/lit/ - Literature

lol Jacobi most certainly didn't solve philosophy

That's not Kant

>>14663487
>>14663486
State of DuckDuckGo

Imam Khomeini (pbuh) solved philosophy.

>>14663476
*retroactively refutes you*

>>14663526
so far every morph ive seen of guenon's face has been an improvement of his features. how can one man be so ugly?

>>14663526
Khomeini (pbuh) proved that Evola was the superior perennial philosopher.

>Uh oh, looks like you missed a spot
>Here, let me help

On the real is jacobi worth reading?

>>14663539
If by 'ugly' you mean to say that he had a beautifully elongated face that radiated a serene confidence and primordial wisdom, then I would respond that it was because he was the Imam Mahdi, the Maitreya Buddha, the avatar Kalki and the Saoshyant. The world has scarcely begun to feel the full impact of his life and the events which he set in motion.

>>14663569
bad bait

>>14663569
>beautifully elongated face

>>14663580

>>14663476
>*blocks your path merely seconds after you claim to have solved philosophy*
>AHEM
>"Without the presupposition of the thing-in-itself, I was unable to enter into Kan'ts system, but with it I was unable to stay within it"

>>14663509
Google Images was a little better, but still got some Jacobi.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Immanuel%20Kant&tbm=isch&tbs=isz%3Al&hl=en-US

>>14663509
Cuck Cuck Go. Duckduckgo is the least safe search engine of all of them by the way. Look into who owns it and look into why they promoted it to tech illiterate boomers who think it's "private".

>>14663716
lmao, literally owned by a bugman Jew

>>14663716
offer alternatives

>>14663766
Opera

>>14663476
That's not UG Krishnamurti

>>14663733
His religion isn't the issue here. His daddy worked for the CDC and, most of his family is in government and he has strong connections government connections. Ha ha, TRUST US ITS PRIVATE. Lmao, imagine being so retarded that you think duckduckgo, a website that came out of literal nowhere, that had no viable revenue generating mechanism for the first 10 years of its existence is "private". I don't blame Mr. Duck, He's actually doing the world a favor.

*throws philosophy into an unescapeable abyss of incomprehension*

Hegel tried to recover it, but ultimately Kant poisoned the well at its source.

>>14663766
Google and Bing are unironically more private than duckduckgo.

>>14663591
Jacobi really misunderstood Kant's philosophy, the thing-in-itself or what Jacobi takes to be the Mannigfaltigkeit of perception is not causally linked to our actual experience. The demand for it neither makes sense nor is it embedded in Kant's philosophy, both points Jacobi makes. The thing-in-itself isn't an ominous object "behind the veil of our cognition", this is a misreading of Kant. Hegel knew this.

>>14663823
>incomprehension*

>thomyorkokkid.jpg

>>14663476
stop making kant/famous ugly people look pretty, you want to deprive us uggos of the little hope we got?

>>14663476
/lit/ is a funny place

>>14663845
But the noumenal must be causally linked to our experience, since appearances are either produced by things-in-themselves or are things-in-themselves. There are no other options.

>>14665486
we can say that there must be something (the thing) underlying the appearance but we cannot say that appearance reflects the thing. we can say one supports the other but we cannot say one shows itself in the other

>>14665437
thanks krishnamurtibro for not being as butthurt and evangelical as guenonfag

>>14665497
I disagree. Some degree of information about the thing itself must be conveyed in the appearance, or else the appearance would actually be a discrete thing-in-itself.

>>14663476
Yeah, solves it into the ground.

>>14665585
>I disagree. Some degree of information about the thing itself must be conveyed in the appearance, or else the appearance would actually be a discrete thing-in-itself
Check the Refutation of Idealism section from the first critique. Kant doesn't argue for the correlation between phaenomena and noumena through adequateness of the former as a rappresentation of the latter.
His actual argument is somewhat complex, since it is directly derived from the most complex pages in Kant's ouvre, namely the trascendental deduction.
To summarize the argument from the Refutation, the correlation between phaenomenon and noumenon is not a positive determination of the phaenomenon, rather it's a negative determination of our intellect. Kant does not think that we can make up our intuitions from scratch, since the basis of our intellect (which is what gives us organized datas to reason with) is the synthetic unity of apperception, an intellectual faculty that can only synthetize received data. He then deals with imagination, stating that it is an intellectual faculty, and as such to imagine something (and here he is talking about stuff like dreaming, where we actually seem to be able to conjure up sensory data) I must have first some data to recombine. Even if most of my life has been a dream, said dream had to be imagined through data that were at some point given to me through my sensibility (passive receptivity, so something tha I have not actively made up).

So we know for sure that there are noumena outside (terms like "outside" and "external" in this context is to be intended in a purely ontological way, of course) of us, since our experience could have not taken place without them, but this is the only thing we can say about them, and we can say it not through a positive determination of noumena (i.e. by stating what they are, in which modalities, etc), but only through a negative determination of our intellect (namely, by stating that our pure intellect does not have the tools to create new intuitions from scratch, so our intuitions have to come from somewhere else, and everything that is external to me is a noumenon).

>>14666067
blessed effortpost

>THE NOUMENA SHALL NOT PASS!!!!!

