/lit/ - Literature

>>14882084
Which stupid claims did he make?

>>14882093
Something about euclidean geometry being the only viable geometry.

>>14882102
t. retard who has no fucking what he is talking about and thinks that special relativity or the possibility that our universe doesn't obey euclidian geometry does anything to Kant's philosophy

Kill yourself dumb pop-sci weenie, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You just read some idiot comment on the internet and thought "omg philosophy BTFO"

>>14882102
Are you retarded?

>>14882102
KEK

>>14882102
Do you perceive space in terms of Lobachevsky's geometry? Whoa

>>14882161
>nature is god

get a load of those hindus

>>14882161
i am not against philosophy you dumb-fuck , philosophers should just stay in thier lane
>>14882194
>You don't preceive it this way that means that it can't be this way
Fucking philosophyfags can't even stay consistent with themselves.

>>14882194
I certainly don't perceive space in terms of Euclid's geometry.

The minkowski-manifold is the only topological model that approaches reality.

>>14882226
you can't even articulate what Kant was saying, or even the rebuttal. stay in your lane.

>>14882207
that's Spinoza and Schelling you fucking basterd

>>14882226
>i am not against philosophy you dumb-fuck , philosophers should just stay in thier lane

is this the most retarded thing anybody ever said on /lit/?

>>14882226
>philosophers said something wrong about a area that they don't dominate
>basedcientist thinks he is smarter because of that and then he do the same shit but in reverse
everytime

>>14882235
Kant is a failed mathematician , whatever he has to say is worthless , he was filtered from the start

>>14882258
Based

Einsteinina meme science is just ad hoc nonsense. Non euclidiean geometry is dumb memes invented by nerds with to much time on their hands. Is it useful to make useful models? Probaly. Does it reflect our experience of reality? Not really. Mathematics isn't even real and relativity is a hoax.

>>14882328
>Does it reflect our experience of reality? Not really.
Implying our experiences matter fuck all to the search of truth.
Fact of matter is Non euclidean geometry is logically valid and consistent , you can't prove otherwise.

>>14882084
Probably when you learn to spell

>>14882194

>>14882328
the theory that you are not a retarded faggot doesn’t match my experience of reality, what do you make of that?

>>14882084
>shadowboxing a dead poodle haired guy from the 1700s on a friday night

cheers mate, you’re quite the intellectual i can tell fo sure.

>>14882428
He felt no remorse when he did the exact same thing

>>14882338
>experience is irrelevant to the search of truth
Nice *throw out the entirety of science*
>muh logically validity muh consistency
Nice mind games. Math isn't even real.

>>14882102
>the state of deluded IFUCKINGLOVESCIENCE reddittors who think that modern physics refutes Kantian metaphysics

>>14882084
learn to write first

While Kant was (from what I can understand) certainly wrong about space being euclidean, I still don't see how this is supposed to refute his theoretical philosophy. If anything I think it's fair to say that Kant failed to be kantian enough. Even if we assume that space is not euclidean, all the arguments contained in the trascendental aesthetics and analytics from the first critique hold ground: to refute them one would have to formulate and prove the existence of a type of space that is alien to us even in its most basic ground. For example, a space in 4 dimension, or a space in which its portions are not one next to each other.

>>14882234
>I certainly don't perceive space in terms of Euclid's geometry.
yes you fucking do you fucking cunt

>thinking the profane sciences are superior to eternal metaphysical truths
You live under false gods; you worship the creations of man; you shall lose your soul. Return to the origin of us all.

>>14882084
The only time Kant made claims out of his "lane" he only further proved his giant intellect.
>In the Universal Natural History, Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System had formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized formed from a much larger spinning gas cloud. He further suggested that other distant "nebulae" might be other galaxies. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy, for the first time extending it beyond the Solar System to galactic and intergalactic realms.
The theory, by the way, is today the accepted leading theory in astronomy. Sciencefags are just mad that they can't into philosophy but they can't also into their own fields.

>>14883247
What's gueonia metaphysics like ?

>>14883233
No, I don't. You may be happy with lying to yourself, but I certainly am not.

We can also get into the fact that any surface serves as it's own localized topological space, irrespective of external context, from our own point of view. Good luck trying to navigate the earth with euclidean geometry.

>>14883199
>While Kant was (from what I can understand) certainly wrong about space being euclidean
Why was he wrong about space? He is making claims about space *not in itself*, but as we experience it. I certainly don't experience the world in non-eucledian geometry. He talking about our intuition of space, not space in itself. In fact, he asserts that our notion of space is dependent on (and therefore relative to) our minds, so there being other kinds geometries in which we don't experience the world should only further prove Kant's idea.

bros, i just started the prolegomena and kant says that 7+5=12 is a synthetic judgement. is he retarded or is it me misunderstanding him? it seems to be as clear as daylight that this is an analytic judgement

>>14883531
>Is he retarded
Yes

>>14883531
if you consider numbers spooky individual essences I guess it's synthetic.

>>14883531
Well there are philosophers that agree with you, but to explain Kant, how do you know it's analytic? Do you break anything down when you say 7+15? Or do you synthesize? Obviously I don't know what 1456345526 + 233178921554322 is equal to, unless I do the calculation. When I do that I gain new knowledge, and that's how math can be seen as synthetic.

>>14883549
is that what kant thinks? i really don’t get how arithmetic could be synthetic

>>14883551
but as a proposition, 7+5=12 is the same as 12=12. it’s analytic, tautological even. maybe from a practical standpoint, in temporal conditions, when i put seven and five objects to together or something. but if arithmetic is not analytic than what the hell is? is there even such a thing as an analytic judgement in that case?

