Kant quote of the day


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

> For that the concept precedes the perception signifies the concept's mere possibility; the perception which supplies the content to the concept is the sole mark of actuality. We can also, however, know the existence of the thing prior to its perception and, consequently, comparatively speaking, in an a priori manner, if only it be bound up with certain perceptions, in accordance with the principles of their empirical connection (the analogies). For the existence of the thing being thus bound up with our perceptions in a possible experience,
we are able in the series of possible perceptions and under the guidance of the analogies to make the transition from our actual perception to the thing in question. Thus from the perception of the attracted iron filings we know of the existence of a magnetic matter pervading all bodies, although the constitution of our organs cuts us off from all immediate perception of this medium. For in accordance with the laws of sensibility and the context of our perceptions, we should, were our senses more refined, come also in an experience upon the immediate empirical intuition of it. The grossness of our senses does not in any way decide the form of possible experience in general. Our knowledge of the existence of things reaches, then, only so far as perception and its advance according to empirical laws can extend.

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Kant
    who?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The state of LULZ

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        he has to be shitposting

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      its sugar in kazakh

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >concept precedes the perception
    Platonic bullshit

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    what concepts precede perception? do infants perceive? do infants have concept?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Uhm, that's not how philosophy works. You're not supposed to ask. Kant is meant to be quoted, so you can feel smart for reading him.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >t. filtered

        GAYJH

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. hasn't even read who he's (retardedly) attempting to criticize

      Kant literally explains in detail. You would've known if you actually read him. Why are midwits like this?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I asked a question based on the quote, thank you for giving me the insight that an honest question is taken as some sort of criticism for you

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    le morality goblin

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love defending Kant from the midwits on LULZ. I love bt the fo with my knowledge of transcendental critique.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    speak english you pseud

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >filtered by Kant
      >is actually a pseud

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        we get it bro you want to wow us with your academic terminology, we're all very impressed with how smart you are and how hard the book you read is

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          No. I just like to post about Kant hoping there's at least one non midwit anon who grasps Kant and would to respond with there own thoughtsparking Kant post in response. Also by posting about Kant I want encourage other anons to read Kant because I learned a lot from him and think there is a lot others could learn from him to their own and the public's benefit.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you post kant quotes in an arrogant attempt to flaunt your intellect to strangers, probably because your friends and family saw through it too. grow up, b is two doors down kid

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Have you read Kant anon?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kantposter, how does it feel to know that Kant never refuted the possibility of intellectual intuition? First, he says that we can only know through intuition (at the beginning of the Aesthetic). But afterwards, he concludes that we can never pratice metaphysics because the only intuition we, as humans, are capable of is a sensual one. The only time he mentions intellectual intuition, he conceives as a concept to limit our reasonings because we are incapable of it. But, if I remember correctly, he never even tries to refute the possibility for us.
            I may be wrong, but this is how I remember CoPR. Thus, his system has to break into scepticism.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              By intellectual intuition, I mean a perception without the categories.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              What irony that the greatest thinker who ever lived denied the faculty of intellectual intuition to human beings! The Critique of Pure Reason is overflowing with intellectual intuition expressed in precise, disciplined Prussian German.

              The Critique is written from the standpoint of someone who lacks intellectual intuition, or in other words, someone who fails to recognize his own thinking as intuition, i.e, direct cognition of his thoughts. Yet, the Critique itself, as a product of thinking, is a product of intellectual intuition, in fact, presupposes it. Kant, with his impeccable intelligence, could not have failed to recognize this. Thus what makes the Critique so great is its profound irony, without doubt intended deliberately by the great Architect.

              The truth is Kant himself possessed intellectual intuition, but chose to write from the standpoint of one without this faculty, so that his intended audience, empiricist and rationalist philosophers could bridge the gap between themselves through the recognition that belief or not in the faculty of intellectual intuition is what lied at the boundary between them. And further those who did not believe in this faculty would come to recognize their own intellectual intuition by means of the great contradiction of the Critique, its great irony: its grandiose display of intellectual intuition to deny that selfsame intuition. A contradiction that can only be resolved, an irony that can only be understood, when the reader finally recognizes their own thinking as this mysterious intellectual intuition.

              This predicate which Kant admits only to the concept of a divine understanding, shows itself to be found in the understanding of man- and thus man's understanding reveals itself to be divine understanding; the Mind of God is Mind of Man.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What an intrepretation, anon. But it seems kind of weird that Kant's whole plan would be to refute everything he exposes. I believe he uses the same system in the second part of the CoJ, so it seems like he really thought it was solid. Your intrepretation sounds almost ironic, but maybe that's the point. Anyways, you've given me an excuse to re-read CoPR.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Karl popper shook my hand in a dream once, still not sure what's up with that

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                During a hypnagogic hallucination on the threshold of falling asleep, Heidegger was sitting next to me laughing and gave me a pat on the back.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                clutch, Dasein

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If, by the term noumenon, we understand a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensuous intuition, thus making abstraction of our mode of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the word. But if we understand by it an object of a non-sensuous intuition, we in this case assume a peculiar mode of intuition, an intellectual intuition, to wit, which does not, however, belong to us, of the very possibility of which we have no notion—and this is a noumenon in the positive sense.

                >Now, the possibility of a thing can never be proved from the fact that the conception of it is not self-contradictory, but only by means of an intuition corresponding to the conception. If, therefore, we wish to apply the categories to objects which cannot be regarded as phenomena, we must have an intuition different from the sensuous, and in this case the objects would be a noumena in the positive sense of the word. Now, as such an intuition, that is, an intellectual intuition, is no part of our faculty of cognition, it is absolutely impossible for the categories to possess any application beyond the limits of experience. It may be true that there are intelligible existences to which our faculty of sensuous intuition has no relation, and cannot be applied, but our conceptions of the understanding, as mere forms of thought for our sensuous intuition, do not extend to these. What, therefore, we call noumenon must be understood by us as such in a negative sense.

