/lit/ - Literature

>>14538475
>and by extension Schopenhauer.

>>14538515
Great argument

>>14538519
>>Great argument

>>14538527
Go away and let the adults speak now

>>14538529
>>Go away and let the adults speak now

>>14538532
Thanks for the bump

>>14538515
>>14538519
>14538519
>>14538527
>>14538529
>>14538532

great thread lads glad I'm still coming to /lit/

>>14538475
Einstein did not "discover" any of that. He theorized it, and whether it is really "true" remains to be seen. Also when Kant refers to space he is most likely referring to our perception of space in a phenomonological way. He is not saying that our minds impose reality as it actually is.

>>14538535
>>Thanks for the bump

>>14538540
>>
>great thread lads glad I'm still coming to /lit/

>But the space that Kant has in mind is the simple 3-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry of his time

None of his arguments rely on 3-dimensionality, just replace all his "interior angles of a triangle" shit with whatever generalized property of polytopes in n dimensions you want. It's equally aprioristic

>>14538515
what is that image meant to communicate

>>14538475
>Kant states that the space and time were not properties of things themselves, but forms of our perception. In other words we impose space and time on (our representations of) reality. But the space that Kant has in mind is the simple 3-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry of his time.
Exactly...

>Mathematicians have since developed non Euclidean geometries and n-dimensional spaces. Einstein discovered that the space-time is curved and actually non Euclidean
Yes, which only reinforces Kant's claim that physical geometry is synthetic rather than analytic.

>So it’s the height of hubris to claim that our minds impose (3-d Euclidean) space on reality when in fact reality is more complex than our minds can perceive.
Are you drunk? Did you read what you just wrote? Yes, the mind imposes a "3-d Euclidean" spacial structure upon reality, regardless of how things "really are" in themselves. That's precisely Kant's point. And Spengler obviously didn't deny any of that...

Oh shit, did I just fall for a /lit/ troll? Fuck.

>>14538581
>what is that image meant to communicate

>>14538586
According to Kant space and time are nothing in themselves.

>>14538586
Yeah I wanted to post this. What the heck is OP getting at? what a mysterious guy

Okay yeah sure maybe Kant was wrong but I don't see how Spengler is involved in this?

>>14538547
>He theorized it, and whether it is really "true" remains to be seen.
The curvature of space time is pretty much accepted fact and demonstrated by observation. You need to read more about science.
> Also when Kant refers to space he is most likely referring to our perception of space in a phenomonological way. He is not saying that our minds impose reality as it actually is.
Kant says that we cannot know “reality as it is”, only our representation of it, and space and time our forms of our perception. Everything we can know is our representation, and we impose space and time on it. There is not a separate space “out there”, according to Kant. Everything that we perceive as occurring in space and time are our representations. In short every space is our own creation, according to Kant. And 3-d Euclidean space at that. But science has demonstrated it as being false.

>>14538586
You lack basic reading comprehension skills

>>14538623
>>You lack basic reading comprehension skills

>>14538475
It's not as easy to handwaive Kant's reasoning away as you may think. It's important to remember that the mathematical reasoning behind things like non-Euclidean space or Hilbert space, if it doesn't find itself congruent with the properties of space presented in (what Kant calls) sensible intuition, it is nevertheless a development and elaboration of those properties that we do find ourselves familiar with. What I'm trying to say is that mathematical thought begins with those objects presented in perception; as far as physical theory extends beyond those objects and negates that world presented to intuition, it is a contradiction.

Kant was looking for a solution to the problem of making a priori judgements about the nature of space; he is addressing the issue of making logical judgements about extension, motion, force, etc. that is binding for all extended objects, despite physical theories evolving from empirical evidence. That he links space and time with the intuition of given objects (as opposed to being something in-themself) is only as far as it solves this riddle posed by Humean skepticism. Kant states many times in COPR that transcendental idealism and empirical realism make the same claims about the nature of reality. Kant is opposed to all turtle-in-a-dream nonsense.

>>14538569
You misunderstand the point.
> just replace all his "interior angles of a triangle" shit with whatever generalized property of polytopes in n dimensions you want. It's equally aprioristic
You’re talking about pure mathematics, but Kant is talking about forms of our PERCEPTION. Where is the n-dimensional space in our perception, even our imagination (Kant said that even mathematical objects were sensible intuitions). You can’t imagine an n-dimensional object, it’s limited to 3-d.

>>14538515
>>14538527
>>14538532
>>14538552
>>14538558
>>14538591
>>14538631
ahahahahaha the logic of the face pictures completely deconstructs the op, it's a symbolic extension of amon-ra's hieroglyphic system, without being oriented toward the true inner north pole it's impossible to do it. spengler is child's play. you guys don't realize who you are fucking with here. im on to this anon's shit like flies. he is showing you the emptiness of the non-egyptian dialectics of spengler. turn north immediately

>>14538592
In the sense that they are not "things in themselves", yes. They are impositions of the human mind. This is exactly what Kant was arguing.

>>14538623
>You lack basic reading comprehension skills
What am I missing?

>>14538658

>>14538586
>Yes, the mind imposes a "3-d Euclidean" spacial structure upon reality, regardless of how things "really are" in themselves. That's precisely Kant's point.

That's not Kant's point at all. He does not believe there is an unknown 'reality" that is transcendentally distant from us and that we interface only in a limited way. That is a misconstrual of Kant's thinking. See >>14538652

>>14538475
Link to Spengler's mathematical papers? (It's ok if there's a paywall, we all know how sci-hub works)

>>14538658
these are the posts i still come here for

>>14538681
>He does not believe there is an unknown 'reality" that is transcendentally distant from us and that we interface only in a limited way.
He does not deny the existence of noumena, he simple denies their empirical knowability.

>>14538662
>In the sense that they are not "things in themselves", yes. They are impositions of the human mind. This is exactly what Kant was arguing.
So his system is fundamentally atemporal, which is impossible.

>>14538697
you come here because i willed you to come here. but i do it because i love you. all those oriented toward the true inner north are filled with true love. follow the face logic and reject spengler. but anon who posted the faces probably does not even know their true meaning. i love you

>>14538652
Thank you for the thoughtful and serious reply.
So you’re saying that geometries that extrapolate from 3-d Euclidean geometry still take as starting point our intuitions in 3-d and develop from them, as abstractions from them? I would have to look more into the history of mathematics and their mental process to know more about that.

But I would say that if it can be proven that the geometry of spacetime extrapolates our basic intuition of space then Spengler has a point. And modern physics seems to do just that.

>>14538717
It's a common belief (and mistake) that the noumena in Kant are the objects "behind" the phenomena we see, as if the noumenon is genuine reality and the phenomenon is an apparition or phantasm of reality. The noumenon in Kant's writings is precisely as the etymology of the word suggests, a thing of thought (the understanding). It is connected with Kant's writings on the Transcendental Illusion, which is mistaking the subjective necessity of a concept of logic as an objective determination of objects. He states that the noumenon is purely a negative concept that comes from an abstraction of sensible intuition, that it does not point to a positive, genuine object. That would be an object of a non-sensible intuition, an intellectual intuition, which Kant believes is impossible.

>>14538754
>their mental process
The mental processes that mathematicians go through in developing their theories, if that can be studied at all.

>>14538754
>So you’re saying that geometries that extrapolate from 3-d Euclidean geometry still take as starting point our intuitions in 3-d and develop from them, as abstractions from them? I would have to look more into the history of mathematics and their mental process to know more about that.

Yes, that is my point but of course it's up to you to look into yourself. I know mathematicians like Brouwer still maintained a Kantian view of mathematics despite its shortcomings but I am not a mathematician by any means. If you're looking for a developed critique of that idea from someone who is genuinely a mathematician, Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology has a lengthy critique of Cartesian and Kantian thought. He talks about how the development of algebra obliterates the intuitive nature of geometrical thinking, which leads him to a critique of overall technization of math in physical theory. This is purely from a philosophical perspective as the successes and facts of applied sciences are tautological when it comes to speculation about the "real nature" of those properties used in physical theories.

