"Hello my name is Immanuel Kant"

"how do you do, fellow utilitarian?"

Kantplatz. Achtung: Türen öffnen links.

...

You're a big guy

Wie geht’s

You can't be Kant. Kant has been dead for centuries.

>"Why would you assume the transcendental exists when there is no way to experience or prove its existence
>do a three 60 and walk away

t. never read the critique of pure reason

>Hello my name is Immanuel
Your name's a porno flick

Hello Mr. Immanuel Cunt. I'm user.

"Hallo, herr Cunt. I did not know you knew english. Also, when you hear the words I am saying, do you understand them in themselves (i.e. our communication is possible) or just as phenomena, meaning that the language we speak has no unity necessarily?"

btw, i've never actually read Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, it was just a joke based on the what i've read of expositions other people made about Kant's work, so don't come yelling at me telling me I'm a brainlet who misunderstood Kant, because I'm just a brainlet who never read Kant

>phenomena have no necessary unity

Whose exposition did you read, Ayn Rand? She never read Kant either.

more on this?

Severely underrated.

I did not say phenomena have no necessary unity. What I meant was that language would be an useless instrument for communication if the words' noumenic form was not aprehensible, because when a word would be spoken, it would not be possible to link it to what it refers to in real world, which I would assume to be the substance of words, but only to the concept one has of the hipothetical words (and I don't even know if that's correct or if, in Kant's language, "substance" is the same as "noumenon"). But, again, never read the Kritik and it was just a joke.

sounds like something Kant would say

If you tell people not to jump down your throat, someone will inevitably jump down your throat, and that person will most likely be me if you're misrepresentin mah boy Immanuel.

He devotes the beginning of the Critique to demonstrating that all understanding is subject to the a priori forms of space and time. Since what is a priori can only be so if it exists in the mind prior to experience, the necessary forms of all perception exist in the mind. This means that all noumena (things as they are absent perception) are unknowable, since we can only cogitate based on forms of possible perception.

He uses the word "substance" as it is no longer often used, but yes, it is noumenal, though not all noumena are "substance." But this isn't really a problem for the human understanding: substance is necessarily unknowable in his system, but matter has objectively reality and is determinable as the phenomenal form of substance.

The only time there is a linguistic problem is when words (which must have reference to phenomena in the understanding, conceptions, or notions) are used to refer to things in themselves. This leads to transcendental sophistry.

Do you happen to live in Hanover?

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, user. And now I'm curious about reading Kant. Does he explain what is the nature of those a priori notions (i.e. if it's linguistic, or whatever)?

:)

This

Surreal.

Kant ? Ew !

twitter.com/JoyceCarolOates/status/934099139910135808

why do you have such a big boner for God? he's not even real lol

How?

literally google the word 'noumena'

>proofs from experience

I thought of the same thing upon entering this thread, wasn't expecting for someone to reply with that, used to live near there. Good night, Kantplatzanon.

He notes that many cosmological arguments rely on the notion of space as an object (i.e. as content) rather than a form, and that space is the aggregate form while time is the successive form. This means things exist at once in space, but things happen after one another in time. This shows that an opposite state is not simply a change, but a change after which it can be shown that the prior state is the only possible, since the aggregate of space coupled with the succession of time allow for changes that are not necessarily opposed, that is, the caused in the empirical realm (the only one in which causality has validity) may be subject to more than one cause. This is devastating to an argument that relies on intelligible causality, like the cosmological proof of God.

But what do you mean by "nature"? If you're asking what the axioms of space and time are grounded on, I can only say that it is the necessity of their use. It would be impossible for us to think of an object that exists without reference to space and time. This is the best foundation of an axiom that I am aware of.

...

if everyone was named immanuel kant the world would collapse because it would be impossible to linguistically tell one person from another

That's pretty aggravating. Kant hardly ever had contact with women, save his housekeeper to whom he proposed, and was rejected by.

Fuck it galvanizes my legumes when anyone introduces sex into an unrelated discussion

freesound.org/people/saknewton/sounds/156720/

Hello, faggot. My name is faggot.

That is not your name.

Philosophy took a wrong turn with Kant from which it never fully recovered.

Specifically, his distrust of the evidence of the senses led to him devise an elaborate Rude Goldberg contraption philosophy to get around the perceived problem. But the contraption did not solve the imagined problem; it simply interposed a needlessly complex apparatus between the mind and the self.

Sheer, misguided autism in philosophical form.

You idiots, this man is in fact not Immanuel Kant.

>be one of the greatest geniuses known to men
>still get rejected by roasties

>distrust of the evidence of the senses
You just read summaries, didn't you?

I will take any opportunity, however shallow, to bump a Kant thread.

But it really is in fact not Immanuel Kant. It's almost a little funny how this portrait has become so commonly used to represent him.

It is funny.

I just meant that I would turn any thread that even mentions Kant into a Kant thread.

That is not a bad rule.

Kant said black people were like apes? When? I can't imagine he ever encountered a black person, or an ape for that matter.

This depiction is so beautified its ridiculous

>muh categorical imperative isn't just a hypothetical imperative in disguise!
hack! honestly in hindsight this guy;s contribution to lit is just everybody denouncing him! true for most but really ....

his whole philosophy is based on an abstraction taken as an a priori given with objective quality if you can believe that!

Who cares about the categorical imperative? The Critique of Pure Reason was his real legacy.

He's one of the illiterate idiots who criticizes a philosopher for a conclusion without actually knowing the system of logic they derived it from

>The Critique of Pure Reason was his real legacy.
What did he give us here?

The synthetic a prior, Christ go read

It's a mammoth boook man.

Also the noumena/phenomena distinction, which is to me much more useful and edifying.

It's not really that long, unless you're reading the enlarged addition, but it feels incredibly length because of what an abysmal writer Kant is. I read Anna Karenina (which is about twice the length) more quickly than I read the Critique

Shits not meant to be easy. At the least read some secondary material

>synthetic a priori judgments are possible
>just not in philosophy

reality is understood by a priori structures of the mind that we cannot trace to empirical sources.
These structures coming together explains consciousness as well as add an understanding of
and

>his whole philosophy is based on an abstraction taken as an a priori given with objective quality if you can believe that!

HAVING placed in my mouth sufficient bread for three minutes' chewing, I taste, swallow and digest it, thus healing the divide between the noumenon and the phenomenon. I bring the two together and make them one, although they were never truly divided in the first place other than in Kant's autistic imaginings.
Thus I refute Kant.

Not who you are responding to, but can you explain what you mean here. It seems like it would be really interesting if I understood it, but I don't have anywhere close to the background