“[The babby] would have to exercise an influence [on its parents] by virtue of its shape alone and its mere existence in space; and indeed it would have to exercise an efficacy such that every rational being would be obliged to recognize it as a being capable of reason. Its articulation would have to point not to some determinate sphere of arbitrary movement, as in the case of animals, but rather to all conceivable movements ad infinitum. The articulation would not have any determinacy but only an infinite determinability; it would not be formed in any particular way but would be only formable.” - Johann Fichte, philosopher of babbies and the babby form

I don’t know where to start with Schopenhauer. For example, his account of causality completely ignores objective causality, which is what got idealism going in the first place. Huge omission, and a retarded one. Then when he treats Kant’s account he still doesn’t see it, he just goes on a sophism about how Kant’s subjective causality is ackshually objective because it involves sense organs and the brain. lol. The Schoppie pseuds need to come home. No more baby food, they need tough, fleshy meat in their mouths to make them strong.

One big issue with Schopenhauer is the question of the transcendental deduction. Schopenhauer thinks Kant is describing a process by which our physical organism “organizes” raw experience. But in fact, the point is that consciousness as such and nature stand in a relation of reciprocity. So the real idealists are interested in the unity of man and nature, while Schopenhauer makes man a part of nature. You can see how a different start like that could have great consequences.

People read him as a sort of retarded dogmatist because they themselves are retarded dogmatists. His writing is muddled it takes a bit of work to understand what he’s really saying. But philosophy attracts lazy and unimaginative people with an inflated sense of of their own intelligence. I’m not an avatarfag this is exactly what Fichte would say if he was posting itt. If you think Kant is writing about how our minds/brains filter reality, you got filtered. If you think transcendental faculties are psychological, you got filtered. If you think Kant transcendentally affirmed the existence of the thing in itself, you got filtered. If you think practical reason is somehow secondary, you got filtered and have probably only read the first critique. If you think Kant was proposing a theory of the cause of causality, you got filtered. If you think the transcendental deduction is describing some sort of mechanistic process, you got filtered. If you don’t understand the nature of transcendental idealism in relation to empirical realism, you got filtered. If you think Kant was a solipsist, as does one anon here, you’re a fucking idiot.

“All that activity can ever reflect upon is pure willing, which is the highest thing that is determinable. What is determinable in this case is the overall realm of reason as such. This totality is limited and determined, prior to anything else, by thinking of a concept that limits me (individuality). This provides us with something objective, which, at the same time, is something determinable for the empirical will. Three distinct levels are present here: (1) The level of pure will, or the level of reason as a whole. This is the highest thing that is determinable. (2) But the latter is further determined whenever, in consequence of a concept of having to limit ourselves, anything is extracted from it through individuality. (3) This individuality is what is determinable for a particular moment of consciousness, i.e. it is what is determinable for a determinate will. An act of empirical willing is a mere act of reflecting upon pure willing as such. This empirical act of willing - appearing as an act of willing - becomes my entire self-activity. Accordingly it is only an appearance and nothing in itself.”

That’s what genuine esoteric Kantianism is like. (Note the Phaedrus echoes.) It’s a profound philosophy and if you’re intrigued by the Kantanon, read Fichte.