I'm also at a disadvantage here because I'm not familiar with Spengler's critique of Kant. I just know Kant so I thought I'd chip in

>>14538475
>But the space that Kant has in mind is the simple 3-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry of his time.
Just a little note: space not being Euclidean is not really a problem for Kant.
>Mathematicians have since developed non Euclidean geometries and n-dimensional spaces. Einstein discovered that the space-time is curved and actually non Euclidean (I don’t know if Spengler knew of Einstein, I’m intruding with an illustration now). So it’s the height of hubris to claim that our minds impose (3-d Euclidean) space on reality when in fact reality is more complex than our minds can perceive.
These constructions would be, according to Kant, merely mathematical. It is true that I can construct proofs concerning 4D geometrical figures, but I cannot have any intuition of them, neither empirical nor pure (which means that I could never say for sure wether these constructions describe anything real at all). As such, Kant's Trascendental Aesthetic is still valid. Also, acquiring the ability of intuiting 4D shapes would not refute the TA either, at best it would warrant for some minor revisions, mostly concerning the examples that Kant uses from time to time. The whole conceptual framework would stand still

If you really want to fuck with Kant's theory you have to deal with time (his schematism is entirely based on that), space on the other hand is pretty much a non-problem.

>>14538475
>our minds impose space on reality
I should have said empirical reality, which for Kant is identical with the world of phenomena, as said >>14538652
Transcendental idealism and empirical realism make the same claims about reality.

To take an illustration. If the universe were a closed ball, if we were to stand on the edge of the universe and walk in a straight line we would eventually arrive at the same place, thus describing a circle. But we wouldn’t perceive it as walking in a circle but walking in a straight line, because our Kantian brains do not perceive the non Euclidean geometric curvature of space time. Space time therefore is “bigger” than our minds. Empirical space is not determined by the forms of our institution.

>>14538768
>non-sensible intuition, an intellectual intuition, which Kant believes is impossible.
That was retroactively refuted by Shaykh Guénon (pbuh).

>>14538820
Thanks for the reply.

What do you think of this illustration? >>14538847

>>14538852
>guenonposting
That took long

>>14538655
I don't think I do. Kant has a hierarchy of perceptual modalities, where space and time come primary and things like colors, shapes, whatever are specific possibilities of those primary modes. His BIG point is correct, because insofar as any math is "geometry" it's about our intuition of space.

We get n-dimensional properties by percieving spatial possibilities, otherwise no mathematician would ever discover them. Even general relativity comes via a geometric intuition based on abstracting what you see. A lot of his particular detail-based elaboration of the possible modalities of space and time is horseshit (how he thinks about geometry being one example which is valid to throw away) which is why it's hard to read his actual metaphysics, but that's ultimately unimportant considering his larger point.

If mathematicians can't (somehow) perceive n-dimensional space, how do we know n-dimensional facts? If we only know it through number chugging with no intuition, why is it geometry and not algebra?

>>14538852
Yet never elaborated upon. Yeah, I've spent a lot of time studying Guenon. He never justifies or describes intellectual intuition. If you'd like to I'm all ears. The closest thing is his citation of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics where there is some non-demonstrative knowing of logical principles; yet intellectual intuition is the only way a being "realizes" a metaphysical state. Tell me, Guenonposter, how does a non-demonstrative awareness of something like the principle of non-contradiction mesh with Guenon's doctrine of realizing metaphysical states (whatever that means) through "immediate knowledge" (intuition)?

>>14538475
>Spengler refuted Kant
So did Guenon, long before Spengler. He also retroactively showed Spengler to be incorrect in his refutation.

>>14538874
>If you'd like to I'm all ears.
Provide your initiatic credentials. We will then contact you using the appropriate channels (of which you were made aware after your initiation).

>>14538869
I see your point. You make a similar argument as >>14538652
But how about walking in a “straight line” in curved space time, as in >>14538847
In this case it’s not an abstraction. You would be literally, physically walking in a curve wi to your body while perceiving a straight line with your Kantian brain/sensible intuition...

>>14538889
>He also retroactively showed Spengler to be incorrect in his refutation.
>picture of Lovecraft
This cracked me up

>>14538874
>I've spent a lot of time studying Guenon
press 'X' to doubt, as the kids would say.

>>14538896
I expected nothing less. You have no idea what you're talking about. Leave the conversation to the people who've actually read the people they post about.

>all this middle-school-level pop-sci-tier understanding of mathematics and space
It truly feels like I am an ascendent entity. Imagine a bunch of undergrad pseuds discussing deep concepts in philosophy right after attending their Philosophy 101 class. That's how I feel right now.

>>14538768
>It's a common belief (and mistake) that the noumena in Kant are the objects "behind" the phenomena we see, as if the noumenon is genuine reality and the phenomenon is an apparition or phantasm of reality. The noumenon in Kant's writings is precisely as the etymology of the word suggests, a thing of thought (the understanding).
In contemporary scientific discourse, a "noumenon" would be a theoretical posit (e.g., a quark, or a string, etc.) in contrast to a "phenomenon" -- i.e., an empirical event fully describable via direct observation.

>>14538912
>who've actually read the people they post about.
see >>14538905
if you've read him, you would understand what >>14538896 was talking about.

>>14538897
A geodesic is only sort of a "straight line", it's not a paradox or anything. It's the lack of a good English equivalent for an unambiguous geometric concept that makes it sound like voodoo

Here's one good video explaining what a "straight line in curved space" (the real world is geodesic) is like

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NfqrCdAjiks

>>14538920
>a "phenomenon" -- i.e., an empirical event fully describable via direct observation.
No such thing can be shown to exist.

>>14538905
Doubt all you want. I've never come across a genuine explanation of intellectual intuition even from the aberrant Traditionalist school clowns (Schuon, Coomarasamy, etc.).

>>14538918
Enlighten us

>>14538920
That's interesting. I am using the terms from Kant's writings, but I can understand how those terms would come to mean those things. I didn't even realize noumenon was a term used in scientific literature.

>>14538918
Then show us your great knowledge.

>>14538768
>That would be an object of a non-sensible intuition, an intellectual intuition, which Kant believes is impossible.
That's only because he was too dumb to understand Gueon. It happens.

>>14538939
>Schuon, Coomarasamy, etc.
That you would even consider them comparable to Guenonic though shows that you haven't studied him in depth. I suggest doing your homework before trying to defend retroactively refuted ""philosophy"".

>>14538945
Guenon could talk a lot of shit about dead people. In the real world, rather, he dealt in clandestine charades and cowardice, not forgetting to write about it in a comfortable distance.

>>14538951
My point was that they aren't comparable though they purport to be an elaboration of the missing parts of his writings.

>>14538953
>Guenon could talk a lot of shit about dead people.
Inconsequential to a true mystic (in the proper sense of the word) like Guenon. He could engage with poor thinkers like Kant even after their death by prayer and contemplation.

>>14538931
Cool. I’m not saying geodesic is paradoxical or anything. I’m saying that an observer moving in a geodesic perceives himself as moving in a straight line because the form of our intuition of space works like that. Since however the curvature or space can be demonstrated to be a really existing property of empirical space, this would be a problem for Kant’s theory, as he claims that it is our minds that impose space on empirical reality, and there is no form of space other than that which we can perceive.

>>14538953
Oh no no no no

>>14538475
Doesn't Spengler compare Kant to the intellects of Thebes with their Talmudic levels of abstraction? He calls them Ethical philosophers rather than judges of men, I don't know how that fits into Spengler's view of Egypt though.

guys non-euclidean geometry does not disprove Kant, this is babys first counter-argument. Go break out your Allison and Guyer guide to the critique again.

