/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18755161]

>We can't know things in themselves
>But we can know the mode in which they affect our senses
Contradictory

[Anonymous No.18755168]

>>18755161
No. It’s not.

[Anonymous No.18755177]

>>18755161
"Things in themselves" = objective reality (gestalt).
Perception = subjective reality.
So... not contradictory, but quite consequent in fact.

[Anonymous No.18755203]

>>18755168
>>18755177
He says that the sensory world is saved from being a subjective illusion by the uniformity of appearances. But such uniformity of appearances to me suggests intuition of things as they actually are. There is nothing to suggest to the average person that what they perceive on an every day basis are mere mental representations.

[Anonymous No.18755219]

>>18755203
That's why I wrote "subjective reality" and not "subjective illusion". Uniformity of appearances suggests a common way of perceiving things rather than an intuition of things as they are. Nietzsche very eloquently elaborates on this in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.

[Anonymous No.18756252]

>>18755161
>We can't know things in themselves
Then how can he talk about them?

[Anonymous No.18756255]

>>18755161
Correct.

[Anonymous No.18756387]

>>18755203
How are vivid dreams and hallucinations possible if our perceptions aren't mere appearances in the mind?

[Anonymous No.18756403]

>>18755161
No we can know things through Mathematics. There is no room for ambiguity in it.

[Anonymous No.18756409]

>>18756387
Sane people can tell dreams from reality, and most hallucinations aren’t like in movies, it’s more like indistinct shapes.

[Anonymous No.18756419]

>>18756403
Math does not give us knowledge of "things," just how our own brains work.

[Anonymous No.18756435]

>>18756387
We assess the ideal unity of what we encounter prior to their perception. Illusions come from the fact that perception relies on free variation. Vivid dreams are a specific form of aperception reliant on a modification of your normal relation to your world.

[Anonymous No.18756438]

>>18756409
why assume hallucinations arent real when they have all the appearance of being real just like anything else?

[Anonymous No.18756451]

>>18756419
For fuck sake anon, what the fuck is that what we don't know? Where is the mystery in the world? Where the fuck is that paranormal shit? Or some other reality of things?

Everything is real because people feel pain.

[Anonymous No.18756461]

>>18756451
>Everything is real because people feel pain.
I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that you are synonymous with your "everything." All knowledge is self-knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18756503]

>>18756451
The paranormal is part of the unknown
that is anything which isnt part of the known
you have the known which represent maybe 10% or reality, then you have the unknown which account for another bigger slice, than there is the unknowable dazzling and terrifying in its immensity

[Anonymous No.18756507]

>>18756461
Hmm, that's cool.

But I have met many people online mainly "occultists" who claim that they seen all type of spooky shit that you can't even imagine. But when talk with other people in real life even the religious people they just say that I know a guy who knows a guy who have seen some paranormal shit. At most they interpret their dreams as paranormal. I don't know man. My main objection is with people who believe in demons, magic, ghosts, souls etc. I hate to say but materialism does seems like a correct worldview.

[Anonymous No.18756533]

>>18756503
Why should believe that what I see is only 10 percent of reality and even if it is who do you know this? I had no paranormal experiences then why should I believe in such sort of things? Sounds like wishful thinking yearning for something more. It would have been easier for kooks to pass such shit in 16th century when there was still mystery in the world and universe.

[Anonymous No.18756536]

>>18756507
>>18756503
Parapsychology was the favourite and least useful college course I've ever taken. Our teacher was a magician (the pull a rabbit lut of his hat kind) who would use his knowledge of magic tricks to debunk the cases presented. He'd also show us some tricks every now and then, and asked us to debunk them (he wouldn't confirm, tho, as that was against the code).

[Anonymous No.18756539]

>>18755161
How, after all the years of Kant scholarship, how can someone claim such a dumb statement?

[Anonymous No.18756546]

>>18756533
good point and kind of sad reflection of human state of things.
to percive the unknown requires energy and the discipline required to free up existing energy in order to have extraordinary perceptions
thats where the unknown is
consider on a daily basis all our energy resources are utilised in percieving the known

[Anonymous No.18756549]

>>18756536
>he wouldn't confirm, tho, as that was against the code
Of course, who wants to end their kook business?

[Anonymous No.18756561]

>>18756536
Money well spent.

