/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11815407]

Why does Kant postulate that space and time are forms of our perception but does not include Being in the category? Why does he want to preserve that there are external objects to be perceived, instead of saying that such external objects are just conditions for thought?

[Anonymous No.11815415]

>>11815407
He was weak and scared of objects, and what would today be called Aspergic. He used to cover up the clocks in his house because he thought they were looking at him. Our entire society is based on this madman's whims.

[Anonymous No.11815422]

>>11815407
For somethinf to "be" in a phenomenological sense, it needs to correlate with space and time. Dpace and time are the catagories by which phenomenological "being" presents itself.

[Anonymous No.11815432]

>>11815407
Time and space are not real, it is a concept we have been conditioned to observe since he Kant decided it was the most useful way of making perception of objects into tools. What makes this mathematics as opposed to numerology?

[Anonymous No.11815473]

>>11815407
>forms of our perception
>conditions for thought
perception ≠ thought

[Anonymous No.11815477]

>>11815415
Actually our entire society isnt based on his whims.
Christ cucks need to leave this board.

[Anonymous No.11815485]

>>11815477
You invoke word clouds from that which you cannot see, you are doing his bidding.

[Anonymous No.11815487]

>>11815432
how the fuck can I exist then?

even thinking about spatiality and temporality is spatial and temporal

[Anonymous No.11815501]

>>11815487
Thought apprehends multiplicities, the future is in flux. Consider non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation.

[Anonymous No.11815514]

>>11815487
You are the creative nothing which immanentizes form. This is just Hume's is ought idea causing trouble and defining an artificial temporal space.

[Anonymous No.11815517]

>>11815432
>it is a concept we have been conditioned to observe since he Kant
you are an ahistorical moron

[Anonymous No.11815518]

>>11815501
give an example

[Anonymous No.11815540]

How do I fucking begin with Kant? I'm not interested in his moral tables, I just want his epistemology.

[Anonymous No.11815542]

>>11815518
Assemblages are temporal/temporary and intentional/have a purpose- e.g. the man/horse/bow assemblage of the nomadic horde is a warrior assemblage, and then there could be state/church/market assemblages as well.

The 'coincidence' of Marxist M-C-M' and Kantian spacetime becoming mainstream, two chance flow connections, is the flag conditioning for technological singularity in the 'future' which in turn manufactures its own flags so that it may come into existence, this gives us a 'wipe' retroactively to give a sense of time or progression since its inception

[Anonymous No.11815543]

>>11815501
this isn't even talking about Kant
>>11815514
I bet you were the retard talking out his ass in the Deleuze thread too. Please engage with philosophers before replying to threads like this
>>11815422
this is the only poster who's actually read Kant in this thread, zero replies, good work /lit/

[Anonymous No.11815553]

>>11815477
Acthually

[Anonymous No.11815554]

>>11815542
>singluarity exists in the temporal future
>working to gain spacial extension
you little reluctant Kantian you

[Anonymous No.11815565]

>>11815542
The only winning move is not to immanentize the form.

[Anonymous No.11815571]

>>11815565
IE stop having ideology, past, future in your head it's nonsense. Calculate using probability mathematics that's it, that's all we can know in the now.

[Anonymous No.11815573]

>>11815540
Start with Deleuze on Kant and work yourself back

[Anonymous No.11815585]

>>11815540
Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics.
Follow up with the first Critique if your brave.

[Anonymous No.11815593]

>>11815573
please don't do this, or you'll wind up ranting about assemblages and think you're talking Kant

[Anonymous No.11815602]

>>11815571
We don't have free will we have choice. Causal autonomy is not true. You're all suffering from dualism still.

The ineffability of the gift Kant gives you all protects rationalisation from Reason.

Reason is NOT:
Intellectual Intuition
Deduction
Perfection
Preference Maximisation
Disembodied,
Affectless
Normalisation
etc.

