/lit/ - Literature

>>23373431
...it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)...

whether the world has a beginning and a limit to its extension in space; whether there exists anywhere, or perhaps, in my own thinking Self, an indivisible and indestructible unity—or whether nothing but what is divisible and transitory exists; whether I am a free agent, or, like other beings, am bound in the chains of nature and fate; whether, finally, there is a supreme cause of the world, or all our thought and speculation must end with nature and the order of external things—are questions for the solution of which the mathematician would willingly exchange his whole science; for in it there is no satisfaction for the highest aspirations and most ardent desires of humanity.

Do you believe in Intellektuelle Anschauung? Why or why not?

>>23310263
if the laws of nature are violated there is no us as we know it, and therefore no us to conceive the thing in itself, no us, no subject in which the concept of the thing in itself (and all it is is a concept) could exist (as a concept).

>>23284293
>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)

>Through observation and analysis of appearances we penetrate to nature's inner recesses, and no one can say how far this knowledge may in time extend. But with all this knowledge, and even if the whole of nature were revealed to us, we should still never be able to answer those transcendental questions which go beyond nature. The reason of this is that it is not given to us to observe our own mind with any other intuition than that of inner sense; and that it is yet precisely in the mind that the secret of the source of our sensibility is located. The relation of sensibility to an object and what the transcendental ground of this [objective] unity may be, are matters undoubtedly so deeply concealed that we, who after all know even ourselves only through inner sense and therefore as appearance, can never be justified in treating sensibility as being a suitable instrument of investigation for discovering anything save always still other appearances – eager as we yet are to explore their non-sensible cause." (A278/B334)

Press F to pay respects

>>23213196
>happens every day
I commend you efforts. Keep going.

GOTT MIT UNS

>>23192849
unironically

noumenology (uncountable)
1. (philosophy) The study of noumena, that is, things as they are in themselves, beyond their immediate human perception.

>>23151128
yes

His daily schedule then looked something like this. He got up at 5:00 A.M. His servant Martin Lampe, who worked for him from at least 1762 until 1802, would wake him. The old soldier was under orders to be persistent, so that Kant would not sleep longer. Kant was proud that he never got up even half an hour late, even though he found it hard to get up early. It appears that during his early years, he did sleep in at times. After getting up, Kant would drink one or two cups of tea -- weak tea. With that, he smoked a pipe of tobacco. The time he needed for smoking it "was devoted to meditation." Apparently, Kant had formulated the maxim for himself that he would smoke only one pipe, but it is reported that the bowls of his pipes increased considerably in size as the years went on. He then prepared his lectures and worked on his books until 7:00. His lectures began at 7:00, and they would last until 11:00. With the lectures finished, he worked again on his writings until lunch. Go out to lunch, take a walk, and spend the rest of the afternoon with his friend Green. After going home, he would do some more light work and read.
-Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography

>>22822481
I AM KANTPOSTER AND U ALSO READ AND ENJOY THE JOURNAL OF SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY. SEETHE MORE FAGGOT.

Kant achieved intellektuelle Anschauung by the way.

>>22790326
>cognition

>Intuition and conceptions constitute, therefore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither conceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cognition.

>Understanding is, to speak generally, the faculty Of cognitions. These consist in the determined relation of given representation to an object. But an object is that, in the conception of which the manifold in a given intuition is united. Now all union of representations requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently, it is the unity of consciousness alone that constitutes the possibility of representations relating to an object, and therefore of their objective validity, and of their becoming cognitions, and consequently, the possibility of the existence of the understanding itself.

>>22765893
>Bruh-ther how the fuck would you know?
INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG

>transcendental ideas are properly nothing but categories elevated to the unconditioned

>>22728624
>reading the first Critique now.
based.

>>22496117
>its just words dancing around unknowns
Intellektuelle Anschauung is real. All talk is just a means to an end you can't get to without the talk ('I am therefore I think' is the correct formulation; descartes got it backwards). Once you see the spiritual sun, the invisible sun, the BLACK SUN, Dionysus, God of the Night, you will behold the world of shadows in the Astral Light. This is the aim of the sage, the goal of the wise, DIE SACHE SELBST.

>>22473199
>i don't think you have a grasp of the difference between sensation and imagination.
I subsume imagination under the concept of sensation (per Kant). There difference lies in the degree of their intensity (reality, tangibility) and that the spontaneity of real sensation is hidden behind the appearance of a receptivity (that they are given rather than produced by you) because of the veil of the empirical ego (they are produced spontaneously by the transcendent Self), whereas the receptivity of imagined sensation is taken for a spontaneity because of a failure to recognize imagination as still being sensation, albeit inner sense of the soul, and therefore still subject to the necessity of the categories, i.e., the emiprical ego doesn't actually spontaneously produce imagined objects, in the same way it doesn't spontaneously produce real object-- both are spontaneously produced by the transcendent Self.

>>22419350
>That only can be called science (wissenschaft) proper whose certainty is apodictic: cognition that can merely contain empirical certainty is only improperly called science.
empirical "science" BTFO