[Anonymous No.18756570]

>>18756549
He'd get harassed by other magicians if he did. He pushed the limit a lot, whenever a magician was trying to pass something off as a real thing, he'd give us the trick.

[Anonymous No.18756574]

>>18756409
>it’s more like indistinct shapes.
not for true schizos

[Anonymous No.18756583]

>>18756561
College is free (and mandatory) here.

[Anonymous No.18756592]

>>18756546
How I can have cool experiences?

[Anonymous No.18756602]

>>18756507
>My main objection is with people who believe in demons, magic, ghosts, souls etc.
That's just how their medieval brains communicate.

[Anonymous No.18756615]

>>18756592
begin by freeing up existing energy
how is all our energy used in precieving the known and not leaving a speck of energy left for facing the unkown?
self importance or self reflection / self image takes all the available energy
so you chip away at that and free up energy bit by bit
the best way is to read Carlos Castaneda who goes into detail about it

[Anonymous No.18756630]

>>18756615
Why you can't be direct for once? All of this is tangled up in useless mystification like there is nothing underneath these words.

[Anonymous No.18756638]

>We can’t know things in themselves
Proof?

[Anonymous No.18756640]

>>18756615
also those concerns of the self such as self importanc eetc are actually shileds that keep the unknown at arms length
the unknown is constantly intruding so our shields are important
in fact the known oridanry reality is wrapped up insdie the unknown, its as if the known is just a part of the unknown weve mapped out to make life bearable

[Anonymous No.18756653]

>>18756638
White is one of the muddiest color yet you see it as neat as fuck.

[Anonymous No.18756666]

>>18755161
indeed. if the transcendental categories are invariable, as kant thinks and as we experience, we do know the thing-in-itself yet through something like an "effect", like colored sungalsses. the relation between noumenon and phenomena is stable and necessary, therefore the latter refelct the former perfectly.

[Anonymous No.18756673]

>>18756666
Checked

[Anonymous No.18757331]

>>18755203
>uniformity of appearances to me suggests intuition of things as they actually are
read Hume

[Anonymous No.18758345]

>>18755161

Anon have you read the first critique?

Have you read the Prolegomena?

What have you read?

[Anonymous No.18758361]

>>18758345
I've read parts of the critique and I've read the prolegomena twice. I quoted him directly in the op

[Anonymous No.18758455]

>>18755161
I never understood what did Kant bring new to philosophy (except, as Nietzsche mentioned, summarized with german pedantry ideas that existed before, in table form actually).
Everything hes said was discussed before by greeks, brits and Descartes.
Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't see.

[Anonymous No.18758496]

>>18758455
you are wrong, sorry

[Anonymous No.18759175]

>>18758361

That's a solid start. When you get more in the weeds, I think you'll find the Analytic of Principles to resolve many of your questions (while raising a few others, of course). That's where Kant focuses extensively on the difference between logical possibility versus physical possibility (or, slightly more technically, the difference between what can be thought, conceived, versus what can be real, actual). The latter class of does not conflict with the former class, but instead the latter class adds content (from sensibility) to the formal logical structure articulated by the former class.

This is what Kant calls Schematism, and it is extremely important.

Consider B190-191, which I will punctuate slightly differently *by adding asterisks,* compared to the original Guyer-Wood translation of Kant's many parenthetical remarks:

"Whatever the content of our cognition may be, and however it may be related to the object, the general *though to be sure only negative condition* of all of our judgments whatsoever is that they do not contradict themselves; otherwise these judgments in themselves (even without regard to the object) are nothing. But even if there is no contradiction within our judgment, it can nevertheless combine concepts in a way not entailed by the object, or even without any ground being given to us *either a priori or a posteriori* that would justify such a judgment, and thus, for all that a judgment may be free of any internal contradiction, it can still be either false or groundless.

Now the proposition that no predicate pertains to a thing that contradicts it is called the principle of contradiction, and is a general though merely negative criterion of all truth, but on that account it also belongs merely to logic, since it holds of cognitions merely as cognitions in general, without regard to their content, and says that contradiction entirely annihilates and cancels them... For that no cognition can be opposed to [the principle of contradiction] without annihilating itself certainly makes this principle into a CONDITIO SINE QUA NON, but not into a determining ground of the truth of our cognition."

