The thing in itself, which because it being what it really is is logically prior to our conceptualization of it, can also not be called an unknowable chaos since this would be a subreptive application of the categories of thought to that which we want to know as it is prior to that application. Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rock, etc., which exists externally. And, according to Kant, it will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future because we do not now at this point in history have the mental capacity to determine whether our subjective categories of thought have an exactly corresponding objective correlate which would allow us to legitimately apply our categories of thought to it since, in that case, the thing in itself would then also have to be a subject (an ego, an I, soul, mind) in some larger sense with the same categories of thought as ours: a microcosm to macrocosm relation, or more simply, as above, so below. This being the case, ironically, the best way to arrive at an understanding of objective reality would be by understanding our own selves, recalling the ancient famous injunction: Know Thyself.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
So what is your larger metaphysics then? That is Fichte's solution in a nutshell but here we still are mired in transcendental shit
>what is your larger metaphysics then?
I'm working on it
How do you avoid being just yet another Twitter/Substack wannabe "schizoposter" pseud? What's the collaborative element that keeps you in check and puts you in dialogue with others?
First, by not going on substack or twitter;
Second, by telepathic communication with the top philosophers who have existed on the material plane (and which have now transcended it).
It is funny how you don't even read books. Why don't you address Maimon's challenges to Kantian philosophy instead of engaging in this neophyte-like enthusiasm, this dumb naive activism whose empty life now deluded itself into finding a purpose, spreading a message, like a recent convert to the new true religion? This is so pathetic, you have been confronted several times by different people in many points of Kant and German Idealism without a reasonable outcome of your part. But you keep going. Seriously, leave the internet, think a bit more about the things you read, develop some degree of introspection.
NTA but constant conjunction requires categories so that it would be possible to know whether there even is an object moving or just your body - so Maimon's Humeanisms are laughable. Sensibility is distinct from the understanding because you require temporality to apply any of the pure concepts of the understanding and no combination of them matches the essence of space is either, which they all require in order to appear. Aesthetic could be called a metacondition of possibility.
Tbh sounds like you're a typical philosophy student gay who's mad he got roped into German Idealism and left all the alternatives to it unstudied because memes told him to and is realizing that his whole life has been worthless because Kantianism was always better and you couldn't see it.
>constant conjunction requires categories so that it would be possible to know whether there even is an object moving or just your body
The point is the criterion for subsuming constant conjunction under the category. We don't have the universality and necessity of the category of causality in observing constant conjunction. I don't see how the latter part about there having an object moving relevant here.
>Sensibility is distinct from the understanding because you require temporality to apply any of the pure concepts of the understanding
Yes? But again the point is the necessity of the category applied has no inheritance in the experienced observed events. However, Maimon's criticism of the dualism of different faculties is not this one, it is about 1) the interaction of one with the other and 2) how there is generated conceptual forms out of non-conceptual data.
>We don't have the universality and necessity of the category of causality in observing constant conjunction. I don't see how the latter part about there having an object moving relevant here.
We do have the necessity of the category of causality for every observed instance of constant conjunction, since without category of causality we could not have any conjunctions of outer objects due to the fact that we could not be able to assign them either to being cause by outer objects or our own movements.
>Yes? But again the point is the necessity of the category applied has no inheritance in the experienced observed events
This was about another point of Maimon's, namely, his criticism of the duality between the sensibility and the understanding. The interaction of one with the other - what, you want like a physical explanation? Space and time are themselves conditions for the categories in the architecture. They're conceptually different - all categories work through temporality, which(according to Kant) works through space(this would require a criticism different from that of Maimon). Thing-in-itself, then, is beyond space and time, and its strong ontological existence is indirectly proven by the Antinomies.
>without category of causality we could not have any conjunctions of outer objects due to the fact that we could not be able to assign them either to being cause by outer objects or our own movements.
The criterion is not this, if this was so, ANY succession of an event following a previous one would be categorized as a necessary cause-effect relation. Asking God for rain and then after a ritual, it starts to rain, would be categorized as necessary and universal causality.
>Space and time are themselves conditions for the categories in the architecture. They're conceptually different - all categories work through temporality, which(according to Kant) works through space(this would require a criticism different from that of Maimon)
I don't understand what you wrote, how is this related to the criticism of interaction between one faculty and the other? Space and Time are a priori forms of sensibility, but they are not concepts of the understanding, how both interact and relate to each other?
