This was a spiritual experience.

This was a spiritual experience.

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a pretty bad spiritual exercise. It almost gave me psychosis because I kept trying to "deconstruct" space and time. I finally accepted that noesis exists instead.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I finally accepted that noesis exists instead.
      That's the point.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kant's "intuition" is a terrible version of noesis that is basically "the only reason you can directly apprehend this is that you're too fricking stupid to apprehend anything else." it also misses the point of noesis because noesis and forming judgements are two different things. The point of intuition is that it allows synthetic a prior judgements, but real noesis enjoyers know that noetic knowledge is never transformed into a judgement because anythign that can be put into a proposition is ultimately empirically and knowledge merely of matter. in fact Kant is a materialist because to him representation is reality rather than a discursive image of what is known through divine intellect

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          smfh you know how Plato had aporias the that suggestively lead the reader to the unwritten doctrines? Ok Kant has that too.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/S9bxUMG.png

          smfh you know how Plato had aporias the that suggestively lead the reader to the unwritten doctrines? Ok Kant has that too.

          >The EXOTERIC [HINT HINT] teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which by itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the "understanding" in both hegel and kant is still merely an apparatus for forming judgements. that is why hegel talks about "logic". A system of "logic" necessarily can only describe discursive, processional reasoning. true noesis is exists only in the atemporal "now" and is not a "result" like Hegel's absolute.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >in both hegel and kant is still merely an apparatus for forming judgements
            smfh again

            >the proposition in the form of a judgment is not suited to express speculative truths; a familiarity with this fact is likely to remove many misunderstandings of speculative truths. Judgment is an identical relation between subject and predicate; in it we abstract from the fact that the subject has a number of determinatenesses other than that of the predicate, and also that the predicate is more extensive than the subject. Now if the content is speculative, the non-identical aspect of subject and predicate is also an essential moment, but in the judgment this is not expressed. It is the form of simple judgment, when it is used to express speculative results, which is very often responsible for the paradoxical and bizarre light in which much of recent philosophy appears to those who are not familiar with speculative thought.
            -Science of Logic section 148

            You are getting caught up on the faculty of judgment, but that faculty does not exhaust what the intellect is. In Kant you have to read between the lines to get it, but Hegel makes it explicit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You are getting caught up on the faculty of judgment, but that faculty does not exhaust what the intellect is. In Kant you have to read between the lines to get it, but Hegel makes it explicit.
            You are not being that helpful either

            e.g 'the iron is red' is bad because you're supposed to say 'the iron has been heated', namely the judgement being the first concept that applies (the opening section on the judgment in the lesser logic)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no you didn't understand the passage. Judgments are abstractions, limitations. To intuit intellectually is to break free from that limitation and see the manifold content of concepts concretely in the mind's eye.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This intellectual intuiting however demands the development of superhuman powers of attention, concentration and memory in order to hold what is normally held separately and consecutively in small chunks of conceptual content called judgements all at once in a sustained concrete yet clear and distinct intellectual intuition of a mental object, the concrete concept.

            >We assume of course that his powers of attention and abstraction have undergone a previous training, enabling him to observe correctly the evidence of his consciousness and his conceptions.
            -Shorter Logic section 20

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Malabou argues the writing of the Encyclopedia suggests just the opposite, that the concept is comprehended in a writing that abbreviates it.
            >Verification not required.
            Indeed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            idk who that is

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/S9bxUMG.png

          smfh you know how Plato had aporias the that suggestively lead the reader to the unwritten doctrines? Ok Kant has that too.

          https://i.imgur.com/Pr1ZZZH.jpeg

          [...]
          >The EXOTERIC [HINT HINT] teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which by itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought.

          Samuel Taylor Coleridge had similar thoughts on Kant as well:

