[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 33 KB, 657x527, 1618796293979.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23299500 No.23299500 [Reply] [Original]

If you kant summarize the critique of pure reason in one sentence then you didn't understand it.

>> No.23299501

>>23299500
boring

>> No.23299503

>>23299500
Filtered

>> No.23299562

>>23299500
A priori fallacies

>> No.23299581

>>23299500
Manlets always win in the end.

>> No.23299884

>>23299500
Synthetic a priori knowledge exists.

If you actually understand the consequences of this then the whole critique follows. You either deny synthetic a priori knowledge or you’re a Kantian.

>> No.23299887

>>23299500
Two words: Space and Time.

>> No.23299907

>>23299500
Reality is always filtered through perception and mental constructs - noumenal reality is unatainable.

>> No.23299912

>>23299500
In the prodigious and labyrinthine work that is Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, the sagacious Prussian philosopher embarks upon a most formidable intellectual odyssey, traversing the vast and nebulous realms of metaphysics and epistemology, wherein he meticulously erects a towering edifice of transcendental idealism, crafted with the fastidious precision of a master mason, striving to demarcate the immutable boundaries between the noumenal world of things as they are in themselves, utterly inscrutable to human inquiry, and the phenomenal world of things as they appear through the variegated lens of human perception, thus endeavoring to reconcile the perennial and thorny dichotomy between pure reason and empirical experience through a series of intricate, often convoluted, but undeniably profound arguments and ruminations that seek to establish the conditions under which knowledge itself is possible, positing that all our speculative ventures are inescapably confined within the limits of our own cognitive faculties, which alone dictate the form and content of all that we can ever hope to know, thereby inaugurating a monumental paradigm shift in the annals of philosophical thought, one that would irrevocably alter the course of Western philosophy and cement Kant's reputation as an indomitable titan whose colossal shadow looms large over the intellectual landscape, challenging and enlightening the minds of earnest seekers of truth across successive generations.

>> No.23299954

>>23299500
thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts blind

>> No.23299958

>>23299884
This dude got, completely, utterly, and exactly.
Well, done.
Though, I’m going to clock, this bullshit, like it’s nothing.

Synthetic a priori knowledge does not exist; in fact, it is completely self-contradictory.

Session Ended, douchebags!

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23299968

>>23299958
true... synthetic knowledge a priori doesn't exist... the whole copernican revolution and therefore transcendental idealism is false...

>> No.23299976

>>23299500
We can’t know things as they are, but we can perceive them through categories, which we have a priori and synthesis with sensory data to produce our perception of the world.

>> No.23299984

>>23299968
Boring, but yes, exactly.
I don’t know if YOU, expected, to contradict my conclusion, by restating the premise, in a shitty, pseudo-sophisticated “way.”
But, man, that was fucking beyond garbage.
That was fucking molten hot bullshit.
Weird turn of events, huh?
Process that, for eternity, dipshit.

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23299989

>>23299976
“Categories,” are useful scripting tools, but they ultimately do not interfere with reality itself.
To separate a thing as it seems and in it self is actually a false, pointless dichotomy.
There is no way of knowing, therefore it does not exist.
We’ll get to Nietzsche, later.

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23299996

>>23299984
wtf are you talking about... hahaha...

>> No.23300010

>>23299996
How you reek of piss and diarrhea, faggot.

Nice self-conscious laughter, dumbass.

Go fuck yourself, with your inside-out dick.

Wi’dya.
Fucking.
Termite.

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23300018

>>23300010
whatever... even if we falsify Kant for his idealism the problem of how to proceed a priori without synthetic judgements and the problem of empty concepts still exist... can you solve those ?

>> No.23300041

>>23299884
what's the argument against synthetic a priori knowledge?

>> No.23300083

>>23299500
Nigger

>> No.23300198

>>23300018
Anyway, Philip.
The initial crux of your pathetic “argument,” is just another restatement of my own premise, without contradiction my initial point.
What follows, afterwards, is entirely irrelevant, and isn’t even a coherent logical sequence, on top of that, faggot.
The only “empty concept,” in this conversation, is everything you think of, in your brain dead, fucking, mind.
Gross, and they self-replicate, incestuously, in a corrosive ball of retarded mush.
Discern reality, in any sense of the Word, through THAT category.
Ignorant, asswipe.

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23300211

>>23299884
>Synthetic a priori knowledge exists.
does this just mean that there are facts that we cant materially prove? like axioms or whatever

>> No.23300223

>>23300018
By, they way, faggot.

Before, your sick, demented, faggot brain, tries to say, a god damn thing…

HEXOS CRUCOS, ULTIMA INFERNUS

Suck it, douchebag.

-Elohim, the Night Dragon

>> No.23300230

>>23299500
How the fuck do I tackle him? He uses big words and I don't understand them. What the fuck is a priori?

>> No.23300233
File: 777 KB, 2594x1292, IMG_3624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23300233

>>23300041
Read these articles by CS Peirce. Besides that Deleuze is probably the place to go. There is also JS Mill’s boom “A system of logic” which argues that all knowledge is inductive.

These papers argue that intuitions don’t exist, which is equivalent to arguing that synthetic a priori knowledge doesn’t exist. The crux is that every cognition is determined in some measure by a previous cognition.

>> No.23300246

>>23300233
Nice, on, Jon Bat.

Everyone here, should read up, on this.

Immediately, or whenever, they are ready.

-Elohim, the Nighf Dragon

>> No.23300251

>>23300041
>>23300233
the point is, that Kant needs space and time to be a priori for synthetic knowledge a priori to exist... but that premise is already false... of course space and time are not a priori but a reality

>> No.23300265

>>23300251
It’s the opposite. Kant uses the fact that synthetic a priori knowledge exists to argue that space and time are a priori. Since math is certain, he says space and time must be a priori or else math, which contains propositions about space and time, must be empirical and therefore not certain. The false premise is that math is certain.

>> No.23300272

>>23300265
Although perhaps I should clarify the false premise is not just that math is certain but that it is universally valid. Kant believed that the propositions of Euclidean geometry would hold in the actual universe, whereas they don’t if the universe is non-euclidean. But it is also true that math is fallible.

>> No.23300735

>>23300265
>>23300272
true that... but isn't it insane that Kant concluded Math has to be certain and universal so space and time have to be a priori ?... instead of just concluding that math is in fact fallible ?... for me this whole space and time a priori thing is the biggest scandal in philosophy... it is absolutely absurd to assume that...

>> No.23301023

>>23299958
I've literally never had any interaction with you, but to read this post and I already hate your guts, you pretentious faggot.

>> No.23301029

>>23300223
We don't sign posts here, you pretentious newfag cunt. What's the point of signing the stupid shit you're writing anyway? Fuck off back to your sign-in forums, grandpa.

>> No.23301046

>>23300735
after Hume kant thought that if you didn't conclude that then there was no way to explain why nature had any regularity.

>> No.23301051

>>23300735
>math is in fact fallible
how?

>> No.23301100

>>23299500
I don't understand Kant.

-Dark Haxx0r Ninja King, the Dread Lord of Cyberspace