Is this not the most disappointing book in existence? All the things you thought were out there, in the past, in deep places, in the cosmos, are actually in your mind. It's all a projection and none of it actually exists. Basically there is nothing cool out there to imagine about anymore, God, universe, soul, all of them are just suppositions with no external reality whatsoever. All that is left is a single 'moral law within' which essentially says, forfeit the world: you have an immortal, priceless soul that you can know nothing at all about but let me tell you its worth more than anything you see, etc., etc. And you have the vast empty space above you which glitters nicely in the nighttime but about which we again know that there is really nothing out there except gasses and rocks and emptiness.

And all this from a celibate recluse with a temperament so dry that it found its sole enjoyment in moral casuistry and Newtonian metaphysics.

Holy shit bros it was over before it began.

Noumena is outside perception read it again American

>>24578894 (OP)
>muh don't want to hear anything scientific

Ok, Descartes solved everything.

>muh my opinions are all worthless and can be brought to contradiction or disregarded

Ok, Hegel solved the whole thing.

>m-m-muh it was Kant's fault!

Metaphysics isn't for everyone.

>m-m-muh it's always been that way?

Yes.

>>24578894 (OP)
Well no because it hides it's lack of good arguments with a ton of verbiage. Kant came up with his conclusions and then afterwards created clusterfuck shitty arguments to try and prove them. This resulted in major sections in the book having to be embarrassingly rewritten later. Even Kant's followers didn't take the proofs seriously and were forced to change massive amounts of his philosophy, with each follower disagreeing on what exactly to keep.

>>24578894 (OP)
>Is this not the most disappointing book in existence?
Why is it disappointing to know the truth

>All that is left is a single 'moral law within' which essentially says, forfeit the world
Are you talking about the reciprocal one ?

>All the things you thought were out there, in the past, in deep places, in the cosmos, are actually in your mind. It's all a projection and none of it actually exists
Your senses can't actually create a perception of something from nothing, so there has to be something inherent to the real otherwise we wouldn't be able to envision anything (noumena)

>>24578942
can you elaborate ? I haven't read Kant yet (apart from some excerpts and basic knowledge about his philosophy) but interesting to know

>>24578942
Which part did you not understand about it?

>>24578894 (OP)
How the fuck did you get that from this book?

it's disenchanting if you placed too much hope on philosophy in the first place, which is a rookie mistake. socrates was adamant on emphasizing how he didn't know jack shit for a reason.

>>24578894 (OP)
It isn't solipsism - we inhabit a world that is greater than ourselves. The system also functions to make room for God.

That the laws of nature derive from the understanding is empowering, but hard to understand.

>God, universe, soul, all of them are just suppositions with no external reality whatsoever.

No, this is not what he says. It is that they are not within the capacity of a rational philosophy to address. For instance, for the soul we can go no further than recognizing ourselves as being based in a unity of experience. But it is given that there is more than that, this unity not birthing into existence ex nihilo. We are just unable to inquire past that without self contradiction.

I would argue this... Kant is of a school that believes in the limits of philosophy. To say that there is something left out of the philosophy is not to say that there is something left out of reality. Philosophy just has a specific scope - it is, at the end of the day, more epistemology than metaphysics.

>>24579204
This is being generous. The state of things in Kant is dismal. He reveals in the second (or maybe its the third) critique that essentially it is expedient for us not to have any knowledge of things in themselves or of metaphysical entities. Why? To allow for the possibility of moral agency. And what is the outcome of this? That after death we are to continuously approach but never to reach the god and the moral law of which he have no direct knowledge.

There is really no relation to 'a world greater than ourselves'. Weininger was correct that the Kantian individual is utterly alone. Of what use is morality for such a lonely soul?

>>24579555
>it is expedient for us not to have any knowledge of things in themselves or of metaphysical entities. Why? To allow for the possibility of moral agency

No - there is no knowledge of things in themselves or metaphysical entities, because they are completely incoherent as posits. How can one consider something in itself? If it is being considered, it is not in itself - it is inescapable, but far from a problem... This is what gives us the possibility of metaphysics.

The epistemology is an inquiry into the use of pure reason. It is not something drummed up in pursuit of agency.

For Kant, agency is actually key for knowledge. Experience has a receptive and a spontaneous part. Reason is to do with the latter, it is not given to us by the world, it forms the world as it appears to us.

>There is really no relation to 'a world greater than ourselves'.
There is. There is stress laid upon this point... It is a necessary condition of experience that there is an external world. It is also part of the meaning of the sublime... The encountering of things which exceed our faculties but still heed the forms.

> Of what use is morality for such a lonely soul?
Agency!!!

>>24578894 (OP)
There's a reason Romantic mysticism flourished immediately in the wake of Kant, read Schiller and Coleridge.

O Lady! we receive but what we give,
And in our life alone does Nature live:
Ours is her wedding garment, ours her shroud!
And would we aught behold, of higher worth,
Than that inanimate cold world allowed
To the poor loveless ever-anxious crowd,
Ah! from the soul itself must issue forth
A light, a glory, a fair luminous cloud
Enveloping the Earth—
And from the soul itself must there be sent
A sweet and potent voice, of its own birth,
Of all sweet sounds the life and element!