>>14882084
>Influence all of Western philosophy
>nearly all of philosophy up until the continental and analytical split uses your theories as a foundation
>Praised by philosophers/scientists/mathematicians
>based aesthetic system
>has the only systematic philosophy that nobody dares to critique
>Hegel's dad and the god father of German Idealism
>a must read for any philosophy student
>sees the evolution of mathematics slowly turning into a profane science
>"all geometry stoopid Euclid only right"
>Noumenon
>Thing-in-itself
>Schema
>A posteriori
>A priori
>etc. +

How can a man be so based

>>14883565
>>14883557
>>14883551
>>14883549
>>14883546
>>14883531
here’s the passages in question. maybe im just misunderstanding. someone else wanna give this a quick read and give me your thoughts?

Kant was a Professor of Mathematics and no, he wasn't "btfod". Mathematicians have resorted to different models, you cannot "btfo" a non-empirical model, idiot.

>>14883582
oops. 1/2

>>14883591
2/2

>>14883591
>>14883594
I kind of see what he means. It is weird to think about I guess but the identity of numbers is kind of just taken for granted

>>14883591
>>14883594
What's the problem? What do you think Kant means by synthetic as opposed to analytic? Did you even read the book properly? Given the meaning of "7", "5", "+", "=" and "12", 7 + 5 = 12 seems to be an analytical statement. Kant is asking however whether it is a synthetic or analytic judgement a priori.

In the first Critique Kant notes that the highest principle of analytical judgements a priori is the law of the excluded middle, not pre-suppposing synthetic concepts. He then goes at great lenghts to show that arithmetic statements are full of synthetic concepts.

I think you're mixing up modern conceptions of analytic, which are basically synonymous with a priori and would encapsulate Kant's synthetic a priori judgements. Read Frege on Kant.

>>14883604
Ok. but here’s the thing. If arithmetic is not analytic then what the hell actually IS analytic? 7+5=12, as a proposition, is pretty much the same as saying A=A. So that would make even the principle of non contradiction synthetic according to kant. what does kant consider analytic?

>>14883565
Obviously 12=12 is tautological, but pay attention to meaning of the words. Synthesize means to combine, analyze means to break down. So to say 7+5=12 we are combining the numbers and to say 12=7+5 we are breaking it down. They mean the same in mathematics, but our mind works in a different way regarding each one. When we are working out new mathematical knowledge (7+5=12) we are synthesizing; when we have the result in our hand, then we can analyze it (12=7+5).

At least that was my interpretation.

>>14883611
To add something: Pre-supposing the meaning of "Khan of the Mongols" and "Genghis Khan", the judgement Genghis Khan is the Khan of the Mongols follows analytically, however it's not an analytical statement because of that. The analytic/synthetic distinction is an epistemological one, not a logical one.

>>14883614
It's not though. the entire concept of 12 can't be made sense of by looking at either 5 or 7, it as a number has its own unique properties. At least I think that's what hes saying

>>14883611
analytic is something which is true independent of experience because it follows from definition. no? so i just don’t see how arithmetic could be synthetic

>>14883614
Kant delivers examples himself although I don't have any in mind right now. Analytical statements are statements whose negation results in a logical contradiction. "That bachelor is married" is one example, here you have a subject noun and a predicate which exclude one another.

>>14883615
Wrong, bad post.

>>14883626
Yes, but again the question is how you define something. If I again define "Khan of the Mongols" to be mean "Genghis Khan" then the statement Genghis Khan is the Khan of the Mongols follows per definition. I will repeat again: The distiction, for Kant, is epistemological. How do you arrive at the concepts of arithmetics? Kant claims through synthetical judgements a priori. Do you even think you understand what "snythetical judgements a priori" are? You seem to not have read Kant at all.

>>14883615
but combining 7+5 isn’t pure mathematics, that’s applied mathematics. that’s like adding the price for groceries. that’s totally different. as an arithmetical statement 7+5=12 seems like it must be analytic. and if it isn’t how can there even be such a thing as analytic? if that doesn’t qualify as analytic what does?
>>14883624
then there is simply no such thing as an analytic judgement in that case

>>14883637
do mathematical propositions even have “subject and predicate”?

Yeah, i know what synthetic a priori is. ok, so correct me if im wrong: basically, mathematics *as a whole* is synthetic since it cannot be derived from experience, but individuals propositions like 7+5=12 should then be analytic since it just follows by definition from the terms. is that correct?

>>14883639
In terms of pure math, look at pic related. Suppose we are ancient Greek pythagrean mathematicians. We only have the premises and know nothing about the conclusion of pythagorean theorem. We apply logic to the premises and we come away with new mathematical knowledge (pythagorean theorem), of which we had no knowledge beforehand. If this isn't synthetic knowledge then what is?
>>14883637
>Wrong, bad post.
If you are kind enough to let me know I'm wrong, please also be kind enough to tell me how I'm wrong.

