Daily reminder that the Esoteric Kantanon is correct. This is from Fichte's lectures on the foundations of transcendental philosophy in 1799, section 17:

"What is a 'category'? Kant claimed that he was in possession of a definition of this term but did not wish to state it, in order not to expose himself to certain avoidable objections. Kant is an honorable man, and we must take him at his word on this. We can also certainly appreciate these difficulties that drove him to keep silent, FOR KANT WAS ANXIOUS TO EXPOUND HIS IDEALISM IN A FORM THAT WOULD NOT RAISE SUSPICION."

The normie mind cannot hand idealism on 'full blast'. That's why Kant got the ball rolling with idealism-lite in his Critique of Pure Reason. If you expose a normie to idealism in its raw state he will become confused and enraged; if you persist he will proceed to persecute you, as Fichte experienced. For the normie, idealism = nihilism, atheism, and florid psychosis all in one. For the autisto-schizophrenic wizard it is truth itself, the unity behind all multiplicity. The normie sees the Absolute as a cipher = 0. The autisto-schizophrenic sees the entire universe in that X, I=I beyond space and time, Kant's transcendental apperception. You may mock us but once we perfect our system of techno-practical reason the current normie-dominated state of affairs will be replaced with a new one - Socialism with Autistic Characteristics. If you start studying the Wissenschaftslehre today we MIGHT be able to get you a minor bureaucratic post. Otherwise you will be laboring in a state-owned orgonite mining venture in South Dakota. All normie property will be forcibly purchased by the government with coins made of plastic and then redistributed for autistic purposes. HR women will be sent to re-education/homesteading camps in Manitoba. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. The progress of Reason is inexorable. He who laughs last laughs longest.

>>24465666 (OP)

>>24465666 (OP)
>For if we permit the vanity or the presumption of sophistry to determine the least thing theoretically (in a way that extends our knowledge) in respect of what lies beyond the world of sense, or if we allow any pretence to be made of insight into the being and constitution of the nature of God, of His Understanding and Will, of the laws of both and of His properties which thus affect the world, I should like to know where and at what point we will bound these assumptions of Reason. For wherever such insight can be derived, there may yet more be expected (if we only strain our reflection, as we have a mind to do). Bounds must then be put to such claims according to a certain principle, and not merely because we find that all attempts of the sort have hitherto failed, for that proves nothing against the possibility of a better result. But here no principle is possible, except either to assume that in respect of the supersensible absolutely nothing can be theoretically determined (except mere negations); or else that our Reason contains in itself a yet unused mine of cognitions, reaching no one knows how far, stored up for ourselves and our posterity.
- Critique of Judgment section 89

It's all there for those with eyes to see.

>>24465666 (OP)
Christ is the only truth

>>24465709
Yes, except you don't know what Christ is.

>I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready

>>24465713
I know exactly what Christ is, You should read more about him

>>24465666 (OP)
>Daily reminder that the Esoteric Kantanon is correct
he's a loser seeking attention on 4chan
whatever he may be, correct is not one of them

>>24465721
>read

>God has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

>>24465741
>>God has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

There is but one God, and Christ is still the way, the bridge between heaven and earth, calling us to walk in love, truth, and redemption.

>>24465729
I fear that the execution Kant's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Esoteric Kantianism) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH MY POSTS, and not to think through them.

>>24465709
Christ was a transcendental idealist.

"Christianity appeared in the world and there arose an entirely new interest in general cultivation,—for the sake of Religion to which all men were now called. There are in our opinion two very different forms of Christianity:—the one contained in the Gospel of John, and the other in the writings of the Apostle Paul; to which latter party the other Evangelists for the most part, and particularly Luke, belong. The Johannean Jesus knows no other God than the True God, in whom we all are, and live, and may be blessed, and out of whom there is only Death and Nothingness; and he appeals, and rightly appeals, in support of this Truth, not to reasoning, but to the inward practical sense of Truth in man,—not even knowing any other proof than this inward testimony. ‘If any man will do the will of Him who sent me, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God:’—such is his teaching. As to its historical aspect, his doctrine is to him as old as the creation,—it is the first and primitive Religion;—Judaism, on the contrary, as a corruption of later times, he unconditionally and unsparingly rejects:—‘Your father is Abraham; mine is God,’—he says to the Jews;—‘Before Abraham was, I am;—Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.’... In this Evangelist it remains wholly doubtful whether or not Jesus was of Jewish origin at all;—or if he were, what was his descent and parentage. Quite otherwise is it with Paul, by whom, even from the commencement of a Christian Church, John has been superseded." - 1806 Characteristics of the Present Age 7

(apologies for the antisemitic angle, transcendental idealism is not a chud philosophy but Fichte was a product of his time; he wasn't even that antisemitic, he defended Jewish students from bullying)

"It is remarkable that transcendental idealism, which is an innovation to our age, is really the primordial one, as is almost always the case with all our characteristic works and ways. I will prove this, not to support by age and authority what can prove itself, but rather to give you a parenthetical opportunity for comparison. In Christianity, (which may in its essence be much older than we assume, and concerning which I have frequently said that, in its roots and especially in its charter, which I hold to be its purest expression, it completely agrees with realized philosophy) the final purpose, especially in the record of it which I hold as the purest, is that people come to eternal life, to having this life and its joy and blessedness in themselves and out of themselves. In what does eternal life consist? 'This is eternal life,' it says, 'that they KNOW you... and him whom you have sent' (for us, this means the primordial law and its eternal image); merely KNOW. Yet, indeed, this recognition not only leads to life, it IS life." - 1804 Wissenschaftslehre L.25

>>24465704
>our Reason contains in itself a yet unused mine of cognitions, reaching no one knows how far, stored up for ourselves and our posterity.

The imperative of techno-practical reason to satisfy the need of theoretical reason by bringing about a random access method for a finite intelligence to derive, at given determinate space and time, an arbitrary finite knowledge out of the infinite store of an a priori knowledge base. Thus, omniscience becomes possible for the finite inteligence, not as all-knowing all at once, but as random or direct access to any finite portion of omniscience as required. That infinite knowledge base is the complete system of science that lies latent a priori in the mind.

>>24465666 (OP)
>Otherwise you will be laboring in a state-owned orgonite mining venture in South Dakota
Accurate, Fichte thought mining should be run by government monopoly. He would have thought orgonite was stupid though.
>All normie property will be forcibly purchased by the government with coins made of plastic and then redistributed for autistic purposes
Accurate, Fichte thought inflation didn't matter because money was only an abstract way of representing the total goods within the state. He favored paper money because he thought it would discourage foreign commerce.
>HR women will be sent to re-education/homesteading camps in Manitoba.
Semi-accurate, he only wanted to do this with violent criminals. He would have reorganized the economy so that HR ladies would have to do productive work but he wouldn't have persecuted them as long as they didn't break the law. If they did try to bring back the old system his uber-strong 'protection contract', government ID/tracking system, and network of informers would have nipped it in the bud and they'd be sent to re-bildung camps.

>>24465704
Normies gets filtered by passages like this because they think Kant is endorsing theoretical agnosticism and 'as if' theism in practical matters. In fact, practical reason is prior to theoretical reason, as Kant says in several places. The question isn't "Can we know that God exists?" but "how do we know that God exists? What are the limits of theoretical reason and what is theoretical reason?" It's a dispute between transcendence and immanence, not theism vs agnosticism. But Kant concentrates on objective cognition in the critiques to protect the normies from insights that might be damaging to them.

>>24465761
>hold onto the verses that back you and ignore all of the challenging, non-rational and mythological ones
It's just a German autismo version of the Jefferson Bible. If Fichte is right that the original religion transcendental idealism, why does almost no one think of God that way? Fichte actually exposes the need for religion with his interminable striving. For Fichte there is no out; only true religion and faith (not "faith in my freedom and conscience", real faith) can get you out of the circle. In his early works Fichte sometimes talks about the 'magic circles' of his deductions - they are magic circles, completely centripetal. That's reason left to itself. The idealists are useful because they took reason as far as it could possibly go and revealed its insufficiency.

>>24465666 (OP)
>What is a 'category'?
People will spend years thinking about words at their desk when they could embrace the universe running under the sun in a nice park, unencombered by thoughts or concepts. Very sad !

>>24465808
Personally, I doubt how much 'pistis' is appropriately represented by 'faith'. I see 'pistis' more as a type of extrasensory perception, or even intellectual or other type of non-sensuous anschauung.

This reading places Hebrews 11:1 in a new light.

>>24465820
>t. cannot comprehend purely mental acts

do any kant experts think it might be possible to refactor the categorical imperative to work with numerical data?

>>24465820
my desk has air conditioning and good light for reading tho meanwhile the park has bugs and dog shit

>>24465666 (OP)
What does Fichteanon have to say about that?