So the principle of contradiction is a necessary condition for a human mind's experience of nature, but not a sufficient condition. The experience of nature must add spatiotemporal data, sensory content, to the merely logical forms of thinking.

But systematic rationality demands that the human mind asks the question "what explains the origin of sensory data within my subjective forms of space and time?"

[Anonymous No.18759183]

>>18759175
>>18758361

The mind cannot answer this question by examining the world of experience itself, because the sensory data of that world is precisely what's trying to be explained, and the laws of cause and effect are only applicable if structuring sensory data into a possible or actual experience. So Kant can't say that any thing-in-itself CAUSES sensory data to arise within our forms of intuition, which is the same as saying that our sensations cannot be the EFFECT of any thing-in-itself. Critics like Jacobi thought that this conclusion was fatal to Kant's whole enterprise.

What such critics didn't grasp is that physical, schematized rules are not the only way to draw logically valid inferences in Kant's system. Consider the following excerpt from Caygill's Kant Dictionary, under the entry for Thinking:

"In order to cognize an object 'I must be able to prove its possibility, either from its actuality as attested by experience, or a priori by means of reason' but 'I can THINK whatever I please, provided only that I do not contradict myself' (CPR B xxvi). Thus it is possible to think things-in-themselves, but not to know them, for as Kant 'reminds' his readers 'for THOUGHT the categories are not limited by the conditions of our sensible intuition, but have an unlimited field' (CPR B 166). It is, of course, also possible for thinking to be consistent with cognition, as in the case of synthetic a priori judgements where 'thinking is the act whereby given intuitions are related to an object' (CPR A247/B304). Such thinking must fulfil the conditions for the subsumption of intuitions under concepts, and its objects are accordingly restricted to those of a possible experience."

So technically, what can Kant say about the sensory data that arises within the mind's faculty of spatiotemporal intuition? That such sensations are the logical consequence of some logical ground; this logical ground he calls a thing-in-itself, which is unknowable but not unthinkable - in fact, it is required by the rule of "hypothetical relation" which is listed in the table of logical functions of judgement; when schematized, this table is rendered as the more-familiar table of categories.

So there ya go.

[Anonymous No.18759232]

>>>18756615
It's the orgones, jeremy

[Anonymous No.18759248]

>>18759232
peep show memer holy based

[Anonymous No.18759349]

>>18759183
You’re based

[Anonymous No.18759716]

>>18755161
Kantianism is the ultimate form of slave morality

[Anonymous No.18759721]

>>18759349

And grounded

thanky

[Anonymous No.18759724]

>>18755161
Reminder to all Kantians that literally everybody except dedicated Kantians agree that this is contradictory. Even those friendliest to Kant like Fichte or later philosophers who highly respect him find this contradictory. The ONLY people who don't are people who buy his ideas full-sale, in other words, Kantians who let Kant think for them.

[Anonymous No.18759735]

>>18759716
Ayn go home you're poor

[Anonymous No.18760608]

>>18756546
getta load of this spirit-seer

[Anonymous No.18760799]

>>18760608
hello i see you

[Anonymous No.18760849]

>Reading Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
>You suddenly hear a doorbell
>"Anon... Chad beat me again. Can I stay here until he's cooled down? Please don't tell him I'm here if he asks."

What do?

[Anonymous No.18760943]

>>18760849

> Chad rings doorbell
> You don't answer
> Chad eventually has to leave

> Retain a chaste and respectful friendship with Anonina that serves as a moral example to your community, world, and posterity

[Anonymous No.18761157]

What is the point of this mumbo jumbo philosophy?

It has no applicability. And it doesnt really help us understand our surroundings in any meaningful way. A philosophy so detached from reality is pointless.

There are better things to study that will have a direct impact on your life.

[Anonymous No.18762645]

>>18760849
Call the fucking cops, I'm paying my taxes why should I deal with a roastie's disastrous life decisions.

[Anonymous No.18762661]

>>18761157
>g*rman "philosophy"
It's just the way for incels to express their retarded thoughts. You know I'm right, just think for a second about Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche etc.

[Anonymous No.18762662]

>>18760849
Remember my reading of the Groundwork and let her in. Don't call chad. Remember what Kant stated, we are humans, sometimes we violate the rationality of morals as we are not perfect. Stop being a dumb nigger and stop strawmaning Kant.

