Anyone understand this shit?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Anyone understand this shit?
It's a book.
You're not supposed to stand under it.
read it on my own. got nothing more than the basic gist. had a professor who talked about it later and it made some more sense.
I think a lot of the stuff he said is common knowledge now, so it sounds a little weird to think that it was revolutionary back then.
>>677357678
I have an essay on it. I'm completely fucking lost
>>677357319
>protip: you kant
>>677357929
W-
>>677357929
What?
>>677358268
the author's name is Kant
>>677357897
Yeah, that's bad news
>>677358407
ya. I picked up everyone else just fine. Fucking Kant
>>677357319
>Anyone understand this shit?
Yes I do. As well as Critique of Practical Reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
But quite frankly I don't expect 99.9999% of the goons here to grasp a tiny bit of it.
>Kant
>>677358739
The Fedora is exceptionaly strong with this one.
>>677358739
could you please explain this to me
"space represents no property of any things in themselves nor any relation of them to each other, i.e. no determination of them that attaches to objects themselves and that would remain even if one were to abstract from all subjective conditions of intuition"
>>677358601
I never would have found him interesting except that in the early 20th century, mathematicians and physicists began proving some things he said wrong (really, people since his contemporary Gauss were contradicting some of his smaller statements like "space can only be euclidean")
But he really did have some pretty good-sounding logic on exactly what is possible to learn about and what isn't. It makes Godel, Einstein, Wittgenstein, etc, all the more impressive when you understand the long held beliefs and solid logical proofs they were overthrowing.
>>677359100
This sounds very similar to some of Berkeley's arguments. Unlike Kant, luckily Berkeley has a "for idiots" educational video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-s4JrymKM
Understand this stuff, and what Kant is saying in that quote isn't really a big leap
In my experience you shouldn't read much that was written pre 1900, it's mostly superstitious outdated bullshit
>>677359773
Nah, there were ups and downs before 1900. We're just living in a particularly long "up" so it seems like everything beforehand was bad.
>>677359773
>implying 2100 isn't laughing about 2016's literature, calling it outdated bullshit
I hope you fucking die.
>>677359698
He may represent everything that /b/ hates, but I goddamn love Hank Green.
>>677359100
Seems very straight forward OP. The key is to have in mind one basic aspect of Kant's philosophy: both space and time are given by the subject and do not exist in reality. Kant's transcendental idealism is a middle road between Berkeley-Leibniz and Hume, and to do that Kant consider the existence of a world "out there" (Kant's empiricist side) but how this world is shown depends of the categories (Kant's idealist side).
Both space and time are given as a priori, which means there is no space or time "out there", it is not a property of the world, but one that belongs to the subject and is given into the world by the subject cognitive apparatus, thus, space and time cannot represent anything of things in themselves, because the thing in themselves refer to that in the world strictly by themselves without any possible determination of experience.
There is a gap in between the noumenical world and the world of experience, and space-time belongs only to the latter, while thing in themselves belong strictly to the former.
>>677360782
good explain
>>677358971
Kek
>>677360782
Thank you.
>>677360782
I can do calc and linear algebra.
Does that help with understanding bull shit no-fact-based philosophy?
>>677359773
literal horse shit, the post
So you would rule out reading the bible/ koran/ ancient greek philosophy/ Hegel/ Marx/ Rousseau etc?
Absolutely fucking ridiculous thing to dismiss pre-1900s as superstitious bullshit
>>677362181
The two philosophers I read before Kant was Einstein and Leibniz. The inventors of the calculus. You'd be surprised at how mathematics and facts play into philosophy
>>677362538
Wut... This... This is bate.
Use Kant's wikipedia, has good summary
>>677362742
Nope. Clarke and Leibniz correspondence. Clarke was working with Einstein because he couldn't be seen talking to him directly
>>677362538
> Einstein
Kek
>>677362181
>I can do calc and linear algebra.
Like everyone else.
>Does that help with understanding bull shit no-fact-based philosophy?
No it doesn't, but it may help. You may have an easier time getting into non-standards logic that are now used often in analytical philosophy.
>>677362130
You're welcome.