>>24465820
Philosophy is a way of doing exactly that lol. And who said we don't go outside? If I'm not reading Fichte I'm going on comfy walks. Only shitpost here when I slept like crap and am too retarded to study. Of course most people only see empty words and 'concepts' in philosophy - they can't see the excitement and life in it; they think studying is like playing computer games or shitposting when it's more like "running under the sun in a nice park" on LSD. What did Fichte say about them?

"But besides that class of readers who have reasons for their dissatisfaction with what I advance in these Lectures, there are others who hold such speculations as at best useless, because they cannot be carried out into practice, and because they find nothing in the actual world, as it is now constituted, at all corresponding thereto;—indeed it is to be feared that the greater number of otherwise honest, respectable, well-behaved, sober-minded people, will thus judge of them. For although, in all ages, those who have been capable of raising themselves to ideas, have always found themselves in a minority,—yet, for reasons which I may well be excused for withholding here, their number has never been less than at the present time. Whilst, within the circle which common experience has drawn around us, men take larger and more general views, and pass more accurate judgments on the phenomena presented to them, than perhaps at any former period; the majority are completely misled and dazzled, so soon as they take a single step beyond this limit. If it be impossible to re-kindle in such minds the once-extinguished sparks of higher genius, we must let them remain without disturbance within that circle; and in so far as they are there useful and necessary, we must not derogate from their value in and for such a sphere. But when they desire to draw down to their own level all to which they cannot raise themselves;—when, for example, they would insist that everything which is printed should be made as practically useful as a cookery-book, or a ready-reckoner, or a service-regulation, and decry everything which cannot so be used,—then indeed do they perpetrate a great wrong.

That the Ideal cannot be manifested in the Actual world, we know as well as they do,—perhaps better. All we maintain is, that the Actual must be judged by the Ideal, and modified in accordance with it by those who feel themselves capable of such a task. Be it granted that they cannot convince themselves of this;—being what they are, they lose very little thereby, and Humanity loses nothing. This alone becomes clear, that they have not been reckoned on in the great plan for the ennoblement of Humanity. This will assuredly proceed on its glorious way;—over them will kindly Nature watch, vouchsafing them, in proper season, rain and sunshine, fitting nourishment and undisturbed digestion, and therewithal comfortable thoughts." (Vocation of the Scholar, 1794, preface)

>>24465850
>it's more like "running under the sun in a nice park" on LSD
This

>>24465832
Fichte would agree with the critics re: the categorical imperative, it's one of the weakest points in Kant's presentation. You can't derive the material from the formal but the CI is completely formal. This opens you up, for example, to someone who is evil and doesn't care if others are evil being able to say he's following the CI. But even more seriously - Kant, because of his confusion over how we construct the given, or rather because he (inconsistently) denies that we construct the given, never figured out the relation between cognition and feeling. Morality depends on a certain feeling (we experience this subjectively as something like a feeling of respect). That's not to say emotions can't distort our grasp of right and wrong; or that the philosopher can't analyze this feeling and reduce it to a proposition. But this whole Kantian "hmm I'm about to do x... hmm let's see now... if everyone did x would it be bad?" is pretty silly. How can you even know whether the universality of x was bad or not without some deeper source for moral decisions? Kant's CI is, at best, a heuristic measure. Another serious problem is that it radically separates Reason from the phenomenal self.

>>24465850
If you enjoy exploring these systems that's great, I'm glad. The quote here though doesn't say much else than "Let us Chosen Ones alter reality with our unmatched ability to glimpse the Ideal, while you ungrateful plebs drink and shit and die unknowing of our greatness". It's well written, and no doubt he was brilliant, but it's just a sophisticated flavor of the "They don't know" meme.

>>24465666 (OP)
>666
I kneel to esoteric kantianism

>>24465666 (OP)

>>24465850
Oh, you go on walks, do you? I kneel.

These threads have gotten so corny. And they were corny to start.

I'm gonna drop some truth bombs on you niggies. Also writing things out/trying to explain them to someone else is one of the best ways to break through an impasse in understanding. What happens when you perceive something? Your real activity, the activity of your will, is limited, and you reflect on this limited state to produce an intuition of, not just one thing, but a manifold in space. This isn't as strange as it sounds - you're always willing. Even if you choose to do nothing at all you're *willing* to do nothing and the not-I is produced by us through the limitation of this willing. Accordingly talking about acting is also talking about knowing/perceiving, since knowing/perceiving is dependent on acting (you reflect on the object rather than your acting, and you can easily reflect on either, as you can see for yourself, as both are part of a manifold to which you have immediate access; and to really explain this I'd have to talk about the understanding and the power of judgment, inner and outer sense, etc.) If the intuition is produced by a limitation of willing, it's preceded in time by the constructing of a concept of a goal, and then acting on this goal. So the entire cycle runs like 1.) Choose a goal from the manifold that's given to me, this is ideal activity. 2.) This selection is sensualized, i.e. it becomes something I do (or refrain from doing) with my body. 3.) This acting is limited in turn. 4.) Reflection on the limitation leads us back to 1 and the cycle continues. But how can there ever be a first moment of consciousness? You can't construct a concept of a goal if you're not already a willing subject. Subjectively, there is no first moment of consciousness, every moment is preceded by another. Consciousness does not arise for you 'ex nihilo', that wouldn't make sense; what is (for an omniscient outside observer) the first moment is for you a moment preceded by an indefinite series. Willing happens outside of time; time is only a form of inner intuition, it arises when we intuit our own will. This must be the case simply because of how the steps I listed above are interconnected - one can't exist without another. Just as cause and effect are simultaneous (sorry Kant) so are ideal (constructing a goal) and real activity not actually separated in themselves. I realize all this sounds fairly schizo, I'm only setting the stage for what I want to talk about; there's ~200 pages of material condensed in this paragraph.

How exactly does the ideal activity become sensualized? Fichte already demonstrated that the articulated body is an intuition of the will, but how do you pass from mere thinking to something that happens in matter? Here he introduces the productive imagination which he calls "the most difficult, though indisputably the most important, portion of the Wissenschaftslehre". I will proceed by copying down what he says and then commenting on it. Maybe reading some 'raw Fichte' will inspire others to study him with me.

>>24465907
>>24465936
You're buttblasted that people are studying something you don't understand and joking around about it amongst themselves itt. I don't get it lol. What would Fichte say?

"Censure without argument tells me simply that my doctrine does not please; and this confession is again very unimportant; for the question is not at all, whether it pleases you or not, but whether it has been proven. In the present sketch I write only for those, in whom there still dwells an inner sense of love for truth; who still value science and conviction, and who are impelled by a lively zeal to seek truth. With those, who, by long spiritual slavery, have lost with the faith in their own conviction their faith in the conviction of others; who consider it folly if anybody attempts to seek truth for himself; who see nothing in science but a comfortable mode of subsistence; who are horrified at every proposition to enlarge its boundaries as involving a new labor, and who consider no means disgraceful by which they can hope to suppress him who makes such a proposition,—with those I have nothing to do. I should be sorry if they understood me. Hitherto this wish of mine has been realized; and I hope, even now, that these present lines will so confuse them that they can perceive nothing more in them than mere words, while that which represents their mind is torn hither and thither by their ill-concealed rage." (First Introduction, 1797)

Onto the Theory of the Productive Imagination from the 1799 Foundations.
"In order to prepare the way for such a theory, we must first investigate something else. First of all, let us actually orient ourselves so we can see where we stand. The sort of thinking we have here been discussing was a real act of thinking of an object. Such thinking is mediated by another act of thinking, the act of thinking of the determinacy of an efficaciously acting, sensuous energy. This sensuous energy is also ideal in a certain respect; accordingly we have a synthesis of what is ideal and what is real."

This paragraph shouldn't be hard to understand with the intro I gave above. The entire 1-4 sequence forms a synthesis. Earlier in this lecture Fichte examined it as a synthesis, as a unity; now he's looking at the individual components (and perhaps discovering more!) and building back to the synthesis.

I guess it'd be cruel if those of you guys who carry the flag of dead philosophers's ideas didn't get any dopamine or sense of purpose out of it.
You won't convince me any of that will ease your dread on your death bed though. Again, what could ?

>>24465964
We understand it. I was personally studying philosophy long before you ever touched Fichte. Living vicariously through a dead man's brain is obscene.

>>24465921
holy trips. i completely missed that.

>>24465964
You know your shit to be able to bring up relevant quotes this easily, I won't lie. If that's not GPT that is, I don't care enough to check. You're good at your hobby (remembering formulas of people that tried to do maths with words).

>>24465982
It's trivial if you're doing nothing but studying a single thinker for an extended period of time. /lit/ is so easily impressed these days.

>>24465965
Honestly I look forward to death. It's the only way to truly know what lies beyond the veil.

