/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11742607]

>believing a priori knowledge is possible
why do people do this?

[Anonymous No.11742615]

cool literature thread, friend :^)

[Anonymous No.11742620]

>>11742615
newfag

anyway, I know that retards believe in a priori knowledge because they cling to kant. the question is why do they ignore philosophers who came after that question his thinking

[Anonymous No.11742632]

>ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
Seems like >>>/his/ is what you're looking for, champ :-)

[Anonymous No.11742641]

>>11742607
'cause they want to believe in an immutable, universal rulebook to guide them instead of having to constantly figure things out as variables change and knowledge evolves.

I'll give mathbros a pass since they're just pointing out that an abstract system can be logically consitent and you can deduce things within that system without referring to the concrete world. Technically though, even they would have to admit you need prior experience (exposure to consistency, logic and some basic rules) to accomplish that.

[Anonymous No.11742649]

>>11742632
cry more
>>11742641
>giving math a pass
all mathematical knowledge requires experience

[Anonymous No.11742650]

>>11742641
>>11742607
>when a retard doesn't understand what transcendental a priori actually means

I'd say read Kant but you probably lack the cognitive ability

[Anonymous No.11742651]

>>11742650
I know what it means, Kant was just wrong.

[Anonymous No.11742652]

>>11742649
>heroic poster shits up boards and doesn't give a shit
teach me to be like you

[Anonymous No.11742659]

>>11742651
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11742663]

>>11742659
obviously, I gave no indication that what I was doing was presenting you with an argument.

[Anonymous No.11742665]

>>11742663
You presented a proposition that Kant was wrong. A proposition purports to express fact yet you gave zero justification for that proposition (because there is none you fucking idiot)
What you also failed to express is that you ever even read Kant

[Anonymous No.11742666]

Not this shit again.

OP actually read Kant before you form opinions on him. In fact, that’s a good life rule, in general

[Anonymous No.11742676]

>>11742620
a priori is an easy 'distinction' to abuse if you want to argue against empricism and for universals that can justify all kinds of beliefs without demonstration.

So anyone who wants to believe in the divine or the transcendental quality of man or the subjectivity/impossibility of truth will be attracted to Kant, which is a lot of people. Of course they will build a worship fortress around him, believe what satisfies their psychology and dismiss challengers as pseuds.

[Anonymous No.11742683]

>>11742665
Just because propositions have truth values doesn't mean that anytime someone states a proposition that they are making an argument (you fucking idiot)

>>11742676
Agreed. Although I'd say the type of people attracted to him are broader than you say. People who want to cling to certainly and necessary truths also accept Kant without much thought.

[Anonymous No.11742686]

>>11742649
Yeah I know, but some of it only requires experience of abstractions, which is I think what they're getting at.

>>11742650
>when a retard ad homs and spits jargon without knowing if he's saying anything of substance

[Anonymous No.11742689]

>>11742676

But you haven’t read Critique of Reason or made it past intro to philosophy, so how would you know all this?

[Anonymous No.11742696]

>>11742650
>>11742666
>>11742689
>you haven't read kant hurrr durrr
I see that marxists aren't alone in this using this horrible deflection tactic

[Anonymous No.11742711]

>>11742696

It’s not deflection. You can’t be properly addressed when you’re creating a complete strawman

[Anonymous No.11742713]

>>11742683
Yeah that's true, it allows them to have their necessary truths while admonishing me for anything less than 100% empirical certainty.

[Anonymous No.11742715]

>>11742711
If it's a complete strawman then make the counter argument. Why do you have to suck the dick of authority?

[Anonymous No.11742754]

>>11742696
Kant is widely recognized by many as the most important philosopher in history and pretty much established the entire philosophic paradigm we still operate in. You have no place claiming any sort of interest or authority on philosophy without reading him

[Anonymous No.11742762]

>>11742607
Every animal knows how to fuck without being told

[Anonymous No.11742764]

>>11742754
I have read him and just because he is recognized as important doesn't mean he is correct. Also, he didn't establish the paradigm alive today. Kant's thoughts led to Hegel and the people who reacted to Hegel are those who established the dominant paradigms. This all shows that the current paradigms come from a rejection of Kant.