>>14883663
>since it cannot be derived from experience
i mean, since it cannot be derived without experience yet is not dependent on it (ie. it’s synthetic a priori)

>>14883666
seems like you are making a psychological claim about man being temporally situated so he has to figure things out procedurally, step by step. we’re talking about math from a purely conceptual standpoint

>>14883663
you seem to have confused the anal/synth and the a priori/a posteriori distinctions

a priori is the 'without/before experience' term, and a posteriori is after experience. Analytic judgments contain no new information, they're things like 'triangles have three sides'(this is how triangles are defined so it contains nothing new). Synthetic propositions contain new information, Kant uses 'all bodies are heavy' as a synthetic prop because the concept of heaviness is not contained within the concept of a body.

math is synthetic a priori because its judgments do contain new ideas, but it is true without having to empirically verify

>>14883639
One example Kant gives to show that Aristoteles was wrong about the law of excluded middle is the statement "No thing can be something and at the same time be not that thing". Here Kant interjects and claims that this doesn't adequately express the principle of analytical statements, or the law of the excluded middle. The reason for that is that Aristoteles involves spatio-temporality into his definition, Kant entertains that beings with the same logic as ours but with different intuitions a priori might very well conceptualize a thing being two contradictory things at the same time. Time and space are for Kant synthetic dimensions.

>>14883663
Yes, 2 is smaller than 4 can be expressed in predicative logic. You could also frame a judgement of the form "2+2 = 4" as a statement with a predicate-noun and a noun, although I'm not that fresh on my logic.

>mathematics *as a whole* is synthetic since it cannot be derived from experience,
No, that's what a priori means. There are also synthetic judgements a posteriori, IE empirical statements.
As I said multiple times, the fucking question is how you arrive at a definition. If you have "Genghis Khan" and "Khan of the Mongols" and you ADDITIONALLY know what "Khan of the Mongols" refers to, you can arrive analytically at "Genghis Khan = Khan of the Mongols". That is however not an analytical statement. In classical logic, analytic and synthetic describe syllogistic movements. In a similar fashion, Kant is asking whether or not you can go from knowing what "7" is and knowing what "5" is to knowing that "7 + 5 = 12", the answer is of course yes, but not because of definition, but rather because you can appeal to a system a priori, IE a priori time dimensions.

On the other hand, knowing what "apple" is you can, without appealing to any synthetic dimensions, say that apples are fruit. That's an analytical statement a priori, given the definition of apple.

I think you are fundamentally confused about what synthetic judgements a priori are, stop lying to me. Synthetic =/= a priori, only analytical judgements are automatically a priori and rely on definitions.

If A contains B, and B contains A, you can easily judge that A = B. In the case of 7+5=12, Kant claims, 12 isn't contained in 7+5 but demands a system of synthesis, the operation of actually making sense of "7+5" to unpack its meaning and arrive at "=12". This isn't a merely logical operation.

>>14883686
sorry, i clarified here >>14883667

so am i correct to say that 7+5=12 should be analytic as a proposition, even if mathematics as a whole is synthetic in its character?

>>14883695
No, as everyone has been telling you.

>>14883669
Isn't that how philosophers (at least pre-Kantians) viewed philosophy? We only have some premises on our hands and the goal was to apply logic to these premises and come away with new metaphysical knowledge. Pre-Kantians at least thought they could do this with philosophy in the same way mathematicians do, and I think that is what Kant had in mind when he was examining synthetic knowledge.
Maybe we mean different things by "synthetic"?

>>14883695
It depends what you think numbers are I guess. One could argue that neither 5 nor 7 contains the idea of 12, so combining them(literally synthesizing) produces something new.

I don't really feel comfortable saying things like this because I know fuck all about math and what they think numbers are.

>>14883705
it seems to me that 7+5 is just another way of saying 12, in the same way that bachelor is another way of saying unmarried male

>>14883715
JUST READ KANT YOU FUCKING IDIOT MY GOD, YOU ARE JUST RETARDED AND CANT REVERSE ENGINEER KANTS PHILOSOPHY BY RIDING OFF YOUR "INTUITIONS", BRAINLET MONKEY

>>14883693
>12 isn't contained in 7+5
it isn’t contained in it because it IS it. in the same way that one and uno are the same. 7+5 and 12 are two different ways of saying the same thing

>>14883723
As is "Genghis Khan = Khan of the Mongols", so it's an analytical statement a priori, idiot?

>>14883720
im in the middle of reading it and i stopped to ask a question about what he’s saying

>>14883728
>it's an analytical statement a priori
yeah, that’s what in saying. kant is saying 7+5=12 is synthetic a priori

>>14883744
It was a question, not an affirmation of your assertion. Genghis Khan is the same thing as saying Khan of the Mongols, is that a fucking analytical statement then? Imbecile?

>>14883715
When you say 7+5 you have two premises, when you calculate it to 12 you have a conclusion. They are the same, as in their mathematical value is equal, but what we are discussing is how they are derived.

>>14883723
If think of each number as having certain unique properties then the 12 isn't in fact the same thing as the 5 and 7 taken together. It will have novel properties.
Trying to think about this is genuinely fucking with my head.

>>14883749
>Genghis Khan is the same thing as saying Khan of the Mongols, is that a fucking analytical statement then?
it would depend on context. it can be either one.

>>14883755
>then the 12 isn't in fact the same thing as the 5 and 7 taken together. It will have novel properties.
i just don’t see how that’s possible anymore than uno and one having “different properties”

>>14883756
No it can't be idiot, analytical and synthetic judgements are context-independently what they are. If anything can be anything then what's the point of the distinction? Can Obama = Obama be synthetic, depending on the context? Just read Kant.

>>14883755
This is not the Kantian answer.

>>14883763
if i point at socrates and say that’s a philosopher, this is synthetic. if i talk about socrates as a term defined by “a philosopher”, that’s analytic. context matters

>>14883759
Those are names that refer to the same thing. Numbers are not the same as each other are they? idk

if you have ten piles of 5 stones you have something different then if you have one pile of 50 stones don't you. the first can add up to the second but they aren't yet it

>>14883770
What??? No one has ever proposed this distinction, why the fuck are you pulling shit out of your ass? Are you a legitimate retard?