>Thing-in-itself, then, is beyond space and time, and its strong ontological existence is indirectly proven by the Antinomies.
I remember that Maimon rejects Kant's idea of thing in itself, but can't remember his argument. But I know this is something criticized by other different post-Kant philosophers. Do you believe Kant affirmed the existence of things in itself? We know that he affirms them, but he also denies their existence, sometimes he is agnostic about their existence/non-existence. Don't you think that either (affirmation and negation) gives difficulties?
>The criterion is not this, if this was so, ANY succession of an event following a previous one would be categorized as a necessary cause-effect relation. Asking God for rain and then after a ritual, it starts to rain, would be categorized as necessary and universal causality.
The category of causality is rooted in practical reason, so anything past the "basic" causality which lies at the bottom of the perception is indeed less basic. But the achievement here is that causality is more basic than constant conjunction. Every time you make a judgement of "it is only constant conjunction", it is based on a causal judgement of your body's relation to outsideness. You may point out the rain dance, but the Humean position is likewise destroyed and radicalized far beyond Maimon: you cannot say that causality is false due to the problem of constant conjunction, but rather you should say "causality is false" and deny even conjunction between any two events. As for what determines the causality, it is the concepts of God, Freedom and Immortality: or morality.
>Space and Time are a priori forms of sensibility, but they are not concepts of the understanding, how both interact and relate to each other?
By a hierarchy of conditions, for example, like I say. If you can say concepts of the pure understanding are conditions of the possibility of experience, you could say that space and time are their conditions. This is how easy it is to engage *productively* with Kant.
>We know that he affirms them, but he also denies their existence, sometimes he is agnostic about their existence/non-existence.
He negates them in as much as phenomenal things are viewed as things-in-themselves and inasmuch we believe that we know anything about the essence of things-in-themselves, but I believe he does affirm their actual, real existence.
>The category of causality is rooted in practical reason
Wait, where does Kant say this in the First Critique? How can a category of the understanding be rooted in practical reason? Theoretical and practical reason are confused now? The rest of your post is almost unintelligible. Why proceed to claim it is false if one can suspend the judgment of its actual necessity? One does not lead to the other. That it can be taken as true is a pragmatic direction, but this is not Kant. God and freedom are not categories of understanding like causality, they are practical reason's, conditions of morality.
>If you can say concepts of the pure understanding are conditions of the possibility of experience, you could say that space and time are their conditions
Well, okay, but this does not answer how the condition conditions what is conditioned. It is the interaction of one with the other that is the issue here.
>but I believe he does affirm their actual, real existence.
If he affirmed the thing in itself to be only reason's irresponsible extension of a representative hypothesis, that there is a world-in-itself behind phenomena, and that there is nothing like it, then Kant's philosophy becomes phenomenalism, but affirming that world-in-itself presupposes the category of causality. So either puts Kant in a dilemma.
He doesn't. that anon is moronic.
Anybody who read all three critiques must agree. Want a more authoritative opinion, just look at Deleuze's Kant book.
>Wait, where does Kant say this in the First Critique?
He says it in the second critique. The category of causality continues to exist with or without the sensibility: it is, after all, independent of sensibility and only applied to it. He also famously says "Though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience". The category of causality is also shown to reach above the limits of theoretical reason in the Antinomies - and the reason is God, Freedom, Immortality, or practical reason. This is very apparent if you read the three critiques together, since they form a unified whole - of course, just reading the intro doesn't tell you any of this.
>That it can be taken as true is a pragmatic direction, but this is not Kant. God and freedom are not categories of understanding like causality, they are practical reason's, conditions of morality.
It's distinct from what we would call pragmatism today, because it is still concerned with the limits of reason. As for the "unitelligibility", it's really not, it's just a refutation of what you're trying to say and you're trying now to escape from it and to make this discussion look different.
>Well, okay, but this does not answer how the condition conditions what is conditioned. It is the interaction of one with the other that is the issue here.
Temporality controls causality in that you need to a temporal intuition to perceive changes which would enable you to apply the category of causality.
>So either puts Kant in a dilemma.
It doesn't due to the proof of the Antinomies: since the structures of perception cannot encompass themselves totally, they are modified by something else, hence things in themselves have been irrevocably proven to exist. German Idealism and anyone influenced by it is intellectually finished once you see how much far ahead Kant was.
>it is, after all, independent of sensibility and only applied to it. He also famously says...
Yes, it does not arise out of experience, Hume already knew this. But it still is nothing without experience's first datum. What is the relevance of it here though?