[Anonymous No.11742770]

>>11742754
If you're so well inducted into philosophy then you must be aware of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

If you have read Kant and are unable to present/defend the crux of his arguments, that reading didn't do you much good.

[Anonymous No.11742771]

>>11742764
>Kant's thoughts led to Hegel and the people who reacted to Hegel are those who established the dominant paradigms.

lmao hello sophomore. Hegel influenced shit, he has his little cuck corner with the Marxists, Fascists and his own anachronistic followers but decisively little on the vast majority of serious thinkers since then.
Both the analytics and the phenomenologists, the two dominant schools both trace their history to Kant first and foremost. And the analytics barely hold Hegel as a footnote. From Wittgenstein to Godel to Heidegger to Husserl. Kant is the central pillar of modern thought, its not even a comparison

[Anonymous No.11742773]

>>11742770
Literally no one in this thread has even scretched his ideas much less made an objection worthy of defence. Again fuck off and pick up a book before talking shit

[Anonymous No.11742775]

>>11742771
>Both the analytics and the phenomenologists, the two dominant schools both trace their history to Kant first and foremost. And the analytics barely hold Hegel as a footnote
the analytic tradition started with russell and moores rejection of british idealism which developed out of hegel's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11742782]

>>11742775
Started with a rejection. Yeah thats a serious endorsement there

[Anonymous No.11742783]

>>11742607
>The world is my representation" [...] If any truth can be expressed a priori, it is this; for it is the statement of that form of all possible and conceivable experience, a form that is more general than all others, than time, space, and causality, for all these presuppose it.

[Anonymous No.11742785]

>>11742762
Biological instinct + environmental stimuli. Animals are wired that way, it's not knowledge. Is breathing due to knowledge or autonomous biological function?

[Anonymous No.11742793]

>>11742782
I literally said above that his influence comes from the reactions he elicited. never said anything about his influence coming from endorsements.

[Anonymous No.11742795]

>>11742793
Thats simply not influence in any serious sense. Especially when unlike say Nietzsche with his absolute obsession with Kant the analytics very rarely ever spoke of Hegels work or even thought of him as worthy of criticism.
I like Hegel but he was a total non-entity to them

[Anonymous No.11742797]

>>11742783
Ok, try to follow me here. Even the awareness/knowledge of your own existence requires experience. When you enter deep sleep, you are not aware of your existence. When you were a zygote, you were not aware of your existence (or the existence of anything). Some initial experience is necessary before any thought/concept can occurr.

[Anonymous No.11742802]

>>11742797
Which is literally said by Kant himself in the first page of the Critique.
This is my problem with this thread and the retards saying Kant "wrong". When any serious person today talks about a-priori knowledge today they're referring to transcendental a-priori not an absolute a-priori. This is to say an a priori which is ambivilent to any experience but is necessary given the mere fact of experience itself

[Anonymous No.11742806]

>>11742795
going to take this moment to appreciate the contradiction you've placed yourself in. earlier you provided the example of marxists as being influenced by hegel despite the fact that marxism is also a rejection of hegel. now you're saying rejections don't count as real influence in the case of the analytic tradition because... well, no reason, you just say its not influence in any "serious sense". In other words you just can't admit you're wrong so you're making nonsense claims and hoping they stick.

[Anonymous No.11742812]

>>11742806
>earlier you provided the example of marxists as being influenced by hegel despite the fact that marxism is also a rejection of hegel

They very clearly are not. Holyshit, what a proposal
They rejected some of Hegels higher lines of reasoning but retained COPIOUS amounts of his frameworks. This is not true whatsoever in the case of the analytics

[Anonymous No.11742814]

Experience doesn't exist. Past, present, and future are all already completely determined and immutable. Spacetime is a manifold, and experience is impossible. Experimentation is an exercise in futility. Experimentation cannot justify the inference that future events be inferred from past events, and experimentation cannot define what an event is, what distinguishes it from a non-event, the mereology of events, or really anything. Making sense of experience is impossible for the inexperienced, and therefore the sensibility of experience must either be a sham or proceed from something prior to experience, or "a priori."