>According to Einstein, his theoretical attitude “is distinct from that of Kant only by the fact that we do not conceive of the ‘categories’ as unalterable (conditioned by the nature of the understanding) but as (in the logical sense) free conventions. They appear to be a priori only insofar as thinking without the positing of categories and of concepts in general would be as impossible as is breathing in a vacuum”

>>14538973
>the intellects of Thebes
who?

>>14538960
That's right, I forgot. He had reintegrated with Edenic state, castrated Enoch and became the next Metatron with grotesque wings and flaming eyeballs like a true hekhalot ascender in the lineage of Rabbi Ishmael. You could see how it was easy for me to forget that his atemporal vision allowed him to absolutely dab on thinkers before and after his after and life.

>mfw just started to barely grasp guenon's refutation of kant
this experience alone makes me believe in intellectual intuition. most posters here who claim to read him seem to be either retarded or lying.

>>14538960
>>14538994
death and life

>>14538989
Ultimately Crates, Cebes, and any alchemical philosopher of the Middle Ages. Not necessarily the leading lights when compared to Greece.

Well before this thread details completely, it was a thread about Spengler and not about Kant. I hoped to prove that Spengler had intellectual acumen against those who would deny it. Kant was still hugely influential back then. I think I showed that Spengler could hang out with the big boys. I hope that it has more people will become interested in him.

>>14538989
I think he means the basic style of thinking which we can get a sense of from having read the Theban Plays or through some other historical source.

>>14539021
>wikipedia
LMFAO. I thought this was a serious forum for intellectuals?

>>14539007
Spengler and The Big Boys

>>14539023
Spengler's not deeply abstract which irritates sophists who love to invoke abstract arguments.

>>14538853
This would be relevant only if said curvature was impossible to measure (or identify in an intuition). If space is really set up this way, we have all the tools to describe it. In this sense you can't really differentiate from our perception of space and space itself (Kant wasn't being a weird relativist here), since our perception of space accounts for every phaenomenon we can possibly experience and imagine.

My guess is that you're thinking about the possbility of real things existing in a way that can't be grasped by our intuition (i.e. space really exists, and it has 7 dimensions, but we can only percieve 3 of them). Kant doesn't deal much with this eventuality for obvious reasons, namely that we can not know anything about these things in the first place, since they literally play no parts in our phaenomenical experience. Make sure not to confuse my example with more general ones, like the existence of subatomic particles. Although I cannot directly percieve quarks, I can still derive and prove their existence through causal links. I can't see them, but they have a real effect on many phaenomena I can observe and measure. In the case of the 7D space, there would be no such causal connection, I could only claim its existence as a metaphysical hypothesis.

>>14538994
This. Guenon upon his death literally became One with the Monadic Allah and can now freely retroactively refute philosophers of both past, present and future for all eternity.

>>14538768
Is there anywhere I can read more about this understanding of Kant aside from just jumping into the CPR? Everything I've read about him has described the idea of noumena in the way that you're claiming is a misunderstanding.

>>14539044
>both past, present and future
>past, present, future
>both
What did he mean by this?

>>14539044
You’re making people dislike Guenon by doing this do you know that? Are you really a guenonfag or an anti-Guenon troll?

>>14539064
>he isn't aware of the past-future non-dualism
Read more Guenon (pbuh).

>>14539052
Read his prolegomena, it's actually short and gets to guys of the theory. It's basically a summary

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics

>>14539052
Don't rely purely on secondary secores. I'm telling you that it isn't as abstruse as you may think. Open it up and read. If you don't understand a part just keep going. Read his parts on Transcendental Aesthetic, Transcendental Logic and Transcendental Illusion.

The noumenon is a highly discussed and debated idea in post-Kantian literature, especially in the Fichtean and Hegelian strands. I believed the same thing about Kant until I opened it up and started to read it. Start around B306, 307 to get straight to the discussion of the noumenon. This same issue with Kant is why he lamented the term idealism as a means of describing his thought.

>>14539064
>became One
The Monad.
>of both
The Dyad.
>past, present and future
The Triad.
>for all eternity
The Decad completing the prior 1+2+3. Guenonfag is literally performing metaphysics as we speak.

>>14539039
>subatomic particles
I always thought that subatomic particles would fall under the category of Ideas if Reason in Kant’s system, like the cosmos, the soul and God (because you can’t have a sensible intuition of them and they need to derive their existence through causal links, as you said). What do you think about that?

>>14539100
Subatomic particles don't "cause" anything. They are posited objects in an exhaustive analysis of causal events through the use of mathematical theory. Strictly speaking, a "particle" is nothing at all without place in a web of physical theory.

>>14539123
> They are posited objects in an exhaustive analysis of causal events through the use of mathematical theory.
Exactly! Like Kant’s Ideas of Reason then?

>>14538475
>So it’s the height of hubris to claim that our minds impose (3-d Euclidean) space on reality when in fact reality is more complex than our minds can perceive.
Okay so we impose that complexity.

Big deal.

>>14539100
Not really, since they're not monads. According to the Antinomies we can say, at best, that subatomic particles are the finest division of matter we can find, for now, in nature. We would fall into the second antinomy only if we assumed that subatomic particles literally have no extension

>>14539136
Kant's ideas of reason are pure concepts of understanding that are used to synthesize empirical concepts of the understanding. An idea is a concept formed of notions, ideas that come purely from the understanding, and transcends the possibility of experience. Not only is is unable to be intuited but it is purely a regulator of conditioned concepts. In other words, ideas are the extremely abstract principles that found the synthesis of judgements. On the other hand, a particle is a concept that is formed following the law of reason, which consists of the pure ideas.

That is what I imagine Kant would say. Whereas you can't prove, say, the principle of non-contradiction in a theory nor can you intuit it, you must employ it to derive a concept like particle by applying the rules of thought to physical analysis. Does that make sense?

>>14539092
>>Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics
>associating temporal adjectives to "Metaphysics"
>associating indefinite articles to "Metaphysics"
>unironically associating a plural form to "Metaphysic"
Laughing out loud. As a Guénonian thinker this is just laughable. Kant is abusing and inverting language so hard it's almost as disgusting as modernist sex.

>>14539164
>>14539187
Thanks for the input

>>14539195
t. false flagging anti guenon poster

>>14539100
>subatomic particles would fall under the category God
I Frickin' Love Science you guys! Join my Youtube Podcast where I debunk all forms of Archaic Bronze Age Beliefs in Deities With Logic!

>>14539195
I'm currently intellectually intuiting that Kant's use of the word is sanctioned by convention, whereas Guenon's appropriation of the word is fueled by hostility and antinomianism.

>>14539201
t. confirmed for never reading and subvocalizing a single word of Guénon directly from a sheet of paper with his writing

>>14539205
>I'm currently intellectually intuiting
Based fellow Guenonian.

>>14539205
>sanctioned by convention
>kant is such a weakling of a philosopher that mere """"social convention"""" is enough to retroactively invalidate all of his pathetic """"thought""""

>>14538527
>>14538532
fucking kek'd hard here.

>this entire thread
fucking kek'd hard here.

>>14539238
>retroactively
Did you just learn this word? You sure use it a lot. People like Kant are proactive.

>>14539100
>subatomic particles would fall under the category of Ideas
Retroactively shown to be false by Guenon.

Fuck Kant. Let's discuss Guenon's opinion on the metaphysics of the Trinity. What does he think of it?

>>14539285
>Trinity
Retroactively refuted by the Holy Quran

>>14538658
based

>>14538475
Just what the fuck are you even talking about... Spengler's entire philosophy is based on Kantian idealism (whether he would have admitted it or not)
>In other words we impose space and time on (our representations of) reality.
This is like 80% of Spengler's philosophy condensed into a single sentence

>>14539325
This is a Guenon (pbuh) thread now.

>>14539334
>taking seriously the writings of a degenerate opium user

>>14538655
>can't imagine an n-dimensional object
This guy has obviously never overwhelmed the visual receptors in his brain.

>>14539339
>believing in anti-traditional propaganda
Begone son of Kali!

>>14539349
>believing in metaphysical absolutes

>>14539334
>pic related
Isn't that a form of idol worship?

