Thread 24820701

Is God the thing-in-itself?

Once you name it, it becomes a thing, a piece of knowledge, not reality.

Yes, this nigga wrote thousands of pages to explain the simple truth of there being a God, and God being beyond the grasp of human understanding.

>>24820713
Sounds like he wasted his time, philosophy can't explain God nor reality.

dumb nyg binged on coffee burning his adrenals should have enema'd it and got to the next level (Swedenborg)

>>24820701 (OP)

It’s pretty simply really. Thing in itself is the stuff that is causing your sensations. A chair is probably a chair but you’ll never know for sure. God could be out there but you’ll never know.
He argues that moral duties prove god, the thing in itself isn’t really related to his god.

>>24820701 (OP)
I put my original answer into ChatGPT so it point out any errors since I don’t want to give wrong information if I can help it.

No. For Kant, the thing-in-itself (noumenon) lies beyond the bounds of experience and cannot be known or even conceived positively — it is what reality is in itself, independent of our mode of perception. God, by contrast, is not the noumenon but a regulative idea of reason — a necessary postulate that gives unity and purpose to moral law. While speculative reason cannot prove God’s existence, practical reason demands we assume it, since morality presupposes a highest good and a rational order of justice in which virtue and happiness correspond.

>>24820716
>You cant explain Karate because you didnt invent it
Trve, but also fqlse

>>24820716
prove it

>>24820701 (OP)
God is the will, The infinite substance, The mediator between the cause and effects and such and such

Thing-in-itself = pussy
Kant died a virgin.

>>24820701 (OP)
I've seen Kant mentioned so many times on this board. I don't understand /lit/'s obsession with him. Seriously, what is so great about him? The categorical imperative is a bullshit principle that NO ONE lives by, and transcendental ideality is so esoteric that it holds no real value. Astrophysicists don't believe that space and time are a priori, and I value their opinion far greater than some autistic god-fearing virgin from 250 years ago.

Reading Kant is a waste of time.

>transcendental ideality is so esoteric that it holds no real value
hmm

>>24820701 (OP)
No, although the thing-in-itself is the eternal will of God.

>>24820716
We cant explain god because he's irrational

>>24822269
What a profoundly retarded thing to say

Even if you knew the thing-in-itself, if you could hold it in your hands, what good would it do you? Wouldn't you be crushed by absolute certainty? What is the True Being of an armchair going to reveal to you? Will it get up and start talking in tongues and forgive your sins?

People want to rape objects

>>24822253
This is the closest answer in the thread I think.

Ultimately the Highest is so transcendent we can't know it. Continue OP, you're beginning to leave the cave. God speed

>>24821182
>astrophysicists don't believe that space and time are a priori
What are you talking about?
>is so esoteric that it holds no real value.
Ironically there are astrophysicists who at least superficially believe something quite similar. Take John A. Wheeler's participatory anthropic principal for example.

>>24820701 (OP)
No, you are.

>>24821182
We care because he burned virtually all Western metaphysics prior to him to the ground and no one has really managed to build something new that everyone accepts. If you don't care about that kind of thing then just don't read him.

>>24820701 (OP)
that's the Forms

>>24822637
>the Highest is so transcendent we can't know it
The knowing subject transcends space and time, and the Good transcends the subject. Makes sense that the supreme transcendence of the Good isn't knowable.

>>24820701 (OP)
Uh, yeah, sure

>>24820701 (OP)
test

>>24820716
Philosophy should be avoided except as inner compulsion, the need to figure things out in your personal conception of the world, and also from the innate pleasure of thought. Philosophy can be life saving but you will imagine that for most people it can be harmful

"Doing philosophy" or "learning philosophy" as a search for "the truth" is idiotic. As is stuffing your brain with "what certain philosophers thought," as though they were pundits. You should focus on religion and if you're going to do philosophy do the real thing and study Vedanta, not English translations of germans who are anyway untranslatable

>>24823536
>"learning philosophy" as a search for "the truth" is idiotic
>if you're going to do philosophy do the real thing and study Vedanta
Thank you for your input, Pajeet.

>>24823815
This kind of reflexive racism always betrays inferiority and fear of identification. The Vedanta is the highest subtlety of wisdom. For what it's worth I am not Indian, not that this would matter. Most real racists think the Aryans were white, so I'm guessing you're just a retentive fag

>>24823828
Eat shit.

Few have crossed the Abyss

>>24823536
>"Doing philosophy" or "learning philosophy" as a search for "the truth" is idiotic
>recommends religion
Lmao dude religion is unfalsifiable cope. It's a way of dealing with the desire of living in an objectively meaningless world but desiring meaning

>>24820701 (OP)
According to Hegel, sort of?

>>24823834
I can only imagine how sick and ugly you are. Consider for a moment what forces are driving you, in every aspect of your life

>>24823846
I used quotations for a reason. But I shouldn’t expect people in this sewer to pick up on complex meanings
> unfalsifiable
People like you should study philosophy so you can move beyond this kind of superficial and adolescent positivism maintained by an idiotic and pitiable smugness. Most people never change, unfortunately. I would be better to recommend poetry, keeping in mind that religious intuition and poetic intuition are of the same kind.