          The few passages that remained obscure to me, after due efforts of thought, (as the chapter on original apperception,) and the apparent contradictions which occur, I soon found were hints and insinuations referring to ideas, which KANT either did not think it prudent to avow, or which he considered as consistently left behind in a pure analysis, not of human nature in toto, but of the speculative intellect alone. [...]
          He had been in imminent danger of persecution during the reign of the late king of Prussia, that strange compound of lawless debauchery and priest-ridden superstition: and it is probable that he had little inclination, in his old age, to act over again the fortunes, and hair-breadth escapes of Wolf. The expulsion of the first among Kant’s disciples, who attempted to complete his system, from the University of Jena, with the confiscation and prohibition of the obnoxious work by the joint efforts of the courts of Saxony and Hanover, supplied experimental proof, that the venerable old man’s caution was not groundless. In spite therefore of his own declarations, I could never believe, that it was possible for him to have meant no more by his Noumenon, or Thing in itself, than his mere words express; or that in his own conception he confined the whole plastic power to the forms of the intellect, leaving for the external cause, for the materiale of our sensations, a matter without form, which is doubtless inconceivable. I entertained doubts likewise, whether, in his own mind, he even laid all the stress, which he appears to do, on the moral postulates.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            coleridge was based but an underachiever à cause de his opium addiction. nevertheless his former cambridge college is based because it has a snooker table. I wonder is coleridge enjoyed billiards, wouldn't that be something hein ?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I read de Man too. It’s still just a metaphor of metaphor. You’ve haven’t produced knowledge but resolved philosophy back into sophistry, from which the point as you may recall is to free oneself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I read de Man too
            I never heard of him until you just mentioned him
            >It’s still just a metaphor of metaphor
            all "knowledge" is a metaphor because matter is only a representation of reality, and "knowledge"(in the form of propositions) is only of matter because it can only be what has already happened. when I say "noesis exists" all I mean is that reality is more than what can be said about it. This doesn't negate "philosophy" because philosophy can still exist as a pragmatic science and study of thought itself. all it means is that there is also a reality that is not discursive thought which you have to engage with directly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you’re saying there are things of which we can speak, and things of which we cannot? Or that there are things that we can speak of truly or untruly, and things of which we can only speak untruly?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes there are things we can speak of and things we can’t. “I have noesis” does not signify the noesis itself but the effects that having it had on you and is therefore knowledge of matter. Yet you can noetically apprehend that you have noesis and the reason I am able to speak “of” that is that it happened in the past and therefore had effects on me. But the discusrive knowledge i.e. the apprehension of the proposition that I had noesis is different from being aware that I am aware directly

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure yet what you mean by "being aware" but I'm sure we'll be able to determine it soon. Tell me, when speaking of things of which we can speak, can you think of any category of thing that wouldn't be known to you through the senses? I mean, what sorts of things can we speak of that wouldn't be known through sight, smell, sound, touch, taste?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You realize Socrates talks like that in his dialogues because he’s being condescending right? It feels pointless and annoying to answer your question if I don’t know what your point is. This being a Kant thread obviously time is an example of something you cannot sensibly perceive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you've noted how philosophers condescend to those accustomed to bandying opinions about in the guise of knowledge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Obviously what I’m verbally saying here is opinion as even if you directly apprehend something that does not imply that the conclusions you draw about material reality from that apprehension is correct

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And no one could accuse a philosopher such as yourself of valuing such an unfounded opinion very highly.
            So come, let's investigate the matter at hand. We were trying to figure out if there are things that can known other than by the senses. Relax, and answer frankly - neither you nor Kant has anything to fear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did answer, time is an example but that isn’t really relevant because anything that is directly apprehended is done noetically including sensible qualities.

            Your mind sorts sensory input according to necessary categories of our thinking like causality or space and time.
            Because sensory input can be false or misleading only apriori (prior to experience) logicak deductions can create real knowledge.
            Synthetic apriori judgements are the only valid merhodology for metaphysics as a science.

            Rate and improve.

            Your mind sorts sensory input according to necessary categories of our thinking like causality or space and time.
            Because sensory input can be false or misleading only apriori (prior to experience) logicak deductions can create real knowledge.
            Synthetic apriori judgements are the only valid merhodology for metaphysics as a science.

            Rate and improve.

            >Synthetic apriori judgements are the only valid merhodology for metaphysics as a science.
            Synthetic a priori judgements constitute mathematics not philosophy
            >Because sensory input can be false or misleading only apriori (prior to experience) logicak deductions can create real knowledge.
            No, because sensory input is filtered through cognition it doesn’t tell you about the thing in itself but that doesn’t mean your judgements about what you have perceived are not objectively valid

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Synthetic a priori judgements constitute mathematics not philosophy
            Well to clarify I guess technically Kant said that the TA was apodeictic but that was really bullshit because you need empirical perception to determine what your intuitions are. He also used several empirical premises in his “proofs” of substance and causality etc but Kant himself woild tell you they are apodictic for some reason

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. I'll spare you the trouble of proving the assertion time exists, and since its not known sensuously, we know it is something supersensible. And supersensible things - by what instrument are these known?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is actually spurious is your distinction between sensible and supersensible and I don’t know why you’re asking me about it except your assumption about what “noesis” means and continuing to assume I have the same understanding as that after I said I consider sensible qualities to be noetically apprehended.