[Anonymous No.11742824]

>>11742715
>make good counter-arguments against my shitty arguements

[Anonymous No.11742831]

>>11742812
whatever stance you take on the marxist's relation to hegel, its still indefensible to say that influence doesn't count in the case of rejection. you just asserted the distinction between serious and not serious influence and called it a day. there are only degrees of influence not whatever kind of classification you're trying to set up.

[Anonymous No.11742839]

>>11742831
Ok cool, you're basically saying nothing. But ok

[Anonymous No.11742841]

>>11742802
His distinction of transcendental a priori is not demonstrated. Why am I to assume that time and space are something called 'a priori forms' instead of real properties of the universe? Of course we don't perceive the entirey of reality, that is a trivial assertion -- but why am I to assume that the amount we do perceive is not real?

[Anonymous No.11742847]

>>11742841
>Why am I to assume that time and space are something called 'a priori forms' instead of real properties of the universe?

The two are not in any way distinguishable to Kant. What type of stupid question is this

[Anonymous No.11742885]

>>11742847
Guess you don't know Kant as well as you think.
>>11742783

If the phenomenal stems from the noumenal, then am I not observing some properties of the noumenal, however slight? If so, then where is the hard boundary? It is fine to say that our experience is shaped by the properties of wherever/whatever we are, but why invent the distinction of 'a priori forms???'.

[Anonymous No.11742893]

>>11742885
Are you literally ad hocing an and idea of Kant from that one post?
The Phenomenal does not "stem" from the noumenal, Kant makes it very clear at the last section of the Transcendental Analytic that the noumenal is something that can strictly defined in mere negativity. Nothing stems from it, its a mere potential category of thing outside phenomenal experience
I hate how retards just hear the word noumenal and then start projecting their own dumb pet mystic shit onto it without even reading Kant

[Anonymous No.11742897]

>>11742885
Are you literally ad hocing an idea of Kant from that one post?
The phenomenal does not "stem" from the noumenal, Kant makes it very clear at the last section of the Transcendental Analytic that the noumenal is something that can strictly be defined in mere negativity. Nothing stems from it, its a mere potential category of thing outside phenomenal experience
I hate how retards just hear the word noumenal and then start projecting their own dumb pet mystic shit onto it without even reading Kant

[Anonymous No.11742901]

If I was in a room with kant for 10 minutes I could convince him that he was wrong about pretty much anything.

[Anonymous No.11742914]

>>11742901
Funny post.
I bet you can't even rebut his four major antinomies in ten minutes.
Your post is due in ten minutes. I'll know how much primary source material you use and how much you cribbed from SEP and the major secondary sources, so good luck.

[Anonymous No.11742915]

>>11742893
So we are beings of limited perception, wow shocking revelation.

If we can't apprehend the noumenal then we can't have knowledge of it, so again why is there a distinction of a priori knowledge?

[Anonymous No.11742925]

>>11742914
I never said I could convince anyone in 10 minutes. just that I could convince kant in 10 minutes

[Anonymous No.11742929]

>>11742915
Nothing in your post here is coherent. I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
I have no interest in trying to interpret your bad understanding of what you think Kant is. Go read a book you dumb nigger
The noumenal is not """a priori""" and Kant makes no claim we can have a knowledge of it (much the opposite). Nor does the fact we have limited perception have a single fucking shred of what we're talking about

[Anonymous No.11743107]

>>11742839
Is that the best you can do? Lmao, you're pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11743137]

You ever heard of math, nigga?

[Anonymous No.11743150]

>>11742652
>>11742615
>>11742632
quit being a discussion cuck, or return to leddit

[Anonymous No.11743682]

Ok, let's do some examples:
Kant argues that space is an 'a priori' intuition. Is this so? When a crawling baby navigates through space, does it really acquire spatial knowledge through intuition, or via the evidence of experience? That is to say, when the baby encounters consistencies in its experience of space, is that not what forms its expectations and knowledge regarding space, as opposed to the vague notion of 'pure intuition'? Certainly, the baby's nature and so its experience are contingent upon space, but it does not follow that this grants 'pure intuition' regarding space.

Now let's look at geometry. Kant asserts that geometry has an 'a priori' quality because it is dependent on the 'pure intuition' of space for universality. Why does Kant locate the objectivity necessary for universailty within his notion of 'a priori intuition', when it can be more elegantly attributed to an objectively real universe -- the properties of which are being investigated by geometricians? Furthermore, does his pure intuition adequately account for the complexity and abstraction of the concept of space as employed by geometricians, which is far removed from our childhood expectations of space due to acquisition of collateral knowledge?