                >the intelligible requires an altogether peculiar intuition, which we do not possess, and in the absence of which it is for us nothing;

                He meant all this merely as a thought experiment to demonstrate the logical consequences of the normie metaphysic (denial of intellectual intuition). The Critique is ultimately a reductio ad absurdum: "Look at what you get when you deny intellectual intuition, complete nonsense. Therefore intellectual intuition exists."

                He does therefore believe in noumena in a postive sense: thoughts as objects of understanding, all the while tongue in cheek denying such a faculty for humans in the natural healthy state. It is by the process of progressing through transcendental critique that the human eventually grows out of this natural state and achieves the standpoint of philosophy which is the recognition of the true nature of thought, a state which transforms the human into something more than human: An Übermensch.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think I get your interpretation and I'm quite impressed by it, but I'm not convinced. He could also mean this literally. I don't remember a passage where he says "here's the absurdity of denying intellectual intuition", which would basically mean "jk".

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That only holds true if you are really in a materialistic reality.
    If metaphysically this place is actually platonic and concepts are what generates percepts then the epistemological story will be a bit different.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >metaphysically this place is actually platonic
      But that's the whole main issue of the critique. How could we possibly know this if we don't have intellectual intuition, or direct perception of this reality, if all we have are ideas in our minds, without anything real corresponding to them? In other words, how do we know this platonic realm is not just a product of our imagination?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let's do a simple logic execerise then:
        If reality is platonic:
        >Imagine you are in a platonic realm
        >You enter into a platonic realm (product of your imagination)
        If reality is materialistic:
        >Imagine you are in a platonic realm
        >You are still stuck in a materialistic reality
        But also note that if this place is platonic, and reincarnation is a thing, then all the previous "ignorant" imaging of yourself been in a materialistic realm is going to take effort to un-imagine.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also just because you don't have direct access to the source code of a video game doesn't mean you cannot infer about them through knowledge of the gameplay.
        As above so below, as below so above.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          You can infer but the inference could not be confirmed as true apart from an intuition of an object corresponding to the concept inferred. If the object were a possible object of experience, then in principle you could at least search for the object in the space-time continuum that coressponds to your hypothetical concept, such as in astronomy, but how is the avatar in the game ever to possibly experience the source code beyond the game if all his knowledge can only be found in the game? Even a supposed representation of the source code given to the avatar within the game would still be a mere representation that is presupposed as correctly and accurately representing the source code and therefore appearing to provide the object to the avatar's inferred concept of the source code and appearing to give that concept objective reality. But this is never the case because it is only the player outside the game who has the higher standpoint from which to judge the truth of the correspondence of this inferred concept by the avatar to a transcendent object outside the game existing in some transcendent realm, the realm of the player. Your analogy presupposes the avatar could somehow attain the standpoint of the transcendent player, and in this way confirm the hermetic principle of as above so below, with respect to a transcendent realm, but as Kant shows this principle can at best serve as a principle to guide our researches on the nature of the immanent world of experience, in other words, as a metaphysical foundation for natural science, but not metaphysics proper, or, in accordance with your analogy, a systematic science of the source code

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            True.
            Most people would be satisfied with a close enough approximation of the source code to work with on this physical plane for various purposes.
            If you want to have direct access/observation of the actual code as is, then the only way is to log-off the avatar and view it from the outside.
            The logging off part is easier said than done. That is the whole purpose of thousand year old esoteric traditions such as Buddhism and High Magick.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The law of contradiction is the necessary condition of logical possbility but not real possibility, which is conforming to the pure intuition and concepts that underlie experience and make its unity possible, or put another way, the necessary and sufficient condition of logical possibility is the law of contradiction, but it is not sufficient for real possibility, which also requires conformity to necessary and sufficient conditions of experience, and something beyond the concept, namely the sense object. BUT these concepts themselves are objects in the mental plane of experience. And thus they underlie themselves and in thinking them the understanding provides its own material unto which to apply its concepts, namely thoses concepts themselves as intellectual intuitions. Therefore on the mental plane all concepts that are understood, and therefore conform to the categories, demonstrate their possibility by means of their actuality as clear and distinct concepts and are there own corresponding object, as unity of concept as matter and concept as form.

    We do in fact THINK the things in themselves by means of the categories as noumena in the negative sense but we do not KNOW them by means of the categories as noumena in the positive sense, at least this is what Kant says, in deliberate irony of course, since he did in fact have intellectual intuition. There can be no thinking of an object in general, either as phenomena or as noumena, apart from the categories, at least for human beings. This may not be the case for other types of intelligences like angels, demons, jinn, extraterrestrials/dimensionals, members of the Animal kingdom, pseuds, etc., etc. But when you recognize that the thought itself is an object of knowledge you see the secret messages Kant hid in plain sight for those who know ( such as he did).

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      But when you think noumenas through the categories (which is obviously what Kant thought), don't you, well, create phenomenons instead? The noumenas are the material, the basis for the perception, but they are in a way deformed, according to Kant. To him, our faculty to perceive always changes the thing percived (in itself), so we don't purely think it, we also think what we add. But that's not intellectual intuition, is it?
      I'm prettyr sure Kant says that the categories are meaningless by themselves and that they have to be applied to a given material in order to represent something real. The concepts aren't experienced on their own, and thus, cannot form an unity (or at least, this is what I believe Kant implies).

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The categories of understanding were a mistake.

    t. Schopenhauer

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe im somewhat of a philistine, but why would anyone give a shit about this?

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