We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cognize à priori, that is, antecedent to all actual perception; and for this reason such cognition is called pure intuition. The latter is that in our cognition which is called cognition à posteriori, that is, empirical intuition. The former appertain absolutely and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations may be; the latter may be of very diversified character.

Space is nothing else than the form of all phænomena of the external sense, that is, the subjective condition of the sensibility, under which alone external intuition is possible.

Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense, that is, of the intuitions of self and of our internal state.

>>24465382 (OP)

>>24465387
The Christian doctrine that man is by nature evil is loftier than the opposite that he is naturally good, and is to be interpreted philosophically in this way. Man as spirit is a free being, who need not give way to impulse. Hence in his direct and unformed condition, man is in a situation in which he ought not to be, and he must free himself. This is the meaning of the doctrine of original sin, without which Christianity would not be the religion of freedom.
-Philosophy of Right section 18

>>24465382 (OP)
Is empirical intuition the same as sensation? Or is empirical intuition the acquisition of a sensation?

>>24465409
The effect of an object upon the faculty of representation, so far as we are affected by the said object, is sensation. That sort of intuition which relates to an object by means of sensation, is called an empirical intuition.

unrelated but this translation of the critique of pure reason is so overrated its insane. pluhar's translation is 100x more readable and is actually more accurate to kant's original text

>>24465409
Sensuous intuition is either pure intuition (space and time) or empirical intuition—of that which is immediately represented in space and time by means of sensation as real.

>>24465420
pluhar is unreadable.

>>24465428
but guyer wood is readable lol. your just low iq mate

>>24465391
Christkikes and their obsession with "muh ebul" is so tiresome.

>>24465430
yes guyer wood is superior. I'm sorry you can't into long sentences.

>>24465391
Faggot

>>24465438
cope

>>24465409
>an intuition can take place only in so far as the object is given to us. This, again, is only possible, to man at least, on condition that the object affect the mind in a certain manner.
In humans intuition is passive and receptive because we cannot intuit at will whatever we want, as opposed to the spontaneity of thinking through which we CAN think whatever we want; we have FREEDOM to exercise our will upon thought which we cannot exercise upon intuition because (due to our having to apply the Categories of the understanding to even think at all) we must think of it as DEPENDENT on and CAUSALLY DETERMINED by sensation.
Intuition does act upon that which is given it by sensation, but this act occurs regardless of our will, i.e., it is involuntary, and therefore passive and receptive in relation to some cause other than our personal will.

And while Sensibility is also passive, and imagination may be both active AND passive, in either case, intuition is distinct from both, and is passive in relation to both since it must be given real or imagined sensations and is therefore, again, DEPENDENT on sensations, real or imagined.

>>24465445
Wrong

>>24465526
>One barren assurance, however, is of just as much value as another
Right

>>24465420
Does Pluhar have a cool picture of Kant on the cover? No? That's what I thought.