>My doctrine is at it's core an attempt to develop a system of practical philisophy whose aim is to obtain the aim of speculative philosophy: the system of omniscience-- through a priori means. It is the redemption of armchair metaphysics against the pretensions of empirical "science".


So I was thinking today about this post from the esoteric kantanon, and realized the guy probably just has severe mental illness, maybe OCD, because how the hell can anyone know all the particular knowledge of the empirical sciences a priori? That just sounds insane, and not in a good way. We scientists spend years investigating small parts of nature, and not individually mind you, but as academic communities with many people contributing to research, and even then we are but scratching the tip of an iceberg whose size below the surface we cannot fathom. Yet this little goblino fan thinks he can know all this just by thinking about it on his armchair? It would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating. And then ignorant retards read his shit and might actually believe him. That's the worst part.

>>24485940 (OP)
He is shitposting. He literally thinks that a buman being can achieve omniscience. I confronted him with the fact that he has never a priori intuited a single empirical fact and that it is impossible for anyone to believe in his stupid bullshit because everybody knows that omniscience and a priori knowledge of empirical facts is impossible. Of course he simply doubled down and claimed that his abstract nonsense proves that it is possible even though he has never done it and the alchemical techniques or imagination meditation or whatever he thinks will allow him to have a priori knowledge of empirical facts have obviously never succeeded assuming he has even tried it at all. Either he is a shitposter or he is an egomaniacal liar like every cult leader in history.

>>24485948
I used to think it was shitposting too, but the amount of text and frequency of posting caused me believe he was actually serious. At first it was kind of interesting, but then I was like come on, really? Seek help dude.

>>24485965
>the amount of text
He has admitted that AI is his “writing partner.” He most likely wrote a couple posts, fed them into the AI and told it to write more with minimal prompts

>>24485940 (OP)
Everything he talks about is legitimate post-Kantian philosophy presented in a silly form. That Kant is a crypto-rationalist? Maimon tried to fuse Leibniz and Kant because he thought it was the only way to overcome Kant’s dualisms. Fichte also thought Leibniz was a sort of proto-Kantian as did Schelling. Deriving all the laws of nature a priori? That’s Schelling. Man being unified in God, us being an “appearance” of God? That’s Fichte. The idea that Kant has esoteric meanings? They literally all said this in one way or another. It’s a testament to how shit this board is that no one picks up on this. His shtick is to read post-Kantians into Kant, say it’s what Kant really meant all along, and present it in an outrageous/garish way. Pretty sure he just wants to talk about idealism with people but this board is 99.99% pseud.

>>24485940 (OP)
The simple rebuke is this:
All a priori knowledge is just tautology, repeating the same thing in different terms.
We know all bachelors are unmarried males because unmarried male is literally the definition of bachelor, it's just restating the meaning in other words.
We know 2+2=4 a priori because 2+2 is just another way of writing 4.
Thus no new information can be gained without experience, and besides, we need experience to learn that others use these symbols and words to mean things in the first place.

>>24486010
> Deriving all the laws of nature a priori?
This is not what esoteric kanttard says, he says that through his schizophrenic notion of imagination it is possible to be omniscient and have knowledge of concrete empirical facts. He identifies intellectual intuition with the imaginative faculties of the schizoautist.
> It’s a testament to how shit this board is that no one picks up on this.
I said many times that it is just bastardized hegelianism. I pointed out how his notion of the connection between sensibility and the understanding and of intellectual intuitions is inferior to what Schopenhauer already said. The problem is that he not only presents this as his own original ideas, but as the true and orthodox interpretation of Kant that “normies” cant see because Kant was “trolling” them.
He doesn’t want to discuss anything. When people reply he does not address their point or simply says “filtered” or ignores them entirely. He is only here to masturbate himself and solidify his status as a micro ecelebrity, who newfags will think is actually intelligent.

>>24486022
I said above that he expresses these ideas in an “outrageous/garish way”. I remember when people on 4chan had a sense of humor, back in the day. Now it’s just super-serial incels.

>>24486078
He has been shitting up the board with sometimes multiple threads a day for like two years, if he was trying to be humorous he did a really good job of killing it. And he never engages with anyone, makes any jokes or indicates that he is being serious in any way. I made a lot of shitposts that riffed on his posts. Now it’s no longer fun to even do that

>>24486019
You’re confusing analytic propositions with the a priori. For someone like Schelling empirical facts and the principle of identity form a great big circle. You might as well object to laws of nature because they’re a priori in the same logical sense. I’m not saying Schelling was right but this is why he ignores most objections - they’re retarded “gotchas” leveled by people who don’t get the joke, know little about philosophy, and absolutely nothing about idealism. The worst are the ones who have read cpr once or twice, maybe some Schopenhauer, and think they’re at wizard level. Some of the most septic posters I’ve encountered here have been pseudo-Kantians, especially the ones who think their thing in itself is an entity beyond space and time that somehow comes along and “causes” intuition. (Get ready if we’re lucky one of them will pop up here with a fistful of quotes he doesn’t understand). Everyone wants to argue and show off their bits of knowledge. Exceedingly few actually study.

>>24486110
> or indicates that he is being serious in any way
Not being serious*
And when you confront him on his bullshit, he doesn’t indicate that he wasn’t being fully serious, he just doubles down without a hint of irony

Honestly, this was supposed to be kind of a bait thread. I hadn't seen his posts in a while and haf been wanting him to elaborate more on his system, but I haven't seen him post in a while. Esoteric kantanon I summon you. Dispute with us.

