/lit/ - Literature

Hello,

I am currently reading through the Critique of Pure Reason and I have three questions about Kant for the smarter and more experienced readers of him than myself.

1. First, how do things-in-themselves interact with us to produce certain effects, since causality is "our contribution" so to speak as one of the pure concepts of the understanding? Does this not qualify as a cause since Kant maintains that for causality to have objective rather than merely logical content it must be temporally ordered?

2. Second, how do the schemata differ from the principles (not the concepts) of pure understanding? Are the former the grounds for applying the concepts while the latter are the actual application of the concepts?

3. Third, and finally, why posit the existence of things-in-themselves if they are beyond the scope of our faculties? Is it because they help to explain why space is so full of objects, rather than merely being an empty form of intuition?

Thank you for the help!

>>15095083
>>15095468
Absolutely transcendental.

>>14967572
Come on Gentlemen. Help a budding Kantian out. Bonus question: What is your critique with his system if your not a Kantian?

>This is evidently the effect not of the thoughtlessness of our age, but of its ripened power of judgement, which will no longer be put off with illusory knowledge, and which demands that reason should take on anew the most difficult of all its tasks, namely that of self-knowledge, and to institute a court of justice, by which reason may secure its rightful claims while dismissing all its groundless pretensions, and this not by mere decrees but according to its own eternal and unchangeable laws; and this court is none other than... the critique of pure reason itself.
Really Kant?

Intuitions of all senses join me in becoming the Transcendental ideal. We will overthrow the current empircal and dogmatic world order for one of imagination, categories, schemata, representation, principles, cognizing, and apperception. An understanding built on intuiting space and time a priori. We will truly be a thoroughgoing unity my friends.

>>14612885
>>14613545
k-kant terrifies me

>i have to leave anon, other worlds need enlightening... don't worry, you'll be able to find the truth without me. the son has to step out of his father's shadow if he is to become his own man; i cannot lead you all the way, but with what i have left you, you should be able to find it on your own... the age of enlightenment is yours to explore, not mine. just remember this motto: sapere aude! have the courage to use your own understanding!
>now, auf wiedersehen anon, and never let your inquisitive spirit fade away...

>>14236227
did i say anything about stoicism you fucking schizo?

Only in so far as one understands it generally. Saupere aude after all.

>Only by what a man does heedless of enjoyment, in complete freedom and independently of what he can produce passively from the hand of nature, does he give absolute worth to his existence, as the real existence of a person. Happiness, with all its plethora of pleasures, is far from being an unconditioned good.

>>13003544
My fucking dude. Here here.

Dosto
Vertov

Good night plebs.

>*laughs in the shadows*
>"Was ist aufklärung?"

KANT AND SEXUAL PERVERSION
I. THE COLD KANT
>In the first part (the "Doctrine of Right," the Rechtslehre) of his late, post-critical Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which part is devoted to the Law, Immanuel Kant tells us about a crime that is "deserving of death" with regard to which it still remains doubtful whether legislation is also authorized to impose the death penalty." This crime is "a mother's murder of her child."1 But Kant is not concerned with a Susan Smith, who drowned in an automobile submerged in a lake her properly, legally, conceived children. That it is "doubtful" that the law should be brought to bear against infanticide is reserved by Kant for a special case:

>"Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth. ... A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law ... and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation."

KANT AND SEXUAL PERVERSION
I. THE COLD KANT
>In the first part (the "Doctrine of Right," the Rechtslehre) of his late, post-critical Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which part is devoted to the Law, Immanuel Kant tells us about a crime that is "deserving of death"
with regard to which it still remains doubtful whether legislation is also authorized to impose the death penalty." This crime is "a mother's murder of her child."1 But Kant is not concerned with a Susan Smith, who drowned in an automobile submerged in a lake her properly, legally, conceived children. That it is "doubtful" that the law should be brought to bear against infanticide is reserved by Kant for a special case:

>"Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth. ... A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law ... and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation."

>>3062690

>inferring an "ought" from an "is"
>using science to ground anything other than science

ISHYGDDT