>>14882102
You are a moron.

>>14883776
I think anon is trolling.

>>14883773
i understand that, but kant is talking about pure mathematics not applied mathematics. the things you are saying are absolutely true for statements of applied mathematics, as far as i can see. i can’t see it being the case for pure mathematics

>>14883776
what do you mean no one has proposed it? it follows from definition of the terms. synthetic judgements organize our cognitions. if i point at socrates and say “philosopher” i have organized my cognition of socrates under the concept philosopher. that’s what a synthetic judgement is. if it talk about socrates as a term defined by “a philosopher” presupposed in it, this is analytic. seems like basic stuff

>>14883785
"Applied mathematics" is the same math used in different areas. It's not like applied mathematicians conduct empirical experiments to prove their points. It's the same thing.

>>14883790
What I mean is you don't even seem to know what analytical means, how the fuck is that possible?

>>14883790
Tells us what you think analytic and synthetic means.

>>14883798
how am i using the term analytic incorrectly? if something follows by definition that is analytic, no?

>>14883807
analytic follows by definition, synthetic “adds” something to a cognition by synthesizing it under a concept that doesn’t follow by definition

>>14883811
>if i point at socrates and say that’s a philosopher, this is synthetic. if i talk about socrates as a term defined by “a philosopher”, that’s analytic. context matters
This is retarded ass nonsense. Analytical judgements, at least to Kant, are judgements which if negated result in logical contradictions. Just because 5 + 7 = 12 is an obvious truism, it doesn't mean it's an analytical statement. Recurring to definitions won't help you out because of my Genghis Khan example, which your pea-brain still can't digest.

>>14883817
True, but how do you think synthetic adds something? Give us an example of what you think a synthetic statement is.

>>14883828
um, according to kant, on the previous page to the one i posted, synthetic statements are also subject tot the principle of non contradiction, they just can’t be derived from it. here ill even screencap it for you

>>14883832
“socrates is 70 years old”. ive synthesized my cognition of socrates under the concept of temporality

>>14883845
You realize you need premises and a conclusion? What are your premises to say Socrates is 70 years old?

>>14883841
Any judgement must bown down to the law of the excluded middle, no judgement, if it wants to be sensical, can be contradictory. Analytical judgements are priori are judgements which are true simply because their negation results in contradiction.

>>14883854
synthetic judgements are not syllogisms. what do you mean i need premises and conclusions? why?

>>14883855
right, so how does that not apply to 7+5=12? if i contradict it in saying 12 does not equal 12? same as saying one does not equal uno

>>14883857
>synthesized my cognition
There must have been something in your mind to synthesize them by means of a method which we assume is deductive logic. That's exactly what you mean when you say synthesize cognition. There are premises, you synthesize them, then you have a conclusion.

>>14883866
deductive logic is analytic. im talking about synthetic judgements

>>14883865
You're just pre-supposing that the negation of "5+7=12" is wrong in virtue of logical contradiction. Kant is arguing you are pre-supposing way more than the law of the excluded middle to make that claim, again, you won't be able to understand what Kant means without reading the guy. I am seriously annoyed by your stupidity, people of your type should not read Kant, you're not up for it.

>>14883871
Deductive logic is both analytic and synthetic. If you break down a statement to several other statements, it's analytic. If you synthesize some statements to derive a new statement, it's synthetic.

>>14883874
it seems like you aren’t up to explaining how 7+5=12 is any less analytic than A=A. they’re both tautological, hence analytic

>>14883723
12 is equal to 11+1, 3*4, 14-2, 144^1/2, and a bunch of other stuff, but none of these are, strictly speaking, a definition for 12, which is why they're not an analytic a priori truth.

>>14883886

>>14883886
they aren’t a definition of 12, im not saying that. they are literally the same thing as 12 in the same way that uno and one are the same thing. uno isn’t the definition of one, it’s another way of saying one (in spanish, in this case)

>>14883883
No you're just ignorantly making that case. Genghis Khan = Khan of the Mongols, Obama = Former president of the United States. Negating any of these statements results in a logical contradiction if you pre-suppose the definitions. But what else are you pre-supposing? Epistemology. The analytic/synthetic distinction doesn't lie in the individual concepts, it lies in the copula, the "is".

>>14883871
If synthetic judgments can't come from deductive logic, then are you saying their only source is empirical? You are by your own definition are taking away synthetic judgments from math. This definition isn't Kant's definition. Synthetic judgments can come from deductive reasoning and his example is math.

>>14883902
ok, that just goes back to what i said about mathematics as a whole being synthetic a prior, but an individual proposition like 7+5=12 would be analytic. explain how that is incorrect

>>14883911
synthetic judgements are something we bring into cognitions, we don’t derive them from cognition (or from logic)

>>14883912
What do you even think synthetic a priori means? Stop lying shitface, everyone knows you don't know what it means. If the whole of mathematics is synthetic, then so are its constituent parts, such as individual operations. How is this still difficult you sub 90-IQ baboon?

This whole discussion is super flawed, just read Kant. Kant doesn't start by addressing how synthetic judgements are not analytic, he makes a case for synthetic judgements a priori, asking how they could be possible, delivering an answer and then, as a side-note, claiming they aren't analytical. You first need to understand what synthetic judgement a priori even means, you are totally confused about the entire project of Kant.