>>24465964
"Observation: A primary feature of the Wissenschaftslehre is that what it establishes is by no means some dead repository of concepts, but instead something living and self-active. For this reason, even the meanings of words are allowed, as it were, to undergo a certain amount of alteration within this system. This is what has occurred in the case of the terms 'ideal' and 'real'. The concepts 'ideal' and 'real' possess only relative validity. To be sure, there is something purely and simply ideal and something else purely and simply real: the former is what is intelligible and the latter is dead matter. Between these there lies an intermediary sphere, the elements of which can be considered to be in a certain respect ideal and in another respect real, depending upon whether one relates them to what follows them, to what is purely ideal, or to what precedes them, to what is purely real."

What does Fichte mean by the purely intelligible? The will, individuality, other rational beings qua rational, God - anything that can only be thought. The last sentence seems to be a typo, ideal and real are backwards (and it'd be easy to have a typo because the editor is inserting sections from another student transcript in this part). Fichte also says in one of his letters to Schelling that he occasionally mixed up the order of ideal and real in these lectures. The (relatively) ideal, constructing a concept, comes first; then the sensuous energy is a medium, in one sense ideal, in one real; then there's the efficacious willing itself, which is more real; and then the object considered as an object, which is most real of the sequence. The maximally ideal/intelligible does not appear within consciousness.

These threads are the best but I haven't really been seeing much more actual esoteric kantanon activity. Still waiting on the system.

>>24465971
>I was personally studying philosophy long before you ever touched Fichte
So was I dude. Your random, retarded hostility is a sign of moral depravity.
>Living vicariously through a dead man's brain is obscene.
That's the cool thing about Fichte, you actually can't study him by rote. You have to think actively because of how he writes. But it seems what you're saying is 'only a loser would study a great thinker; you should be content with your thoughts about reality, why would you respect someone else enough to try to understand him?' With an attitude like that I doubt you've ever really studied any philosopher. It's sad that this board is so full of anti-intellectuals. It didn't used to be this way.

>>24465951
If willing happens outside of time, then is it impossible to change?

>>24466009
Actually I'm still here but I've been too tired from work and just been reading the CoJ in my little free. Just post quotes or low effort post just because, Im still working on techno-practical reasons imperative to satisfy theoretical reason through a theoretical-practical system of ratio-scientific mysticism (true speculative philosophy). Stay tuned.

>>24466014
I remember in one of these threads you said that what Fichte really means by Reason is that we, as the beings that we are, can never experience anything that doesn't fundamentally make sense. In my own words: we can never experience anything that violates what it is like to be a rational being experiencing a rational universe. It was a profound point, but one I'd encountered before and hadn't been at the front of my mind for awhile. Then I promptly forgot about it. Older I get, the less of an impression these formulas make on me. I've hit my limit on what concepts can do. I need stronger medicine. I'd never begrudge anyone studying philosophy. It's fascinating, stimulating, and fun. But the treehouse club aura of these threads is lame and unserious.

>only a loser would study a great thinker; you should be content with your thoughts about reality, why would you respect someone else enough to try to understand him?'
No. Anyways, I've said my piece.

>>24466006
"This is also the situation we encounter here. I view the letters I write to be something real and objective. (Granted, with respect to their form, I could also consider them to be something ideal; but we will ignore this for the moment.) I view these letters to be real, however, only by means of the determinacy of my physical energy, i.e. through my act of writing. Accordingly, the determinacy of my physical energy is something ideal - namely, in relation to the letters they are viewed as real. Looked at in and, this same determinate energy is something real - namely, in relation to nothing but the pure concept of a goal. Consequently, the claim, 'You do not see the letters, but only your act of writing them,' contains within itself a synthesis of ideality and reality, in which the act of writing is what is ideal and the written letters are what is real. This synthesis of the determinacy of the sensuous energy and the determinacy of the real object is related to and is in turn mediated by another synthesis, within which the pure act of thinking of a concept of a goal is accomplished. Therefore, when we connect the previously designated elements b, x, y, and z with one another, we are not simply connecting individual elements with one another; we are connected syntheses with syntheses, which is also what occurs when we synthetically unite something determinate with what mediates its determinacy. We can see that instead of sticking to our previously announced plan of connecting one individual act of thinking with another, we will be presenting nothing but syntheses."

The beginning of this para reminds me of something I didn't properly explain - real activity is intuited; ideal activity is thought. For example, if you look at something, you're intuiting the thing, but your presence as the spectator is only thought. When you 'construct the concept of a goal', this is ideal - whether you actually sit there and deliberate (in which case it's obviously ideal) or if you act without deliberation (as you move your arm, your ideal activity is 'thinking of' and 'choosing' the points to which you move it. This isn't something you intuit - your arm isn't there yet). So to see a letter - this is real, it's an intuition. To think of what it means is ideal activity. But how do you enter this world of 'sheer thinking' - i.e. you're not thinking of an action, but thinking of some thing, and relating it to other things by your power of judgment? How does the real become ideal for you in reflection? One of the weak points of the 1799 lectures is that he doesn't explain this; he does explain it in the '94 Deduction of Representation, but even there it's sketchy. But suffice it to say, for now, that if you intuit something you also have the power to reflect on it and introduce it to a system of thinking. This reflection is fundamentally one of abstraction; it'd take me too far afield to go into it. (cont'd)

>>24466049
> In my own words: we can never experience anything that violates what it is like to be a rational being experiencing a rational universe.
That's trivially true. What's interesting in Fichte is how he derives the rational universe from self-positing.
>Older I get, the less of an impression these formulas make on me.
If philosophy was about cute formulas I wouldn't be interested in it.
>I've hit my limit on what concepts can do. I need stronger medicine.
Fascinating.
>But the treehouse club aura of these threads is lame and unserious.
Yes, I look through the catalogue and see high quality threads with smart people talking about interesting things everywhere. Truly, the idealist threads are a cancer on the board.
>>24466056
I should also explain the letters - b is "the representation of a real object produced by the will" - it's a reflection on something. x is the act of constructing a concept apart from our reflection on it. y is the real thing reflected upon in b. z is the sensuous energy. So there are really two series, the 'things' that are there and then our reflection upon them, and there are other letters for the other 'components'. But ofc Fichte's whole point here is that these aren't 'things' at all, it's the analysis of a synthesis because none can be understood apart from the others, like I was saying above. Outside of time they're synthesized in one - but this is something I still imperfectly understand, and it's what he's going to get into here soon.

>>24465666 (OP)
God is the unmoved causer, that's much better than all what kant has to offer

>>24466103
>God is the unmoved causer
Bros never actually read Kant

>>24466099
"Dogmatism always remains present so long as one continues to think of thinking as an act in which we think of some determinate object that simply lies there before us. Our thinking always involves a connection, a movement of thought in a certain direction, an act of synthesis, without which there could be no thinking at all. For this reason the content of our thoughts is never anything taken by itself, but is always a relationship between two things. This is why it might appear at first glance as if we first think separately of the two elements y and b [the real thing reflected upon, and our reflection upon it] and then relate them to each other; whereas, when we look more closely, we can see that neither y nor b exists by itself. y and b are, in turn, syntheses themselves and are related to other syntheses that lie even deeper. Consequently we never have anything but interrelated syntheses."

The dogmatist can always say idealism doesn't make sense because a thing-in-itself has to be there first in order to cause a representation. The idealist says the thing only exists because of our willing - without a will to resist nothing would be present. But this locks you in a 'magic circle' - the thing depends on willing; but willing depends on the thing, because to will is to make a selection from an apparently 'given' manifold and something can't be 'given' without real activity to be resisted. Fichte is showing how every 'element' is necessarily connected to every other, and time will turn out to be a form of intuition and nothing in itself.

Earlier in this lecture he gives an odd/annoying argument against the dogmatists - if time was not an intuition, there would be no time, because causes and effects are simultaneous. The problem (it seems to me) is that he's ignoring the relationship between time and magnitude. Given that things are magnitudes, change happens in time and not all at once. He could say 'space is ideal too' but his deduction of the ideality of space as the intuition of striving -> objective space with an ideal ground. So I disagree - idealism leads you to an unthinkable something outside of time, but I don't think dogmatism does.

>>24466103
>God is the unmoved causer
Read Kant yourself, what he actually says not apologist blogs, and then you'll be in a position to judge these arguments. Read Spinoza too.

"The mediating synthesis by means of which the determinacy of the physical energy is supposed to be determined would now be the act of constructing a concept of a goal. This synthesis contains within itself the following: (1) the constructive, active subject, over against which there stands, insofar as this subject is an intellect engaged in an act of pure thinking, the active, sensuous energy; (2) what is determined and possesses the actual concept of a goal. I engage in deliberation and grasp a concept of a goal. Within this act we must distinguish: (1) my act of constructing, that is, my agility; (2) the fact that I possess a goal. Each of these is made possible only by the other and, in a certain respect, this relationship is one of ideality and reality. The former, the act of constructing, would be the subjective element. The latter, the concept that has been constructed, would be the real of objective element. Nevertheless, one should not yet treat the objectivity involved in this act as something sensible, for here we are talking about nothing but thinking itself, as something that is arrested and persists, and these two obviously go together. In constructing, as what is ideal, one looks toward a future concept of a goal; indeed, it is for the sake of the future goal that reason engages in an act of choosing. Therefore, what one has in view in the real is the determinate concept of a goal, once the latter has been grasped. Both these elements must be found together, for neither makes any sense apart from the other. I cannot make any choice unless I can think of some goal, and I can think of a goal only insofar as I can exercise choice. On the other hand, I can be conscious of a goal only insofar as I have chosen it. Whichever direction we look, we find that the thought of a goal and that of a choice always refer to one another. On every side, therefore, there is an identity of what is ideal and what is real. Thus we could say that the I comes into being for itself by means of a synthesis of itself as something ideal (a purely thinking subject) with itself as something real (a feeling subject)."