[Anonymous No.11815603]

>>11815543
what's the point of replying to people who know what they are talking about

[Anonymous No.11815605]

Because he saw such a condition of objects to be similar of subjective idealism, and believed that, by an argument of permanence (against Berkeley), the set basis of space and time as separable, for multiple reasons. For one matter, the permanence of temporality and the temporal determination of thought both cannot exist, as they are limited to the ways of which they can be combined to a general determination of perception. On the other hand, permanence, while seemingly a product of time, is exclusively applicable to the external state of objects and matter, as the status of matter (in a phenomenal sense) is not able to simply not exist, for this would be an illusion without a mental determination, and would hence not correspond to anything indicating appearance or objectivity (this, combined with matter not being able to be destroyed, provides a clear-cut case against subjective idealism)
TL;DR: Please leave, Berkeley

[Anonymous No.11815613]

Do not divine meaning from things.

[Anonymous No.11815678]

>>11815543
correlationism

[Anonymous No.11815689]

>My task is not ontological
I mean like how many times did he fucking say it

[Anonymous No.11815694]

>First I will speak about an idea here, which as far as I know, has never occurred to anyone’s mind— we must have a new mythology; this mythology must, however, stand in the service of ideas, it must become a mythology of reason.

>Until we make ideas aesthetic, i.e., mythological, they hold no interest for the people, and conversely, before mythology is reasonable, the philosopher must be ashamed of it. Thus finally the enlightened and unenlightened must shake hands; mythology must become philosophical, and the people reasonable, and philosophy must become mythological in order to make philosophy sensual. Then external unity will reign among us. Never again the contemptuous glance, never the blind trembling of the people before its wise men and priests. Only then does equal development of all powers await us, of the individual as well as if all individuals. No power will be suppressed any longer, then general freedom and equality of spirits will reign— A higher spirit sent from heaven must establish this religion among us, it will be the last work of the human race.

The second you read this we were bootstrapped.

[Anonymous No.11815698]

BOoooOOOoooo

Beware of Das Ding, transcendental traveler!

[Anonymous No.11815706]

>>11815694
things are in flux until they're not. most events are in constant flux with other possibilities, however in relying on Kantian pseudoscience and false free will we actualize the future through immanentization of form, 'idea', ''future;, 'ideology', 'intuition' etc.

[Anonymous No.11815714]

>>11815407
You know you can literally read this passage in like five minutes right? Check out earlymoferntexts.com to navigate the sections easily. Should be in the categories. Brush up on the arguments for the two apriori sensible intuitions of space/time first.

[Anonymous No.11815730]

>>11815706
schrodingers cat

[Anonymous No.11815743]

>>11815706
shoddy metaphysics

Badiou was right about you deleuziosionals

[Anonymous No.11815747]

>>11815730
this is the intellectual equivalent of “WEED LMAO”

[Anonymous No.11815781]

>>11815743
he failed to consider that everyone is right

[Anonymous No.11815790]

>>11815542
capital is sentient

[Anonymous No.11815796]

>>11815407
The thing in itself must have some independent substance, or else it would be a namable proposition--it's not called nothing in itself for a reason.

Being therefore is the blank canvas, the fundamental irreducible content of whatever exists outside sense perception. What exactly the nature of this essence of being is ineffable, but suffice it to say it must exist if we are to reject solipsism.

Schopenhauer, a great student of Kant, instead postulated that there are in fact no material objects outside of perception. Rather the flip side of perception is materiality which is a shared conscious image of all sentient creatures and shaped around the dictates of the same will coursing through each organism. This is similar to the buddhist metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11815802]

>>11815796
>*it wouldn't be a namable proposition

[Anonymous No.11815829]

>>11815407
Kant was a satanist and a loser

[Anonymous No.11815836]

Nick Land’s theory of Blockchain technology solves the problems that both Einstein and Poincare were facing ( he recommends Peter Galison’s book Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time: Empires of Time), the one from a theoretical physicist stance, the other from a practical and bureaucratic stance. In this video Land describes the underlying reason why we cannot move past Kant into a Post-Kantian perspective. With Blockchain the central issue of developing a practical instigation of succession (arithmetical not geometrical time) and Absolute Time has been resolved, so that this technology makes forcibly practical the relations and convergence on Capitalism, Globalisation, Modernity, Critique, and Artificial Intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PMGuNZreWA

[Anonymous No.11815910]

>>11815836
He is a genius.