>>24823860
>I would be better to recommend poetry, keeping in mind that religious intuition and poetic intuition are of the same kind.
basado

>>24823860
>I would be better to recommend poetry, keeping in mind that religious intuition and poetic intuition are of the same kind
That's actually a better train of thought. Religion has too much primitive baggage to be a viable option in this day and age. I get that the myths of religion can be uplifting, but science has superseded religion in terms of cosmology. These are the same people that believed demons caused diseases

Sacré bleu
a Hylic has entered the chat

>>24823883
The bigots you may have in mind would probably have me burnt at the stake if we were in another century, but gods and demons are very real, and if they arent real the. as Schopenhauer says they might as well be

>>24820701 (OP)
no... the thing in itself is not god... it is just what it says... the thing in itself

Though both are unknowable, the thing-in-itself is a created object whereas God is the creator subject. You can however join Hegel who ignores this ontological distinction following Spinoza who views the world as God hisself and not otoh just in and of God.

hurrrrrr durrrrffff pfffffrrrrrfrffffrl baghuuuuuhh

>>24820701 (OP)
>I AM THAT I AM
Yes

>>24820713
You might as well just say there are mysteries beyond the grasp of human understanding. Why use a word that is perhaps the single most baggage laden word in all of language when the word "mystery" is more accurate?

>>24824340
It always fascinates me why people think certain phrases are so great. Imagine a holy book where God says "It's me, nigga" and tons of people venerating it as the most profound utterance of all time. It's just bizarre. Same with the whole "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God". I swear, that's like a 6 year old putting together a story and just adding different permutations of the same words. I remember a story from when I was a kid I said something like "once there was a cat who looked exactly like dog. In fact, he was a dog." This should be a source of amusement, not amazement.

>>24824898
Same energy

>>24825354
Congrats, you've identified two instances of criticism of the Bible and labeled them "Same energy". Is this the height of your capacity to contribute to the thread?

>>24824898
you aren't getting it, and most don't to be fair. the actual translation is "I AM WHO AM", which people just simplify as "I am who I am" which is entirely wrong. the translation is exactly what it implies, God is the "AM", "I am that which is Being Itself". nothing is ontologically higher than existence, and God is Existence-Itself.

>>24820701 (OP)
Retard here. Do quantum wave functions, and the fact that they collapse into a static and observable electron by the light that is registered by our sense faculties, and the lack of any causal explanation for the statistical interaction between two separate quantum systems, not lend credence to the idea that the objective world is in fact a subjective construction that supports Kant’s assumption of the existence of the thing-in-itself?

>>24826450
>existence-itself
The emptiest concept imaginable, just a hair removed from Spinozism.

>>24826549
I don't know anything about quantum physics. It's annoying when people bring it up in philosophy threads because they never know anything either. Kant did not assert the existence of the thing-in-itself, read chapter 3 of the analytic. It is nothing but a limiting concept, not a thing that can be known to exist. It's pretty fucking depressing that when people on 4chan and reddit talk about Kant they always have the same reading as the 1782 Gottingen Review. It's even more depressing that many of them think this is 'le based'. "All we know is, like, what's in our minds bro, and our brains, like, transform this crazy thing, the thing in itself, into space and time, but who knows what it really is bro! Isn't that wild! Like, whoah!" That's retarded and it isn't what Kant thought, it's not even an interesting idea.

>>24826554
>emptiest concept imaginable
correct. the signifier which is the representation of the concept is empty of all things imaginable by the mind. that says nothing about the signified, which is the absolute limit of the limiting concept that is the "thing in itself".

>>24821182
>The categorical imperative is a bullshit principle that NO ONE lives by
so? It's meant to be a basis for rational morality, if one desires such.
>transcendental ideality is so esoteric that it holds no real value
It's the really really simple idea that our mind pre-structures whatever we perceive of reality by mechanisms outside of our control. It holds immense value and crops up all the time if you're trying to make sense of things.
>Astrophysicists don't believe that space and time are a priori
A priori *intuitions* - and that's exactly the realization to have if you want to to question their objectivity. We *might* be unable to escape thinking in space and time, but reality might be different, and we can come to certain conclusions about it without being able to intuitively imagine them.

>>24826582
>signifier
You keep using this word but I don't think you know what it means. Existence-in-itself is 1.) a sign, the words; 2.) a concept, being that 'just is', being that transcends any determination. You want to take 2.) and claim it is not a concept at all, but merely a sign of something extraordinarily wonderful. You're wrong, sorry.
>absolute limit of the limiting concept that is the "thing in itself".
Is it even worth it to answer this? The thing-in-itself in Kant is like a place-holder for what might be beyond any possible experience; it's the bridge that lets Kant practically postulate God, freedom, immortality. It doesn't have an 'absolute limit' of its own. You don't know Kant, you don't know logic, you don't know philosophy.

>>24823536
>study Vedanta
The likes of adi shankara? What do you think of upadasaharsi?

>>24826582
Learn apophatic reasoning.

>>24826640
the sign points to nothing (no-thing)

>>24826450
Why is existence itself reduced to an "I"? Why personify it? "Everything is am" would be more accurate.