's not really necessary. Kant's critique is largely just irrelevant to metaphysics the way it's typically done today among analytic philosophers. His project really only targets metaphysics in the continental rationalist tradition.
He doesn't consider even once the ossibility of intellectual intuition for humans, although the phenomenon has been attested in every single religion.
is also good. Kant forgot to start by actually discerning powers of the mind and justifying them.
See
>Parmenides says no movement because of an argument
>uhhh actually movement is real though
that's not a rebuttal
That is not what I said. I said that it was possible to get an idea of non-being through the process I described.
Hegel
Dilate
This guy thinks "Hegel" is an argument kek
>How would you, in your own thoughts, refute Kants Critique of pure reason ?
that's super easy. everything is says his is personal opinion and nothing else.
intro a
analytic vs synthetic: analytic statements are what they are by not being synthetic states. so their truth is true in virtue of something else.
division of tp: the aesthetic and elements are a 1:2 relation for no reason, there should be a form for every category- this might have been fixed by making three forms of intuition and getting rid of modality or something.
intro b:
i: empirical cognition is actually thought that creates motion. pure cognition is static thought.
ii: our a priori cognitions are uncertain until they become true in virtue of empirical cognition as i have outlined it
iii: that science is the dialectic, which Kant thinks leads to illusion. Kant was mislead by the essential static nature of pure cognition, ensnared by an obsession with death and nothingness
iv: see intro a
v: if this is true, there is a table of concepts on the other side of judgment
vi: indeed
vii: does in fact lead to practical reason, he was right about this. but he did not take the project far enough.
doctrine of elements:
I: the aesthetic should be 4 , or space and time correspond to category and judgement
ii: this part is fine
d1:
b1: Kqnt should deduce judgement from category
i've read more but i don't remember the later parts as much.
OP here... let me try my best :
The whole synthetic judgement a priori thing means that we can not realize something new by thinking about it.. we can not proceed from just thinking...
that is what hurt philosophy most since then...
Now isn't that just false ?
I mean if I think about the world and come to a conclusion, to a theory about it all... and then I think about it again and come to an even better conclusion... didn't I make a progress by just thinking about it ?
I judge both theories with reason and come to the conclusion that the second one is even better than the first one... I made a pogress... I have a knowledge expansion...
Also you never think about something a priori... what you do is to reflect about your experience of the world... a priori there is nothing to even think about... so of course there is no progress if you think a priori... but why should you do that ? You first need an impression from the outer world to think about that... like Aristotle did...
Also there is no thing in itself... the whole transzendental idealism is wrong... you can grasp reality through experience and thinking about that experience...
Kant was a piece of shit and did not understand a single line of maths. He was like the atheists today , the punk ass b***h who raves 'I FRICKIN LOVE SCIENCE NOW ZOMG even though he never did a single scientific experiment and never studied maths ever.
So this kunt said omg newton is like my idol now and guess what, his little atheist gymnastics is a vain attempt to justify newton as the guy who got it right FOREVER.
look I am going to be clear. The atheists rejected god and the theist scholars. Instead they replaced god with something else: society. They replaced religions with 'ideology. The priests in atheism are the ones who 'study society'.
And the language of the atheists is maths. So the priests must use maths all the time.
Of course this son of a b***h was later on RKT by other atheists who went all oomg einstein is so right guys, he's our israelite idol now with the exact same reasoning lol.
Ultimately Kant is part of the atheist canon. But like with anything atheist, you know it's created for bugmen by bugmen in order for them to dive deep into self indulgence. Egalitarism is true because WHY WONT EVERYONE WANT IT TO BE TRUE. SO it's jsut is OKAYYYY. There that's fricking Kant for you.
>kant is an atheist
>born emmanuel kant but who deliberately attended a German courthouse to change his name to the Biblical Hebrew Immanuel out of his religious zeal
So Bach was a fan of Ed Sheeran and Nicki Minaj dudes
This is why academia and Church are not friends
Your buzzword salad needs more seasoning
Kant refutes himself by suggesting you a more readable and assertive project in his greater body of work which for some reason goes unsung since his CoPR had more historic notoriety because of the catchy ding an sich.
I am fine with lectures and the Prolegomena in addition to skimming my dusty copy of CoPR whenever it comes up in my Enlightenment historic mentions I am exposed to. Kant's CoPR is not an approachable book nor is it meant to be. The book is as brain dump cloistered navel gazing as it gets.
by not reading it
Reading anything written after hume is a waste of time
a critique is a form of reasoning
you don't need to refute a philosophy
By going back to basics
Reality requires you to reason.
Knowable things are known by God and to know them would place humanity on the same level which we are clearly not, otherwise we would be able to control space and time.
God clearly does not merely know space and time like we mortals do. They're probably things in themselves to Him.
I find him and I smash his head on the fricking pavement. Let's see him do any "philosophy" after THAT.
yes
fill up the idea with nonsense to prove the slogan is silly
Spends literally thousands of pages discussing reason.
Never actually sits down and says what reason is, and how we could actually differentiate it from something else beyond passing mentions of vague theoretical distinctions between it and knowing something.
If any Kantian truly spent time enough to actually give a lengthy account of reason, they'd realize it as a process is just stupid as used in Kant's project.
Isn’t reason just what makes judgements?
Isn’t reason the ability to follow logic?
this homie don't know what reason means lmao
>Never actually sits down and says what reason is,
Kant: writes whole section on reason in general
I just don’t care about it. Ughhhhh, I know, but I just don’t care and will skip him. Ughhhhhhhhhhhh.