Search Results
7/3/2025, 4:38:29 AM
>>24516265
Solipsism, etymologically from the latin meaning 'only oneself', is an apparently unresolvable problem in contemporary philosophy. But this, as we know, is only because the philosophers of today refuse to venture beyond the threshold of the normie standpoint. If, as esoteric Kantianism does, they would dare to speculate into the regions beyonds the confines of normie realism, into the realms of 'superipsism', then here they could actually make some progress.
The exoteric Kantians claimed Kant to have proved the existence of a supersensible world, but, their pretentions notwithstanding, all they proved was the existence of a unique idea, the idea of the non-ideal, das Ding an sich. However, as I have shown, this idea, although unique as being the highest abstraction, was nonetheless, like all other content of experience, an object of thought. And further, it did nothing to resolve the issue of the existence of intelligences beyond my own. For this reason Jacobi was right to call this exoteric Kantianism a solipsism-- but beyond the letter of this external understanding laid a deeper wisdom.
When the chasm that separated man and reality was bridged by the sublimation of the exoteric distinctions, the conditions of the transcendental unity of apperception were found not merely for the unity of the self-conscious individual man, but rather for all unity of conscious intelligence in general; and the rationality of the world was found not to be merely belonging to our preculiar mode of apprehending this world, but essential to the cosmos itself.
This cosmos, as in itself a production of universal thought-acts (called the categories by Kant), necessarily contains them in all its parts, including the finite unities of conscious intelligence within it, and which as unities of conscious intelligence must also use the categories in all their thinking.
In effect, when (you) look out into the world, you are looking at a finite portion of the infinite experience of a unity of apperception encompassing the entire cosmos in its unity. In this greater sense, solipsism is true, because the cosmos is this infinite self, not (you), not (me), but, an 'I' rather that contains (you) and contains (me), which nonetheless (and this is of great significance) is analoguous to humans in its rational essence.
Solipsism, etymologically from the latin meaning 'only oneself', is an apparently unresolvable problem in contemporary philosophy. But this, as we know, is only because the philosophers of today refuse to venture beyond the threshold of the normie standpoint. If, as esoteric Kantianism does, they would dare to speculate into the regions beyonds the confines of normie realism, into the realms of 'superipsism', then here they could actually make some progress.
The exoteric Kantians claimed Kant to have proved the existence of a supersensible world, but, their pretentions notwithstanding, all they proved was the existence of a unique idea, the idea of the non-ideal, das Ding an sich. However, as I have shown, this idea, although unique as being the highest abstraction, was nonetheless, like all other content of experience, an object of thought. And further, it did nothing to resolve the issue of the existence of intelligences beyond my own. For this reason Jacobi was right to call this exoteric Kantianism a solipsism-- but beyond the letter of this external understanding laid a deeper wisdom.
When the chasm that separated man and reality was bridged by the sublimation of the exoteric distinctions, the conditions of the transcendental unity of apperception were found not merely for the unity of the self-conscious individual man, but rather for all unity of conscious intelligence in general; and the rationality of the world was found not to be merely belonging to our preculiar mode of apprehending this world, but essential to the cosmos itself.
This cosmos, as in itself a production of universal thought-acts (called the categories by Kant), necessarily contains them in all its parts, including the finite unities of conscious intelligence within it, and which as unities of conscious intelligence must also use the categories in all their thinking.
In effect, when (you) look out into the world, you are looking at a finite portion of the infinite experience of a unity of apperception encompassing the entire cosmos in its unity. In this greater sense, solipsism is true, because the cosmos is this infinite self, not (you), not (me), but, an 'I' rather that contains (you) and contains (me), which nonetheless (and this is of great significance) is analoguous to humans in its rational essence.
6/14/2025, 4:16:20 PM
>>24465666
>For if we permit the vanity or the presumption of sophistry to determine the least thing theoretically (in a way that extends our knowledge) in respect of what lies beyond the world of sense, or if we allow any pretence to be made of insight into the being and constitution of the nature of God, of His Understanding and Will, of the laws of both and of His properties which thus affect the world, I should like to know where and at what point we will bound these assumptions of Reason. For wherever such insight can be derived, there may yet more be expected (if we only strain our reflection, as we have a mind to do). Bounds must then be put to such claims according to a certain principle, and not merely because we find that all attempts of the sort have hitherto failed, for that proves nothing against the possibility of a better result. But here no principle is possible, except either to assume that in respect of the supersensible absolutely nothing can be theoretically determined (except mere negations); or else that our Reason contains in itself a yet unused mine of cognitions, reaching no one knows how far, stored up for ourselves and our posterity.
- Critique of Judgment section 89
It's all there for those with eyes to see.
>For if we permit the vanity or the presumption of sophistry to determine the least thing theoretically (in a way that extends our knowledge) in respect of what lies beyond the world of sense, or if we allow any pretence to be made of insight into the being and constitution of the nature of God, of His Understanding and Will, of the laws of both and of His properties which thus affect the world, I should like to know where and at what point we will bound these assumptions of Reason. For wherever such insight can be derived, there may yet more be expected (if we only strain our reflection, as we have a mind to do). Bounds must then be put to such claims according to a certain principle, and not merely because we find that all attempts of the sort have hitherto failed, for that proves nothing against the possibility of a better result. But here no principle is possible, except either to assume that in respect of the supersensible absolutely nothing can be theoretically determined (except mere negations); or else that our Reason contains in itself a yet unused mine of cognitions, reaching no one knows how far, stored up for ourselves and our posterity.
- Critique of Judgment section 89
It's all there for those with eyes to see.
Page 1