            The “instrument” is irrelevant because instruments are material. Matter does not supply the conditions for a thing, it represents its effects after it has already happened. If you’re asking me how noesis occurs you’re really asking me why it exists and obviously I have no idea. I only know that it does exist because otherwise reality fails to make sense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >instruments are material
            >I have no idea
            QED:

            I read de Man too. It’s still just a metaphor of metaphor. You’ve haven’t produced knowledge but resolved philosophy back into sophistry, from which the point as you may recall is to free oneself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except I haven’t said a single sophistic thing or used “noesis” as some kind of cheat code, all I’m doing is saying that some things have to be directly apprehended in order for the world to make sense. Anyway this whole conversation is stupid because my understanding of these thing is idiosyncratic so obviously I haven’t said enough for anyone to know what I’m actually saying and you also are just projecting some ideas you have on to me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Synthetic a priori judgements constitute mathematics not philosophy
            WHAT?? The number one core point of the book is to establish synthetic apriori judgements in metaphysics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            exactly. although tbf synthetic a priori judgements belong to both.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Human intelligence evolved to solve general logical problems related to human survival and the derivatives thereof. Pretty simple. Don’t need a whole book to understand this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. devoid of philosophical and mathematical spirt altogether

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all the hall monitors later, for example

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At the boundary between physical and spiritual, to be precise.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Metaphysics peaked here for sure. Glad you experienced it, Anon. Question is what do we read after Schopenhauer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can answer your question. 1/2

      From here you need to go back and read Maimon's Essay on Transcendental Philosophy (1790), who will point out the most glaring holes in the Kantian system and introduce, in the clearest way I've seen, the fundamental issue that will define the following century of philosophy, i.e the "quid facti, quid juris?" between concept and intuition, subject and object, noumena and appearance, mind and body, necessity and contingency, space and time - all a single problem with a single solution. Read Atlat's "From Critical to Speculative Idealism" as secondary for Maimon, you will need it.

      If you skipped over Fichte and Schelling you should go back and read them. Read Schul's Aenesidemus (1792), Fichte's early writing, Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre (1795), Schelling's 1800 System, Schelling's Ideas of Nature (1797), Schelling's Inqueries into Human Freedom (1809), and Schelling's History of Modern Philosophy (1833), in that order. If you haven't yet read Kant's Religion within The Bounds of Pure Reason (1793), read this aswell.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2/2
        Then read Hegel's PoS (1807) (first read Hegel's "Difference Between Fichte and Schelling" (1801) essay). The way Hegel grounds appearance as the real "in itself" fundamentally reorients Kantian morality. Read Harris's "Hegel's Ladder" for help with PoS. Next read Stirner's Ego and Its Own (1844) to see the moral consequences of Hegel's metaphysics with Hegel in mind throughout.
        Read Forster's "The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy" to recapture an overview of this era but most importantly to understand Goethe's philosophy and its impact on Hegel. Then read Steiner's "Goethean Science" and "The Theory of Knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception" (1886). After Hegel, this is going to reground the primacy of Reason for a kind of return to Kant. After understanding the ontology of Ideas in Goethe from Forster and Steiner, read Frege's "The Foundations of Arithmetic" (1884) for one more argument in favor of the transcendent reality of reason, and then read Bergon's Time and Free Will (1889) for the opposite current, the preference of the primacy of intuition over reason (here, a kind of return to Hegel). Take a break from Bergson with Tarde's Monadology and Sociology (1893), then return to Bergson and read Matter and Memory (1896).

