Thread 24672971

>metaphysics cannot be a science concerning anything internally or externally experiential (a posteriori)
>let's just ignore that pure reason itself is being experienced as the phenomenon of thinking, reasoning and understanding, all of which are actively experienced by the host of the cognition
>and yes, this is the most essential element of my entire philosophy. a priori simply cannot be experiential even though the a priori thinker is experiencing thinking
why does anyone listen to this gayboy again?

You should read Karl Ameriks on what transcendental logic really means. You are right in the deeper sense and now ready for Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology but not before you properly hermeneutically access Kant and understand what he meant in his own terms.

>>24672983
Thank you for the serious answer. I was just being cheeky as I go through Kant's Prolegomena before apprehending Critique of Pure Reason. Curious to see how he continues to distinguish metaphysics as non-experiential through "his own terms," as you put it.

I think I'll be reading Hegel and Schopenhauer before I get to Husserl and Heidegger, but I'll be sure to get to them as well. Thank you for the tip!

>>24672992
>tfw you read this and realise /lit/ anons are actually smart and decent people but they frame every thread starter as baitpost to farm engagement
>tfw OP is always a faggot

>>24673018
Um, calling me a "faggot" after observing the thread dialogue isn't very metaphysical, big dawg. Try to be more cash money in the future, please.

>>24672971 (OP)
It’s hard to know where to start here. Kant rejected the extension of reason beyond experience, not metaphysics itself, I.e. an account of the necessity of experience. And more, like moral duties of pure reason also fall within metaphysics. Kant thinks about the way things are, and how they must be to be as they are, with the Copernican twist that subjectivity is the locus. Of course reason is valid, Kant describes how and where it is valid. You need to read Fichte then you might understand Kant.

>>24672992
No problem, I could tell you were thinking seriously about it. I always had the same thought when I read Kant and could never get an answer to it. Ameriks was what helped me. Ultimately the trick lies in understanding the term transcendental. Just understand how medieval transcendentals are "present without being present" and you already have a window into how Kant thinks the transcendental conditions of possibility are immanent in actual experience. This is where Ameriks is useful: he correctly trains your mind's eye on Kant's actual understanding of experience, as what we are always already immersed in. Kant is seeking the abstract structure that necessarily underlies it for it to work as it does at all, but crucially, he doesn't think that structure is something observed empirically and phenomenologically. It's more like he's looking at the logically tautological underlying presuppositions of experience itself. That doesn't mean this explanation escapes your criticism, just that it makes a little more sense than "Kant was stupid."

Most of the people he inspired didn't really understand this the way he understood it either.

>>24673044
>Kant rejected the extension of reason beyond experience
No he didn't. He accepts reasoning in the form of application of rational laws to material issues, e.g., moral imperatives applied to ethical anthropology.
>metaphysics itself, I.e. an account of the necessity of experience
Not quite sure this is true given his response to Hume's frustration with causation being an a priori impossibility.
>And more, like moral duties of pure reason also fall within metaphysics. Kant thinks about the way things are, and how they must be to be as they are
Good point.
>subjectivity is the locus
How do you reconcile this with his position on the Principle of Contradiction inhered in analytic/explicative judgment?
>You need to read Fichte then you might understand Kant.
Reading Kant will help me understand Kant.

>>24673061
Excellent breakdown, anon—thank you again. There is no doubt that what Kant offered to the world is essential to our existence. Your explanation of "awareness without focus" (my takeaway) is a great way to simplify the concept. I look forward to thoroughly understanding this man.

>>24672983

The lost leading the lost through a cold and meandering maze with no clear destination, walls constructed for the sake of their own existence in stubborn avoidance of divine Truth.

In a stubborn refusal of intellectual humility, clinging to a pride of the miles already spent lost in this dismal maze. All that is required is submission before the Almighty God and the soul will be lifted up directly from this vain labryinth towards the Light.

>>24673080
Based medieval transcendentalist.

Tfw i am reading will and representation before critique of pure reason. How fucked am I?

>>24673100
Why would you be fucked? Finish the read, get to Kant, then re-read both. No one exhaustively understands a core philosophical text without frequently going back to the well.

>>24673109
This. Read it once, it won't make sense, stop, read other philosophy, stop, come back to reading it again, all of a sudden it makes more sense, and so on, ad infinitum.

>>24673109
Damn you’re right

So does the metaphysical actually exist?
What are the arguments for?
What are the arguments against?

>>24672971 (OP)
>even though the a priori thinker is experiencing thinking
He's not, he IS thought, reason & understandment. You can't dissociate the a priori thinker from his act of understanding, which follows certain rules that Kant formalizes (hence a priori & transcendental).

>>24673086
>>24673080
>>24673061
Can an anon fill me in on who these medieval transcendentalists are ?

>>24673068
>How do you reconcile this with his position on the Principle of Contradiction inhered in analytic/explicative judgment?
Judgements and thoughts aren't things in themselves. You can subjectively think certain things, and I other things, but the truth is exterior to them both (or at least to one).

Pretty sure Schopenhaeur addresses your contention. Idealists are Kant dicksuckers so theyll tell you schop "misunderstands" because their headcanon is more validated but whatever

>>24674557
>Judgements and thoughts aren't things in themselves. You can subjectively think certain things, and I other things, but the truth is exterior to them both (or at least to one)
Not necessarily true. For instance, look at Kant's categorizing of analytic/explicative judgment vs. synthetic/ampliative judgment. Both can be derived from objective experiences, e.g., that is a round circle (experientially derived analytic judgment).

>>24674557
>Can an anon fill me in on who these medieval transcendentalists are ?
Sure, but first fix your grammer and stop typing like a 14-year-old ESL fucktard. There is no space between the last word of a sentence/clause and the punctuation mark. How this caught on, I will never understand.