[Anonymous No.18762729]

>>18761157
>confirmed for not having read shit

Reading Kant will significantly strengthen your ability to follow complex arguments and assess their validity. Hard to overstate just how much mental exercise and conditioning you'll get from a single book of his, even on the shorter side.

This is true even if you don't accept his system of metaphysics, or morals, or aesthetics, or politics etc.

Also crucial to understanding the course of history and modern philosophical systems/political ideologies.

>it doesnt really help us understand our surroundings in any meaningful way

kek

[Anonymous No.18763590]

>>18762661
Ignoramus. Hegel had children, including a son out of wedlock.

[Anonymous No.18763706]

>>18755161
>kant
You need to understand that these people simply low IQ. They lived on a time of medical inneficiency, bad nutrition, and terrible educational system, even for the high class. While IQ is hereditary, you can depress it with inadequate conditions, and that was exactly the case for Kant and other philosophers. Kant was probably 89-91 IQ. It's why his text is convoluted and dry, he doesn't know how to express himself because his neurological structures are underdeveloped (thus his 89 IQ). He was also writing for an average of 78-82 IQ, which's why his text seems so innovative, compared to his contemporaries. But for a 100-120IQ educated man nowadays, his and most of the texts of the past, feels obvious and immediate, puerile, ridiculous even. Anyone who has 100IQ plus, has thought about things like "the thing in itself" and how it isn't really knowable; the division between sensory experience and mental apriori knowledge etc.
Disregard philosophy and go to STEM.

[Anonymous No.18763753]

>>18763706
>Tips fedora

[Anonymous No.18763874]

Olavo de Carvalho already destroyed Kant:

>When Kant says all we perceive from the external world are fragments which our minds put together (unify), he makes an absurd point. For if we perceived things as fragments we could not perceive them at all. If I am able to unify something, I am, by myself, without the entities I perceive expressing this unity, able, more than perceiving unity, to produce unity. If I were able to produce unity of the world, then I could create the world. The unification of the world cannot be a cognitive act, for if it is only cognitive it is already abstractive, separating being and knowing, and if both are separated, I can only know the cognitive part and the existing one. This is a monstrous mistake. I cannot unify the sense data if they do not present themselves already unified to me, for if it was a purely cognitive unification, it would not be a unification whatsoever. It would be only an image, an image separated from the real entity. Now, if there is the separation of image, the cognition, and the existent, the entity, then there is no unification.

[Anonymous No.18763953]

>>18763874

The dude is a pseud. Influencing political powers matters more to him.

Kant takes pains to say that the manifold of sensory data is given in experience as already unified; it is by reflection upon experience (transcendental reflection, specifically) that we can analyze the different aspects of experience and attribute them to their appropriate faculties.

Olavo makes a sophomoric mistake when he claims that cognitive acts must be abstractive; for Kant, the a priori concepts of the understanding are a priori functions of judgment, not a posteriori abstractions. Olavo doesn't grasp, or doesn't want to communicate, how Kant distinguishes the faculty of understanding from the faculty of reason, or the role of reflective judgment.

[Anonymous No.18763960]

>>18756255
Thoughts on Heidegger's hermeneutics?
>phenomenon is things as they show themselves
>being is not a phenomenon (i.e. does not show itself)
>But we can know the way being determines phenomena as phenomena!
Isn't it the same problem in OP repeated? But unlike Kant, he says we have an implicit, pre-ontological understanding of being, which we can use to reveal it. How does it square with his belief that phenomenology is presupposition-less? Isn't that itself a pretty big, unjustified, presupposition?

[Anonymous No.18764016]

>>18763706
"You need to understand that these people simply low IQ. They lived on a time of medical inneficiency, bad nutrition, and terrible educational system, even for the high class. While IQ is hereditary, you can depress it with inadequate conditions, and that was exactly the case for Kant and other philosophers. Kant was probably 89-91 IQ. It's why his text is convoluted and dry, he doesn't know how to express himself because his neurological structures are underdeveloped (thus his 89 IQ). He was also writing for an average of 78-82 IQ, which's why his text seems so innovative, compared to his contemporaries. But for a 100-120IQ educated man nowadays, his and most of the texts of the past, feels obvious and immediate, puerile, ridiculous even. Anyone who has 100IQ plus, has thought about things like "the thing in itself" and how it isn't really knowable; the division between sensory experience and mental apriori knowledge etc.
Disregard philosophy and go to STEM."