Finally, if one can only experience the phenomenal, then how could Kant actually know that something separate from oneself (the unknowable thing-in-itself) is the source of what we perceive?

[Anonymous No.11743737]

>>11743137
In math you can have deductions based on abstract priors, but if you go back far enough it's all rooted in the experience of logical consistency in the concrete world.

[Anonymous No.11743786]

>>11742607
>what is a posteriori necessity
You were saying?

[Anonymous No.11743795]

>>11743737
>i
>-1
>2.7182818284590453536...
>in the concrete world

Just stop lmao

[Anonymous No.11744055]

>>11743682
>Kant argues that space is an 'a priori' intuition. Is this so? When a crawling baby navigates through space, does it really acquire spatial knowledge through intuition, or via the evidence of experience?

That's what intuition means you fucking dummy. For anything to constitute external experience its immediately necessary for it to be expressed first in space
Again read the fucking book you absolute mong

[Anonymous No.11744065]

>>11743682
>Finally, if one can only experience the phenomenal, then how could Kant actually know that something separate from oneself (the unknowable thing-in-itself) is the source of what we perceive?

HE DOESNT KNOW THATS HIS FUCKING POINT
OH MY FUCKING GOD

[Motoko No.11744090]

>>11743682
Kant explains in great detail why he doesn't believe geometry is derived from the nature of the physical world in-itself.
Read the fucking book.

Geometry or natural sciences which somehow surpass or contradict Kant's a priori intuitions aren't a problem for his system, as those are empirical theories about the empirical world.

If you had higher order math involved or whatever then Kant could just say well that's nice and all but it's definitely not in the realm of possible experience, you can't experience the planck-length, it's not what I'm talking about.

[Motoko No.11744106]

>>11743682
"Finally, if one can only experience the phenomenal, then how could Kant actually know that something separate from oneself (the unknowable thing-in-itself) is the source of what we perceive?"

Read the fucking book he doesn't say this.

[Anonymous No.11744145]

>>11743795
He’s right. You’re wrong.

That you would even attempt to make the argument that you could not seduce irrationals from deductions that are discovered (not invented mind you) means you have not looked into the foundations of geometry. You’re not going to get these finer things from set theory.

May I suggest Book X of Euclid?

[Anonymous No.11744218]

>>11744145
This is a circular argument though. How do you recognize that there is one object and another object without such an original capacity to recognize the numerate seperation of one object from another object

[Anonymous No.11744403]

>>11743150
>Waaaah mom he called out off topic shitposts for what they are
kys dummy

[Anonymous No.11744444]

Check 'em

[Anonymous No.11744464]

>>11744444
Absolute reason

[Anonymous No.11744469]

>>11744444
Holy.. are you a wizard?

[Anonymous No.11744476]

>>11744444
A priori knowledge confirmsd

[Anonymous No.11744482]

>>11744218
But in order to have gotten to irrationals, the point is that the previous nine books full of propositions were necessary in order to get there. You’re not getting there without innate reason.

[Anonymous No.11744537]

>>11744055
No, that is not what Kant means by intuition, you are being disingenous (or stupid). Kant specifies some kind of 'pure intuition' of a universal quality which is not equivalent to biological instinct/wiring (intuition). Your understanding of your hero is weak.

>>11744065
But he makes that claim, rageanon.

>>11744090
If the abstractions in your high-order math are dependent on concrete observations of logical consistency, then what theories aren't at least rooted in the empirical? To even have this abstract discussion, we are relying on a cornucopia of collateral knowledge acquired from our shared experiences of the concrete.

>>11744106
Please clarify his assertion then anon. You are remarkably hostile; why are you not pleased to share your superior logic?

>>11744218
Distinction is real, it doesn't take any special capacity to observe. Numerical separation is a concept that develops secondary to the observation of natural distinctions between concrete objects.