You're a) massively ignorant and b) legitimatley unintelligent, all the information you need has been delivered to you and you can't put the pieces together.

>>14883919
They must have a source: observation or reason. Everyone agrees there are empirical (a posteriori) synthetic judgments. Then the question is whether there are ones based on deductive reasoning. If you say they can't come from deductive reasoning you are fundamentally disagreeing with Kant and that's where the rest of your confusing stems from.

What do I need to read to even begin to understand Kant? He's so intimidating. I can barely make it through Gorgias.

Does a mathematics degree actually mean anything?

For instance, a medical science degree is heavily inflated in actual value, since there is no reason the teaching needs to be that long.

Is there anything separating a Princeton mathematician from your community college mathematician? Probably not.

It's all just a money game.

>>14883939
Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Aristotelian logic or Kant's own lectures on Logic. Reading him is definitely an intense experience, but if you do it properly it changes the way you look at the world.

>>14883939
https://www.quora.com/Is-Immanuel-Kants-critique-of-pure-reason-too-difficult-to-understand-for-a-beginner-with-no-training-in-philosophy

>>14883939
Critique of Pure Reason, really. Kant is a very coherent philosopher, he addresses all the oppositional positions he tries to dismantle, be it empiricism or rationalism.

>>14883951
I think you should ignore posters like this, I never read any of these philosopher and wrote my Master's thesis on Kant. He is a very self-contained philosopher.

>>14882328
>Does it reflect our experience of reality?

It reflects some peoples' experiences. Do you still experience reality the same way you did as a child?

>>14883957
If you haven't seen Descartes start his foundationalist project and fail, then how would you know what even Kant's motivation for writing KrV is? If you haven't read Hume, how do you know the significance of causality being an a priori concept? Why are you fucking retarded?

>>14883954
Quora is full of pseuds and dumb teenagers with a barely-beyond-Wikipedia level of knowledge on academic affairs

>>14883957
Imagine getting a philosophy Masters and not even reading Descartes and Hume. Do people like this exist or anon is just larping?

>>14883978
None of this matters from a philosophical point of view. Kant lays out his project in his introduction, he mentions that metaphysics has still not matured to a real science, he addresses that fundamentally our knowledge hasn't been grounded properly yet, he references Bacon, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Descartes. The book is entirely self-contained. At the relevant chapters Kant will directly address which philosophy he's attacking. Thomas Aquinas is mentioned at least 50 times in the Transcendental Dialectic, there is no mistake what is happening at every corner of the book. Infact, when Kant wrote that book, non-philosopher theologians were immediatley impressed by the arguments and dropped rational theology, without having read of empiricists and/or rationalists.
So let me ask: Why are you fucking retarded enough to talk out of your ass?

>>14883998
they absolutely do, most of the people who get philosophy degrees don't appear to actually give a fuck about philosophy at all.

>>14884015
I'd say there's a strong difference between having an interest in ideas explored in philosophy and having an interest in reading famous, historically significant treatises where these ideas are developed

Kant claims in Prolegomena that our understanding of space(time) is a priori apodictic, which provides the foundation of geometry as an a priori apodictic field, which further goes on to provide a rational basis for physics.

Turns out the nature of space-time has/had to be discovered. Oops. Space is a posteriori.
This means Kant failed to establish anything metaphysical beyond the skepticism that Hume already laid out, of which Kant thought he was providing a refutation.

In short: Read Hume kids, his observations and work is still enlightening and relevant. Unlike Kant, whose legacy is that of a historical character.

>>14884043
What Keant means by space-time cannot be "discovered". Einsteinian physics deal with different entities than Kant's transcendental approach does. There is a lot of literature on this, you're confused.

>>14882250
Maths are not science

>>14884043
Idk about that. What he meant was that our mode of cognition can't experience anything that isn't in time, and the world in space. The specifics of how these things work doesn't change that.

>>14884043
>Turns out the nature of space-time has/had to be discovered
Discovered, how? By empirical observation? Yes in modern physics time and space aren't as we experience them. But what Kant talks about is not the absolute nature of time and space. He talks about *our experience* of time and space, and then says they are relative to our minds. If he had made claims about time and space in themselves, your words would have been correct, but he says time and space have transcendental ideality. Meaning that a different kind of mind could conceive time and space differently, and perhaps even in the same sense modern physics describes it. In short, modern physics does not contradict Kant at all.

>>14882665
it does tbdesu

>>14884081
See: >>14884072

>>14883317
>some autist makes random guess
>turns out to be right
>not that he ever knew because scientists did all the actual work
damn, science btfo forever

>>14884093
He made deductive calculations, not a guess.

>>14883585
>Kant was a Professor of Mathematics
such blatantly false philosotard cope immediately disqualifies any opinion you might have

>>14884056
Correct, Kant says it cannot be discovered (hence a priori), but because it is seemingly apodictic and we must use this intuition as a foundation of understanding.
Except it isn't a priori. It is a posteriori, hence our discoveries in physics in the past 120 years.