>>24466022
the inability to answer this is why
>>24465907
and others have been your detractors, Fichteanon

people want philosophy to grant them wisdom that allows them to live the highest life possible

>>24466099
>That's trivially true. What's interesting in Fichte is how he derives the rational universe from self-positing.
Well, reason presupposes itself. Rational explanation cannot happen without reason existing. We couldn't explain anything in a fully irrational world.

>>24465832
not kant experts, to my knowledge, but outsiders looking at kant have noticed some things
https://casparoesterheld.com/2019/03/03/grimdark-cyberkant/

>>24466206
>>24466211
I don't understand why these threads make you guys so insecure. Philosophy does not grant 'wisdom', what fool thinks learning abstract arguments would make him wise? Wisdom is a practical art. You immediately expose yourself as a know-nothing when you claim philosophy is supposed to turn you into Gandalf. "But what is it for then? What is it for?" It's not for anything, it's useless, it's knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I realize this is incomprehensible to you.
>Well, reason presupposes itself. Rational explanation cannot happen without reason existing. We couldn't explain anything in a fully irrational world.
That's not what Reason means in Fichte (or any idealist), you're thinking of ratiocination. I refuse to explain anything to you because you've already decided philosophy is a waste of time, even though you know nothing about it. It apparently freaks you out a lot that me and EKA would study German idealism for the fun of it. Can't help you there. If you have some curiosity deep down try Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre.

>>24466238
>what fool thinks learning abstract arguments would make him wise? Wisdom is a practical art.
>You immediately expose yourself as a know-nothing is supposed to turn you into Gandalf.
But your detractors are in good company. Do I really need to quote the Phaedo? Is the culmination of decades of studying German Idealism taking the Buddhist precepts or something? Seems absurd, and not a little parochial.

>he's already calling him EKA
christ, these threads get more embarrassing by the hour.

>>24466179
This passage is pretty self-explanatory. None that I've typed up have been that bad, really. Here he's looking at the act of constructing a concept of a goal and distinguishing the 'choosing' side from actually making a choice; and then we need to pass from this to the sensuous energy, and so on. What I'm fundamentally unclear on is WHY time has to be a form of intuition. I understand a few reasons (it's literally an intuition of the will, for one; for another, there would be no way to explain the origin of consciousness if time was in itself) but is that everything? I just think I'm missing something. Another aspect would be subject-objectivity, i.e. the real and the ideal have to be 'one', and this can only 'happen' outside of time.

Another thing that's going on in the back of my head - how does this relate to the old version, which dealt only with representation? Determinability = noumenal not-I; determination = intuition; the I see-saws back and forth between finitude and infinitude. Again I think I basically get it but am still missing something.

>>24466238
>EKA would study German idealism for the fun of it.
Bro I have an endgame you know.

>>24466284
"The chief principle is this: I-hood is self-relation. Ideality and reality are totally united. We also said that the I is an identity of mind and body, a subject-objectivity. Somepeople maintain that I am my soul, while others claim that I am my body. We will pay no heed to either of these parties. We assert that the I is neither soul nor body; instead these are an I only in the union of both. This union by means of which the I comes into being is not a union of a simple sbjective element with a simple objective one, for both the subject and object involved in this synthesis are, in turn, a synthesis of what is ideal and what is real. In this act, therefore, a manifold is united with a manifold."

This again is I hope fairly straightforward. Anyone who compares Fichte to Descartes is an absolute pseud, unfortunately I have seen academics do this. Note the last sentence - there aren't just two elements (mind and body) but a progressive synthesis which will ultimately turn out to be five-fold. (We only have four elements so far).

Incidentally, Beiser's treatment of Fichte annoyed me. He thinks Fichte thought all knowing comes from doing, i.e. all knowledge comes from physically acting and experimenting. This is complete bullshit... the union of speculation and real activity is at the heart of Fichte's thought and Beiser blows it. It's not that you must 'do something' in order to know; rather all your knowing and self-consciousness itself follows from your being free and able to act, and you never stop acting even in thinking. Beiser also constantly talks about 'dominating' nature, the ideal activity 'dominating' the not-I - that's bullshit. "The not-I ought not to exist" = "I ought to act in a way", the opposition is between being and becoming. He actually says in multiple places that you can't annihilate matter. Beiser also writes as if there's some "bad" not-I that our subjective activity is "molding" - I'm sorry but this is retarded, the man does not understand Fichte. Fichte did think that we should control nature as a moral imperative but this is not the #1 feature of his thought or anywhere near. I think modern scholars get all excited about this philosopher who "hates" nature "wow where did he go wrong??" and it makes them misread everything else. Fichte could have spoken about nature differently without changing his philosophy one iota, and he would have thought differently had he known what we know now. These are just a few issues with his reading lol.

>>24466237
This article was interesting. I've seen similar arguments elsewhere and some interesting ones applied retroactively to Rousseau, when performed that way you are essentially incapable of making a split second power balance judgement.

This is similar to the Hempel paradox. This board is a prime experimental environment is it not? What is the true extent of the implications that can be made from a statement? Hempel famously used a simple statement to make his point but if this is applied to say any statement that carries a distinctly moral association then in theory Kant might wind up in situations where he is working counterintuitive to the spirit of the imperative.

>>24466247
EKA is one of the few remotely interesting/amusing posters on this board, and anyone who thinks philosophy will give them wisdom or mystick insight is an absolute midwit. I have studied Plato, Augustine and Plotinus extensively - the question of the relationship of philosophy with religion/practical wisdom/mysticism is historically controversial, over time (certainly by Aquinas) philosophy had become pure science; I think non-mystics were right, to argue with me you would have to engage in philosophy which you've already disavowed. I understand you're very curious about these shadowy figures like Empedocles ("whoah bro... he jumped in a volcano! He thought life was a punishment from the gods!"), Pythagoras, Bruno, etc, but if you had read more broadly you would understand where I was coming from.

All you've done this whole thread is bitch and complain about the fact that someone is reading Fichte and talking about him. Go post in the Peterson thread, or the "Plato's forms = God?" thread, or the "why can't I get laid" thread. I just want to talk about transcendental idealism. I'm sorry it buttblasts you so much.

"Let us therefore think of two series: an ideal one and a real one. For 'ideal series' let us substitute 'mind' or 'spirit,' and for 'real series' let us substitute 'body'. The I arises from the union of these two. Nevertheless, in order to be able to bring this union into existence, I have to think of each of these elements as a part of the I. I must think of myself as a mind; in addition, I must tink of myself as a body - i.e. I must think of each of these individually and apart from the other. On the other hand, I cannot think of myself as a part of the I - that is to say, I cannot think of myself as a mind or as a body - apart from a synthesis of what is subjective and what is objective. Consequently different syntheses, i.e. different manifolds, are united with each other in the union of ideality and reality, by means of which the I comes into being. Only when viewed in this twofold light do the mind and the body come into being for me, and only in the union of both do I become an I for myself."

Finally something new that I didn't think of when first reading through this. Here we see how the ideality of time is related to the union of soul and body. If time was something in itself, at the start of consciousness you would be making a choice without a body. Also by synthesizing the 'mind' side and the 'body' side, which you must if mind and body are one, you already posit time as ideal, or else the mind would be acting independently of the body. Note that this completely BTFOs that experiment where the brain was seen to signal (temporally) before the willed movement - the idealist wizard knows that time is a mere form of inner intuition, and the experiment of the dogmatist is exploded. If he starts sputtering at you just tell him it's presuppositional (this is a word of power).

>>24466383
"This however is no more than a figure of speech, a sensible expression of the point we have now reached. Here we are not talking about the mind or the body; instead, we are talking about thinking and feeling."

What is feeling? Limitation of the subject's real activity = sensations, emotions, etc. Feeling is automatically intuited, so feelings are the transcendental ground of beings.

"Therefore the synthesis we are concerned with here is a synthesis of thinking and feeling. Considered by themselves, each of these two terms is, in turn, a synthesis of what is subjective and what is objective - which is the basic form of every synthesis." The five-fold synthesis, will being the middle. In my 1804 WL the translator was talking about the five-fold synthesis and how difficult it was to understand, glad this is preparing me somewhat. Anyone who studies the 74 knows this synthesis he just doesn't know it as a synthesis involving the will and the body, because the 74 doesn't really talk about the will and doesn't deduce the body at all. One of many aspects that makes it so filtering - he's trying to talk about theology and this infinite goal but solely within the context of seeing 'red' or hearing 'loud noise' so it's pretty hard to figure out wtf he's really getting at in that book.