>>14538612
>You need to read more about science.

You need to read more about science, preferably not from Youtube videos, PBS documentaries, or pop-science books. The choice of which geometry to adopt when describing the physical world is a matter of conventionality, and even if you adopt the realist position (as I suspect Einstein and other spacetime substantivalists might) then one still must accept that it is ultimately a philosophical question, as there is no empirical distinction to be made between a world that is euclidean and a world that is not. "Science" has not and cannot prove what the "real" geometry of the world is. It can only gesture at an answer.

http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/spacetime/lectures/14.Poincare.pdf

>>14538655
>You can’t imagine an n-dimensional object, it’s limited to 3-d.
I can easily imagine 4D projective space.

>>14538475
No. Hide.

>>14539511
>Poincaré
Most of his thought (especially the "philosophically-oriented" parts of it) was retroactively invalidated by Guénon.

>>14539195
>Reign of quantity
Why is Guenon so damn easy to read? It's like there is no fucking complexity in his thought. I'm coming of off Deleuze and it's nauseating. Probably not even going to finish this shitty book unless someone tells me it gets better.

>>14539539
>''damn''
>''fucking''
>''shitty''
>Deleuze

how long until guenon retroactively refutes himself?

>>14539579
Literally never. He transcended the possibility of a refutation of him ever being manifested in existence.
Read:
>>14539098
>>14539044
>>14538994

>>14538475
It’s not an undiscussed thing, it’s called the trendelenburg problem, and it doesn’t necessarily conflict.

Go to 3:00
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UPJh6fRpDjc

>>14538951
Feel free to respond anytime, guenonfags.
>>/lit/thread/S14395216#p14397350
Until then consider your retroactive refutation philosophy retroactively refuted by a meme.

OP, I have some thoughts I may be able to share, although the thread is moving a bit too fast.
For now I'll just say that very few people escaped kantianism. Spengler's system seems to me another construction in opposition to the a priori, a fulcrum attempting to increase the forces of sight yet still only looking at the same thing (although perhaps you could provide a quote). Science, no matter how complex, remains a technical application of the empirical. Wherever it approaches mystical grounds it only does so as a tool of the eternal, the heavens, the a priori; what Prometheus gives Zeus takes away.At best its constructions exist as a mirror, a lower order Platonism - the appearance of technology as a reformulation of the moment of creation. Our being is reflected through the necessity of return, yet every effort only strips more rock away into the chasm. Hence technology's other law: replacement architecture through which the abutment must equalise forces within a fractured foundation. The monstrosity of gods refracts through technology as light through gypsum - it can only be dispersed, but this increases its reflective qualities.Liberalism turned against technology for this very reason, a bourgeois revolution of its technicians; or more likely a subversion of them.

>>14539761
Limitless technicity can only imagine dead space and time, the entirety of the cosmos as a museum. There is no vitality or force in this, at least on its own. The universe achieves false movement through the abstraction of numbers, while man retreats into the hollow earth in search of his being. It is no mistake that the clocktower and churches disappear from the landscape just before the Doomsday Clock becomes a new center. One may only oppose the Wheel of Fate twice, as each gear turns ever faster.
Here we can extend Junger's law of immaterial destruction: if time and space had been assembled in a single country and fired upon by the entire world's nuclear weapons the madness of our age could not have been greater. We are already on the other side of the Doomsday Clock, it only appears for us as a Pandora's Box, mesmerizing us within the stasis of time. The horrific, rattling noise of the cosmos tears away at the firmament and we can only imagine ourselves as one in its being, developing tools for its measurement, exploiting its weaknesses. Triumph over death is merely a law of time; the stasis of the body increases being.

https://youtu.be/sMmTkKz60W8
https://youtu.be/_prY7Ph_-u0

>>14539761
>At best its constructions
New paragraph...

>>14538475
>So it’s the height of hubris to claim that our minds impose (3-d Euclidean) space on reality when in fact reality is more complex than our minds can perceive.
Is this a typo or are you retarded

Keep this up and I can try to post some quotes and commentary tomorrow.

>>14538475
There is no way you have actually read Kant with that retarded ass interpretation. Also Spengler was clearly a Kantian, his whole philosophy builds on kantian epistemology, now fuck off.

>>14538475
Kant was an over-indulging fool.

>>14540544
t. hasn’t read either

>>14540826
False

>>14540831

Your type of effortless posting is a cancer
Either post your some content or shut up

>>14538475
>So it’s the height of hubris to claim
You understand that this is not an argument right? And Schopenhauer agreed with Kant on this point. Read before you shitpost.

>>14540846
>And Schopenhauer agreed with Kant on this point.
Are you stupid? Read OP again
Are you stupid? Did you read what OP wrote?

>Spengler refuted Kant... AND BY EXTENSION SCHOPENHAUER
>>14540846
>hurr durr Schopenhauer agreed with Kant
Yeah, dummy. That’s exactly the point. The two agree that’s why when you refute one you refute the other.
I mean the level of stupidity some people show here is amazing.

>Spengler refuted Kant... AND BY EXTENSION SCHOPENHAUER
>hurr durr Schopenhauer agreed with Kant
Yeah, dummy. That’s exactly the point. The two agree that’s why when you refute one you refute the other.
I mean the level of stupid you have to be to post something like >>14540846
is shocking.

>>14538768
No wait, this is wrong. Kant very much thinks that the things in themselves exist, that's why he described his system as formal idealism. The mind doesn't create reality, it just filters it through the categories.

>>14540842
Kant never states that our a priori conception of space is euclidian; simply that it is entirly subjetive. You clearly don't understand what he means, he doesn't mean that reality (as in, the noumena) becomes euclidian, but that regardless of how reality actually is, we will percieve it in a subjective way (what you call euclidian).

Additionally, space-time isn't curved, time is curved by space, alternatively time is curved by space, but space-time isn't curved (accoring to Einstein). Your post also doesn't explain why you think Spengler refuted Kant (even though, as mentioned in my previous post, Spengler was a kantian).

Clearly you haven't got a clue about any of these philosophers, so please stop posting.

>>14540879
Calm down you made three posts about it

>>14540886
>he doesn't mean that reality (as in, the noumena) becomes euclidian
This has already been addressed in >>14538847
I didn’t claim in the OP that Kant said that our mind imposes time and space on noumena reality (only in empirical, that is to say, phenomenal reality). That’s why I took the care of saying we impose on our representations of reality.
Kant doesn’t say Euclidean geometry because that was standard geometry in his time, but it is implied.

> time is curved by space
Since I’m discussing space specifically this is beside point.

> Your post also doesn't explain why you think Spengler refuted Kant (even though, as mentioned in my previous post, Spengler was a kantian).
This is the part where you show that you haven’t read Decline of the West. Spengler was a Kantian? Spengler criticizes Kant in a number of places. The refutation that is made in the OP is a refutation by Spengler directed at Kant citing Kant by name. If you want to argue that Spengler is a Kantian you will have to argue that you know him better than himself.

>>14540922
I'm not saying Spengler had a dogmatic reverence towards Kant, but transcendental idealism is the basis for Spenglers metaphysics. Spenglers idea of the prime symbol is, what Kant might have called, the individual conception of time and space. I still haven't heard one way in which Spengler refuted Kant. Would you, given that you made a thread about it, be willing to share?

>>14540954
> Would you, given that you made a thread about it, be willing to share?
I should have done that since the beginning. I’m gonna look for it.

>>14540971
After gym

>>14540842
>Your type of effortless posting is a cancer
>>14540826
>t. hasn’t read either
what did he mean by this?

>>14540886
>Additionally, space-time isn't curved,
yes it is
>time is curved by space, alternatively time is curved by space
gibberish
>but space-time isn't curved (accoring to Einstein)
moron

>>14540980
Alright, just tell me the chapter and I'll have a look.

>>14540992
how exactly would space-time be curved? What system of geometry would encompass both space and time, as to be able to curve them both? Anything that could be conceptualized as being curved, would already have to inhabit space or time.