>>14884066
>Idk about that. What he meant was that our mode of cognition can't experience anything that isn't in time, and the world in space. The specifics of how these things work doesn't change that.
This is me directly quoting Prolegomena, Hatfield translation:
"Therefore, it is so greatly mistaken that my doctrine of the ideality of space and time makes the whole sensible world a mere illusion, that, on the contrary, my doctrine is the only means for securing the application to actual objects of one of the most important bodies of cognition - namely, that which mathematics expounds a priori -and for preventing it from being taken for nothing but mere illusion, since without this observation it would be quite impossible to make out whether the intuitions of space and time, which we do not derive from experience but which nevertheless lie a priori in our representations, were not mere self-produced brain phantoms, to which no object corresponds, at least not adequately, and therefore geometry itself a mere illusion, whereas we have been able to demonstrate that incontestable validity of geometry with respect to all objects of the sensible world for the very reason that the latter are mere appearance"

By all means provide an argument to the contrary, but I do not see how a sensible person interprets Kant as some sort of existentialist psychologist. These are explicitly claims on how the universe is operating.

>>14884072
see above

>>14884106
>Kant was a student and a teacher of mathematics throughout his career
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/
He taught math and physics courses in university(aside from philosophy).

>>14884097
>no see if I call his totally unjustified speculations “””deductive””” it makes it smarter
cope

>>14884113
>see above
Who said Kant was an existential psychologist? He himself says "ideality of space and time" which is exactly what I was saying. Are you the Masters guy by the way? I see you post this in every Kant thread and it seems you don't know what you are talking about.

>>14884113
Uhm no dude, Kant is asking what the necessary conditions for knowledge must be, these necessary conditions cannot be a posteriori because a posteriori knowledge presupposes necessary conditions for knowledge. Kant is asking an entirely different question than Newton or Einstein are. He is engaged in metaphysics and epistemology, not in empirical physics. You are again, confused as shit.

>By all means provide an argument to the contrary, but I do not see how a sensible person interprets Kant as some sort of existentialist psychologist. These are explicitly claims on how the universe is operating.
Not that anon, but what you call the "universe" Kant considered to be fundamentally structured by our cognitive faculties, hence his transcendental idealism. Read buddy, just read.

>>14884134
No I'm >>14884138 the guy with a Masters degree, I don't think you can pin-point why "I wouldn't know what I'm talking about", insecure brainlet.

>>14884138
This. Finally someone knowledgeable.

>>14884145
I am: >>14884152. I retract my statement. You do know what you are talking about. I mistook you for some other guy in other threads.

>>14884145
Wow a master's degree, how much did you pay for that?

>>14884167
Very little, I even got paid some because I'm Eurobased.

>>14884134
The response you warranted is the same, Kant is not talking about the *experience* of space-time but the reality of it. If you wish to contest this by all means respond to the Prolegomena quote. I almost never get on /lit/ and so this is the last time I will respond to any schizo elements of your post.

>>14884138
I don't feel like you actually addressed my post. There is nothing addressing how Kant states his position in that passage. I'm also not sure why you are bringing up Newton or Einstein. I know he isn't engaged in "empirical physics" as that is the whole crux of the issue.

>what you call the "universe" Kant considered to be fundamentally structured by our cognitive faculties
Compare this claim to
>without this observation it would be quite impossible to make out whether the intuitions of space and time, which we do not derive from experience but which nevertheless lie a priori in our representations, were not mere self-produced brain phantoms, to which no object corresponds, at least not adequately, and therefore geometry itself a mere illusion, whereas we have been able to demonstrate that incontestable validity of geometry with respect to all objects of the sensible world for the very reason that the latter are mere appearance

I fail to see how your claim of his position does not immediately collapse his statements to "mere self-produced brain phantoms"

>>14884188
>Kant is not talking about the *experience* of space-time but the reality of it.
This is where you went wrong. Kant repeatedly says we cannot talk about the "reality" of anything, because that would be talking about things-in-themselves, which he explicitly prohibits. All he talks about is our experience, i.e, appearance of them, which constitutes our experience.

>>14884188
Not exactly sure what your point is, to be perfectly honest. What I was getting at is that Kant's involvement with spatio-temporal epistemology is entirely a priori in nature. Nothing Kant says can be verified or falsified by looking at the world, what Kant is actually saying there, I believe, is that our a priori intuitions actually map unto the objects of empirical experience. What this then means is that there is a direct correspondence with what we have access to in an a priori manner and what we have access to in an empirical, a posteriori manner. This is the whole project of Kantian idealism. The reason why Kant is actually so concerend with synthetic judgements a priori is because he believes these are the abstract laws of empirical knowledge, and we have access to them a priori.
Of course Kant isn't making the claim you can deduce singular physicalist theorems by analyzing our a priori intuitions. In the Critique of Pure Reason however, Kant lays out the four principles of say his philosophy of science, any and every physical law must be applicable to these four principles, just as singular empirical data must be applicable to synthetic judgement a priori.

The reason why Kantian idealism doesn't collapse into epistemological solipsism is because Kant believes to have shown that no experience is possible without a priori foundations, hence why they aren't brain-phantoms. The universe is fundamentally structured by our cognition, while at the same time not being illusionary in any sense.

>>14884212
Right, but we are talking about space now which is not a thing-in-itself because it is not a "thing" at all to Kant. To quote that passage again, at the very end:
>geometry with respect to all objects of the sensible world for the very reason that the latter are mere appearance
The latter are mere appearance, because there are underlying noumena. As opposed to geometry and space, which is not an appearance at all. I feel he makes this distinction in multiple places. Can you provide any passage contradicting this?

>>14884243
Geometry and space are the very basic pillars of experience, and therefore are still part of the appearance. Notice that Kant's project is not to identify the nature of things like space. He wants to analyze our experience to see to what extend knowledge is possible. As it happens he identifies time and space as the very basic constituents of our experience. It doesn't mean space is geometric in itself. It means we conceive space geometric.