>>24466383
Time is just the measure of motion with regards to before and after. You also gloss over an important fact about the neuroscience study that you are referencing.
>https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-before-were-even-aware-of-them--st
It's not the fact that there are brain signals before the willed movement. This is facile and obvious, since if the brain makes a decision, it would be noncontroversial to think that such brain activity could be deducted. RATHER, it is the fact that there are detectable patterns of signals that can be recognized up to 11 seconds before the DECISION. There are choices being made before you are aware that you have made a choice. Hence, there are motions occurring before you become aware of your supposed self-motion of a choice.

>>24466238
>I don't understand why these threads make you guys so insecure. Philosophy does not grant 'wisdom', what fool thinks learning abstract arguments would make him wise?
Abstract arguments that lead to the proper source of things are wisdom. Anything else is nonsense. It's for the sake of itself, and the impacts trickle down to the point where it invalidates any other lesser end you may have posited earlier, prior to your philosophical journey. Both Plato and Aristotle lay this barely in several places. To the extent that you pursue philosophy for a lesser end than the pursuit of wisdom for its own sake is the extent to which you corrupt the discipline and any sort of benefit you could achieve by it.

If you are the Fichteanon I've been interacting with here and there, and we've had some great conversations, I have to say that I am disheartened and disappointed by your response here.

Also, why the hell do you think that I think that philosophy is a waste of time? All I do is read philosophy. You may have confused me with another anon here. There are multiple people speaking. It is still annoying.

I have to go mow the lawn or the city will fine me again. May come back and do more. There's a Young Idealist channel on youtube with solid interviews with scholars. Of the two Fichte ones I like the Nini interview on the 1804 lectures best. Every interview I've watched on this channel has been pretty based though. EKA might like the one on Schelling's mystical Platonism because his own system (it pains me to say this) has more in common with early Schelling than Fichte.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3AnzypX2sU

>>24466440
>Time is just the measure of motion with regards to before and after.
In the ordinary stance, yes. Fichte's own account of time within the ordinary stance is completely in line with Aristotle's.
>It's not the fact that there are brain signals before the willed movement. This is facile and obvious, since if the brain makes a decision, it would be noncontroversial to think that such brain activity could be deducted. RATHER, it is the fact that there are detectable patterns of signals that can be recognized up to 11 seconds before the DECISION. There are choices being made before you are aware that you have made a choice. Hence, there are motions occurring before you become aware of your supposed self-motion of a choice.
Yeah I misremembered the details. It's something I heard about years ago. Even so if you don't understand how Fichte's idealism answers this you haven't been paying very much attention.

"What do you mean ordinary stance? I only know ONE stance, the stance of real life and common sense!" Oh man I have a blistering Fichte quote for you but I really must mow the lawn. If you want to understand Fichte, you have to understand the transcendental stance. Some people are morally incapable of this and nothing can be done for them.

>>24466477
>In the ordinary stance, yes. Fichte's own account of time within the ordinary stance is completely in line with Aristotle's.
There is nothing transcendental about Aristotle's time.
>Yeah I misremembered the details. It's something I heard about years ago
These aren't just small details. It's a complete change of the premise of the question
>"What do you mean ordinary stance? I only know ONE stance, the stance of real life and common sense!
I do not know what you are talking about. This has little to do with "common sense" but rather the logical structures being invoked.
>Even so if you don't understand how Fichte's idealism answers this you haven't been paying very much attention.
>If you want to understand Fichte, you have to understand the transcendental stance. Some people are morally incapable of this and nothing can be done for them.
I guess I don't understand how these nonanswers and contradictory answers can actually make a ton of sense. But for some reason, your attitude towards these challenging problems is making me think that perhaps that's okay, and that there is no reason to pursue this road.

Enjoy your Fichte. I hope he makes you feel like you're part of a super secret club that only you and him understand. That's the real point of philosophy, knowing that you're better than everyone in a way that nobody else gets!

>>24466560
>There is nothing transcendental about Aristotle's time.
Exactly. Fichte's account of phenomenal time is the same as Aristotle's account of time simpliciter.
>These aren't just small details. It's a complete change of the premise of the question
I see the misunderstanding now - I actually did know the experiment I just mistyped it to begin with. Like I said I only come here and talk to you retards when I'm sleep deprived. Again, the experiment shows that brain activity temporally precedes decision, but Fichte has demonstrated that time is only a form of intuition and willing, as well as the mind/body interaction, occur outside of time. It's amazing to me that you didn't understand this when I laid his reasoning out step by step over several posts, then came up with this as a 'gotcha!' I suppose you read philosophy with just about the same level of attention.
>I do not know what you are talking about. This has little to do with "common sense" but rather the logical structures being invoked.
I said it depends on the stance. That went over your head. This is not surprising. It's amusing to me how whenever I start one of these threads I face the exact same objections that Fichte did.
>I guess I don't understand how these nonanswers and contradictory answers can actually make a ton of sense.
You would have to study, it would be hard and frustrating, you won't do it because you don't actually care about knowing. "If you can't explain Fichte's philosophy in greentext form it's probably bullshit man! I have a life to live! Enjoy your books nerd!" I actually did explain some things above. But I'm reminded, once again, that most people who use this board are morons, which is why I rarely come here.

>>24466560
If you can't handle philosophy then you can always go popper.

>>24466723
>Exactly. Fichte's account of phenomenal time is the same as Aristotle's account of time simpliciter.
Is there more to Fichte's account of time than the phenomenal? Yes? Then it's not the same account of time.

Stop bullshitting. I hope you don't read with that same level of intellectual sloppiness.

>Fichte has demonstrated that time is only a form of intuition and willing, as well as the mind/body interaction, occur outside of time.
If willing occurs outside of time, then it occurs outside of motion and any measure of motion, which means that there is nothing distinguishing decisions outside of the phenomenal world, and that all will is simple, unified, and unchanging.

You have basically argued yourself out of free will. If that was your intent, then congratulations.

>I actually did explain some things above. But I'm reminded, once again, that most people who use this board are morons, which is why I rarely come here.
You come here quite often and probably have cumulatively typed more words than 90% of /lit/ users. Do not flatter yourself.

>>24466795
And I am supposed to "read Popper" after basically referencing Metaphysics Alpha? Another poster referenced Plato's Phaedo. These are clearly Popper-like sentiments, and you are definitely not being a crass, uncharitable, and butthurt sophist. Where's your self-awareness? If reading Fichte transforms somebody into a person like you, then I want no part of that.

>>24466837
>Is there more to Fichte's account of time than the phenomenal? Yes? Then it's not the same account of time.
All idealist philosophers draw a distinction between the day-to-day and reflection on the day-to-day (transcendental idealism vs. empirical realism as Kant puts it). Aristotle was a philosopher of the day-to-day - a genius too. When someone like Fichte says that time is phenomenal he does not mean "Time isn't real bro if you were a wizard like me you'd know it's all made up", he means something like "The stance of philosophers like Aristotle in which freedom and nature coexist is no longer self-evident. In order to save both, I have to show that I can derive the ordinary stance from freedom itself, i.e. I have to show that freedom and consciousness can exist in nature. Just as a materialist/fatalist might try to somehow derive consciousness from matter to save his point of view, I have to derive matter from consciousness to save mine. Faith in freedom is still faith - you can deny freedom and morality without any theoretical contradiction. But I need to show that it's not an irrational faith." Idealists were trying to steer a middle path between materialists on the one hand and fanatics on the other.

So in the course of these deductions Fichte shows that the various 'moments' of consciousness must be synthesized, and this synthesis is, by definition, outside of time. I talked a bit about this above. Hopefully now you can see that Fichte (or any other idealist) can say 'yes, time is real, it is infinite, it is infinitely divisible, it is the number of motion' (Fichte formulates this differently because of his metaphysics of space but it's the same idea) AND 'in the context of transcendental science, time is not in itself but is the form of inner intuition.'
>If willing occurs outside of time, then it occurs outside of motion and any measure of motion, which means that there is nothing distinguishing decisions outside of the phenomenal world, and that all will is simple, unified, and unchanging.
The extratemporality of the will is not thinkable as such. You can get at least an understanding of how it would work but you would have to abstract from the phenomenal.

Aristotle doesn't talk about time in Metaphysics Alpha it's Physics Delta. Also you're talking to at least two different people. Our numbers grow every day. Aristotle's wonderful but he's a little too... safe. Some of us like to fly a bit higher.

>>24466837
Calm down stotle, this isn't a Descartes thread. You know I hate popper.