>>14540922
Not that guy, but
>Kant doesn’t say Euclidean geometry because that was standard geometry in his time, but it is implied.
Kant's argument does not hinge on space being Euclidean. If the space in our intuition is non-euclidean, literaly nothing changes in the rest of Kant's system.

>>14541004
>What system of geometry would encompass both space and time, as to be able to curve them both?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold#Lorentzian_manifold

>>14538475
This is a remarkably common and remarkably stupid criticism of Kant.

>>14541026
>the fact that you can create a unified model of how space distorts time and how time distorts space means that spacetime is curved.

Metaphysicaly, space-time cannot be curved, since it encompasses the medium of »curvature». The fact that you could imagine curved spacetime doesn't make it so, it's simply a categorical error.

>>14538475
Spengler's philosophy of history refutes a lot of people

The problem, is his philosophy of history true or not?

>>14541066
>Metaphysicaly, space-time cannot be curved, since it encompasses the medium of »curvature».
Guenon-non-reader detected. Read literally the first four chapters of his reign of quantity.

>>14541120
Space is not a real entity or substance, like modern (metaphysically illiterate) physicists claim. Space has no properties, let alone geometrical, physical ones. Space is not a body. Space is the receptacle where bodies are. Stooges like Einstein and their ilk clearly must mean a physical entity like the ether when they say that space is curved.

>>14541120
Alright.

Guenon >>>>>>>> [infinite unbridgeable gap] >>>>>>>> Tesla > Einstein > Spengler > Kant

>>14538475
>But the space that Kant has in mind is the simple 3-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry of his time. Mathematicians have since developed non Euclidean geometries and n-dimensional spaces. Einstein discovered that the space-time is curved and actually non Euclidean (I don’t know if Spengler knew of Einstein, I’m intruding with an illustration now). So it’s the height of hubris to claim that our minds impose (3-d Euclidean) space on reality when in fact reality is more complex than our minds can perceive.
i don't get this, einstein just expands geometry and slightly tweeks the rules, but still uses the same structures of human logic, just takes them further, how does this refute Kant? isn't Kant's whole point that synthetic apriori judgements are possible? how is creating new synthetic knowledge refuting Kant? isn't it the opposite?

>>14541066
>Metaphysicaly
retard

>>14541290
doesn't Tesla retroactively refute Guenon?

>>14541319
How so (if that were possible)?

If anything Foucault (op pic related) criticized/went beyond Kant, showing that the a priori is historical.

>>14541333
isn't that hegal

>>14538475
>confusing metaphysics with physics
stupid nigger

>>14541336
No it's actually Michael Friedman who relativized the a priori.

>>14538475
Spengler’s critique of Kant’s (and Schopenhauer’s) theory of space in his own words.

>>14541531

>>14541536
Spengler believes that our ideas about space, geometry, etc., are historical and not a priori

>>14541548
Spengler takes a jab at Kant with respect to time also

>>14541553
Was Spengler a Kantian? Not according to him.

I always find funny how anons like >>14540544 are so quick to make claims that are patently wrong and then throw insults at others who disagree with them.

>>14541553
I don't see how this refutes Kant's notion of time (keep in mind that I'm not familiar with Spengler's writings).
In the first part it looks like he is critizing Kant for not having given an existential account of time. How does this concern Kant's trascendental aesthetic and deduction? To give such an account of time I have to experience it beforehand, and this experience is what Kant's is concerned with. In fact it seems that he deals with this criticism in the trascendental deduction, where he relegates this treatment of time to the realm of subjective apperceptions, while he is interested in objective apperception (in this case, what I have to experience to be able in the first place to givean existential account of time).
The second part is even more confusing, since it seems that Spengler thought that Kant treated time as a concept. It's not, rather it is a pure intuition, which is why it's conceptually unconcievable.

Explain Kant's notion of time in simple terms and I will refute it right here and right now!

>>14541880
Read the section on time in the trascendental aesthetic from the first critique, it's like 3 pages long

>>14541880
it's kind of like a graph, right, where the y-axis is how long it's been, and the x-axis is how much time has actually passed, and normally people think it's a 1:1 correlation, between time passed and how long it's been. but, at the same time, these ignorant simpletons will think things like "it's thursday? wasn't yesterday tuesday?" and "wow, it feels like 1999 was just a few years ago" and "2016? wasn't that last year?" the only explanation is that there is not a simple 1:1 correlation between time passed and time elapsed, but it's an exponential curve, that things get further away from each other at a faster rate than the time between them elapses. this also explains why time seems to go so fast when you're an adult but when you're a kid it takes forever - the curve changes as you get older, and gets steeper

>>14541935
This has nothing to do with what Kant said about time. You too should check this section >>14541895 , and maybe read a summary on the section concerning his schematism. I say this because you seem to confuse Kant's notion of time with our subjective experience of time. Kant talks about time in a very basic sense, it's basically just our experience of different events, which are then organized in a temporal succession.
Now, I might be wrong about how much time has passed (i.e. 30 minutes feel like an hour because I'm bored), but that has nothint to do with my experience of a temporal succession, and everything to do with speculative judgements I associate to it. What matters is that those 30 minutes were an actual, ordered temporal succession of experienced events. My judgements on the nature of time might be wrong, but I still have truly experienced that sequence. The truth of this experience doesn't depend on my concept of time because time is an intuition, a representation, derived from my receptivity, that is not mediated by any concept.

>>14541759
Becoming and Become are two main concepts in Spengler. Becoming, something always in motion, is a property of Time, and Become, something inert, a property of Space. He sets up Time and Space as polar opposites to one another, because Time, signifying movement, can only be opposite to motionless Space. Spengler's problem with Kant is that he treated Time "scientifically" the same way he treated Space, by trying to map it out and define it. Spengler is saying Time can't be defined, because something that is always in motion can never be examined. To Spengler, Kant is a scientist, a dissector, who wants to get to the cold hard empirical facts of all things and remove all poetic mystery of life.

To give an example, Spengler absolutely despised psychology because the human mind is "ever-Becoming", it's always in motion and always changing, thus any attempt to scientifically define the mind by saying "this is how it is in this very moment" is a falsity because it wasn't the same in the previous moment nor will it be the same in the next. This is the same criticism he applied to Kant's theory of Time.

In the second part he's saying Time is just an idea that high cultures create. Again there is no single definition of Time because it is different in every civilization. Throughout The Decline of the West he emphasizes the mystical incomprehensible aspects of Time. In that very picture he says "time is a word to indicate something inconceivable"

>>14538820
Also, acquiring the ability of intuiting 4D shapes would not refute the TA either, at best it would warrant for some minor revisions, mostly concerning the examples that Kant uses from time to time.
Nah. The moment "acquiring" intuitive capacities is a possibility, the whole distinction between categories of the mind and regular concepts collapses. At that point the categories are nothing more than a temporary intuitive mode of a mind which is able to somehow overcome the limitations it itself poses in order to understand through that understanding. All aspects of mind are dialectically reflected, part of some kind of ongoing process with neither a clear beginning nor a predestined end, and metaphysics once again become an impossible science.

>>14542233
>Becoming and Become are two main concepts in Spengler. Becoming, something always in motion, is a property of Time, and Become, something inert, a property of Space. He sets up Time and Space as polar opposites to one another, because Time, signifying movement, can only be opposite to motionless Space. Spengler's problem with Kant is that he treated Time "scientifically" the same way he treated Space, by trying to map it out and define it. Spengler is saying Time can't be defined, because something that is always in motion can never be examined. To Spengler, Kant is a scientist, a dissector, who wants to get to the cold hard empirical facts of all things and remove all poetic mystery of life.
The problem here is that Kant doesn't treat time as a "thing". Time itself isn't in motion, rather we percieve things in motion in time. In fact Kant explicitly states multiple times that time, by itself (meaning, without any reference to other determined phaenomena) cannot be experienced.