        Read the first half of Simmel's The Philosophy of Money (1900) for his ideas of Value as a Kantian category (important). Then read Husserl's Logical Investigations I and II (1091). Take a break here (let yourself digest Husserl) and read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality and Will to Power (1901), pay attention to paragaphs 51, 517, 579 for the arguments to return to Bergson (and Hegel), e.g the primacy of intuition. Now read Husserl's Ideen. Finally, read Scheler's Ressentiment (1915) and then Scheler's magnum opus "Formalism in Ethics" (1916), which is going to neatly tie up Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Husserl, Nietzsche, giving a phenomenological treatment of Simmel's category of value but solving a handful of metaphysical issues along the way.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sorry for typos I'm hungover. this is also assuming you've read all three Critiques btw

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2/2
        Then read Hegel's PoS (1807) (first read Hegel's "Difference Between Fichte and Schelling" (1801) essay). The way Hegel grounds appearance as the real "in itself" fundamentally reorients Kantian morality. Read Harris's "Hegel's Ladder" for help with PoS. Next read Stirner's Ego and Its Own (1844) to see the moral consequences of Hegel's metaphysics with Hegel in mind throughout.
        Read Forster's "The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy" to recapture an overview of this era but most importantly to understand Goethe's philosophy and its impact on Hegel. Then read Steiner's "Goethean Science" and "The Theory of Knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception" (1886). After Hegel, this is going to reground the primacy of Reason for a kind of return to Kant. After understanding the ontology of Ideas in Goethe from Forster and Steiner, read Frege's "The Foundations of Arithmetic" (1884) for one more argument in favor of the transcendent reality of reason, and then read Bergon's Time and Free Will (1889) for the opposite current, the preference of the primacy of intuition over reason (here, a kind of return to Hegel). Take a break from Bergson with Tarde's Monadology and Sociology (1893), then return to Bergson and read Matter and Memory (1896).

        Read the first half of Simmel's The Philosophy of Money (1900) for his ideas of Value as a Kantian category (important). Then read Husserl's Logical Investigations I and II (1091). Take a break here (let yourself digest Husserl) and read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality and Will to Power (1901), pay attention to paragaphs 51, 517, 579 for the arguments to return to Bergson (and Hegel), e.g the primacy of intuition. Now read Husserl's Ideen. Finally, read Scheler's Ressentiment (1915) and then Scheler's magnum opus "Formalism in Ethics" (1916), which is going to neatly tie up Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Husserl, Nietzsche, giving a phenomenological treatment of Simmel's category of value but solving a handful of metaphysical issues along the way.

        >Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are in my opinion not philosophers; for they lack the first requirement of a philosopher, namely a seriousness and honesty of inquiry.
        >They are merely sophists who wanted to appear to be rather than to be something. They sought not truth, but their own interest and advancement in the world.
        >Appointments from governments, fees and royalties from students and publishers, and, as a means to this end, the greatest possible show and sensation in their sham philosophy-such were
        >the guiding stars and inspiring genii of those disciples of wisdom. And so they have not passed the entrance examination and cannot be admitted into the venerable company of thinkers for the human race.
        >Nevertheless they have excelled in one thing, in the art of beguiling the public and of passing themselves off for what they are not; and this undoubtedly requires talent, yet not philosophical.

        -Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not an argument.

          "I myself believe that one could easily produce this so-called Logic in ten different ways. Yet I do not for this reason underestimate the value of many uncommonly clever, particularly methodological remarks which are to be found in Hegel’s Logic."
          - Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (History of Modern Philosophy)

          ultimately they were flawed, but Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel all have worthwhile things to say. Another one like this is Marx, who's ideas are radically bad, but is worth reading for a handful of clever remarks and ideas and historical context. Sometimes you have to read people you dislike or people who ended up being wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not trying to argue since you're clearly not acting in good faith.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what you mean by that anon. I meant that what Schopenhauer wrote is not an argument against them. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he never engages with them on anything they wrote, just these empty tangents? Instead of refuting them (which is not hard to do) he instead does these ressentiment rants. Hegel and Schopenhauer were lecturers in the same semester, and while hundreds of students attended Hegel's class, only five signed up for Schopenhauer. The following semester, zero signed up for Schopenhauer and he had to cancel his class. His remarks need to be read with this fact in the background, and if you are genuinely interested in truth, you need to read them yourself so that you can come to your own conclusions, because Schopenhauer cannot possibly be a reliable guide here even if he is right.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I actually hope you're a bot

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Schopenhauer…tirelessly making of himself the examplar of the defenseless innocence of the philosopher…

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Von hartmann of course. Then Scheler.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty weak compared to inhaling poppers, downloading Grindr and getting your bowel rearranged by 10+ inches long BBC

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone sum it up in 3 or less sentences

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your mind sorts sensory input according to necessary categories of our thinking like causality or space and time.
      Because sensory input can be false or misleading only apriori (prior to experience) logicak deductions can create real knowledge.
      Synthetic apriori judgements are the only valid merhodology for metaphysics as a science.

      Rate and improve.

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