>>24486182
I've been hibernating. Inspiration is on a hiatus. The system is at a standstill. The Faustian hubris has taken its toll on my intellect. I am too tired to dispute. When the inspiration returns I will post again--meanwhile, I am among the lurkers.

>>24486182
Read Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre if you want to understand what he’s doing.

“All that activity can ever reflect upon is pure willing, which is the highest thing that is determinable. What is determinable in this case is the overall realm of reason as such. This totality is limited and determined, prior to anything else, by thinking of a concept that limits me (individuality). This provides us with something objective, which, at the same time, is something determinable for the empirical will. Three distinct levels are present here: (1) The level of pure will, or the level of reason as a whole. This is the highest thing that is determinable. (2) But the latter is further determined whenever, in consequence of a concept of having to limit ourselves, anything is extracted from it through individuality. (3) This individuality is what is determinable for a particular moment of consciousness, i.e. it is what is determinable for a determinate will. An act of empirical willing is a mere act of reflecting upon pure willing as such. This empirical act of willing - appearing as an act of willing - becomes my entire self-activity. Accordingly it is only an appearance and nothing in itself.”

That’s what genuine esoteric Kantianism is like. (Note the Phaedrus echoes.) It’s a profound philosophy and if you’re intrigued by the Kantanon, read Fichte.

>>24486440
How is this omniscience tho?

I loathe this dork and his hanger-ons. Notice how they never engage with the Wheeleranon who tries to contribute in their threads. Either they're not familiar with his terminology and have no interest in broadening their horizons, or they think they're above him. Fichtefag thinks philosophy is glorified sudoku. Give me the old schizo threads of /lit/ any day.

>>24487749
>Wheeleranon
who's that?

>>24487755
Guy who eventually slips into these threads and starts talking about Ananke. If you're on the verge of omniscience you should be able to correlate what another tradition is saying to what you're saying. I've never seen these idealist grand magi engage with him once.

>>24487759
>Ananke
What's that?

>>24487785
Greek word for fate. Pic rel is what I'm talking about. Crickets every time he posted. And nothing he's saying is schizo babble. He speaks with precision.

>>24487759
>>24487796
There's always a no-mind guy who shows up and wants a calculation. Keep taking that pre-workout ananke anon. Some things are just meant to be enjoyed as they are I suppose.

>>24487914
Speak plainly

>>24488038
I dont think that's possible in this particular case. He likely means well. In ancient times to gift no-mind was considered a high honor.

>>24488089
Oh, I thought you were making fun of him. Disregard.

>>24488127
making fun of who?

>>24488200
The Wheeleranon.

>>24485940 (OP)
>and realized the guy probably just has severe mental illness
Isn't that the point of it? Go schizo that you see the underlying patterns and can understand them empirically?

>>24487749
I really don’t think philosophy is a game, I think it’s an end in itself, like art or literature. Of course these activities have “benefits” but if you’re trying to concretely improve your life, studying won’t do this. It’s unbelievably pretentious to claim otherwise frankly. I explained this last time but you didn’t understand then either. You don’t understand Kant and you don’t understand Aristotle either. You are a septic pseud who wants to argue and attack people for the hell of it.

This is the guy who didn’t recognize a reference to post an, didn’t know that “useless knowledge” is in the Philebus, claims to love idealism but thinks Kant is trapped in a “transcendental prison”, etc. He claims to have been reading philosophy for decades. Wasted time apparently.

I’ll repeat what I said in the last thread again - virtue is not knowledge, neither Plato nor Aristotle thought this. You think Sophia=wisdom=“a wise man” even though it’s a technical term in Aristotle referring to the first science which he defines more than once. You are a pathetic fake, and I’m not a “hanger on” of the Kantanon he doesn’t even have a system to hang onto, the whole thing is a joke.

I like Esoteric Kantanon. He may be a schizo who monomaniacally obsesses over his system, but he's clearly sincere about advancing philosophy, even if it's in his own wacko way. We need more sincere posters here instead of miserable cynics who are afraid of sincerely affirming anything novel.

>>24487759
I’ve never read Wheeler and I don’t think the Kantanon has either. I’ve had threads where I talked about Fichte without jargon which were really rewarding, that guy just pops in and posts what is (to us) gobbledygook. What do you expect? Honestly if he’s someone you read he’s probably retarded.

>>24488643
He also thinks Kant and Fichte are basically Cartesians. Unbelievable stuff from someone who projects so much confidence. He thinks the NE is meant to “prove” what’s right and wrong when Aristotle’s ethics is almost completely empirical (the “function argument” notwithstanding) - it doesn’t prove anything, it’s practically a catalogue of the “virtues” current in A’s time and place. Every philosopher he’s mentioned who I actually know is mangled by him beyond recognition. He also has no sense of humor, like I had a fichtethread with a silly “anti normie” op and he thought it was serious, he misreads every one of my posts.

Why? How could someone be so wrong when he says he reads philosophy? Simple: he’s not into careful reading and thinking, that would be “glorified sudoku”. He reads in a half assed way because he doesn’t think the essence of philosophy (careful thought about first principles) actually matters, he just wants a bit of entertainment, a cheap buzz as it were, and in the back of his head thinks it might someday make him a bearded Wise Man. A complete faggot all around.