>>14884282
There is no sensical talk of space that is non-geometric in Kantian terms. Space is Kant's name for the outer layer of our a priori intuition. Once you start talking outside of this paradigm the name "space" loses all of its meaning. There is no space-in-itself.

>>14884288
Not sure the purpose of your post but that's exactly what I'm saying. There is no space-in-itself. Space is one of the things that gives form to our experience.

>>14884302
I'm saying that
>Notice that Kant's project is not to identify the nature of things like space.
is either wrong or worded poorly, he is very interested in identifying the nature of space.

>>14884231
>Nothing Kant says can be verified or falsified by looking at the world
Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, what I am claiming is that Kant, thinking he was making statements which could not be falsified, actually did. I think we agree this is the point of disagreement.

>Of course Kant isn't making the claim you can deduce singular physicalist theorems by analyzing our a priori intuitions.
I'm fairly certain Kant actually does this. I can go find it if you'd like, but I'm almost positive he relates Newton's physics and the spread of gravity over the surface of a sphere to our intuitions of geometry.

>The reason why Kantian idealism doesn't collapse into epistemological solipsism is because Kant believes to have shown that no experience is possible without a priori foundations, hence why they aren't brain-phantoms. The universe is fundamentally structured by our cognition, while at the same time not being illusionary in any sense.
I agree, but I don't think you are giving proper credit to his views on what geometry actually is and how he discusses the interplay between the actual nature of space and it's relation to our use of geometry. And of course, this all took place in the context of intuitive Euclidian geometry.
Can you agree that if Kant is saying what I claim he is saying about geometry, this would make his claims (unknowingly to him) falsifiable? Or are you disagreeing in some other manner?

>>14884282
I don't disagree, but you aren't addressing the fact that he calls geometric knowledge apodictic. What I need is to be convinced of is that he isn't claiming our intuition of space is a fortuitous reflection of reality. You keep claiming his statements on geometry and space only reflect experience, but without accounting for how we discusses their validity right afterwards. I can provide more text if you'd like, but I feel that one already provided is almost as straight-forward as Kant gets in the allotted characters for a 4chan post.

>>14884314
Sorry, it's worded poorly. I meant that he is not looking for the nature of space-in-itself as the other poster is suggesting. If he was doing that, then modern physics would have contradicted him. He is rather interested in the nature of our experience, to which space (among other things) gives form. Which means modern physics doesn't contradict Kant as they are talking about different things.

>>14884322
>What I need is to be convinced of is that he isn't claiming our intuition of space is a fortuitous reflection of reality.
If by reality you mean noumena and by reflection you mean exact representation, then it is easy to do. Since he says space is an *a priori* concept of understanding.
>Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities [wirkliche Wesen]? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all? (A23/B37-8).
Obviously he means the latter is the case.

>>14884322
>I'm fairly certain Kant actually does this. I can go find it if you'd like, but I'm almost positive he relates Newton's physics and the spread of gravity over the surface of a sphere to our intuitions of geometry.
I don't believe this to be the case. Kant was heavily interested in physics, but never makes the case that he can deduce physical theorems through a priori intuitions alone. The spread of gravity over the surface of a sphere obviously relates to a priori intuition of space IE geometry, doesn't mean geometry will tell you what gravity is.

What I'm aware of is, that some people claim Kant's recurrence to euclidean geometry has been falsified because of Einsteinian relativity of time and space. The literature I read on this strongly suggests, which I find sensical, that for that to be a proper falsification of Kantian spatio-temporality one would have to show that percepticle geometrical fields which supposedly falsify Kant's geometry, cannot be transcribed into euclidean terms. In other words: Mathematicians can just define any space they want, they can drop and adopt axioms as they wish. From a science theory point of view, the question is primarily related to pragmatism, less to epistemology. Epistemology in the Kantian sense cannot be falsified or verified:

Kant is asking what the necessary conditions for knowledge must be, these necessary conditions cannot be a posteriori because a posteriori knowledge presupposes necessary conditions for knowledge. Kant is asking an entirely different question than Newton or Einstein are. He is engaged in metaphysics and epistemology, not in empirical physics.

>Can you agree that if Kant is saying what I claim he is saying about geometry, this would make his claims (unknowingly to him) falsifiable? Or are you disagreeing in some other manner?
At this point I'm rather confused about what this discussion is truly about, I'd have to scroll back and read four more of your posts to understand the general gist of your claims. Intuitively it seems to me, that you're supposing Kant is making a classical correspondence-truth claim, which I don't think he's making because he has a different concept of objects, truth and the "world".

>>14882102
total brainlet, Kant's whole point is that Euclidean geometry is part of an intuition interpretation which corresponds to reality without being absolutely true or wholly accurate

>>14884377
Stop you fucking idiot just stop.

>>14882328
this is probably the final redpill

>>14882338
>Implying our experiences matter fuck all to the search of truth
my fucking sides
so what are you using to get to the truth dumbfuck

>>14883317
absolutely this
Swedeborg, Newton, Aristotle, Peirce, Newton, all made contributions to other fields and modern sciencefags act like these literary renaissance men would care about their autism lmao

>>14884173
>because I'm Eurobased.
That explains the poor English, literal mindedness, and general incompetence with very simple concepts

>>14884383
>Stop you fucking idiot just stop.
sciencefag immediately breaks down

>>14884416
No I also disagree with the guy, but you 100%, 1000% have not fucking read Kant and it fucking shows and you need to KYS for being such a faggot pseud, double KYS for saving these soijacks you shitposting monkey FAGGOT.

