/lit/ - Literature

The world is transcendentally ideal-- but, also, it is empirically real.

>>23459530

I hate transcendental idealism so much it's unreal. I can't believe people actually believe this bullshit.

How do I get past page 1?

anybody here read picrel? Is it good?

>>23374557
Kant btfo Locke lmao even

>The celebrated Locke, for want of due reflection on these points, and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in experience, sought also to deduce them from experience, and yet proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt, with their aid, to arrive it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience. David Hume perceived that, to render this possible, it was necessary that the conceptions should have an a priori origin. But as he could not explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as necessarily connected in the object,—and it never occurred to him that the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were presented to it,—he was forced to drive these conceptions from experience, that is, from a subjective necessity arising from repeated association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective,—in one word, from "habit." But he proceeded with perfect consequence and declared it to be impossible with such conceptions and the principles arising from them, to overstep the limits of experience. The empirical derivation, however, which both of these philosophers attributed to these conceptions, cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we do possess scientific a priori cognitions, namely, those of pure mathematics and general physics.

>>23320553

someone explain the transcendental deduction

>die Zeitbestimmungen
I think the parts about time are really good.

I have single handedly bumped Critique of Pure Reason sales through the roof. I pat myself on the back. *pat* *pat*

unironically start here

>>22893547
>Where the fuck do we even go from here?

for me it's critique of pure reason

>he who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy. Such a man then stands to the man who knows the Kantian philosophy as a minor to a man of full age.
-Schopenhauer

>>22822453
read more faggot instead of getting caught up on one fucking passage out of context. A PRIORI means NOT derived from experience. Kemp Smith is shit btw. Meiklejohn is the superior translation.

>it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
- Kant, CPR 2nd Preface

>>22740978
determinism applies to phenomrna; to the Ding an sich? unknown.

still the best

>>22729680
>Which edition/translation?
Also, anon you need to specify which edition, not just translation, but the actual original German first or second edition since there are major differences between them (different prefaces, certain sections COMPLETELY re-written, certain sections COMPLETELY removed, certain sections added). Most current translations have both editions, but (for this project) I do not recommend reading the differing sections consecutively since this will just filter even more people: stick to one edition at first and read that all the way through. I recommend the second edition since that was Kant's definitive statement on theoretical philosophy (there were more editions after the second but they all were more or less the same as the second) and the edition that became famous and most later philosophers only read this edition and responded to it. The first edition is more for people who are really, really into Kant.

One more thing, I do not recommend Guyer/Wood because that is a literal translation from the German which will make reading it even harder. For newfags I think the old Meiklejohn translation best because he rephrases Kant's words in actually readable English (and what matter's as a new reader and getting an understanding of the whole of the text instead of dwelling on technical particularities-- which will always be there for those that want more Kant. There is good amazon review I posted one time that explains why Meiklejohn is better. I'll look for it and post it. In the meantime here is a quote from Kant on focusing getting through and understanding the whole work instead of getting caught up on particular passages (which is why readability is so important).

>I must, therefore, leave the task of clearing up the obscurities of the present work—inevitable, perhaps, at the outset—as well as, the defence of the whole, to those deserving men, who have made my system their own. A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.

>>22653880
really good. i read it everyday

>>22652776

>>22652655
it's like 12 bucks on amazon. no index tho. best translation imo. also only includes 2nd edition. but it's portable and convenient. best edition imo.