I already know the pseud arguments he will raise. (“An empirical argument is an argument!” etc). He’ll willfully misread me, he might even do this phony “this makes me sad” thing etc. Life’s too short to argue with a moron. I come here to try to talk about Kant and Fichte, once in a while I have an interesting conversation, usually it’s just a shower of bitter, argumentative pseuds like him.

>>24488643
Nta but your first point was interesting. Kant's core system can still be performed and the amount of updating you want to do is dependent on you. It might even be a worthwhile claim to say Kant's system is a standalone. The biggest problems it will always encounter are non-reciprocation of external world acknowledgement, non-reciprocity of the categorical imperative, and difficulty expressing duties to others unfamiliar with the system. The subsequent German Idealists created and expanded from that and picked and chose the parts they liked or just made other standalone systems. Hegel foresaw most of these problems and basically created methods in response. All of those guys held the truth to a high regard.

Gamification of educational disciplines is mostly a modern development and from what I've seen the German Idealists can still show up. It was considered the most dangerous school of thought for a reason. Almost everyone of them challenged the world in some way.

Some have said I’m slavishly devoted to Fichte - no I’m just interested in him, I think he’s very underrated, understudied, and misunderstood, sometimes even by scholars of German idealism. (Any article you read that claims Fichte’s first principle in SoK is the self-positing of empirical consciousness should be ignored). I like that he remains within Kantian bounds - for the most part nothing he says is extravagant. His whole thinking is like a beautiful, autistic meditation on normal life. He wants to show how consciousness and nature can be unified; he wants, not to prove that life is meaningful (which is impossible) but to lead you to think carefully about this meaningfulness. And his mode of thought is just wild - very creative, not like anyone else. He constantly changes his presentation, a real virtuoso. No other philosopher I’ve read is like him.

I am struggling with his theory of the eternity (=extratemporality) of the pure will in the 79 lectures, it seems like he’s overreaching. Why does the will have to be outside of time? “Because it’s a principle of experience” yeah but it isn’t the first principle. “You could have no beginning of consciousness because how could you form a concept of a goal unless you knew that you had a will? How can you begin with something abstract?” Any time you know something abstract you know the concrete too at least in potency! In the 75 “On What is Distinctive” he accounts for the ideality of time just like he does space - time is a necessary determination of the manifold of inner sense. That’s rational. But to claim a reality “beyond time”, the pure will - one of Fichte’s advantages over Kant is that he normally avoids even the appearance of that kind of thing. Tl;dr - it’s a neat theory but it’s transcendent, or so it seems to me for now. I can understand the idea of God being beyond time; I can understand the ideality of time; I don’t follow him in putting the will itself outside of time (in its synthetic aspect anyway). But I’ll keep thinking about it, these are easy objections, I’m probably misunderstanding him. I remember when I first started I thought the infinitude of the absolute in SoK was the potential infinity of the free subject (IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT). Fichte demands patience and maximum charity.

>>24488687
Yeah I don’t mean that philosophy has nothing to say about life. Some of the arguments I’ve made on this point are also in Fichte’s Sun-Clear Account and this is the guy who also wanted a socialist overthrow (whether gradual or violent) of the existing state. I just don’t think philosophy is self-help, which is more or less what that guy thinks.

To me (and Fichte) the categorical imperative is one of the weakest points in Kant - ethics can’t be formal, it deals with particulars. What we seem to have in fact is not a “rule” but a conscience that tells us to treat people right, it depends on a feeling (not a sentiment but still a feeling). So for Fichte a philosopher just shows how this conscience arises, he doesn’t lay down a law - no law is even understandable apart from conscience, conscience comes first, any verbal law is at best a formulation of a demand of conscience.

I certainly don’t think philosophy is a game or a mere amusement, but I do think it’s knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Just because philosophy talks about ethics and politics doesn’t mean imo that philosophy *as such* can make someone good or that this is its purpose.

>>23376770
The Kant poster dude never recovered from this.

>>24488914
from what? why'd you delete post?

>>24488747
That's a fair point, he basically promised to only present a reality that is relevant to whomever he was speaking. If someone is consistently of the mind that philosophy is just self help then it is likely that is the reality they consistently present. It might be a somewhat normative view at large.

There are hosts of situations where the imperative might be considered rigid, and just as many situations where it might pose a challenge to existing institutions, and just as many cases where it can produce complex outputs that may not be readily apparent. Some current topics usually contrast perfectly ethical vs reliably ethical. In some cases the parties involved don't want perfectly ethical. This may sound malign but there are situations where it can be benign. This is something you may encounter frequently in proofing wherein one party may not see any use for universal instantiation and another party might still be looking for a restriction on a variable. Kant's own writings seem to indicate he took this as normative, this means his system can work everywhere but the individual using it does matter. Another reason you can spend years of study on him.

>ask anyone the extent of what they know
>the answer will last as long as you are willing to listen

>>24485940 (OP)
>Kantianism
It's all just utilitarianism with lipstick and a dress put on, there's no point exhausting yourself over such things.

Bump

>>24488725
>extratemporality
Not hard to understand. The will is an identity of subject and object but these are separated in time. How can you say soul and body are one if at moment A you’re deliberating and at B you’re breaking through limits? The pure will outside of time is a way of overcoming dualism.
>>24487796
>>24487914
Schizo trash, shits up the board, not entertaining or informative. I guess stoners think this sounds like philosophy.