>>677362181
Also, here is an image of a some what basic logic question. A huge part of philosophy which can be correct or incorrect. Fun fact. Almost all people who study logic, also study math
>>677363022
I spelt that correctly?
>>677363504
I smell summer
>>/lit/
>>677363022
Fuck. I meant Newton.
>>677362538
My bad, I meant Newton. Pretty stupid I know, it's late
No, I kant.
the synthetic unity of apperception, bitches
>>677364158
It's ok.
Newton, both his physics and philosophy, it's needed to read Kant. Physical Monadology and Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science rely heavily on Newton. The first tries to conceal Newton and Leibniz dispute of physical space (a work of Kant that is often considered influential in later electromagnetic theory), the latter tries to justify Newtonian mechanics by means of his own transcendental philosophy (and here Kant uses his first Critique to do it).
>>677357319
Yes, I am writing a dissertation on Kant.
Do you have any questions?
>>677357319
Fun fact: 425-426 of Metaphysics of Morals is Kant explaining why it is better to kill yourself than to masturbate
>>677365032
>>677365181
>>677365301
>>677364896
congrats. My prof is a Kant scholar. Nicholas Stang I think. Anyway.
What does it mean that our representation of space is an a priori intuition?
>>677365866
Oh, I know nick stang. so you go to toronto.
well: 1. what does kant mean by a priori?
2. what does he mean by intuition? (look at b377 where kant gives his taxonomy of representations for an account of what intuition means)
>>677366097
Thanks, and ya I do. I'm having some trouble with an essay. To be clear, i'm not looking to copy peoples answers. I just wanted to be pointed in the right direction. Thanks
>>677365866
also space is an a proiri form of intuition. (there is also a distinction between space as form of intuition and space as formal intuition in the b deduction, but that is just going to complicate things for now.)
>>677366505
I don't think I will have to look at that for the essay question. Thanks again
>>677366378
okay, no problem. what are you writing about? is it basically what kant means by saying that space is an a priori form of intuition, and what is his argument for that?
>>677363364
is that the thing where you can't both see the future and then live that identical future?
>>677366674
1. Kant claims in the Transcendental Aesthetic that “space represents no property of any things in themselves nor any relation of them to each other, i.e. no determination of them that attaches to objects themselves and that would remain even if one were to abstract from all subjective conditions of intuition.” (A26/B42, p. 176) Explain his argument for this conclusion from the premise that our representation of space is an a priori intuition. What does it mean that our representation of space is an a priori intuition? What does the conclusion mean (in the quoted passage) mean? And why does Kant think it follows from the claim that we represent space using an a priori intuition? (Note: you do not need to explain Kant’s argument that we represent space using an a priori intuition, you just need to explain what that claim means.)
That's the essay question. I think i'm starting to pick it up. Honestly. I only need 30% to pass
>>677366929
what?
>>677366929
Ya, I don't think that has anything to do with anything
>>677367029
the future cannot be completely predicted because knowing about it can change the outcome.
>>677367208
it's the thing where you can't "state" a truth in the future tense right?
>>677367208
Okay? but that has nothing to do with the passage or Kant. If it does then I am officially a lost cause
>>677366968
okay, fun. well once you work out what a priori means and what an intuition is (singular representation), you're most of the way there. and the argument is set out relatively straightforwardly in the aesthetic. i mean, it;s a difficult argument, but if you just go slowly you should be able to give a gloss on it without too much work.
>>677367377
no it doesn't, do worry about that.
>>677367388
Thanks again. Real amazing to meet someone like you on here. Small world I guess. Have a good day
>>677367377
I thought that was what he was talking about. Let me try again.
That which either "is or isn't" correct exists only in the past. The future contains states which can be predicted with knowledge but never with 100% accuracy. Therefore the future can't be resolved to "is or isn't".
>>677367603
you too.
>>677366968
oh I get it. he's saying that we can't ever "prove" that reality exists the same way for us as anyone else, but that there does seem to exist "some reality" that is consistent between people. So functionally reality doesn't "exist" separate from individual perception.
um. right?
>>677367997
Ya, well kinda. he wont claim reality doesn't exist, only that we need to consider how we pick up on reality when doing metapyhsics
>>677367997
If you are interested, berkeley goes more into that kind of stuff
