/lit/ - Literature

In the transcendental aesthetic, outer sense is the means by which we represent objects as outside us in Euclidean space. Since a representation of euclidean space underlies all outer intuitions, it is given a priori, always already, as a form of outer sense.

Similarly, inner sense is the means by which we represent objects internal to us in linear time. Since a representation of linear time underlies all inner intuitions, it is given a priori, always already, as a form of inner sense.

How can Kant, then, derive from this, that space and time are pure forms of our intuition? For he hasn't connected the above inner and outer sense to the actual inner and outer receptivity of the sensibility (if such a distinction is even meaningful on that level of reality), he has merely named them as such.

There can be no such thing as a universal principle, since all principles end where the hypothetical begins.

Let's use the abortion debate as an example and the whole notion of "my body, my choice" as our universal principle. In order for it to be a universal principle, it needs to apply equally to all members of society, and not arbitrarily to only a select group. We can draw a line on where the rights of the individual end, but only if that line is drawn for society as a whole. Since we obviously can't allow people to use their bodies in a way that infringes on the rights of others, let's reword our universal principle to something more clear: "My body, my choice, so long as that choice doesn't cause direct physical harm to others."

If we define the body as belonging to an individual with full bodily autonomy, and not dependent on another (as in the case of a fetus), then we now understand that the individual has a right to bodily autonomy up to the point of engaging in physical violence against other individuals. While we can easily apply this to all members of society, there's still a problem: what if I want to use my bodily autonomy to walk down the street naked or masturbate in front of a playground full of children? As long as I don't make physical contact, I'm technically only using my right to bodily autonomy in a way that you disagree with, and you have no right to stop me. So let's reword our principle once more: "My body, my choice, so long as that choice doesn't potentially cause physical or emotional harm to others."

And therein lies the desecration of the universal principle, since universal principles can't deal in the hypothetical. I might hypothetically be harming people by walking around naked and masturbating public, but, then again, you're hypothetically harming me by telling me I can't do it by causing me emotional distress. Who are you to say otherwise?

Thus we have no universal principles, only the dictates of those with power and the complaints of those without.

I want to read Kant and actually understand him. I don't want to think I've grasped him but KNOW that I've grasped him. What are some secondary sources, whether it be other books, or online lectures, that'll help me understand what the fuck he's trying to talk about?

Did this SIK KUNT enjoy KRIMBO?

Give me a run down of the Kant to Frankfurt school pipeline

the real question is: was Kant a volcel?

Was it autism?

Has he been debunked by Relativity and Non-Euclidean geometry?

why does he need synthetic a priori to exist so badly? what is at stake for him?

You're the best around
Nothing's gonna ever keep ya down

It is time to decide /lit/, logical principle based thinking or practical utility based thinking, which path should we follow?

Tfw you BTFO David Hume for all eternity

>Love is the only thing that transcends time and space

What would Kant have to say about this?

So space and time and all so-called material objects, including my body, are all phenomenal, and all phenomena are mere qualia, not things-in-themselves.

What then is the fundamental nature of independent reality? Is it total nothingness?

That table over there, in what form does it exist in itself? Any property I imagine it to have is fundamentally a percept, which is by nature a dependent phenomenon, and thus, no matter how hard I try, I can only ever conceive of it in subjective terms. Its supposed objective nature remains completely inaccessible to me.

Please help, I think my mind is melting.

Fuck the Greeks. Start with the Germans.