>>24489087
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23376378#p23376770

>>24491236
lol that’s a great post. Why did he delete it?

I do try to talk about idealism seriously, I had a convo with a Heideggeranon about Fichte’s theory of predestination that went on for days and ran to like 100+ long posts between the two of us. Shit I tried to get something going right here: >>24488725. I don’t make junk spam threads, tho I’m not above some silliness (Socialism with Autistic Characteristics). The fact is most of this board is zoomer pseuds so it hardly ever works, you just get trolls and retardation. Still there’s always the distant possibility I’ll run into someone worth talking to so I keep trying.

>>24491260
Literally no one studies Fichte. There are maybe 14 Anglophone Fichte scholars in the entire world. If you learned Hegel or Schopenhauer you would find people to talk with, as it is you are wasting your time.

>>24491315
NTA. Is the fact that no one studies a certain thinker evidence that said thinker is not worth studying? Philosophy is an ongoing conversation and not a popularity contest. If Fichte's thoughts are still relevant today or studying them might lead me somewhere new then it doesn't matter if no one else is studying him.

>>24491315
True Fichteans must learn German.

>>24486022
>This is not what esoteric kanttard says
He says both actually

>>24486002
I only used AI for this thread. Everything elseI wrote using my own superior intellect.

>>24491377
I think about doing this (obv Gottlieb and Nini and Zoller read German!). I’m just not convinced it’s worth it desu, for a hobbyist. The greatest Aristotelians were reading him not just in translation but in pretty bad translations. I don’t doubt you get something from it but dunno if it’s really worth the time for me.

Another factor with the eternity of the will - yes what Fichte says about its being impossible for consciousness to start with determinability (=making a choice) because you wouldn’t know you had a will if you hadn’t actually willed before is odd, a more important point still stands - determinability depends on determinacy (=actually having willed/done something) because the entire sensible manifold only arises by reflecting on a check on your will. He unites determinacy and determinability in one moment only for the intelligible world (=at the first moment of consciousness you have a will and an “ought” *and* the necessary thought of a sphere of rational beings, so the “ought”/your will instantly has something to which it refers).

“One of the best objections one could raise against transcendence idealism is as follows: ‘If nature is your own product, then how is it that you are nevertheless able to learn things from nature? If nature is your own product, then how is any research into nature possible? How could you perform any experiments? You must already be acquainted with nature. Therefore, despite what you claim, nature must also contain for you something more, something you did not expect to find. But this is the characteristic feature of ((posited being)). Consequently, you cannot have produced nature.’

Answer: Here we do no more than learn about ourselves and employ our faculty of judgment to analyze what is posited by the imagination. Nature in its entirety is a product of the imagination.”

Top kek this is why Fichte became a footnote, he simply refused to compromise with normie thinking. He’s actually not crazy and if you understand his philosophy that answer makes perfect sense.

>>24491444
There was a time when the universe existed yet there were no conscious beings. This fact refutes this retarded notion.

>>24491485
Of course there was. Earlier in this same set of lectures Fichte goes out of his way to say that this is so, because he had heard this dogmatist’s “gotcha!” before. It’s simply a failure to understand the transcendental stance. The entire universe, even as it existed before us, places we haven’t seen yet, etc, is still only conceivable in relation to the thinker or observer. You think this means “there has to be some dude there watching it happen”. If the past universe was something in itself it would be unthinkable and unknowable. Dogmatism is a mental illness.

>>24491512
> is still only conceivable in relation to the thinker or observer
no one denies this, it simply doesn’t justify your claim. Kant’s gay little formula “transcendentally ideal, empirically real” was meaningless garbage. The problem is not that I don’t understand it. The problem is that it is retarded.

>>24491521
>transcendentally ideal, empirically real” was meaningless garbage
>meaningless
admittedly filtered

>>24491521
>no external world
>nothing to test
>muh I know something but don't have anything to show for it
>muh god told me
>muh don't try to tell me nothing cuz pomo made me terrified of the external world

I hope all of you are starting to realize why the world pitched Descartian twattery into the trash.

>>24491521
Alright let me stop trolling/being a dick and get real with you. Dogmatism isn't a mental illness, it's a natural way of thought toward which we are oriented because it is, in fact, closest to the practical standpoint, i.e. the standpoint of daily life. In daily life we think of objects existing independently outside of us, and of ourselves as free beings. We think of external objects as both a) passively cognizable, and b) in relation to acting, either as things we can change, or as obstacles to our acting. This perspective is absolutely true and it would be madness to deny it. Transcendental idealism is only trying to explain and defend this ordinary standpoint.

Dogmatism arises when you make being qua passively cognizable the first and only principle of reality. The natural scientist of course takes a 'dogmatic' stance - if you're investigating the laws of physics, you are not considering the object of your inquiry as something that stands in relation to consciousness, but as something in itself. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. But if you absolutize this stance and think that passive being, operating under laws of necessity, is actually the ground of all reality, there is no longer any room for freedom, consciousness, or morality. People who try to artificially 'synthesize' the two are begging the question. Aristotelians (especially neo-Thomists nowadays) who claim there is no problem are stuck in the middle ages - there is a reason many naturalists have trouble accepting free will etc. It's not enough to say 'ackshually, form is prior to matter, so free will makes sense' - to a materialist this is gross question begging, *even if what they are saying is true* (Fichte himself arrives at this point of view).