>>14666150
Do you know what a noumenon is, according to Kant?

>>14666067
Not that poster but how do I read Kant to master every single one of his concepts and arguments like you? Right now I only have a vague understanding of each concept and argument. I definitely can't explain his arguments as precise as you just did.

>>14666167
No. circle it on the image.

>>14666150
you posted this in another thread and I still don't get it

>>14666172
Don't overestimate me, I'm just a rookie in kantian philosophy. That said, what have you read so far by Kant and other prior philosophers?

>>14666218
I've read Descartes and Hume and some SEP articles on Locke and Leibniz (and some basic Plato). I'm almost finished with the Prolegomena but I feel I'm only getting 60 or 70% of it.

>>14666215
Why not?

>>14666228
It is only natural, the Prologomena follows an analytic exposition, which means that you don't actually get most of the arguments that were necessary to establish these concepts in the first place. In the first Critique, instead, he goes step by step, so that he can justify each moment of the system.
Think about the Prologomena as some sort of manual summarizing the main conclusions of a given text, rather than the text itself. (He says all of this in the introduction of the prologomena, btw)
Also try to familiarize yourself with scholastic (aristotelean) terminology. SEP should suffice. You should have no doubts about what words like "substance" and "judgement" mean. Almost all of his lexicon comes from this tradition, the few exceptions mostly come from Descartes, Leibniz and Wolf.
Also download from sci.hub the commentary by Paul Guyer. It is questionable, but at the very least he goes over almost every technical term used in the text.

I've stressed on the terminology because this is the real gatekeeper when it comes to classical German philosophy. Once you get over the (very useful and precise, dont forget it) jargon most of these seemingly impenetrable works become perfectly intelleggible.

>>14666234
is it about perspectivism?

>>14666275
Thank you anon

>>14666281
No it's about kantianism

>>14666294
No problem buddy

>>14666299
then I don't get it

>>14666322
What does kantianism mean to you?

>>14666330
this is getting too psychoanalytic for me

>>14666347
Ok, post the ideal woman and tell me about your mother.

>>14666347
Does he mean to say that the grand system that Kantianism builds up similar to the Pisa tower is a phallic symbol and therefore you're gay?

>>14666330
Can't you just get to the point? The other anon has already told you that they don't get the joke, it's not like they're not getting it on purpose. If you dont get it you dont get it. Just be a lad and stop talking in riddles

>>14666398
He probably means that Kantianism is a subjective attempt to be objective or something like that. But he is too scared to be explicit because he knows the Kantbros will shred him to pieces

>>14666398
>>14666418
The joke probably isn't meant for kantians. Can kantians meme?

>>14666330
This is pretty good bait actually, post a meme that make no obvious sense about a philosopher then play defence around explaining it. Bonus points if the meme is literally meaningless.

>>14663548

This we need Khomeiniposter to beat back guenonfag.

>>14666429
>the anti-acc autist escaped the containment threads
oh nononononono

>>14666439
>Khomeiniposter vs guenonfag
/lit/ really is the battleground of the strangest wars.

>>14666067
Good explanation.

>>14666440
You're posting acc threads just to contain anti-acc? See pic >>14666150

>>14666447
It truly is.

I love Kant threads. I feel like the Kantians here usually put in a admirable amount of effort. I’m just getting through Spinoza now for my rationalist fix, finished Leviathan and two treatise for empiricists, and meditations for rationalists. Before that I read the scholastics, late antiquities and Greeks. I’m excited that I am getting closer to Kant since I was adamant about pursuing the development genealogicaly. I’m going for Leibniz and Hume before the Prussian. I knew the gist of most of their big points already, but it’s an experience reading their works first hand.

>>14666494
absolutely based anon, good work. you are already better read than 90% of philosophy posters

>>14666516
Thank you.

>>14666067
That seems like a self-contradicting argument. If we can't instantiate intuitions 'from scratch', then some degree of positive information must be relayed from the noumenal in the synthesis that does occur — however limited and jumbled that information may be.

>>14666431
You may also like to know that I have it in my human pollution folder
https://youtu.be/fgerL96Df_Y

>>14666567
this information isn't noumenal, it regards the structure of human perception more than it does whatever lay behind what is actually perceived

>>14666613
Aren't the workings of human perception themselves a noumenon? Furthermore, why should we suppose that the filtering of information through human perception nullifies all potential for it to positively describe the noumenal?

>>14666818
no they are transcendental. we cannot suppose that the filtering of information nullifies all potential for it to describe the noumenal because we cannot by definition describe the noumenal. Kant is totally skeptical here, he doesn't say it can't correspond, only that the knowledge of whether it corresponds or not is outside our comprehension.

I enjoyed reading Hume. Where do I go from here? Kant seems to be a reasonable choice, though what I like most about Hume is his down-to-earthness, which Kant might not possess to the same degree.

>>14666885
"...by definition..." is not a logical demonstration that this is actually the case (knowledge/description is not an all-or-nothing proposition), nor does applying the term "transcendental" indicate why the workings of our perception couldn't be objects themselves.

The information must correspond to some degree, as it is a continuity between the noumenal and our experience. No matter how estranged in synthesis that information becomes, there is necessarily some minimal correspondance.