>The category of causality is also shown to reach above the limits of theoretical reason in the Antinomies - and the reason is God, Freedom, Immortality, or practical reason. This is very apparent if you read the three critiques together, since they form a unified whole - of course, just reading the intro doesn't tell you any of this
Yes but we are not discussing the practical side of Kant's philosophy. And I think you are wrong, Kant makes it very explicit, in the Preface/Introduction he wrote to the First Critique, that his practical side follows from this one theoretical side of his philosophy.
>You're trying now to escape from it and to make this discussion look different.
You are the one suddenly throwing the practical side of Kant's philosophy in a discussion about MAIMON's criticism of Kant. There is no refutation by your part and no escaping by my part, I would say the opposite, you are the one escaping my refutations by trying to jump from the First Critique (where Maimon's criticism applies and which grounds Kant's practical philosophy) to the Second Critique.
>Temporality controls causality
What does it mean? What controls what? A concept or a sensible intuition controls another concept?
>since the structures of perception cannot encompass themselves totally
Again another barely intelligible sentence. The structures of perception can't encompass themselves? Can you reformulate it?
>they are modified by something else
Isn't modification a temporal condition?
>Yes but we are not discussing the practical side of Kant's philosophy
It's all an unified philosophy, understanding this is necessary to even begin to grasp Kant - they were released as a trilogy for a reason.
>Kant makes it very explicit, in the Preface/Introduction he wrote to the First Critique, that his practical side follows from this one theoretical side of his philosophy
It does, but that does not mean that inside the philosophy the sense experience would be superior to practical reason - quite the opposite.
>You are the one suddenly throwing the practical side of Kant's philosophy in a discussion about MAIMON's criticism of Kant.
It's directly relevant to Kant's philosophy, as the Critiques are constitute one unified, interconnected philosophy.
>There is no refutation by your part and no escaping by my part, I would say the opposite, you are the one escaping my refutations by trying to jump from the First Critique (where Maimon's criticism applies and which grounds Kant's practical philosophy) to the Second Critique.
No, I refuted your point using only First Critique materials, you ignored, now you whine uselessly about me discussing the works of the philosopher we're supposed to be discussing. You lost basically all your legitimacy in my eyes with this feigned confusion of how the Critique of Practical Reason would be relevant here.
>What does it mean? What controls what? A concept or a sensible intuition controls another concept?
Read what I wrote right after, instead of quoting an isolated part, because I literally answered you:
>in that you need to a temporal intuition to perceive changes which would enable you to apply the category of causality.
>Again another barely intelligible sentence.
No, because I lost my faith in this convo with you denying Critique of Practical Reason's relevance to Kant's philosophy.
>Isn't modification a temporal condition?
It's not (necessarily) a modification from the perspective of the thing-in-itself but only from our perspective.
>It's all an unified philosophy, understanding this is necessary to even begin to grasp Kant - they were released as a trilogy for a reason.
Being unified doesn't mean anything for the issue here. Its being unified means that the practical side follows from the theoretical side, that they are related and cohere. But the practical side is grounded, NEEDS the theoretical side. The issue here concerns points that form the theoretical side that will give substance to the practical side. For the discussion here they are not related at all, so no need to appeal to this dishonest ''to begin to grasp Kant you must understand even the practical side''.
>inside the philosophy the sense experience would be superior to practical reason - quite the opposite.
Where did I claim this? I'm merely questioning the issues from his philosophy PRIOR to the practical reason.
>It's directly relevant to Kant's philosophy, as the Critiques are constitute one unified, interconnected philosophy.
See? This is how you escape from the problems pointed out in his First Critique. You simply decided that the discussion should be shifted to Kant's Second Critique as well. Dude, you even tried to justify what is laid out in the First Critique by surreptitiously throwing practical reason as a justification when there is nothing like this in the First Critique, which is where his defective points are located. You are not even ashamed.
>I refuted your point using only First Critique materials
Then why you claimed that practical reason is the root of the category of causality and when questioned insist that the Second Critique must be considered because of muh unified Kant?
>whine uselessly about me discussing the works of the philosopher we're supposed to be discussing
This is not what we are supposed to be discussing, read above. You are a dishonest moron.
>eigned confusion of how the Critique of Practical Reason would be relevant here
You literally just said that it is relevant because it is an element of an unified Kantian philosophy. Where does Kant ground the concept of causality in practical reason in the First Critique? I asked you that and you didn't answer, you just said that it is relevant. So it is grounded because it is relevant. Not dishonest at all!
