The Antinomies of Pure Reason

[Anonymous No.14967572]

So I'm up to the part where he presents the thesis and antithesis of cosmological postulates of pure reason in facing colums. My question is: what is the best way to read this? i.e. for the greatest comprehension?

[Anonymous No.14967579]

>>14967572
Bonus question: Who else thinks Johann Hamann's critiques are based?

[Anonymous No.14967612]

The antimonies are like all I remember from the critiques. It's epic dialectics. Read Hegel if you want to see an attempt to resolve them...
Umm left to right top to bottom?

[Anonymous No.14967667]

>>14967612
What I mean is: should I read all the proofs and observation for the thesis before moving onto the antithesis, or maybe the proof of thesis and the antithesis then there respective observations?
>hegel
It seems like at this point Kant has already demonstrated that they are just sophistical predispositions of reason to go beyond experience. I've read the phenomenology and it didn't seem like anything but empty speculative sophistry masquerading as quasi insights. Frankly.

[Anonymous No.14967674]

>>14967667
Reason is already beyond experience. Isn't that the ultimate failure of the transcendental system? It posits limits by stepping outside them.

[Anonymous No.14967702]

>>14967674
I don't think thats correct. I think reason is the function of the understanding which makes us capable of delineating the limits of experience- and thus knowledge. The transcendental system doesn't step outside them [the limits of experience], it goes right up to the edge and peers over and speculates whats beyond.

[Anonymous No.14968526]

>>14967572
Come on Gentlemen. Help a budding Kantian out. Bonus question: What is your critique with his system if your not a Kantian?

[Anonymous No.14968557]

>>14967572
Reconcile yourself with the fact that you are going to need to reread them until you can have one line of argumentation in your mind while you read the other

[Anonymous No.14968580]

>>14968557
Why? Surely, the point is not the demonstrations. I thought he was just demonstrating how faulty cosmological reasoning works and why we keep repeating it. Frankly I regard it as self evident that we cannot know whether there is a necessary unconditioned being or not, or whether there is freedom or determinism or not. I'm actually more interested in the 2nd and 3rd critiques but I figured I should read the 1st so I have some conception of his project.

[Anonymous No.14968827]

>>14968526
He assumes that everyone has the exact same faculties of mind, when we probably have different faculties or at least use them differently across cultures and throughout history.

[Anonymous No.14968847]

>>14968827
Wow, your really using a relativist critique? His analysis is for any thinking subject, doesn't even have to be human, just self conscious, i.e. capable of thinking 'I'. I think this is a super shallow critique honestly.

[Anonymous No.14969137]

>>14968847
Yes. His mistake being that he assumes that everyone that thinks does so in the same way which in my view does not seem to be correct. Take for example autistic people who see the world in a wholly different light than we do.

[Anonymous No.14969298]

>>14969137
no you fucktard. That you describe it's a posteriori knowledge. But Kant says that we think the same way in a priori knowledge. for example: "every effect must have a cause", "every thing must exist or not exist", ....

[Anonymous No.14969611]

>>14969298
Have you even read Hegel? Do you even know what you are on about?

[Anonymous No.14969635]

>>14969298
>"every effect must have a cause"

This is a very explicit declaration of what is, in practice, a more subtle aspect of our psychology. Our faculties don't somehow implicitly rule out the possibility of spontaneity in nature, we are biased to notice patterns between what are perceived as temporal antecedents and consequents, and can conjecture that there are laws that govern this due to our ability to discover high levels of regularity in what we observe, though this is only possible because we are constructed as beings with minds that can do this. Much of our sense of cause and effect is subsumed under our sense that 'objects persist' anyway (i.e. a thing is an 'object' insofar that it existing at one point generally means that it will continue to exist, and is hence a 'cause' of its perpetuity, even if it doesn't undergo observable change).

Imagine a universe 'without causes'. In a sense this isn't possible, as a 'completely random' universe would be imagined (by us) to be regular in its randomness imagined as phenomena (i.e. possibly like a series of dots coming in and out of existence according to some distribution, otherwise what would it be). What does this say about the possibility of an actual reality that is hypothetically 'causeless'? I cannot say, as it may be the construction of my mind makes it impossible to imagine otherwise (which would effectively support Kant in a sense), but there is no reason to suppose that we must necessarily perceive the cause of a given event to be something specific (which might go against certain readings). It make little sense to declare that all hypothetical beings capable of conscious imagination must imagine things 'according to causes' like this specifically.

[Anonymous No.14969651]

>>14968847
>His analysis is for any thinking subject
Too bad Kant had no access to the revelations provided by modern empiricism. He would’ve known that any subject can be a thinking subject, depending upon the perspective one subsumes

[Anonymous No.14969992]

>>14967579
Yes.
>if Hume needs faith to eat an egg and drink a glass of water, why does he not also admit faith on questions outside the sensuous?

[Hall monitor No.14970045]

>>14967612
>>14967667
Excuse me but you shouldn't read hegel unless you are a big boy

[Anonymous No.14970131]

>>14967667
>sophistical predispositions of reason
no they are demonstrations of the very limit of reason itself. the antinomies are the point which understanding can never overcome (Hegel disagrees)

[Anonymous No.14970170]

>>14968526
With the thing-in-itself I could not remain a Kantian, but without it I could not enter into his system...