The dogmatist/materialist can always say "freedom is by definition supernatural, something that operates on its own without obeying any laws - how can this be? How could freedom even exist in nature?" This is what transcendental idealism is answering (particularly in Fichte's case) by deducing nature from freedom, deducing freedom *into* nature and overcoming dualism. In the same way materialists try (and fail) to deduce consciousness and freedom from nature. This is an artificial, philosophical perspective - Fichte calls it a "fiction" in one of his letters to Schelling. (The standpoint of natural science is also ofc a "fiction", it abstracts from consciousness itself, even if it examines empirical consciousness in e.g. psychology or cognitive science).

Within this fictitious perspective you can say things like "everything is a product of the imagination" and it is true and not schizo at all. You're reading idealism as if it's written in ordinary language and concerns itself with the ordinary standpoint. The Kantanon likes to write as if idealism gives you some true picture of reality that only a wizard can know but he is trolling. This fiction is still 'true' inasmuch as it's a theory that explains reality.

>>24492219
>no external world
Yes to the external world, but no to a world that is somehow outside of consciousness, which is a world in which consciousness could not exist.
>nothing to test
Idealism is an a priori science, of course there's nothing to test.
>muh I know something but don't have anything to show for it
True, it's knowledge for its own sake. If you don't think anything is worth learning unless it can produce some new gizmo philosophy is not for you. At best it gives an answer to materialists, but most materialists aren't sufficiently speculatively inclined to understand the texts. It could inspire you to be a better person in the same way a good novel could. But that's about it - nothing will "come of" knowing what a blind intuition is, or how (transcendentally speaking) time arises from the oscillation of the productive imagination.
>muh god told me
For Fichte God is, as it were, the 'goal' of the moral law, which is inconceivable because we never reach a 'goal', rather we are always in time so long as we exist. If you don't think there is such a thing as right and wrong, idealism won't make sense to you. Of course the idealist shows how duty arises from reciprocity of the subject-object but if this deduction doesn't refer to anything you actually experience (this is something the idealist also explains), then yeah it will be meaningless. "Bad people need punishment, not argument" as Aristotle put it. Fichte says you have to believe in freedom to enter his system (which does not PROVE freedom but shows how freedom is compatible with nature, just as the dogmatist cannot actually PROVE his own stance). But someone who thinks freedom = the freedom to calculate what means will most efficiently produce pleasure isn't free in the first place.
>muh don't try to tell me nothing cuz pomo made me terrified of the external world
I don't know what this means.
>I hope all of you are starting to realize why the world pitched Descartian twattery into the trash.
Transcendental idealism is anti-Cartesian and anti-subjectivist. I realize it doesn't sound that way if you just skim through a few pages of an idealist book without thinking it through. As I explained above the idealist starts with consciousness but he doesn't end with consciousness, he ends in unity. (cont'd)

>>24492454
(cont'd)

"Insofar as this determinable whole is referred to the duality of the act of determining and determinate being, it itself appears as a whole in two different ways: in relation to the determining subject, what is determinable is my body; in relation to a determinate being, what is determinable is the entire world. Thus we here obtain an important result: I = X; I as soul and I as body: these are simply two different aspects of the very same thing. Furthermore, I as body and the sensible world outside of me are also particular aspects of one and the same thing. I = X, body, mind, and sensible world; these are simply different ways of looking at exactly the same thing. This constitutes the spirit of transcendental idealism." (Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy, 1799, sect. 17)

Ofc many people here will interpret this in a schizo, quasi-mystical sense, which is not at all intended. Still this quote is a good illustration of how even the most (supposedly) 'subjectivist' idealist of them all, Fichte, was anti-Cartesian.

>>24492454
> If you don't think anything is worth learning unless it can produce some new gizmo philosophy is not for you. At best it gives an answer to materialists, but most materialists aren't sufficiently speculatively inclined to understand the texts.
You are fucking insufferable. All of you opponents are people who don't understand, who aren't speculatively inclined, F I L T E R E D, and so on, in every thread. No, most of us are not inclined to spend months learning how to read gibberish prose especially when by your own admission it's just a way of thinking about common sense. You think you're smarter than everyone else here for being able to read this stuff. In fact, you are a retard for having wasted so much time on it.

>>24492454 (You)
> If you don't think anything is worth learning unless it can produce some new gizmo philosophy is not for you. At best it gives an answer to materialists, but most materialists aren't sufficiently speculatively inclined to understand the texts.
You are fucking insufferable. All of your opponents don't understand, aren't speculatively inclined, F I L T E R E D, in every thread. No, most of us are not inclined to spend months learning how to read gibberish prose especially when by your own admission it's just a way of thinking about common sense. You think you're smarter than everyone else here for being able to read this stuff. In fact, you are a retard for having wasted so much time on it.

>>24492454
> If you don't think anything is worth learning unless it can produce some new gizmo philosophy is not for you. At best it gives an answer to materialists, but most materialists aren't sufficiently speculatively inclined to understand the texts.
You are fucking insufferable. All of your opponents are don't understand, aren't speculatively inclined, F I L T E R E D, and so on, in every thread. No, most of us are not inclined to spend months learning how to read gibberish prose especially when by your own admission it's just a way of thinking about common sense. You think you're smarter than everyone else here for being able to read this stuff. In fact, you are a retard for having wasted so much time on it.