>Read what I wrote right after
Read what I wrote right after. Time is a pure form of intuition, ok. Is this related to a priori concepts or sensible intuitions? If it is related to the former, how does it interact with the latter, if it is related to the latter how does it interact with the former?
About the structures you simply refuse to argument for. Ok.
>a modification from the perspective of the thing-in-itself but only from our perspective.
The modification is something only applied to phenomena, how can we extend it to a cause out of phenomena? Things in phenomena are modified. This presupposes what modifies and cause-effect relation.
>For the discussion here they are not related at all
But they are, since its not like theyre two separate books: they're parts of the samr philosophical system and since Kant holds that practical reason is created by category of causality as it extends beyond sense, since its endpoint isnt sense.
>Where did I claim this? I'm merely questioning the issues from his philosophy PRIOR to the practical reason.
They are part of the same philosophy, you can't arbitrarily limit it away lmao
>See? This is how you escape from the problems pointed out in his First Critique.
Says the person who still didnt answer my points, even those strictly about the First Critique. All Critiques are relevant if the issue is if Maimon refuted Kant.
>This is not what we are supposed to be discussing, read above. You are a dishonest moron.
Youre a moron that should not be allowed to read, see above.
>Where does Kant ground the concept of causality in practical reason in the First Critique?
Nowhere was the discussion limited to the first critique, except by you when you noticed you haven't read it because you were too busy to start reading German Idealist garbage like the worthless pseud you are.
>how does it interact with the former?
I just said how: show me why it's insufficient.
>The modification is something only applied to phenomena
We can only know of our own perception as being modified but of the thing in itself only its existence: the manner of affection is inside. For the sensibility, the affection is modification through category of time. As for the structure part, you didn't argue but again just claimed boo hoo say it again no get it. You're a worthless moron.
>they're parts of the samr philosophical system
The discussion is not about the philosophical system as a whole, which you said is composed of parts, but precisely of one of these parts.
>practical reason is created by category of causality
We are not discussing practical reason, but then you said that ''The category of causality is rooted in practical reason''. You don't even know what you're talking about.
>They are part of the same philosophy, you can't arbitrarily limit it away lmao
See above. You keep running.
>Says the person who still didn't answer my points
You literally stopped answering and decided to bring practical reason to the discussion, absolutely insane
>All Critiques are relevant if the issue is if Maimon refuted Kant.
Maimon refuted some points made in the First Critique, what does the rest have to do with it?
>Nowhere was the discussion limited to the first critique
You yourself here
addressed very precisely the main points Maimon makes against Kant's principles in the First Critique (the application of categories, the division of sensibility and understanding). But then you saw you couldn't answer Maimon's criticisms and decided to derail the discussion. Every Kantard on this board is a dishonest Black person.
>I just said how: show me why it's insufficient.
This doesn't even make sense. You showed by demanding something? You literally refused to answer the case about temporality pertaining to understanding or sensibility and the interaction of it with the concept of causality. I'm still waiting for the answer.
>We can only know of our own perception as being modified but of the thing in itself only its existence
So we know the thing in itself's existence because how phenomena are modified? So the thing is the modifier, meaning it is the cause of modifications? Is this not extending the category beyond its applications?
I read books everyday. I havn't read Maimon yet but he's on my list. I am improving my German first. You seethe at my early attempts at flight; that is fine, I do it on here for a reason: it is my trial by fire. You also don't understand that I am not a Kantian in the sense that I blindly follow Kant; he is my teacher and initiator, but my reasonings are my own, while his work is my material for thinking.
bla bla bla, I'd rather hear about football and beer and boobs
you do that then
>Consequently, it is also not certain whether there IS OR IS NOT a sun, heat, rock, etc., which exists externally.
Or get this, the external/internal relation only exists within the lived world we inhabit with our bodies. The sun is obviously "out there", same with rocks, in the external world.
I don't even really get what these philosophers are on about? The really truly really really real that's actually "out there", beyond all relations and is quite literally unthinkable? Why should I give a shit about that? It's meaningless to say it exists or doesn't.
>The sun is obviously "out there", same with rocks, in the external world.
>obviously
G.E. Moore-tier reply
Why are there so many Kant threads on IQfy these days? Is his work undergoing some sort of resurgence that I'm unaware of? It seems like everyone here is talking about him.
kant is good
Why are you still single?