[Anonymous No.11816137]

>>11815698
What the fuck is that creature?

[Anonymous No.11816160]

>>11815698
reality

[Anonymous No.11816177]

>>11815836
???
I won't waste my time on a Nick Land video, but there is no way blockchain resolves space and time. That's like saying the invention of tide pods proves the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.11816185]

>>11816177
It's self-selecting optimal timeline, like the many-worlds interpretation theory.

The new technologies of cryptocurrency revolution and blockchain solves the problem of spacetime. The problem of spacetime is that according to Einstein and the notion of spacetime says there is no such thing as absolute succession. Therefore there is not even time, in any distinctive sense- distinct from a dimension. That’s why spacetime is treated as a 4 dimensional structure. This is in the theorization of the blockchain, the problem is approached through something called the ‘Byzantine’s General problem’ and the ‘Byzantine’s General problem’ is exactly the same as the problem of relativistic spacetime.

[Anonymous No.11816190]

>>11816185
The economy functions by projecting itself into a future that does not yet exist, but that it brings into existence by allowing itself to be pulled forward in time, as it were, until it reaches the very moment when the future it has imagined becomes real.

>Every general in the Byzantine’s general’s problem, just by verifying the difficulty of the proof of work chain can estimate how much parallel CPU power per hour was expended on it, and see that it must have required the majority of the computers to produce that much work in the allotted time… the proof of work chain is how all synchronization, distributed data base, and global view problems you’ve asked about are solved.

[Anonymous No.11816229]

>>11815836
>Nick Land’s theory of Blockchain technology solves the problems that both Einstein and Poincare were facing
Yup, that's the good stuff

[Anonymous No.11816271]

>>11815836
He seems so normal.

[Anonymous No.11816303]

I will add that if there is a cultural spectacle that can form meta-narratives to influence personality types (circuitries of behavior), there is also, always already, lingering in the background the biological spectacle that includes many meta-narratives (like the cycle of day and night) that influence an organism's behavior (circadian rhythm circuitries in this case).

[Anonymous No.11816691]

>>11815543
replies are not upvotes you reddit cuck

[Anonymous No.11816745]

Get in bitch

[Anonymous No.11816765]

Kant's categories are the immanentization of Plato's forms. May God help us all

[Anonymous No.11816772]

>>11816765
forgive my brainletism, but would plato's forms be more like the Noumenal things in themselves that we cant see

[Anonymous No.11816800]

>>11816772
I'm referring to something called Plato's theory of recollection.

As we all know, Philosophy begins in earnest with Plato. The central concern of the dialogues (themselves a capture mechanism whereby the “oral” tradition is contained within what would begin the
expansion/contagion of the first fully standardized, internal, highly abstract, economical, phonemic/atomistic representational exogrammic model) is “what is x in and of itself?”.

This archetypal question is advanced with much rigor and is indeed the archetypal question. This question gives rise to what I call “the problem of meaning”. Meaning is a new category arising in ancient thought and meaning itself arises with its necessary (ananke) organ- the soul. This archetypal questioning can be seen as “symptomatic” of exposure to something, thus it is a problem to be solved not by advancing the cause of philosophy but by seeking a cure. The Pharmakos, Logos and the Savior are all attempts at various times answers stages to contain and or cure philosophy. As a side note, Kant is the AIDS of philosophy. The arising of what is x for itself is the “birth of the problem of meaning”. Thought is a dog chasing its own tail, Kant is the dog finally biting down.

There is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west.