>>24492454
> If you don't think anything is worth learning unless it can produce some new gizmo philosophy is not for you. At best it gives an answer to materialists, but most materialists aren't sufficiently speculatively inclined to understand the texts.
You are fucking insufferable. All of your opponents don't understand, aren't speculatively inclined, F I L T E R E D, and so on, in every thread. No, most of us are not inclined to spend months learning how to read gibberish prose especially when by your own admission it's just a way of thinking about common sense. You think you're smarter than everyone else here for being able to read this stuff. In fact, you are a retard for having wasted so much time on it.

>>24492454
Hmm, the external world is the external world. Asterisks don't mean much, if neither of you can make it that far then neither of you wants to perform a calculation.

The free exchange of ideas is not something I'm interested in impeding. To me I was looking at a potentially endless display of nuh uhs. If the other party can't make it to something transcendental then it is unlikely to matter. I could conjecture a lack of relevance but that's your call.

>>24492543
>Hmm, the external world is the external world.
I tried to explain the significance here: >>24492433
But yes, if you want some exciting conclusion, you will be disappointed. Transcendental philosophy contemplates experience, it rejects the possibility of going beyond experience.
>Asterisks don't mean much, if neither of you can make it that far then neither of you wants to perform a calculation.
If you think you can go beyond discursive knowing into a realm beyond - God speed you but that's mysticism, not philosophy. Philosophy is a way of thinking. As far as I can figure out your posts we're just doing completely different things. You often imply that your own not-thinking thinking is superior to thinking or explains thinking. Hegel has a good line here:
"This is an intensity without content, which, although it makes out as if it were a sheer force without dispersion, is in fact no more than superficiality itself. The force of spirit is only as great as its expression, and its depth only goes as deep as it trusts itself to disperse itself and to lose itself in its explication of itself. At the same time, if this substantial knowing, itself so totally devoid of the concept, pretends to have immersed the very ownness of the self in the essence and to philosophize in all spirit and truth, then what it is really doing is just concealing from itself the fact that instead of devoting itself to God, it has, by spurning all moderation and determinateness, instead simply given itself free rein within itself to the contingency of that content and then, within that content, given free rein to its own arbitrariness. While abandoning themselves to the unbounded fermentation of the substance, the proponents of that view suppose that, by throwing a blanket over self-consciousness and by surrendering all understanding, they are God's very own, that they are those to whom God imparts wisdom in their sleep. What they in fact receive and what they give birth to in their sleep are, for that reason also only dreams."
>The free exchange of ideas is not something I'm interested in impeding. To me I was looking at a potentially endless display of nuh uhs.
The 'nuh uhs' as you put it are part of thinking. You're pretending to take a higher ground above thinking but in fact you're playing a silly game with the whole thing.
>If the other party can't make it to something transcendental then it is unlikely to matter.
You don't know what 'transcendental' means (in this context). It's like because idealist prose looks like gibberish you think it actually is gibberish, respond with your own gibberish (which is actually gibberish), and are disappointed to learn that we're not actually talking gibberish after all, but are thinking and philosophizing.
>>24492533
I'll deal with you later.

>>24492575
I haven't seen anything transcendental. There doesn't have to be a spectacular conclusion. There are plenty of knowledgeable anons here. If the both of you are content then I'll leave you both to it.

>>24492543
(cont'd) I mean are you the same anon as >>24489442? I only quit responding because what you're saying doesn't make sense.
>There are hosts of situations where the imperative might be considered rigid, and just as many situations where it might pose a challenge to existing institutions, and just as many cases where it can produce complex outputs that may not be readily apparent.
Kant thought the categorical imperative was nothing but a scientific formulation of the golden rule. Whether he was right or not is another question. He did not conceive of it as a novel formula that might produce 'complex outputs that may not be readily apparent', he thought someone following the CI would simply be a dutiful, stuffy German man like himself.
>Some current topics usually contrast perfectly ethical vs reliably ethical. In some cases the parties involved don't want perfectly ethical. This may sound malign but there are situations where it can be benign.
Kant argues at great length against these sorts of 'calculations' that undermine dutiful acting, right? For Kant and Fichte duty doesn't have anything to do with empirical results, it is supersensible, i.e. you should do what's right regardless of whether you think it will turn out well for you.
>This is something you may encounter frequently in proofing wherein one party may not see any use for universal instantiation and another party might still be looking for a restriction on a variable.
I have no idea what this means. If I can talk about Fichte in normal language, you can talk about whatever you're talking about in normal language (though in either case you obviously lose some scientific precision). If you can't write comprehensibly, I have to assume you don't actually know what you're talking about. Is this a reference to computer programming or mathematics or what?
>Kant's own writings seem to indicate he took this as normative, this means his system can work everywhere but the individual using it does matter
This is not what 'normative' means and Kant did not think the law of duty should differ based on the individual who is subject to it. Of course the individual 'matters' in the sense that different individuals find themselves in different situations. Again, I don't really know what you mean, you're not writing clearly, and this probably means you're not thinking clearly. Idealist writing is unclear because it's so precise, this is unclear because it's vague.

>>24492700
>I haven't seen anything transcendental.
Kant defines the transcendental pretty clearly here at the beginning of the transcendental exposition of space: "By a transcendental exposition, I mean the explanation of a conception, as a principle, whence can be discerned the possibility of other synthetical à priori cognitions."

