Did epistemology before Kant really not have some form of the transcendental deduction?

Did epistemology before Kant really not have some form of the transcendental deduction?

Did no one ever talk about how the "passive intellect" or receptive faculty shapes intuitions? Were they all naive representationalists?

I bet you 13456565readzizek324567 dollars you didn't read that number. You just skipped right over it. You didn't even realize I put a useless piece of advice, which borders on a buzzword, in it. No I didn't but you went back and looked.

Is Zizek the natural next step after reading the Greeks?

I'm not sure what you mean, but it was mostly 'psychologistic' and concerned with a soul-substance, either as a material thing within the body or as a separate worldly mind-stuff, not as a formative condition of the empirical world itself. That's probably not true of eastern philosophy or even older western philosophy though, just the stuff immediately preceding Kant.

Thanks.

Do you mind going a little bit into a For Idiots version of what psychologism actually means? I feel like I get inconsistent ideas of it from different authors - Kant, Husserl, Cassirer especially.

Short answer would be Aristotle, especially concerning the Agent Intellect.

i wanna suck on dem toes like a popsicle on a hot summers day

Don't be such a submissive beta-cuck, it's unbecoming and plebeian af.

Yes

Is that picture you OP?

She looks familiar, I think I've seen her on the chan before

you can find her on /r/feet

Psychology to me basically means study of the soul as a worldly object. That could be anything from the more abstract kind of soul that Plato talks about in the Phaedo all the way to the modern 'psyche' which methodological naturalism has us assume is itself physical or emergent from the physical. What all the approaches share is the presupposition that there is some sort of thing in the world, a human mind, and it interacts with the rest of the world in ways that we empirically study, and these ways give rise to all of our psychic life -- emotions, thoughts, feelings, and so on. So while Descartes separates the mind from the physical world, for example, he still sees it as a sort of empirical, worldly substance, that then interacts in systematic ways with the physical.

Kant's change is to treat the mind not as one thing in the world among others, but rather as the condition f the empirical world itself. That is, there is no empirical world without the categories and forms of intuition that the mind provides -- the mind sits 'behind' the world rather than in it, as the condition of the possibility of any particular empirical thing. The mind is thus not equivalent to any particular empirical thing, like a body or brain or even soul substance, but is of another category, like the spectacles through which the world is seen, or its frame.

So we don't discover the mind as we do say a new species or mineral, but rather have to transcendentally deduce its conditioning powers from its effects. Prior to this it was basically assumed, for example, that our idea of space was just a certain kind of empirical idea -- we had to start out with some worldly thing already in space,like a brain or soul, and this would interact with other things in the world to develop the idea of space in turn, and represent or perceive it. Kant in contrast wants to say that there exists no mind 'in' space to begin with (though a brain is), since space is itself something that the mind 'provides' to condition the ability to see any spatial object.

Forgot to add -- then psychologism broadly is the reduction of some discipline (logic, metaphysics, or whatever) to psychology. Anti-psychologism would claim that these topics can be studied in some other way than via a worldly mind object.

those feet just gave me a hardon

Thats picture isnt hot at ALL.
Footfag should kyss

Why is foot shit so prevalent on Veeky Forums

Is this fetish a legitimate side effect of autism?

Nothing necessarily submissive about that whatsoever.

It's not that foot fetishists are common on Veeky Forums, or Veeky Forums, it's just that they are common irl.

You don't know about them because they aren't as open about it irl as on an anonymous noodle board.

I'm not even a footfag and that picture is hot to me.

Hume denied that minds had physical locations. He said they were immaterial but linked to our bodies through habit because of contiguity and causality.

Most idealists prior to kant, including berkeley and locke, tallked of the mind as something different or constitutive of the world.

i thought it was hot until i noticed that weird turned in right little toe

too many ill fitting shoes when she was a child probably

Or maybe liking feet is stigmatized in way that people repress the objective desirability of the form of the foot, which then becomes some inward fear, and then one must then shun others for liking feet to conform to the completely contingent social stigma surrounding the - actually neutral, good nor bad - attractiveness of feet.