[Anonymous No.11744617]

>its another "anon refutes a long-standing and long-accepted philosopher's work in a single post without even reading him" thread

[Anonymous No.11744621]

>>11744537
>let me lecture you about a thinker I never read

[Anonymous No.11744633]

>>11742649
>synthetic a priori

[Anonymous No.11744686]

Why is it so difficult for people to accept things a priori exist in time and space? What is so ideologically offensive to you about the proposition?

That our faculties of cognition occupy spacetime (thanks Einstein) and that objects appear to us through this lense of sense. That we can know about the essence of ourselves our relation to things by investigating the shared essence.
Prove to be it’s absurd to think all things occupy space and time. You’ll probably tell me I don’t exist in the same breath.

But we’re both right.

[Anonymous No.11744692]

>>11744686
it's harris' scientism drones trying to do his work for him again (story of his life)

[Anonymous No.11744704]

>>11742683
So why even utter it? Kant is wrong has 0 value. Clearly avoiding any explanation reinforces the initial point, that you are a dumb fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.11744754]

>>11742607
It should be illegal to be this retarded.

[Anonymous No.11744771]

>>11744692

no scientism, and its positivistic foundation, is a load of intrinsically self contradictory horseshit. it can be very easily btfo with a single compound sentence. harris is a pseud, and you have been triggered.

[Anonymous No.11744847]

>>11742665
>You presented a proposition that Kant was wrong.

[Anonymous No.11744854]

>>11744847
Inb4 he replies to this with the classic Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.11745051]

>>11744145
The point I was making is that negatives, complex numbers, transcendentals, etc. cannot be found in the corporeal world, or the "concrete world." It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I am under the impression that mathematical objects are abstract objects (Platonic Realism) where i, -1, 0, e, etc. would not find any material constraint to be expressed.

[Anonymous No.11745180]

>>11745051

have u even read aristotles organon, or kant or hegels logic? all quantitative expression is an abstract representation. truth is found in the structures of thought itself.

even positive numbers, 2 apples for example, is an abstract representation of concrete reality. saying there are 2 apples when youre holding 1 apple in each hand isnt exactly true.

[Anonymous No.11746029]

>hey kant, how did you come up with the 12 categories
>well, they correspond to the way we think.
>kant, surely you don't think logic is completed?
>umm... well I just.... well yeah it is pretty much done...
>not so fast

[Anonymous No.11746071]

>>11746029

>taking writings at face value
>actually agreeing with contrarian "philosophers" who write for prestige and income for acquiring lifestyle
>not thinking for own self, preferring instead to hunt and carry quotes from random books with catchy titles and wiki articles and shitposts trolling the uneducated
>expecting systemic completion
>unsatisfied with approximation
>rejecting heuristics as valid methods of analysis
>actually not taking hermeneutics seriously
>being a positivist in the 21st century
>not knowing you can be eternally "not wrong" without ever being right and still be more right than anyone who thinks they can be / are "right"

k

[Anonymous No.11746141]

>>11746071

[Anonymous No.11746161]

What's the best edition of CPR? Hackett? or will almost any do?
I'm reading through Hobbes to Hume right now (mostly secondary texts [Kenny and Jones] but I'm planning on reading through at least some Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Leibniz), and Kant seems monolithic over them from what I've heard/read

[Anonymous No.11746178]

>>11742607
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.11746193]

>>11746141

[Anonymous No.11746205]

>>11746193

[Anonymous No.11746208]

>>11744847
>>11744854
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11746220]

>>11746029
Kant said himself in the critique he didn't purport the categories to be exhaustive nor that them being so had any inherent bearings on what followed from them. They were just a necessary step in displaying how logical deliberation is structured

[Anonymous No.11746233]

>>11742607
Because all bachelors are unmarried.

[Anonymous No.11746303]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

There, Kant refuted.

[Anonymous No.11746689]

>>11744617
If the work is so widely accepted and well known to you, it should be a simple thing to employ his logic instead of resorting to mockery (or even better, you could do both).

>>11746233
Yet we need collateral a posteriori knowledge of what 'bachelors' and 'unmarried' mean for the statement to have a truth value. Otherwise, 'all bachelors are unmarried' is the same as stating A=A. Well, we know that isn't true because not all unmarried are bachelors -- our distinction between the terms requires empirical knowledge; without that knowledge, the statement says nothing about the world and is merely a linguistic circularity.