So much this.

How do I give platinum award?

[Anonymous No.18764029]

>>18764016
transfer it from left hand to right hand samefag

[Anonymous No.18764030]

>>18763953
>Influencing political powers matters more to him.
I know you have no idea what you are talking about but give me a single instance of direct intromission in ''political power''. Any person with a direct communication with culture (this is what intellectuals,scholars have always done) will influence the culture.
>sensory data is given in experience as already unified
What is given? A mere appearence, dissociated image? The point is precisely that there is no separation in experience.

[Anonymous No.18764083]

>>18764030

>I know you have no idea what you are talking about but give me a single instance of direct intromission in ''political power''

Bolsonaro asked de Carvalho to lead Brazil's Ministério da Educação.

Bolsonaro took de Carvalho's suggestion to appoint Araújo to lead Brazil's Ministério das Relações Exteriores.

>What is given? A mere appearence, dissociated image? The point is precisely that there is no separation in experience.

Spatiotemporally ordered sense data, synthesized under intelligible concepts of the understanding, systematized under ideas of reason.

Anything else?

[Anonymous No.18764114]

>>18764083
>Bolsonaro asked de Carvalho to lead Brazil's Ministério da Educação.
And he refused.
>Bolsonaro took de Carvalho's suggestion to appoint Araújo to lead Brazil's Ministério das Relações Exteriores.
Bolsonaro asked for names, Olavo de Carvalho suggested some among which Araújo was included.
Ponder about what I told you regarding culture. Did you read too much Kant to neglect culture as a unified whole?
>Spatiotemporally ordered sense data, synthesized under intelligible concepts of the understanding, systematized under ideas of reason
Where is the noumenon-phenomenon separation?
>Anything else
Yes, I'd ask you not to spout things you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.18764172]

>>18764114

>Ponder about what I told you regarding culture.

Admit when you're wrong, anon.

> Where is the noumenon-phenomenon separation?

Why are you changing the topic now? Already answered above in this thread, anyway.

> I'd ask you not to spout things you know nothing about.

Don't worry I won't start

[Anonymous No.18764753]

>>18755161
I know myself in and of myself because I feel therefore I am
>catapults Europe into Eugenic ans Fitness Yoga obession

[Anonymous No.18765227]

>>18764753

uh Schopenhauer does not claim that a human can know themself as a thing-in-itself, if that's what you're saying.

He says the closest we can come to understanding it is by introspecting upon the feeling of willing - but this introspective consciousness still veils the thing-in-itself behind temporality, which is the form of inner sense. Consciousness of the thing-in-itself is not only impossible to achieve, but impossible to even conceive.

[Anonymous No.18765441]

>>18762729
>Reading Kant will significantly strengthen your ability to follow complex arguments and assess their validity.
How? Examples please
>kek
Doesn't address his point

[Anonymous No.18765505]

>>18765441

Do I really need to explain how reading a famed philosopher will help you to practice logical criticism? Even if the philosopher's reputation isn't earned, it will hone your analytic skills to discover and explain the philosopher's errors. Turns out Kant was a professor of logic, so he actually earned the majority of his reputation, as you might agree if you actually read him.

I really get the sense that you're mostly trying to be argumentative. But since it's easy enough to find examples of what I described, consider this from the Prolegomena:

"Contradictory propositions cannot both be false, except the concept, which is the subject of both, is self-contradictory; for example, the propositions, "a square circle is round, and a square circle is not round," are both false. For, as to the former it is false, that the circle is round, because it is quadrangular; and it is likewise false, that it is not round, that is, angular, because it is a circle. For the logical criterion of the impossibility of a concept consists in this, that if we presuppose it, two contradictory propositions both become false; consequently, as no middle between them is conceivable, nothing at all is thought by that concept."

I also gave several examples above >>18759175 but you might not have realized that was me.

>Doesn't address his point

Nor was it intended to. I addressed his point immediately before that by saying that Kant's philosophy is

>crucial to understanding the course of history and modern philosophical systems/political ideologies.

Do you want me to do most of your work for you by giving examples of this too?