>>14884422
cringe, you haven't understood kant

>>14884446
This. Explain how he's wrong.

>>14884412

>>14884338
>Obviously he means the latter is the case.
I agree, Kant does not believe space is a relation between things nor an entity. However, the problem here is that:
>Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all?

I believe you are now saying that intuition is the source of our disagreement. That our ability to intuit space means it is inherently unable to be representative of physical reality in that very form. Even though our understanding of space exists as an intuition, Kant seems to claim this is also an apodictic intuition. To introduce more Kant:

>"Sensibility, whose form lies at the foundation of geometry, is that upon which the possibility of outer appearances rests; these, therefore, can never contain anything other than what geometry prescribes to them. It would be completely different if the senses had to represent objects as they are in themselves. For then it absolutely would not follow from the representation of space, a representation that serves a priori, with all the various properties of space, as a foundation for the geometer, that all of this, together with what is deduced from it, must be exactly so in nature. The space of the geometer would be taken for mere fabrication and would be credited with no objective validity, because it is simply not to be seen how things would have to agree necessarily with the image that we form of them by ourselves and in advance. If, however, this image - or, better, this formal intuition - is the essential property of our sensibility by means of which alone objects are given to us, and if this sensibility represents not things in themselves but only their appearances, then it is very easy to comprehend, and at the same time to prove incontrovertibly: that all outer objects of our sensible world must necessarily agree, in complete exactitude, with the propositions of geometry, because sensibility itself, through its form of outer intuition (space), with which the geometer deals, first makes those objects possible, as mere appearances... In this and no other way can the geometer be secured, regarding the indubitable objective reality of his propositions, against all the chicaneries of a shallow metaphysics, however strange this way must seem to such a metaphysics because it does not go back to the sources of its concepts.

>>14883580
He was so high IQ, imagine what he was like to be around

>>14884575
I'm not sure what your overall point is, but space is "apodictic" in so far as our representation of the real is concerned. He says in the quote that I posted, that intuition is "subjective constitution of our mind". So far as space-in-self is concerned, our intuition is subjective. So far as our experience of the world is concerned, our intuition is the apriori constitution "without which ... predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all".

>>14884647
The intuition as it relates to geometry, remember? This is about the geometrical realities of space. You are bringing this back to perception, where the disagreement lies in how this perception relates to our knowledge of geometrical certainty. Obviously our subjective experiences are subjective, the question is what does this say about geometry (and how it describes physical reality). If Euclidean geometry is apodictically certain as it relates back to our outer incontrovertible intuitions (space), then how is it we are forced to create non-intuitive geometrical constructs to describe space?

Where do you describe a flaw in this?

>>14884757
I see what you mean. The intuitions are a priori constitution of the mind. The intuition of space corresponds to geometry. This, so to speak, gives form to our perception of the world. If I look at my table, for example, I see nothing but 4 lines, two of which are parallel to each other, but perpendicular to the two parallel lines. My perception of the world therefore gets its form from geometry, which corresponds to the intuition of space. As for why we have to use non-euclidian geometry to describe phenomena (though not our direct experience), I have no idea. It might perhaps affect Kant's ideas of categories and his philosophy of science. I don't particularly care about those parts. What I care about is his transcendentality of time and space, and modern physics and non-euclidian geometry do not have slightest opposition to these claims.

>>14884837
>What I care about is his transcendentality of time and space, and modern physics and non-euclidian geometry do not have slightest opposition to these claims.
This is also where my concern lies, but I am just not convinced of the compatibility between Kant and these systems. When Kant says "Space is something so uniform, and so indeterminate with respect to all specific properties, that certainly no one will look for a stock of natural laws within it" I cannot convince myself he is conceiving of only a mental construct. How could he even acknowledge searching for natural laws in something which relates purely to intuition? He often references the validity of geometrical derivations through our spacial intuition and vice versa, which seems to inevitably lead to direct conflict with relativity, which seems to describe "a stock of natural laws" to space itself. The obvious objection to this is that we are experiencing and empirically validating these theories through the perception of space innate in us, and that what we see concerns the behavior of appearances rather than "space" as a perceptual "container" or whatever. But at what point could you even provide a counter example to such a claim, considering the level of unfalsifiable solipsism embedded in it? To say that the perception of appearances changes as you approach the speed of light in such a way that any measure of time inherently changes, is a property of the objects (to say nothing of why this speed limit exists and how that could possibly relate back to qualities of the noumena), seems to introduce modes of thinking even more alien than the counter-intuitive aspects of relativity.

>>14882102
someone's not keeping up with the literature

>>14884976
What you are thinking of does not involve his intuitions of space and time, but his categories and his philosophy of science. He believes matter is a category and so is causality (among other things) and that applications of these categories to phenomena, if we discover and apply them to phenomena in such a way that we can all agree it describes phenomena, it comprises empirical law. This isn't a bad theory, imo, but I think it might need more work and consideration, especially regarding modern physics. As you say, matter though is a category, what happens if it goes to the speed of light? Schopenhauer here disagrees with Kant and anticipates (and influences) Einstein's theory of relativity, saying that there is only one category, of causality and matter, both of which are the same category in different forms. This seems more plausible to me and seems compatible with Kant's philosophy of science. But as I say, these parts are not as certain to me as his transcendental idealism of space and time, which have nothing to do with natural laws since they come prior to it.

>>14884106
You're an idiot

>>14883723
>>14883695
Brainlet who has never read Kant nor studied modern mathematics
>>14883693
This poster is correct