The 'transcendental' is what serves as a principle of experience and knowing within the context of idealist philosophy. So a 'transcendental' account of causality shows how causality follows from the pure concept + the imagination; and depends on an even deeper account of how the concept and the imagination follow from transcendental apperception. (We could get into the weeds here about Kant's understanding of 'metaphysics' in relation to 'the transcendental'; metaphysics considers a concept as purely a priori, the transcendental is concerned with this concept as a principle of knowledge/experience). Transcendental philosophy is concerned with how knowing and experience are possible, which becomes the question of how consciousness and nature can coexist, leading to the law-bound coherence of nature (tho this is kind of a side-issue in Fichte, much more important in Kant). I don't know what you think 'transcendental' means but whatever it is, it's wrong. (Of course the mere word 'transcendental' has other meanings but they're not applicable here; it also has another meaning within Kant but this is also not relevant). By this definition, every one of my posts about Fichte has concerned the transcendental in one way or another.
>There are plenty of knowledgeable anons here.
There are not.

>>24492700
Seriously man I don't want to bully you you just write vague posts that don't seem to mean anything and it's annoying. Every thread you do this. "OK Exoteric time!" Are you that guy? They don't mean anything, you're stringing profound-sounding words together. You seem to claim a standpoint above thinking, well then we can't have a conversation can we? It is extremely easy to say 'None of these distinctions matter, in reality it's all one thing' - this is not interesting.

Or to be like "look at these poor saps so worried about thinking and what words mean... I got beyond that years ago". You remind me of my dad REEEEEEEEEEE

>>24492720
>>24492740
You're right we would get in the weeds but that's because you aren't willing to perform a calculation. He does make it clear what transcends and you haven't transcended yet.

>>24492769
I seriously doubt you could. You seem like the guy who doesn't understand any of Kant's views on physics and are just esoterically spewing. You are likely the guy who was filtered by Kant's synthetic a priori and kept claiming it was proof of god. None of what you're saying is interesting, I'm in agreement. Go back to nuh uh with the other anon, I'm sure you have a method but it doesn't seem to be doing anything for you.

>>24492861
>perform a calculation
Do you get paid every time you use this phrase?
>He does make it clear what transcends and you haven't transcended yet.
Once again your post is so vague I can't respond to it. I can guess at some tacks you might be taking - you might think the noumena are a magical world beyond this world (no); you might be talking about the kingdom of ends/God/morality (this is more interesting, you actually wouldn't be wrong here, but I doubt it's what you mean).
>I seriously doubt you could.
Right, I can't have a conversation with someone who plays at being a profound thinker by writing vague nonsense.
>You seem like the guy who doesn't understand any of Kant's views on physics and are just esoterically spewing.
I'm not going down a pointless ad hom rabbit hole with you. When I say your posts are vague and meaningless, I quote you line by line and explain exactly what I mean by this accusation. Now you say I don't understand Kant's physics, which I haven't talked about in this thread. I don't know what you think I think about Kantian physics. But again every time you talk about Kant you are talking nonsense, as I demonstrated here: >>24492720, as has happened in every Kant thread we've ever had. So I'm not holding my breath to learn something new about reciprocal interaction or ether from the likes of you.
>You are likely the guy who was filtered by Kant's synthetic a priori and kept claiming it was proof of god.
Absolutely not.
>I'm sure you have a method but it doesn't seem to be doing anything for you.
You have not said a single interesting thing in months of these threads. I have posts itt trying to talk about Fichte's view of time (which is actually quite interesting) but nobody bites.

I don't know why you waste time writing these vague, quasi-schizo, bullshit posts. You should probably go read the Critique of Practical Reason.

>>24492887
You should brush up on it. If all you want to talk about is pre-Kant metaphysics then you would know how the sceptic phase works. That is the reason for your frustration. There is no point in discussing it. You are free to call me schizo and cryptic if you like, I don't remotely care. I suspect the reason you can't make any assertions of merit is because you do know how the sceptic phase works. I don't need to test this.

I wish I had more interesting things to add. Other obligations have come up. I try to throw challenges out when I have them. Maybe you and the other anon have some method like this worked out. Forget I said anything and go back to the esoteric nuh but muh meta nuh.

>>24492533
why did you make this post four times

>>24492740
Right, sorry if I seemed short earlier. If Kant's sceptic can end that conversation then Fichte wouldn't technically entertain it.

I'll try and make it up to you, so it sounds like you're enjoying Fichte, it's been years since I've read him so feel free to correct me if I get this wrong. Fichte wasn't satisfied with Kant's space/time deduction. He turned the sequence back to pre-conscious which allowed him to perform it based on already experienced objects. This means he can perform a synthesis between the 2 selves before Kant's sequence is supposed to start. The first successful application made forces a limit on reflexivity between the 2.

Fichte reasoned this could lead people to literally treat the past as a thing-in-itself. He conjectured all it could do from a transcendental perspective was force participants to the present. Because he moved the sequence to pre-conscious then theoretically no one can make a claim to the '1st' moment of consciousness but rather the 2nd. The result is that you can imagine yourself all the way back to the second moment and you can imagine yourself all the way up to the final moment but technically you can't know the very last one. He placed a higher priority on space since multiple spatial determinations can occur simultaneously but you need both regardless which does make them a priori in his system. This also makes the necessity of self inevitable and technically involves more epistemic disruptions but this may not be undesirable.

If you like I can make a statement and you can try to catch me preconscious?

>>24485940 (OP)
Kant seems like he just dragged his nails across a chalkboard and wrote what it all said to him.