[Anonymous No.18765771]

>>18765227
Thank you for clarifying but if Im gonna meme:
>The will in and of itself

[Anonymous No.18765798]

>>18765771
>the will in and of its smith

[Anonymous No.18766994]

>>18756503
It's not that you know only 10% of reality it's that you can't know any amount of reality by nature of how you perceive things. Only things that are a priori (useless 1=1, my brother is males stuff) or Synthetic priori stuff ( 1+1=2) can you actually know.

[Anonymous No.18768235]

>>18756630
>Why you can't be direct for once? All of this is tangled up in useless mystification like there is nothing underneath these words.
It's a long involved process that requires years of focused intention. There is no going directly there.

[Anonymous No.18768534]

>>18759183
When you say that the thing in itself is unknowable but not unthinkable is it because we know there are things in themselves instead of know them themselves? For otherwise we could not even posit such a thing as a thing in itself, know it exists, right? But what is the difference between eidos (platonic form, paradigm) and the thing in itself?

[Anonymous No.18768854]

>>18755203

>He says that the sensory world is saved from being a subjective illusion by the uniformity of appearances. But such uniformity of appearances to me suggests intuition of things as they actually are.

It's not mere uniformity of appearances that saves the reality of the external world, but several special kinds of uniformities that all operate together in a hierarchy, Kant argues.

Kant wrote his Refutation of Idealism to address this issue (refutation of Berkeley's "idealism" especially, which claims that outer representations of spatial objects are imaginary and only exist in inner sense - though Kant also addresses his refutation against Descartes' skepticism of the external world, which is more agnostic about the reality of space than Berkeley).

In all honesty, Kant's Refutation of Idealism is one of his more confusing and suspicious arguments, and reads more like something he cobbled together to plug a hole in his system; the premises seem very vague, even for Kant, and the inferences are not obvious. He revised the argument several times over the years because he seemed to be particularly unsatisfied with it, and it's not clear if it's even the same argument each time.

Pic related is a short summary. I'll try to present a more complete one, as charitably as I can, later today if I'm available to.

>There is nothing to suggest to the average person that what they perceive on an every day basis are mere mental representations.

Well yeah, and there was also nothing to suggest to the average person that the earth orbits the sun, until a few ingenious people did a lot of hard work to demonstrate it.

[Anonymous No.18768986]

It's time to climb the ladder to absolute knowing, OP.

[Anonymous No.18770318]

>>18768534

It's probably fair enough to say that, in Kant's system, we know THAT there are things-in-themselves although we can't know, or even imagine, WHAT they are (that is, what they are like).

Strictly speaking, "knowledge" (or "cognition") in Kant's system is the term used for phenomenal experience; we cognize spatiotemporal appearances that are unified into objects by the understanding. Because of this, I try not to say that we "know" things-in-themselves even "exist" since these are terms reserved for the world of experience. I believe Kant (in Guyer-Wood's translation) uses the terms "being" and "is/are" for both things-as-appearances and things-in-themselves, whereas the terms "exist," "actual," and "real" are reserved for things-as-appearances only. Adding to the confusion, Kant doesn't always seem to use these terms consistently himself, though by context you can usually figure out what he means.

[Anonymous No.18770508]

>>18768534
>>18770318

As an example, imagine you are standing on a shore looking out at a lake, and you notice that on the water's calm surface there are circles rippling outwards. You spontaneously know THAT something caused the ripples - this is the physical law of causality - even if you don't know WHAT the cause is; an air bubble from an underwater animal? A bird dropping something from the air? A pebble thrown by someone else on the shore? Regardless, an effect must have a cause.

Now go a level deeper, and instead of starting with an effect within experience for which you search for a cause within experience, consider your experience *as a whole* to be the thing for which you're search to explain. You won't be able to apply the physical law of causality, but still you spontaneously think there must be SOME REASON your experience of the world is happening. You're asking about what things transcend the whole of experience - you're at the level not of physically possible experience, but of the logical conditions of possible experience. Upon transcendental reflection, you can logically attribute some aspects of experience to your own spontaneous activity as a knowing subject (these are the a priori forms of sensibility, understanding, and reason) and you can logically attribute other aspects of experience (the a posteriori raw data of sensation) to things-in-themselves.

As for your question about Plato and the Ideas, I don't quite understand your phrasing.