Thread 24559800

Electromagnetism is both real and noumenal.

/lit/ never tires of Kant

>Schelling
>Hegel
>Schlegel

>>24559800 (OP)
Does this just mean that even stupid people have intuition? Or is it more mundane, like even stupid people can reason and make predictions even if they're not trying to?

Kant is such a faggot that he denies that many things we had determined a priori were actually a priori thoughts thus being such a faggot and trying to destroy religious metaphysics yet simultaneously he was such a limp wristed fairy he couldnt fucking go all the way and become an empiricist. Literally the worst "philosopher" if you wanna even call him that.

>>24559831
They have knowledge not derived from experience even though they don't realize it.

>>24559872
I think this is a natural function of the brain, like you don't have to consciously read the words in my post, your brain already knows what they mean and interprets them for you more or less, and similarly people subconsciously notice patterns and can reason out their implications without trying to. Am I wrong? What do we do with this information

>>24559884
We refute empiricism.

Plato
Kant
Vril
Od
Orgone
Maria Orsic
Greys
Zeitreise
Übermenschen
Lebenskraft
Dialektik
Intellektuelle Anschauung

>>24559946
Cover that eyesore with a rug. Also
>Maria Orsic
Tell me you’re kidding

>>24559952
no

>>24559800 (OP)
What difference does it make? Epistemology is so fucking pointless.

>>24559831
>>24559872
It’s Innatism and Anamnesis repackaged yet again.

I'm reading the Schematism right now but I don't get why it's a problem for Kant how Pure Concepts of Understanding could be applied to fenomenons

>>24559831
It means some dumb truistic shit like
>even a retard has the faculty of Reason a priori
This idealism stuff was before neuroscience and psychology really existed and it was a bunch of guys speculating about how the mind works.
>logic makes sense because of an apriori faculty in the human mind to understand logic
Which is obviously true but so what?

Idealism says a lot of shit like
>lungs breathe because they have an a priori faculty for breathing
Ooooooo wow dude

>>24561490
One of the intricate problems what Kant is trying to figure out is what right we have of using concepts like causality which cannot be inferred from empiricism and what the limits of our knowledge are with regards to metaphysics, science etc. Kant isn't interested in structure of our mind or anything like that. He is trying to figure out how experience itself is possible at all and he achieves that through positing abstract categorizations like understanding, sensibility etc

>>24559800 (OP)
>The human intellect, even in an unphilosophical state, is in possession of certain cognitions a priori

These a priori cognitions aren't derived from our senses. For example, our understanding of basic causality (that every effect has a cause) or fundamental logical principles (like "A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time") isn't something we learn by observing countless instances. Rather, they seem to be inherent ways our minds organize reality.

>>24559800 (OP)
I have always thought all these philosopher guys wete just extremely bored so they had to come up with all that shit.

Did I understand correctly that for Kant space and time are not the same as concepts but they have a special place as the form of inner and outer intuitions?

who do I need to read before reading kant? is descarte good enough? im doing a study of bacon and detect kant down wind of him. I've only read the categorical imperative from him and it was the most autistic thing i ever read in university

>>24561527
between bacon, newton, and kant, there is not doubt that exuberant free time and minimal distractions compared to today contributed to their autism. dont make them like they used to

>>24561661
At least Newton stuff is useful.

>>24561657
You don't necessarily need to read them. You just need to know what the empiricists and rationalist generally thought at that time and the centrals problems caused by both. I recommend that you get a companion book and/or follow some lectures while you read CoPR. I think Wolff had some lectures up on youtube but be wary that he tells a lot of stories that have nothing to do with anything. Other than that the lectures are good

>>24559836
His whole agenda was to find a middle way between rationalism and empiricism