>To give an example, Spengler absolutely despised psychology because the human mind is "ever-Becoming", it's always in motion and always changing, thus any attempt to scientifically define the mind by saying "this is how it is in this very moment" is a falsity because it wasn't the same in the previous moment nor will it be the same in the next. This is the same criticism he applied to Kant's theory of Time.
That's completely in line with what Kant said about our minds (for it he mainly uses the terms "soul" and "res extensa"), to the point where it almost sounds like a quote from the Paralogism of Pure Reason section from the first critique.

>In the second part he's saying Time is just an idea that high cultures create. Again there is no single definition of Time because it is different in every civilization. Throughout The Decline of the West he emphasizes the mystical incomprehensible aspects of Time. In that very picture he says "time is a word to indicate something inconceivable"
Sure, but that doesn't contradict what Kant said, in fact in the section I've mentioned (again, it's less than 3 pages long) Kant explicitly states that no concept of time can be formed, since time is an intuition. So yeah, I don't see where Spengler is disagreeing with Kant here.

>>14542263
>Nah. The moment "acquiring" intuitive capacities is a possibility, the whole distinction between categories of the mind and regular concepts collapses.
Not really, since this new intuition of ours could not possibly contradict any of our previously intellectually assembled intuitions. No matter how many dimensions I can percieve, there won't ever be, in an euclidean space, a triangle of which angle sums is equal to 190°.

>At that point the categories are nothing more than a temporary intuitive mode of a mind which is able to somehow overcome the limitations it itself poses in order to understand through that understanding.
I'm granting this scenario as an extreme hypothetical. That said Kant explicitly states in either §17 or §18 (trascendental deduction) that other pure intuitions could exist (for example in other animals), but we can't know (or even imagine) anything about them as long as we're stuck with these two. I'll also add that I'm not a Guenonposter, and that I know that Kant disproved the eventuality of discovering new forms of intuition through mystical pratices. I was mostly thinking about other forms of life that might use intuitions that are different from ours (and of which, again, we could say nothing, at least according to Kant's TD).

>>14542321
>No matter how many dimensions I can percieve, there won't ever be, in an euclidean space, a triangle of which angle sums is equal to 190°.
you're just being tricky there. a mind thinking purely in terms of euclidean space would believe that "the sum of angles in all possible triangles must equal 180°", a belief which can be and in fact is refuted when it discovers that euclidian geometry is only one subset of geometry.

>>14542362
I've used Euclidean space as an example because I don't know much about other geometric systems (as I've said earlier, space being euclidean is not that important for Kant). The main point is that a pure intuition cannot contradict another pure intuition, since they're all organized by our categories.

>>14542233
>To Spengler, Kant is a scientist, a dissector, who wants to get to the cold hard empirical facts of all things and remove all poetic mystery of life.
Spengler does the exact same thing though.

>>14542283
>The problem here is that Kant doesn't treat time as a "thing".
Spengler does though.

>Kant believed that he had decided the great question of whether this a priori element was pre-existent or obtained by experience, by his celebrated formula that Space is the form of perception which underlies all world impressions. But the "world" of the careless child and the dreamer undeniably possess this form in an insecure and hesitant way, and it is only the tense, practical, technical treatment of the world-around — imposed on the free-moving being which, unlike the lilies of the fields, must care for its life — that lets sensuous self-extension stiffen into rational tridimensionality.

>There is no manner of doubt that the "space" which Kant saw all around him with such unconditional certainty when he was thinking out his theory, did not exist in anything like so rigorous a form for his Carolingian ancestors. Kant's greatness consists in his having created the idea of a "form a priori", but not in the application that he gave it. We have already seen that Time is not a "form of perception" nor for that matter a form at all — forms exist only in the extended — and that there is no possibility of defining it except as a counter- concept to Space.

>>14542474
I'm having troubles understanding what Spengler means, and now I really have to go. I'll try to respond in 6-7 hours from now. Sorry if I can't stick around, I'm really enjoying this conversation, but I really have to get some sleep

>>14541560
Again, read the warosu link here since it is a similar discussion on kantianism:
>>14539761
>>>/lit/thread/S14395216#p14397350
"A stated material opposition does not necessarily mean one has completed the opposition in spirit." One could also consider this in terms of legality, an ignorance of the limits does not mean one is innocent of the crime - or even beyond this, the justice which must impose itself upon laws which are incomplete. Vengeance as the closure of time, the gap between the scales.
In simple terms, one may think he is opposed to a position while being completely determined by it, forced into a reaction where the form exists only as its negative instantiation - its being eviscerated. This is where dominion appears as the patriarch over form.

>>14542507
Junger's analysis of Spengler's philosophy is useful for understanding this. (Unfortunately, from the worse translation, but should be good enough for the discussion here):
"Comparative morphology, as it is practised today, does not therefore enable any valid forecast. It is rather a museum affair, an occupation for collectors, romantics, and pleasure-seekers on a grand scale. The diversity of bygone times anddistant places intrudes as a colourful and seductive orchestra with which a weakened life is unable to score anything other than its own weakness. This inadequacy does not, however, become more adequate through the self-criticism of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This attitude resembles that of the general grown old with linear tactics who does not recognize defeat because it was achieved against the rules of the art.

But there are no rules of art in this sense. A new age decides what shall count as art, and what as measure. What distinguishes two ages is not greater or lesser value, but otherness [88] as such. This means that introducing here the question of value is to resort to rules that are out of place. That one knew in some period how to paint pictures, for instance, can be considered as reference only where this remains the ambition of insufficient faculties: there {81} one lives on overdrawn credit. It is more important to seek out the places where our time grants us credit."

>>14539515
No

>>14542233
It embodies a lot of Moore's theory of flux

>>14542403
No, Spengler outright avers for metaphysical presuppositions.

>>14538612
> There is not a separate space “out there”, according to Kant. Everything that we perceive as occurring in space and time are our representations. In short every space is our own creation, according to Kant.
This is false. Kant did not deny the existence of the thing-itself, reality-as-it-is, which would be absurd. Even without reading ant it would hae to be directly evident that when our minds are imposing their categories they are doing precisely that; imposing upon an external stimuli. Claiming that Kant denied the ding-an-sich, is saying he was a solipsist. You either haven't read him, or haven't read him well. The important distinction here is that the logical conclusion after theorizing our mind's categories, we have to conclude that we cannot make authoritative claims on life, the world or God, God being the ultimate 'ding-an-sich'. This does not affirm the existence of God, but doesn't deny it either. This was a great tregedy for Kant, as his Critiques were meant to save faith, ''um das Glauben zu retten''.

>The choice of which geometry to adopt when describing the physical world is a matter of conventionality, and even if you adopt the realist position (as I suspect Einstein and other spacetime substantivalists might) then one still must accept that it is ultimately a philosophical question, as there is no empirical distinction to be made between a world that is euclidean and a world that is not. "Science" has not and cannot prove what the "real" geometry of the world is. It can only gesture at an answer.
You are right in saying that the choice of which geometry to adopt is ultimately a conventionality,but that's a misleading way to put it. Einstein's relativity was 'proven' beyond a reasonable doubt, and if Einstein was at all versed in modern philosophy(most likely)he would have known this. But I must defend Spengler here and say that he attacked Kant's belief that the way he set out his categories was absolute, that they were necessarily connected to Euclidian geometry. The existence of non-euclidian geometry proves this. Spengler understood that a culture's geometry and mathematics are expressions of it's soul, expressions of the within(this may sound somewhat 'new-age' but Spengler explains why in detail). Of course this is not a matter of simple nuance, it was an arrogant thing of Kant to say, but this is typical of all systematising thinkers.
Important also, is to understand that Kant provided proof for space(german is less confusing and gets closer to meaning 'space-ness') to be an a priori construct and reading this is one of the most enjoyable parts of reading the Kritik. Kant provides us no such proof for time to be one of the a priori constructs necessary for perception. He confuses time with the number, he confuses time with mathematics. Spengler would say that the mathematics of a people are expressions of their experience of time, which will inevitably be expressed also in music, other art.
>1/2

>>14542836
My idea is that Kant's theory of a priori 'space-ness' is not inextricably bound up with Euclidian geometry en that by extention, positing other theories of Geometry dus not imply that Kant was wrong about this. But he talks of us 'when we imagine any concept, can take that concept, and remove everything from it. Everything except for 'space-ness'. Even after it's complete annihilation of substance, the 'thing' is still deliniated(right word?)and still exists in space(Kant will explain it better then I can). But, ... can we imagine these a space that is non-Euclidian? Is this even the right question to ask? If the answer to my first question is negative, then what are we to to with Kant? Throw it in the bin? Help me out sciencebros

>>14542933
>2/2

>>14542836
>Kant did not deny the existence of the thing-itself
I didn’t say he did though? But that whatever the thing-in-itself is, space is not a property of it, but a form our perception. For clarity’s sake: for Kant there are not “two spaces”, one of the things in themselves and other of how we perceive them; there is only space: the latter. This is what I meant with there is no space “out there”.