Port:
>Aristotle: time doesn't transcend
>Kant: time doesn't transcend but is necessary. And operator with space.
>Fichte: time doesn't transcend but it's born from your own invention and as you process it then you choose to perceive it as occurring outside yourself.

Bottom line: time only doesn't transcend anywhere and Kant won't consider it at all.

>>24466892
(cont'd) here's a quote from a 1799 letter to Jacobi that's relevant to this misunderstanding.

"The original duality, which traverses through the whole system of reason, and
which is grounded in the duality of the subject-object is here on its highest
plateau. LIFE is the TOTALITY of the OBJECTIVE ESSENCE OF REASON;
SPECULATION is the TOTALITY of SUBJECTIVITY. One is not possible
without the other: LIFE, understood as active surrender into the mechanism is
not possible WITHOUT ACTIVITY AND FREEDOM (otherwise called speculation),
WHICH SURRENDERS. This is so even if it does not right away
achieve clear consciousness in each individual. And SPECULATION is not
possible without LIFE, FROM WHICH IT ABSTRACTS.
Both, life and speculation are determinable only through each other. LIFE is actually
NON-PHILOSOPHIZING; PHILOSOPHIZING is actually NON-LIFE,
and I know no better determinations of both concepts than these developed here.
Here we have a complete antithesis and a point of unification
is just as impossible as the understanding of the X, which underlies the subject-object, the
I, as its ground. Such a point of unification is impossible except in the consciousness of the philosopher that for him both points of view are present."

So he's saying exactly what I just said above but with that Fichtean charm. You only enter into speculation by absolutizing the subjective, and here is where you find the ideality of time (and many other notions you would find at least as strange). But if there was no speculation at all, i.e. no transcendental idealism, consciousness could not exist, just as there would be no nature without at least the possibility of natural science. If consciousness exists, there's a consciousness-first stance, and this is The System to which Fichte devoted his life.

>>24466837
>If reading Fichte transforms somebody into a person like you, then I want no part of that.
He still thinks reading philosophy books can turn you into a different person.

>>24466892
Before I begin:
>Aristotle doesn't talk about time in Metaphysics Alpha
This was obviously in reference to the position of wisdom and its value vis-a-vis other skills, trades, and ends, which was to directly rebuke you for the nihilistic position that philosophy is pointless. I don't know how you're mixing posts like this. Those were clearly different points.

>Aristotle was a philosopher of the day-to-day - a genius too.
Aristotle equally commanded the quotidian and the arcane. What is day-to-day about infinity, the categories, the being of number, the unmoved mover, etc.? Nothing.
>When someone like Fichte says that time is phenomenal he does not mean "Time isn't real bro if you were a wizard like me you'd know it's all made up",
The problem with the phenomenal-transcendental divide is that it places the thinking necessary to describe what happens in either category into the transcendental prison, defeating its own ability to ground such explanations.
>The extratemporality of the will is not thinkable as such. You can get at least an understanding of how it would work but you would have to abstract from the phenomenal.
Then what is it thinkable as? This is a cop-out. You haven't even tried to engage with the reasoning behind the post, probably because the priors you are operating on make it impossible to develop a coherent account (as I pointed out earlier).
>Aristotle's wonderful but he's a little too... safe. Some of us like to fly a bit higher.
Okay, Icarus. You should have secured your glider with firmer material before you launched.

>>24467013
>he nihilistic position that philosophy is pointless.
This is not my position. You're going to argue in bad faith, claim some phony moral high ground even though you've been trolling the thread all day, and refuse to think at all, expecting us to virtually spoonfeed you German idealism, all so that you can willfully misunderstand our dumbed-down explanations.
>Aristotle equally commanded the quotidian and the arcane. What is day-to-day about infinity, the categories, the being of number, the unmoved mover, etc.? Nothing.
Great example right here. I've already explained how Aristotle assumes the ordinary stance and how idealism is an advance in a more speculative direction. He is also quite ready to think a proposition is immediate when it actually isn't and I have provided examples of this. I didn't mean 'he's just talking about ordinary stuff'. Metaphysics alpha is actually a counter-argument as he clearly uses the word sophia to refer to a sort of knowledge. You're confused because some translations make it 'wisdom' even though he talks about the 'sophia' of craftspeople etc. Aristotle is the guy who made wisdom (good living, insight into action - phronesis) unknowable and not a part of philosophy at all. Now you won't understand what I meant by 'unknowable', you'll think it means 'impossible, unattainable', etc.
>The problem with the phenomenal-transcendental divide is that it places the thinking necessary to describe what happens in either category into the transcendental prison, defeating its own ability to ground such explanations.
"The problem with geometry is that it places the thinking necessary to describe what happens in either geometry proper or real life into the geometrical prison, defeating its own ability to ground such explanations." It's quite rich that someone who claims to be an Aristotleanon doesn't understand foundationalism. Transcendental explanations are propter quid; the a priori and a posteriori form a perfect circle, just like in Post An.

I'm sick of talking to some bitter midwit with a half-assed understanding of Aristotle. Don't worry, we'll have a job for you in the mines. In the mean time I think you need to study the Organon some more if you want to LARP as an Aristotelian.

>>24467058
>even though you've been trolling the thread all day
I've made like 3 posts in this thread. What are you talking about, all day?
>Great example right here. I've already explained how Aristotle assumes the ordinary stance and how idealism is an advance in a more speculative direction.
The split into ordinary stance versus idealism, etc., presupposes the Cartesian split which would have not only been unrecognizable to the Greeks, it would have been regarded as a regression of ontology. It is untenable.
>Metaphysics alpha is actually a counter-argument as he clearly uses the word sophia to refer to a sort of knowledge. You're confused because some translations make it 'wisdom' even though he talks about the 'sophia' of craftspeople etc.
In no place is it coherent to replace the usage of the term "wisdom" in Metaphysics with the term "knowledge", considering that each term is being used in a different niche for the argument. Wisdom is a special kind of knowledge. And if you're confused by the phronesis-sophia split in Nicomachean Ethics, you may want to consider 982b or the other accounts on what qualities Aristotle attributes to the wise man in Metaphysics Alpha.
>Aristotle is the guy who made wisdom (good living, insight into action - phronesis) unknowable and not a part of philosophy at all.
There are subtleties in Aristotle's investigation of phronesis that seem to escape you, and it belongs to philosophy proper.
>"The problem with geometry is that it places the thinking necessary to describe what happens in either geometry proper or real life into the geometrical prison, defeating its own ability to ground such explanations."
Congratulations, you pseuded yourself into Godel's incompleteness proofs. In any case, it's an ill-fitted analogy because mathematics does not try to self-assert itself the way that reason does. "Where" is the subject matter of the study of reason (which is what the CPR is, a study of reason), and how does it escape the transcendental prison?
>It's quite rich that someone who claims to be an Aristotleanon doesn't understand foundationalism. Transcendental explanations are propter quid; the a priori and a posteriori form a perfect circle, just like in Post An.
The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter. And I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.

>I'm sick of talking to some bitter midwit with a half-assed understanding of Aristotle. Don't worry, we'll have a job for you in the mines.
I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?

Calm down, go for another walk, and return to the thread when you have a coherent argument ready at hand.

>>24465666 (OP)
>quotes Fichte
kek

>>24465666 (OP)
>[Prussian] Socialism with Autistic Characteristics

Or as I like to call it, "Psychometric Hard-L-Liberal Behaviorist Autocracy [Laws of Manu 2.0]"

>>24465764
>That infinite knowledge base is the complete system of science that lies latent a priori in the mind.

Even Leibniz spoke of this, remarking on a latent 'absolute calculus' derivative of a far more ancient origin within Pythagorus, which could account for the relation between disparate things; "The Butterfly Effect" is a vulgarization of an intimation of this-- once understood, retrocausal inention mediated by technology may even be possible (or a hazard--)

>>24467602

>>24467058
explain what the point of philosophy is if it isn't to obtain knowledge. explain how knowledge of the highest principle doesn't translate at all into practical consequences. that sounds like a crazy mental/physical division that doesn't pan out. you make it sound like the point of philosophy is to study complicated networks of thinking that aren't related to reality whatsoever.

so is it just like getting lost in your favorite author's fan fiction universe but more cerebral and pretentious? i don't get it.

you also call aristotle the philosopher of the every-day, but then you say that he has no answer for the most general and important every-day question somebody would have, which is how to live well. that's pretty weird ngl

glad the fichtefaggot is getting run through the mud like le esoteric kant man. the air in these threads is suffocating. we're not shit-eating peasants because we believe in the transformative power of ideas. go mow your lawn youf ucking dope

>>24465666 (OP)
>>24463817

>>24468556
wtf is going on here?