[Anonymous No.11816819]

>>11816800
so what exactly are you proposing, and if Kant is the logical conclusion of the story started by Plato, then how is he AIDS? Are you saying the entire thing is a mistake and there is a better way of looking at things

[Anonymous No.11816821]

>>11816800
The pre-Socratics, the Pythagoreans, were the true 'seers' - an extraterrestrial or extrastitional group who project objects in thought via geometric manipulation. The human brain recieves this via on board decimal plexing and created the immanentization of form in the present time, drawing projections of objects over reality.

[Anonymous No.11816827]

>>11816821
I really like Empedocles who seems to me almost Eastern or something

[Anonymous No.11817549]

>>11815407
the being is just a perspective, it can't be abstracted desu senpai

[Anonymous No.11817599]

>>11816177
cope
read up on the Byzantine Generals problem then come back and try again

[Anonymous No.11817634]

>>11816691
(You)

[Anonymous No.11817827]

Because Kant is a critical idealist and his fundamental starting point as a philosopher and as a massive enthusiast of science and Newton was that nature does exist pretty much as we see it and measure it with our instruments. We can't know its ultimate interior nature but we can know it in the way that modern science knows it. He was accused of Berkeley style idealism, and Fichte obviously misinterpreted him at points as being a subjective idealist, but Kant explicitly repudiated this in the Refutation of Idealism in the second edition of the critique, and in other places. He does basically say in the Refutation that thing in itself is necessary in order for us to have consciousness. Consciousness is "about" experience, it begins in experience, and experience is possible only through the uniting of the given sensory manifold by the subject.

In the Opus Postumum he posits an ether or underlying substrate to nature, something like space-time, and people have questioned whether he was making a constitutive argument and had become metaphysical in the way he had denied was possible decades earlier. But a major and persuasive argument regarding the Opus Postumum is that the ether is still only a regulative idea and is not a constitutive assertion at all, it is simply the necessity of taking the manifold of experientially possible objects in nature to be a unity. It's still only a transcendental condition.

Fichte is the one who says that the thing in itself (which he still says exists, contrary to popular belief) is merely a limiting condition. He is the one who reduces the thing in itself to a single "point," about which we know nothing other than that it's "out there."

[Anonymous No.11818042]

The noumenon/ phenomenon dichomoty is wrong. Hegel understood this. There needs to be a metaphysical object first which is correlated to us to start further investigation. The forms of perception are an unvalid knowledge assumption about how the world is constructed because the world shows itself first. It requires knowledge to make assumptioms how knowledge is possible. The limits of knowledge are not set by the forms but by the conditions that make it possible to think about these forms.

[Anonymous No.11819112]

>>11815407
I unironically believe that the bullshit Kant spout out is to blame for Schizophrenia. It's a mentally contagious disease, of which the descendent thoughts reach the brains of the vulnerable by proxy and destroy it forever. Hell if even pure wrongly folded protein without envelope can act as a pathogen (prions), than it's not too far fetched to imagine that structures as complex as thoughts can act as pathogens as well. Notice that Schizophrenia didn't exist before, that the risk of infection is higher in cities than in villages and that the term "nihilist" was re-invented by Jacobi in it's current meaning to describe Kant and his bullshit. I'm not drawing this out of my ass, look it up. The greeks were right in condemning Sokrates to death, they should have fucking ripped his tongue out way sooner. My family and girlfriend are all brainwashed by this monster.

[Anonymous No.11819129]

>>11815415
>used to cover up clocks because he was afraid they were looking at him
Based and mayapilled

[Anonymous No.11819193]

>>11819112
based and theurgy-pilled

[Anonymous No.11819256]

>>11815407
Los monstruo...

[Anonymous No.11819368]

>>11815422
This. Space and time are merely subcategories of Being, in the phenomenological sense.

>Why does he want to preserve that there are external objects to be perceived, instead of saying that such external objects are just conditions for thought?
These don't seem mutually exclusive. What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11819633]

>>11816303
Kant's entire logic falls apart the second women start having periods at the same time

[Anonymous No.11819764]

>>11818042
>The noumenon/phenomenon dichomoty is wrong.