My ESL must be really horrible because people are misunderstanding and misrepresenting left and right.

The second green text that you quoted was not by me and I think I tend to agree with what you said.

>>14542836
>You either haven't read him,
This fucking shit again. Yeah dude, I have read him. It’s YOU that misunderstood what I said. It’s all so tiresome.

>>14542836
What are these thots doing? Practicing fellatios?

Kant claimed we couldn't know noumena but only phenomena. Our best models of reality now deviate from a 3D Euclidean geometry, but we still don't see things in non-Euclidean geometry, just like we can't conceive of a 5-dimensional space in any direct sense. Kant seems completely vindicated regardless in that sense.

>>14542836
>we have to conclude that we cannot make authoritative claims on life, the world or God, God being the ultimate 'ding-an-sich'
nope, we have to conclude that we can't make any claims outside the categories of thought period (claims that might have validity outside or beyond the phenomenal), meaning that any speculation about the existence or non-existence of a thing in itself is a complete non sequitour.

>>14542558
Perhaps no other idea represents the arch of time of our own era better than that of the Become. There is no positive attribution here, the become may represent arrival within being, transition to non-being, or even the gradient measures of becoming. The opposition to Parmenides is obvious, that of Heraclitus less so, possibly even impossible to understand through the modern sentience of perception.
Spengler's philosophy of history speaks of this becoming of non-being - decline is persistent, the only being its very negation. And although he describes it he is incapable of escaping its forces - history is the setting upon of lost time with the theoretical artifacts of dead time. Another era is constructed and its being appears more colourful than our own. The inescapable force of the Katechon demands such a relation to time. Junger says elsewhere that the benefit of time would have only resulted in Spengler seeing more ideas and less figures - being with history would have only taken him further from the truth. The weight of the idea increases in its distance from the figure, and so the enclosure of time defends our ideas, equalizes the force against lost figures. Spengler, as all moderns, must abandon time in order to defeat it. An entire history must be built up to confront these lost figures of dead time. Terracotta armies are unearthed and exchanged for the memento mori of our own time.

This is in opposition to history as a force, our own being out of time through which the body is relinquished, but not the figure. The Muses are gods ahead of time, and our judgment is always before the Hours - thus art must always be a fruitful death. Monuments and realism are the Become, beneath which stand the immaterial Terracotta Armies of the gods. This is what Antigone sees forming beneath the denial of burial rites: the entirety of history rising in a figure of Epimetheus. Spengler sees an exile into peace, eternal return to that moment just before the Katechon. Schmitt sees every moment of 1,948 years turning beneath a totality. There can never be a decline in force, the world only spins faster.
Everything flows, yet difference escapes us all in nothingness. We are as distant from Parmenides and Heraclitus as they were from the gods. Yet some law remains which binds us - the force of the Three Gorges Dam is equal to that placid stillness where the tidal bore meets the brook. Nature entrenches itself beyond the laws of perception. Dominion and form combine in the figure of the machine-gunner defending a crest camouflaged by ash trees. And he who persists in attacking the position which may be held eternally perfects non-being. We have entrenched ourselves opposite nature, beyond the laws of time.
It is here that non-being descends upon us as the ultimate form of being. Time is an illusion, and an impossible weight.

>>14542656
Sure, but his being remains outside of this. He can contend with Kant as an idea, but not as a figure.

>>14538475
>space-time is curved
explain this to me

>>14542949
>I didn’t say he did though?
You're right, you did not. My mistake.

>My ESL must be really horrible because people are misunderstanding and misrepresenting left and right.
It's ok, it's just me who was impatient reading your comment, but you could've worded it a bit more clearly. Where are you from?

>>14542958
You aren't >>14542949
Stop memeing

>>14542965
No, isn't it obvious that these are teachers prepping for a sex-ed class?

>>14543131
No hard feelings. I’m Brazilian.

>>14543154
Heh.

>>14543019
Yes, but Spengler is not trying to make any claims on the 'Ding-an-sich', he is still working within Kant's territory, but is pointing out the significance of time as something essential for our understanding of human existence. Are you trying to argue this that I just explained or were you agreeing on my earlier post?

>>14542836
>Einstein's relativity was 'proven' beyond a reasonable doubt, and if Einstein was at all versed in modern philosophy(most likely)he would have known this

It is not a misleading way to put it and you are utterly wrong in your presumptions about how science operates. Relativity has NEVER been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Just because it has resisted all attempts at falsification does not mean that it is a final or complete theory and no physicist, historical or contemporary, has ever made such a claim. It is just you.

Asking whether Kant's categories necessitate euclidean geometry is putting the cart before the horse. We would first have to conclusively establish what the real geometry of the world is, and that has never been conclusively demonstrated, since a theory of physics can be reformulated when changing the adopted geometry in a way that it still agrees with experimental results. As Poincare put it, there is "no interdependence of geometry and physical theory, what we have is “a dependence of the physical formulation on the geometrical definitions".

>>14543267
>Just because it has resisted all attempts at falsification does not mean that it is a final or complete theory and no physicist, historical or contemporary, has ever made such a claim. It is just you.
> Just because it has resisted all attempts at falsification does not mean that it is a final or complete theory and no physicist, historical or contemporary, has ever made such a claim. It is just you.
> Just because it has resisted all attempts at falsification does not mean that it is a final or complete theory and no physicist, historical or contemporary, has ever made such a claim. It is just you.
>Just because it has resisted all attempts at falsification does not mean that it is a final or complete theory and no physicist, historical or contemporary, has ever made such a claim. It is just you.
>Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919
>Multiple tests of general relativity and deflection of light by the sun
BTFO'd and assraped

>Asking whether Kant's categories necessitate euclidean geometry is putting the cart before the horse.
Ok, that's what I thought.

>>14543352
Nobody denies relativistic effects retard. The claim you're making goes far beyond that. Show me where in that (or any other experiment) it has been asserted that special relativity is a final or complete theory of physics/mechanics/gravitation

>>14543441
THERE ARE NO FINAL THEORIES OF PHYSICS/MECHANICS/GRAVITATION THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE
Are you a woman?

>>14543441
Not that guy, but you're right, and pretty much in line with what Kant said in his 3 critiques

>>14543520
If that is the point you're trying to make, then there it makes even less sense to claim that Einstein contradicts Kant, since even Einstein was reticent to make the assertion that relativity had reduced geometry to ontology. Physics is agnostic on what the "real" geometry of the world is, so the mere existence of non-euclidean geometries is not enough to render Kant obsolete.

>>14543861
Ok, I understand the confusion here. You've mistaken me for one of the other posters who was making a similar point to mine. It's too bad that we don't have poster ID's on this board.