>>24468146
Philosophy as “useless knowledge” is in the Philebus. Aristotle’s conception of theoria is likewise “useless” - it’s a telos and all ends are useless. He goes into this in depth throughout his esoteric works, also in the Protrepticus. Both Plato and (especially) Aristotle rejected the idea that practical wisdom/virtue could be reduced to knowledge. Many great philosophers were not particularly virtuous or “wise”. Philosophy is knowledge for its own sake and because it reflects on first principles it has no use by definition. It’s hilarious that you guys are claiming philosophy=virtue and wisdom citing Plato and Aristotle when they (again especially the latter) are most committed to its uselessness. Anyone who instrumentalizes philosophy has missed the mark. It is true that philosophy can demonstrate the value of virtue but no science can make you virtuous. If you can’t tell right from wrong without reading the NE you’re probably beyond help honestly. What does it tell you when the idealistsnons know the ancients better than those who claim their mantle?

>>24468513
Ideas don’t “transform” you. Learning arguments and thinking discursively will not make you a better person. Philosophy can defend morality against skeptics; it can help you see your way to better political systems; mostly it’s fine and inherently rewarding, just like art. It doesn’t have a goal outside itself. Online, everyone thinks philosophy will make you a wizened wizard with maybe a mystic experience thrown in. Real philosophers do not think this way. It’s actually quite nasty to think philosophy is the path to sagehood because this disenfranchises most people (this is a problem with the Neoplatonists and a big part of why pagan Neoplatonism died out). To say philosophy is useless does not mean it isn’t worth doing - again, all ends are useless. Science is an end in itself, as Fichte says in the Sittenlehre. If you think “this means it says nothing about life!” you still don’t understand me. I can’t cure stupidity.

>>24468146
“How to live well” - listen to your conscience and do the right thing. Pretty simple and you don’t need philosophy to understand this, though philosophy can reflect on this fact and defend it from theoretical objections.

>>24467168
First a moral point - this entire exchange you have ignored all attempts to explain transcendental idealism in (relatively) approachable terms, like here: >>24466892 and here: >>24466929. You are for some reason extremely upset that me and like two other people read German idealism and you want to argue for the sake of arguing. This is a shitty way to behave and demonstrates that whatever "wise philosophical path" you've been following has not born much fruit. There's actually a lot of connection between Plato/Aristotle and the idealists (moreso than for any other modern philosophy), we could be talking about that. Instead you want to take dumb potshots at anything that is said - destruction for the sake of destruction. Again, you bring this arrogant attitude into your reading of philosophers and this is why you do not understand them. You don't study for the sake of studying, for the fun of it - it's just a handle for retarded bickering. You should be ashamed of yourself. Studying Fichte may help though, there is always hope.

I thought you were the same as some of the earlier trolls because you all sound the same and make the same points. You invoke the "Cartesian split" which I answered in one of the posts above - idealism is opposed to Cartesian dualism, the entire point is to show how consciousness and nature are (in some sense, differing in different philosophers) one. German idealism is literally an answer to dualism because scholasticism/Aristotelianism was no longer sufficient. I understand Kant sounds like a dualist, I'm not getting into it with you, you haven't understood a single post I've written. Whatever I say just gives you handles for pointless arguing. Fichte DEFINITELY opposes Cartesian dualism, there is no question on this point. His stance itself, consciousness-first, as explained above, ends up affirming Aristotelian teleology and substantiality (especially in the Sittenlehre). In other words, he does not assume 'surely it's ok for substances to be conscious and free, that fits with common sense metaphysics! It would be excessively skeptical to doubt it!' - this was no longer excessively skeptical in the 18th century, nor is it now. He had to derive it from a higher ground. It's actually pretty cool, maybe you will study him some day. (cont'd)

>>24467168
(cont'd) I can only assume you haven't read Meta A in some time or haven't read it in Greek. He uses "sophistos" to refer to crafts in the very first lectio. "διὸ καὶ τοὺς ἀρχιτέκτονας περὶ ἕκαστον τιμιωτέρους καὶ μᾶλλον εἰδέναι νομίζομεν τῶν χειροτεχνῶν καὶ σοφωτέρους..." I am not confused on the phronesis-sophia "split" - there is no "split" they're apples and oranges. Look up "σοφία" in a dictionary some time - its primitive sense is 'craft', in Aristotle it takes on a specialized sense of 'knowledge of first principles'. Call this 'wisdom' if you want, the point is that learning arguments will not make you "wise" as the term is commonly understood. Nowhere in Meta Alpha does Aristotle speak of the 'wise man' as a 'wise man' as ordinary language understands the term - the wise man is the man who KNOWS first principles. Note that in the Ethics he draws a total distinction between principles of ethical acting (which are states of the bodies) and principles of speculation.
>There are subtleties in Aristotle's investigation of phronesis that seem to escape you, and it belongs to philosophy proper.
You think "because a philosopher investigates ethics, studying philosophy can actually make you ethical or 'wise' in the normal sense of the term." A crude logical error, especially since the entire NE is written against the equation of virtue/'wisdom' (in the common sense of the term, a 'wise person', a good person who knows how to act correctly) with knowledge. Sophia, metaphysics, etc. is knowledge.
>Congratulations, you pseuded yourself into Godel's incompleteness proofs
You really need to study the organon. You are the pseud grabbing onto whatever scraps of knowledge you've picked up to attack the idealistanons. The circularity I spoke of is (again this is all in the Post An) not a vicious circle, but it is true the a posteriori and a priori form a circle, and that immediate premises are indemonstrable. I have no idea what you mean by the 'transcendental prison' - maybe you think transcendental philosophy eliminates the given/nature? Once again, this is not true, and I again refer you to my earlier posts on this subject. These are pseud objections that were already worn out in the 1790s. You're attacking for the sake of attacking with no knowledge of who you're arguing with or what we actually think. (cont'd)

>>24467168
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός not the superlative σοφιστής and give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).

We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."

>>24467168
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός and has nothing to do with σοφιστής and then give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).

We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. Your posts are nothing but internet slang and ignorance - yet you consider yourself to be very very knowledgable, well equipped to take on transcendental idealism even though you haven't read anything but the CPR (and you didn't understand a fucking word of it by the way, whatever you may think to the contrary).

I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."

>>24468831
>Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser.
you or one of your "idealistanon" comrades opened this thread with some nonsense about peasants laboring in the mines for the sin of not mastering some obscure corner of European intellectual history. I get that it was tongue-in-cheek, but it just makes you look like clowns. nerds with full bellies acting out their favored child complex with German Idealism. more evidence that those who are allergic to Schelling treat philosophy as recreation at best, or as a bludgeon they can use against their lessers at worst. since you're so fond of quotes, wish I had that Laruelle quote on me where he calls philosophers pretentious worms wriggling on the face of the earth.

>>24468687
sauces

>>24468586

>>24468866
I'm still blown away at how upset you guys are by us. Would it be vain to think you're jealous of our transcendental mind-powers? "German idealism... what about, like, the starving children in Palestine man." You are self-parody.
>>24468872
Anyone who doesn't recognize 'useless knowledge' as an echo of the Philebus is a pseud. These are the sort of anons who try to pick a fight with the idealists. I do not have my Plato with me but you could just google it. "Useless knowledge... that's NIHILISM!" And then you're (the indefinite you you literalist faggot) quoting Aristotle when one of his main points is that some things cannot be 'for' anything else, and speculative science is one of these things. I know exactly what happens though: you see that we know about something you don't; anything you don't know about must be pointless; so you come in and try to start fights about nothing, without any awareness of what you're attacking. What would Fichte say?

"Common opinion is that philosophy is inborn in man; and hence every one considers himself justified in discussing philosophical matters. How it may be with this inborn philosophy I shall not now investigate; suffice it to say, that my philosophy, which I surely ought to know better than any one, is not inborn, but must be acquired, learned; and can be judged only by those who have learned it."

And then you will think, "Well if it's not extremely simple it's probably just bullshit! Who are these assholes studying for the sake of studying! It's horrible! They're probably fat or something! I don't need this I've read the Metaphysics a couple of times! Why would anyone learn for the sake of learning! There's probably nothing there worth knowing at all! Ahahaha! Tarte a la creme! Tarte a la creme! Tarte a la creme! HA HA HA! TARTE A LA CREME! TARTE A LA CREME!" My forays onto this forum have helped me sympathize with Fichte's hatred for the so-called 'reading public'. Next up: an anon will quote NE 10 and insist it's about a mystickal experience which he hopes he will get to have himself in a few months by half-assed reading of a few books of the Stagyrite.

>>24468872
If you haven't read enough Plato and Aristotle to recognize the references you're not ready for Fichte. Some unwise philosophers: Fichte (very thin-skinned, viciously attacked anyone who criticized him); Maimon (drank himself to death); Kant (addicted to English cheese; stingy); Hume (fat); Russell (chronic masturbator); Nietzsche (chronic masturbator); Michael Scot (witchcraft); Avicebron (acted like a dick in general); Avicenna (drinking, womanizing). All notable philosophers, none of them "wise" in the conventional sense of the word.

>>24468936
>those philosophers who treated philosophy more as a science or ridiculed the pretensions of classical philosophy were chronic masturbators and drunkards
Nothing's lost on you, is it? You sure are arrogant for a hobbyist.