Phenomena are free because the Noumenon is determined. The latter's being absolute allows the former to dissolve indefinitely. They are not in opposition, they are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.11819778]

>>11818042
Hegel did NOT understand this, he made it much, much worse. The entire basis of society is predicated on faulty dualism.

[Anonymous No.11819806]

>>11815694

How do people take this retardo seriously is beyond me. Kant never said any silly shit like that.

[Anonymous No.11820707]

>>11815485
>>11815553
lel, please explain to my inferior intellect how our current society is "based on the whims of kant"?

[Anonymous No.11820724]

>>11820707
The tradition of Transcendental Philosophy through Schopenhauer and Nietzsche sets out in roughly the right direction. As you may wish to note, it exposes the inadequacy of both metaphysical libertarianism and determinism, when the empirical subject is presupposed as the (free or bound) agent. Schopenhauer’s correction of Kant is crucial in this respect. We are in a time paradox immanent on Kant's flows ebbing to the general public.

[Anonymous No.11820739]

>>11820724
it came from between the folds of time and space and worlds and light and dark something that is but should not be slipped in and called out to them as their god and they believed it and they tasted it and touched it and layed with it and became its property and did its will

[Anonymous No.11820786]

>>11815540
>>11815487

[Anonymous No.11821034]

>>11819764
>the latter is x making the former y
>the latter and the former is one and the same
I see words but no argument.

>>11819778
That's a really extensive statement going from epistemology to a sociological assertion. I have no idea what that means. Explain yourself.
Hegel felt that to claim epistemology was somehow autonomous and could solve its own problems (the massive issues caused by the noumena/phenomena division) was misguided. His dialectics was avoidance of a priori principles in forming a criterion of a given thing. He knew we cannot rationalize the forms of thnking without having used them in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11821053]

>>11821034
Hegel's faults were most aply described within the affirmationist élan that animates the Deleuzoguattarian corpus. Hegel's dialectic is seen as external to and dependent upon prior identities, so the main criticism is that Hegelian thought can't conceptualize difference in itself. This is seen in dialectics like the prolitarian/capital division, for example. This has destroyed society inadvertently

[Anonymous No.11821066]

>>11821053
Hegel does not apprehend multiplicities.

[Anonymous No.11821076]

>>11821053
Marx is a distortion of Hegel

[Anonymous No.11821340]

>Hegel's dialectic is seen as external to and dependent upon prior identities, so the main criticism is that Hegelian thought can't conceptualize difference in itself.

I see what you're up to when you mention the Delueze on this matter. However Delueze made this a matter of linguistics. He doesn't add anything to Hegel's thought that we need a metaphysical object first to start investigation and the process of thinking. Hegel does not assert a prior identity but the identy of subject object identity AND subject object non identity at the same time (the equality between an object and you when you look at it is the same source as the difference between you and that object)

[Anonymous No.11821935]

>>11815415
>He used to cover up the clocks in his house because he thought they were looking at him.
t. clock

"Normal" people ask clocks for permission to do things.

[Anonymous No.11822693]

>>11815407

To understand Kant, you need to understand how he divides (and reunites) the mind by interdependent mental faculties. It's extremely complicated and entertaining to see how his system combines these mental powers different ways. Two of these faculties are:

Sensibility: Space and time provide pure domains for the subjective sensory qualities of beings to appear in your own mind.

Understanding: The categories provide pure thoughts for the objective reality of beings to be recognized by all minds like yours.

[Anonymous No.11822696]

>>11815407
>>11815487

[Anonymous No.11823929]

>>11816137
>>11819256

Kant wasn't really ugly, despite how hard it would be for 4chan shadow-dwellers to accept this.

[Anonymous No.11823940]

>>11823929
he was an ugly little freak

[Anonymous No.11823972]

>>11823940

Naturally the truth isn't so simple

[Anonymous No.11823979]

>>11823940

but the truth is less gratifying if it obstructs people from farting in the direction of who they want to fart in the direction of.