>>14543041
A good breakdown of Kant's theory of time:
"According to Galilean and Newtonian mechanics, time is an absolute. The time that Newton describes is a general and universal time – tempus absolutum, quod aequabiliter fluit ("absolute time which flows at an even pace"). According to Kant, time has no absolute reality, neither subsistent nor inherent. As a subsistent reality, time exists only in the myth, where Kronos unsexes his father with a diamond scythe, or in the heads of people who make time, the non-thing, into a thing. Nor does time have a reality inherent in things. Since time is an a priori concept, the connection between time and things is cut; experience cannot gain admittance. Kant uses his premise that the concept of time is given a priori to deny it absolute reality, either subsistent or inherent.

This time, which neither represents anything in itself when I subtract objects from it, nor is inherent in things, is therefore an ideological concept, a form without content, an intellectual pattern. This pattern is not like an empty box or, as has been said, an empty apartment house. It can be likened to the emptiness of a box – without the box. If, then, time is not inherent in things one must conclude that all the dying, wilting, withering has in reality nothing to do with time, and that the language of all peoples, as it expresses the inherence of time in things through countless words, idioms, phrases and proverbs, is on the wrong track. According to Kant, holidays are contained in time, but time is not contained in holidays. Rhythm is in time, but time is not in rhythm. It follows that all this being born and dying, all this movement remains outside of time, time is merely an idea, an intellectual pattern which has nothing to do with things. For what have life and death, what has all this movement to do with time in that case? Even though Kant denies the absolute reality of time which Newton asserted, he does agree with Newton on other properties of time. He, too, has the notion of a single, universal, infinite, and infinitely divisible time that is irreversible and cannot be measured by itself but only by the time-space movements of bodies. Here, time always equals time. The relation of time particles is quantitatively measurable, but all these particles are alike in quality and form. And these time particles, if they are not simultaneous, flow along in a steady stream like channeled molecules, but without being molecular by their nature. Or one could liken them to a reel which rolls off from infinity to infinity with unchanging, uniform speed. Kant's concept of time betrays that it was influenced and shaped by Galilean and Newtonian mechanics. Thereby it has become somewhat mechanical itself. For obviously, time is here understood as something lifeless, something rigid. And indeed, he who reads Newton's fundamental dicta on the nature of time receives an impression of death's majesty and of eternity's awe."

>>14545095
"Newton accords absolute reality to this linear, uninterrupted motion by which time rolls on inexorably. According to Kant, it is merely an intellectual construction, in which alone it has existence. Time, Kant states, determines "the relation of ideas in our inner state. And just because this inner vision takes no physical shape, we try to make up for this lack through analogies, and represent the sequence of time as a line going into the infinite, a line which reduces all things in a row to one dimension only. From the properties of this line we then conclude all the properties of time, with the sole exception that the parts of the line exist simultaneously, whereas the parts of time always follow one after the other.”"

So how does a dynamic active subject operate prior to and outside of time?

>>14545095
So pretty much
Time is objective, not subjective. It happens everywhere and Kant is an autist who doesn't realize normies say slogans and phrases to be normie and not because they're projecting truth.

Wow bravo (I) Kant (do anything right)

>>14538658
Keep it coming anon. I'm lapping this shit up like coke on a hookers ass.

>>14545165
We can't know anything about noumena, there's no answer to your question

>>14546396
If we are noumenal then that would preclude Kant from describing our faculties or anything about us at all to begin with.

Listen to Heidegger.

>>14546414
Kant is very clear about this, we only experience ourselves as phaenomena. The only faculties he talks about are the ones that make said experience possible.
He even dedicates an entire chapter to this mistake (Paralogisms of Pure Reason)

>>14546623
But that doesn't answer my real question which was about his denial of time's overall reality. How is his moving system possible without (prior to and beyond) time?

>>14546635
I don't get what you mean. There is no experience outside of our pure intuition of time, and our experience is entirely phaenomenical. There's no "moving system outside of time" we can know of, since that would be noumenical.

>>14546647
The weaving of phenomenal time into every appearance is an active process, but active processes require time for them to operate within.

>>14546695
>The weaving of phenomenal time into every appearance is an active process, but active processes require time for them to operate within.
This would be a metaphysical speculation for which we can't find any proof or argument. The existence of my phenomenical experience of time does not prove in any shape or form the existence of external time. That's literally the second thing he proves in the first critique.

Spengler was probably against Newton and general relativity. Read Rudolf Mewes

>>14546997
Einstein. fuck

>>14543198
We're not in agreement at all, nigga.
>we cannot make authoritative claims on life, the world or God, God being the ultimate 'ding-an-sich'
is not even close to the same statement as
>any speculation about the existence or non-existence of a thing in itself is a complete non sequitour.
You are arguing that to deny the existence of a thing in itself would be solipsism, I'm arguing that Kant's hard distinction between phenomenal and noumenal is solipsistic whether he believes a thing in itself exists or not, since even if the categories of the minds are processing noumenal data, there is no reason to assume that there is any correlation between the noumenal world and the world our mind constructs out of that data.
And that's how it has to be, given that only by making the true world unknowable could Kant "save faith" - sacrificing everything else, and even depriving God of all Wirksamkeit in the process.
The god of faith is something to which people relate, something they tell stories about and orient themselves by. Kants god, on the other hand, the god of the unknowable, is necessarily a featureless, infinitely distant, alien entity - and even if it can not be refuted, how can one believe in it?

How does that relate to Spengler? It doesn't.

retroactively refuted

>>14538475
>non Euclidean geometries

>>14538658
how does one turn north

>>14547250
The other anon misinterpreted Kant and Spengler in order to fit them into his flawed understanding of both.
> since even if the categories of the minds are processing noumenal data, there is no reason to assume that there is any correlation between the noumenal world and the world our mind constructs out of that data.
>no reason to assume that there is any correlation
''Corelation'' is misplaced. I'll explain why:
>since even if the categories of the minds are processing noumenal data
You are grudgingly admitting that the mind processes noumenal data yet wipe it off the table as a sort of afterthought. But this is the point I am getting at: you are right in saying that there is no way for our mind to discern QUALITATIVE corelations between noumena and phenomena. Language makes it seem as if we are talking about two closely related types of relations here, whilst they are actually of a different order. CAUSAL CORELATION is wat Kant affirms. You can look it up in the first 150-something pages of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft. It will tell you that space and time are the a priori conditions for perception sine qua non, but they are not the cause. The cause above(hierarchical)these categories is the noumena, that which Kant indeed had faith in. You have to understand that this did not destroy faith, Kant never said that, but it negates any chance of 'knowing', 'understanding' or even 'getting closer to God through knowledge', which was a typical approach to faith in enlightenment times, even at the time the atom was discovered, people still hoped to have found God(not saying that this was a mistake Kant would make, but it indicated the spirit of a stage in the West's development.
And now that I think about it, this does relate to Spengler in that he agreed on space and NUMERICALS(not a native English speaker, but Kant as Spengler talks about the simple ability to count and discern causation).Kant, according to Spengler, confused numbers with time. Oswald believes the latter to not be subject to numbers and mathematics. He doesn't claim this to be the thing-itself either. It is within the world of Kantian perception, but of a different order than mathematics, it's more mysterious and untouchable. Mathematics are simply the first expession of a people's understanding of time, philosophy also. Each volk tries to demistify time and their own unique experience of it, through culture. This is why Spengler made me truly understand my own culture and it's arts, for the first time in my life. Gott segne Ihn

>>14547597
You go vegan of course

>>14538475
but Hitler refuted Spengler

sex gifs

>>14548462
By declaring supremacy of the biological worldview over the morfological-historical one??

Why don't you guys collaboratively write actual articles on these arguments with a cohesive beginning, middle and end and submit them to the Quarterly or some other such outlet? It seems a shame to let it all go to waste by expiring.

More like spergler, am i right.

>>14548806
because Spengler had a defeatist attitude - which Hitler was correct about. All conservative revolutionaries are cringe af

What's the best translation of decline of the west? They all seem pretty old, hard to find, and often abridged.

>>14545219
>Time is objective, not subjective

>>14552405
Yes.