There is no way an objectivist interpretation of Kant is a genuine inference from his ideas. Although it might follow a more correct path, philosophically speaking, Kant’s philosophy is inherently trapped in Subjectivism.
Yes, psychological interpretations wrongly isolate the Subject, when in reality the conditions of possible experience are intersubjective. Nevertheless, these intersubjective conditions still divide a realm of things in themselves and representations, positing experience as experience of appearances. Since we cannot know things beyond experience, the existence of things in themselves cannot be affirmed in order to legitimize a realist foundation for objects of experience, which are thus mere representations and appearances. Kant in this way inheres more from Descartes and Berkeley (the innate ideal principles, with regard to the former, and the second-rate order of objects of perception, second-rate because they are not in themselves, but appearances conditioned by the understanding).
The objectivist reading tries to circumvent this by appealing to knowledge of what is in itself, for they claim that this intersubjective structure (be it an I, an Idea, a Form) is an instance of the Archetype of the structure of reality itself. In this way there would be knowledge of what is in itself and a causal dependence between this general transcendental structure and the (inter-) subjective one, which in the end both subjective and objective structures are comprised under this general (Absolute) structure.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>There is no way an objectivist interpretation of Kant is a genuine inference from his ideas
it is if you read between the lines
kant literally seethed at the mere thought of his philosophy being associated with berkeley
>mere thought of his philosophy being associated with berkeley
moron Berkeley denied a thing in itself. The exoteric teaching of Kant is that we can not know the thing in itself. Kant's secret doctrine is about intellectual intuition of the thing in itself. Not the same.
>secret doctrine
LIES!
He told me in my dream he was actually trolling those who thought of them selfs as more important and better then others.
>t. filtered
moron, Berkeley literally affirmed the thing in itself as mind/god on which appearances inhere. dont know if you are the moron who keeps spamming this moronation about Kant or just moronic enough to take it seriously
>Berkeley literally affirmed the thing in itself as mind/god
moron that's not the thing in itself Kant said we can't what the thing in itself is (if you lack intellekuelle anschauung)
holy shit moron, thats the point, berkeley affirmed a kind of thing in itself that for him was mind in detriment of sense perception, which is the reason kant seethed because he wanted to preserve an empirical domain, so kant thought it was impossible for him to be close to berkeley
>berkeley affirmed a kind of thing in itself
smoothbrain you are incapable of understanding what the thing in itself is.
It is what is in itself without any perceptive/cognitive filter, which for kant was unknowable and for berkeley precisely the mind, you are a moron
>It is what is in itself without any perceptive/cognitive filter,
no it's not because it is still known by God . It is not the thing as known by God. It is the thing IN ITSELF.
What the frick are you on about now moron? Came out as the moron you are and now keep spouting nonsense in order to hide the very fact of your moronation
>What the frick are you on about now moron?
ngmi
>purposefully incoherent meaningless blather
>what are you talking about
>HAHHAHA I WON
How do you apprehend Kant's secret doctrine? Is intellectual intuition something to be cultivated? How?
>Is intellectual intuition something to be cultivated?
>The system of logic is the realm of shadows, the world of simple essentialities freed from all sensuous concreteness. The study of this science, to dwell and labour in this shadowy realm, IS THE ABSOLUTE CULTURE AND DISCIPLINE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
The objectivist reading of Kant can best be conducted via Hegelian dialectic. The thing-in-itself, like all concepts, is already inside consciousness, and is already generated by consciousness (not individual consciousness but intersubjective Consciousness). Thus there is no way to asubjectively establish the limits of thought with a coherent, eternal notion such as “thing-in-itself.”
Moving forward from this freeing break with Kant, Hegel outlines the process by which consciousness becomes self-consciousness. In the experience of objects, consciousness discovers distinctions which are simultaneously distinctions and not distinctions: objects are experienced as flux of difference, as a series of negations. But if this were all there is to experience, we would have no reason to take experience as that of discrete entities and aleatory relations. There must be a negation which negates the differences, a determinate negation, which consciousness grasps as “unity.” An object. Basically consciousness realizes that in giving an explanation of anything in experience, there exists distinctions which are also not distinctions. This means self-differentiated unity is the law of nature, meaning the distinction consciousness makes between itself as subject and itself as object is of the same nature as the distinction between itself as subject and object and object, and that both processes of distinction must be incorporated into a unity or else they would not be possible at all, meaning reality is of a fundamentally singular kind of entity. Since this singularity is revealed and explained by recourse to the movement of logic and the nature of Concept (begriff) and matter is merely an abstraction from this movement itself, the entity in question that constitutes the fundamentally singular type of reality is mind or spirit. Basically he is saying to investigate the world at all, we will always end up discovering it’s a priori unity with ourselves because thought moves through the stages of Naive Unity->Creation of Distinctions -> Determinate Unity. Boom. You have nowseen dialectics at work.
Kantianism is positivism
no it isn't