/lit/ - Literature

>>13342223
whoops wrong photo my bad

>>13342223

Pathetic, you reject the Imperative, you reject Creation itself.

>>13342240
>begins with the senses

I know that Kant is a crypto-Catholic, thus wrong, but this is abject even for him. A camera obscura or a puddle receive input just the same as a man, particularly just the same as Kant in his tepid obscurantism, but no knowledge has so far begun in either of them. Inasmuch as you claim Man's sensing as such differs from "Newtonian" sensing of input-output that pervades the Phenomenal, you are actually claiming Man's sensing is implicitly superseded or subsumed by something else, probably by Reason. Thus there is no complementary relation between them. Knowing begins with Reason, nay, beginning itself is subordinate to the Rational, from which knowing, sensing, and all else, explodes.

>>13343142
Have you even read Kant?

>>13343142

>>13343142
Yeah it's his issues that bore antinomies and things-in-themselves. He gets the metaphysical structure pretty accurate tho but hegel declared God knowable. I personally think everyone was just too scared of the empiricists because their gains in physics and calculus

>>13343142
>thus wrong
FUCKINGLOVESCIENCE

unrelated question.
on World as will and representation, the appendix is the critique of kantian philosophy. Should the appendix be on volume 1?

>>13343827
haven't read it yet but i've skimmed it, he seems to mostly be talking about the critique of pure reason

>>13343841
all right, but is the appendix on the first volume? where schoppy talks about the 2 aspects of the world as will and the world as representation?

>>13343932
yes, in my cambridge edition anyway

>>13343938
thanks. got the first volume at my public library and it has no appendix, will have to borrow another edition to read it...