I'm new to this anon, can someone link me the relevant threads? I really like spotting schizos in the wild. I consider my discover of Madoka schizo anon some years ago to be one of my greatest achievements

>>24485940 (OP)
>because how the hell can anyone know all the particular knowledge of the empirical sciences a priori?
a priori reasoning can tell you anything you want about any mathematically specifiable universe you care to simulate.
the only thing it can't tell you is which one(s) you're in

>>24494543
actually i think this is not quite the correct formulation. it can't tell you who you are. if you already know who you are, you can check if you're in a particular universe you're simulating.

>>24494315
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24409704
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24254070
These are all I could find. Anybody else have others?

>>24494983
This was a good one
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24350622#p24353581

>>24494983
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24353335#p24353394

>>24494983
There used to be generals but there hasn't been one in a while
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24277798#p24277812

yo prometheist vitalist anon here. yesterday i had a schizo idea. quoted from chumbley's opuscula magica 2:
>'Wiccan', pronounced 'witchan' from the Anglo-Saxon weica, pronounced 'witcha', meaning 'wise', thus 'Wiccan' = 'Wise One'. Wicca = masculine. Wicce = feminine. Verb -to practise Wicca = to 'wiccian'. The word also has a sense in which it means 'to bend or to twist', hence 'The Old and Crooked Path.'
apparently the germans would also call their witches wise ones. this motivates the thought of a transition from 'wissen-schaft-lehre' to 'witch-craft-lore'

of course how may this be done? in the occult there is a concept of 'kala' associated to temporal accretions or archetypes that have manifested in different times. some rituals attempt to take a particular temporal manifestation of kala and use it as launching point to bring one's consciousness to the kala itself. frater asemlen elaborated on one such idea of how to bring the kala out of an event here
https://pastebin.com/Vngi24Dn
>[Anamnesis] is recognition of a centric point in space-time which you identify yourself, god, man, known, unknown, all points in town, the root essence of all, the heart of all creation with. This can be Christ upon the cross/Christ in the days of Good Friday, holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. It can be the nondual nature of the true heart, it can be the atavistic root of the ego, it can be yog sothoth which grant defines as the Empirical ego without any qualities or associations with anything whatsoever, the ego as existing without relation to space-time.
>When you remember the experience of a Kala then root it in to such recognition, this causes the Kala in question to disintegrate and lose its form and outer veil, its existence in different points of time as a singular object and not an Omni-temporal and a-temporal is dissolved. The Kala exists as it exists in the heart of God.

how can this be related to wissenschaftlehre? well, looking at hegel, we see how the phenomenology is based on modes of consciousness as quasi-historical manifestations. of course, a large part of the details of these various forms have been stripped out. this could be analogized to the conceptual refinement that results in their essential kalas being evinced

of course hegel didnt only talk about individual modes of consciousness, but wanted the reader to bring their attention to the mutual interpenetration of these modes and their vanishing into the whole. this structure of interpenetration that permeates the actuality of any moment in the absolute he terms 'Eternity'.. this concept is likely taken from plotinus. you could relate this idea to schelling when he talks about how his philosophy of nature is both a posteriori and a priori

>>24496120
now, if we look to chumbley's dragon book of essex, we see something interested in related to 'Eternity'. there there are 10 sacred syllables that function as kalas. what he does with this is very fascinating. for instance, in the phoenix vessel ritual, one fashions an urn in which they deposit semen, menstruum, and blood over the course of 14 days. this isn't just edgy. there is actually a deep metaphysical operation
quoting chumbley:
>In praxis, the Phoenix-vessel is a magical urn which may be used during a specific phase of the ritual year to augment the transmission of celestial empowerment and to create a visible medium for the cognisance of change. In form and construction, it should be like unto the vessel used in the Arcanum of Ka; for indeed its nature is to reflect - to oppose and to balance - the vehicula of the Hieros Gamos.
here we see how the phoenix vessel brings together the lessons learned in different days, and their kalas are combined in the urn. hence, we see that the urn serves as a physical instantiation of transcendental apperception that is able to bring together events spread across extended periods of time

there are other rituals that are also interesting, like for instance hallowing the kingdom of qayin azhaka which is summarized here
https://dboe.fandom.com/wiki/Hallowing_the_Kingdom_of_Qayin_Azhaka
you see in this ritual the bringing together of the various mystery syllables into a single ritual, again uniting them

in general the occult can be a good way in which to especially exercise the synthetic function. meanwhile, the analytic function may be facilitated by entering into states that that involve the raising of cortical arousal. this angle is elaborated on here:
https://edhamma.github.io/saints/html/saints.html

i wonder if a science (wissenschaft) of various forms may be not combines with meditative and contemplative fashions in a similar fashion as above. what would be my goal in doing this would be in directly apprehending the aionic realm of biological urformen, hence uniting with all-life (Tiamat).

>>24496123
meant to attach pic!

anyways im currently trying to design a mini-ritual or ritual preparation exercise that more works on the raising of cortical arousal. the core energetic motions are already here, but i feel like i should fashion some mantras and mandalas, though i am not sure what would be the best way to proceed in doing this yet

>>24496120
-schaft =/= -craft

>>24496500
yeah it is not a perfect translation. i was going off of the interpretation of "-schaft" or "-ship" as ~"-making". and of course schaft and craft rhyme which adds to the pun

>>24496524
(not a perfect translation is a bit of an understatement but um i hope u can see what i was trying to do lol)