Thread 24715029

I truly believe esoteric Kantianism is a superior name for philosophical movement now generally known as German Idealism.

Yup

Imagine, someday professors will be teaching their students about "esoteric Kantianism".

>>24715029 (OP)
The name is cool, that's why it became a meme so fast a few months ago.
But then the schizo pushing it actually tried to "develop" a real version of esoteric kantianism and it was such a retarded interpretation of Kant that everyone dropped the boat quickly.

I wish we could take the name back and call it something else.

>>24715029 (OP)
They're just Hindu sages in different physical vessels/incarnations.

https://youtu.be/nBQTm7m7u8g

Where is SchopenGod?

>>24715263
> such a retarded interpretation of Kant
it was the greatest reading of Kant in modern times

>>24715029 (OP)
Esotericism is always just cancer of any exoteric system. It's inevitable but it doesn't change anything I just said.

>>24715029 (OP)
Give me a QRD

>>24715263
>>24715791
>The raw information that exists in the noumenal world (things-in-themselves) remains fundamentally the same when it is processed and experienced as phenomena (our perception of things). The mind, shaped by its cognitive categories (such as time, space, and causality), organizes and structures this raw information into a form that is accessible to our experience, but it does not alter the essence of the information itself. While the mind shapes how we experience the world, it does not change the fundamental nature of the information underlying that experience. Therefore, the information in both the noumenal and phenomenal realms is essentially identical, though it is structured differently depending on the cognitive framework through which we perceive it.
>This means that the noumenal world, which represents the raw, unprocessed data of existence independent of human perception, and the phenomenal world, which is how this raw information is structured and organized by the mind through categories like time, space, and causality, share the same fundamental informational essence. The mind acts as a "structural filter", organizing and shaping the information but not fundamentally altering its core content.

>>24716939
Schopenhauer was such a fucking retard, thanks for confirming what me and others have been saying for months.

>>24716962
Elaborate on why it's retarded instead of emoting that it's retarded. I don't care about if you think something is retarded if you can't explain why you think it is.

>>24717016
I have multiple times. His world-view is rigidly dichotomous but dichotomous philosophies are incoherent. He's also just retarded in general, like in the quote here: >>24716939 he has actually destroyed the distinction between phenomena and noumena entirely, not by sublating it, but by making everything material. If the contribution of subjectivity to objectivity is simply applying a certain form to the given, then you're a dogmatist, no different than any average redditor, your world depends on what is given, and this is indeed where Schopenhauer ends up. He grasps one side after another in every antinomy (no freedom! the thing-in-itself can never be known! Etc.) And Kant's theory would be pointless if it amounted to the assertion that our brains alter reality, because this would not solve Hume's skeptical objections to natural science. Schopenhauer does not understand what idealism is because he is stuck in what Schelling would call the intellect, i.e. he only sees and then rigidifies contradictions rather than overcoming them.

>>24717044
>because this would not solve Hume's skeptical objections to natural science.
I think this is the closest youve come to making a compelling case. Contexualizing things like this without defacto appealing to the presupposed value of "idealism" points out an ACTUAL independent flaw that isnt conditional on whatever particular side youve chosen.

If Schopenhauer doesnt indeed have an answer himself to Hume, then. I think it would be valid to dismiss him, as it would then mean he hasnt gone beyond Kant, but let alone what Kant was trying to go beyond, which is Hume. If Hume's contentions can capture something true enough of reality, not considering Kant, then Schopenhauer's theory holds no weight unless it has addressed that.

Hmmmm Schop defenders, you need to step up.

...awkward...

>>24717624
why?

>>24719078
Because this>>24717106
got no response

Bump

>>24719442
Schop bros, defend yourself. Or was all the schoposting done because he hated women?

I read Breazeale’s response to Hegel’s attack on Fichte’s ethics but it wasn’t so hot. It amounted to showing that, for Fichte, formal and material willing were not abstract opposites. The universal is part of who we are, etc. That’s fine and he’s right but the point is that, as defined, they can’t really be one at all. Fichte assumes morality at the outset, and surprise surprise knowing your duty turns out to be essential to morality, ergo conscience steers you right. I’ve always thought this was the major weakness of the Jena system. But why couldn’t a Fichtean accept Hegel’s solution?