>>24468902
sauce tasty thx

>>24468902
>...people have long since comforted themselves by the proverb, that "Poets are born and not made;" why, then, do they not extend this consolatory proverb to philosophy?

>>24468958
Aquinas thought philosophy was “just” a science too - he was an Aristotelian after all.

There’s this retarded Kulturkampf going on in the states. A set of sad women-hating losers try to appropriate philosophy as part of a “based” new order. Their imaginations are full of “based” bearded wise men (who ofc they’ve barely read and do not understand), and this “based” quasi-Platonic philosophy is supposed to overthrow le evil modernity. Any philosopher after the 13th century is automatically suspect. This is what we’ve seen itt - bitter loser chuds who think premodern philosophy should be a pillar of their new identity. These are the types who think philosophy for its own sake is suspect - no, for them it has to lead to banning contraception or a white ethnostate or tradcath retardation. I know the philosophers you pretend to admire better than you do and I admire them more, too.

>>24469097
And he was fat. I look on all fat theologians with same suspicion I do fat Buddhists, like Dolpopa who had to be carried around on a palanquin. Both were brilliant men. Both were fat. And I'm aware obesity can be mediumistic.

>demented culture war rant apropos of nothing
I've been reading philosophy since before Trump's first term, which is why I find you so insufferable. It has been quite the pleasure provoking you into acting like this. Enjoy the rest of your week. This thread was a waste of time.

>>24465951
Nietzsche is to a great degree a closeted Fichtean/Hegelian as regards to what you have set down on Time and the Will; Deleuze makes it a tad more overt though he himself is a less than candid Hegelian with his schizoanalytic 'innovations'

>>24469131
You’ve said nothing substantive this entire thread, and if you’ve been reading philosophy for decades and haven’t touched the idealists in any significant way, as is clear from your posts (you don’t even know what the transcendental stance is) you haven’t spent your time very well and haven’t been in a position to understand any of the post-idealists. You have no knowledge of any of the philosophers you’ve cited, as I’ve now proven. (You think Aristotle thought metaphysics is something more than knowledge because Sophia is translated as wisdom when it is, in fact, a particular sort of knowledge, viz of first principles; you missed the Philebus reference; you don’t understand Aristotelian foundationalism, *not even recognizing it* and confusing it with Gödel). Every time you open your mouth you expose yourself as a pseud. As Uncle Toby said - “buzz away, little fly. This world is surely wide enough to hold both thee and me.”

>>24466099
>Outside of time they're synthesized in on

In futurity, we play with possibility/-ties-- when we set upon one and act in congress to that desired aim, the idea formed in union with our will is - in a sense - a retrocausal node, the point of rest for that desirous-eidetic inertia in the atemporal noosphere. Historical Time is merely the shadow of Extension, as Space is a shade of Magnitude. We cannot have Subjectivity to call our own at all without that mainline to the atemporal/acausal Infinite, to situate ourselves in Time, and awake each day some new dementia addled Alterity otherwise.

>>24466284
>What I'm fundamentally unclear on is WHY time has to be a form of intuition.

Alterity and Necessity (ananke): space to delimit the Body from the World, time to delimit the historical I's experience(s) against its inherent timelessness as Absolute Finite.

>>24466440
>RATHER, it is the fact that there are detectable patterns of signals that can be recognized up to 11 seconds before the DECISION.

The Global War on Terror, Afghanistan. Nodes are placed on soldier's heads on convoys. The goal is to see if premonition - gut feeling - might anticipate the presence of IEDs ahead of time, far enough in advance and with sufficient reproducibility to prevent causalities. The sensors were linked to a light-- if a certain threshold was passed, the driver would see a light turn on for the signal to halt the convoy:

It worked 80% of the time or better. There was a push to operationalize the system outside of this unit on the basis of these field studies, but was quashed without explanation.

>>24468513
Dude is giving Fichte a bad name. Never seen somebody so hypocritical, so lacking in self-awareness on this board. And that says a lot. A big disappointment, all in all.

>>24465666 (OP)
Speak of the Koenigsberg devil--

>>24468687
Neither Plato nor Aristotle fully rejected virtue = knowledge. What you said about Plato is tantamount to denying that P ever brought up the virtue = knowledge debate, anything he had said about the Form of the Good, etc. The chief reason that A thinks that practical wisdom *may not always* involve knowledge is due to the fact that its subject involves always changing factors. However, there are permanent factors which one can learn to grow better in judgment.
>>24468734
It seems like you have never had to face a situation where you had to articulate why one choice was right and another choice was wrong. Nearly everybody "listens" to their conscience.

>>24468774
This is quite sad to see. I hate how overused this term is, but I think most of your post can be boiled down to projection. You wear your insecurities on your sleeve, despite your attempt to portray a strong front. Anyway, I will provide the following:

1. *I* have answered the problems of German idealism in approachable terms. *You* haven't, and you provided cop-outs when prompted to explain yourself. I actually quite like German idealism, and I do not understand why you think anybody would be upset by the study of it.

2. You do not believe that philosophy has an end. That means you automatically think all this arguing is merely for the sake of arguing.

3. I would immediately silence myself if you were capable of teaching me something. I come into these threads to learn from experts. My frustration emerges because you refuse to make your writings coherent and intelligible.

4. Your quote from NE is that the architects are "wiser"... because Aristotle is making the point that knowledge is closer to wisdom than experience or knack, using the productive arts as an analogy. He does not call knowledge of the crafts wisdom proper. In fact, he already *has* a name for craft, and it is not sophia. It is techne (which is also a term that Aristotle uses that cannot be replaced). There is no primitive or focal sense of sophia where it is considered to be craft. You are extremely confused about the basic inner-workings of the text. I could go on more and more about the issues you have brought up, but the last part is to demonstrate why such debates with you are pointless.

5. In addition to arguing for the sake of arguing, you are a hopeless liar, you project your resentment onto others, and you fail to take any responsibility for what you have said. For example, you said you never claimed that I claimed to be an Aristotleanon. Well, you said so in simple language here: >>24467058
>It's quite rich that someone who claims to be an Aristotleanon...
Are you going to pull a Jordan Peterson on me? >"What do you mean by someone? What do you mean by who? What do you mean by claim?" Take responsibility!

It is also worth pointing out that you were the person calling people peasants and retards throughout this entire thread. The worst I said was that you were dodging the problem.

>>24470722
All “ends” are useless. To say philosophy has no “end” does not mean it’s worthless. Uselessness is not worthlessness. My point is simple: learning and thinking do not make you good or wise in the ordinary sense. But this is all philosophy is. Philosophy considers the good life but it doesn’t make you good, it’s not even an effective way to become good. (Most good people are not philosophers; many who know a lot about philosophy are not particularly good). It’s that simple and this is also what Aristotle says - Sophia (= first philosophy) is a kind of science, an episteme. So what’s the “cash value” as James would say? “All men by nature desire to know.” Aristotle defines Sophia in for example ne 6 - it’s science, a “speculative virtue”. You’re trying to claim a phony moral high ground when the fact is you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think reading philosophy makes you good and wise - good luck with that.

>>24469662
Bullshit. I want to talk about him in a thoughtful way but pseuds come out of the woodwork - “omg why would you study a thinker so intensely! You’re a slave!” “Fichte is basically a Cartesian” etc None of you know jack shit, there is no one to talk to here. “What do you mean philosophy is useless?” Christ almighty. You have this one guy still insisting that Aristotle didn’t conceive of philosophy as knowledge for the sake of knowledge, etc. Philosophy attracts septic pseuds. I’m right on every point I’ve raised. I also tried to have serious discussion above with no takers.

So I have the J. M. D. Meikeljohn translation of the Critique of Pure Reason, is this a bad one? The introduction makes it seem like the translator really knows what they're doing and heavily criticizes all the other existing versions, but I assume that's a necessary aggression to justify why your translation exists. It has a healthy amount of endnotes. Any good?

>>24472378
Meiklejohn is readable.

>>24472365
I don't know about you, but philosophy has clarified what is important in my life and how to think through genuine problems. A good example is how many spooky ideas and retarded memes are easily reducible to "that's just your personal tradeoff of risk and reward" or "some imitation of somebody else's personal tradeoff". Philosophy provided me with the tools to see that clearly, which makes it much easier to actually build better habits and lifestyles, i.e build moral virtue. It also liberated me from politics, because politics just became a problem of "what do people want? how do we solve these problems?", and then I realized that nobody really knows what they want, and they just want everything to be fixed without any tradeoffs from the solution. You could easily say "well, don't let dumb ideals get in the way of treating other people well and doing the right thing", but that's easier said than done. How many core values do you have that you've clung to like idols since you were young that have motivated you, only for you to find that they weren't very good for you or others?

That's just one example. So... how is nous not supposed to make you be a better person? It seems very clear to me that it does if you actually apply it to ideas and concerns that matter in your life and affect your behavior.