If time and space are a priori, what really happens if I get hit by a car? What damages my internal organs...

the ideality of time and space means that they can only be known to exist in the phenomenal world (e.g. in the world as it appears) and cannot be known to exist in the noumenal world (e.g. the world as it is in itself).

the car, your body, the accident, your death--these are all things that occur in the phenomenal world, and they are all explained by the ordinary laws of physics that apply perfectly well to the phenomenal world.

as to the question of what is happening in the noumenal world that corresponds to your death by car accident in the phenomenal world, the answer is: no one knows

not embarrassing yourself like this is another reason why you start with the greeks

>anonymous post on a taiwanese claymation forum

Oh no, what an embarrassment!

There is no phenomenon, only noumenon.

t. Schiller

I think what Kant was getting at with Noumenon

is like, considering it is thought everything is made of electron, quark, graviton, photon,

but it is very hard to see these things, there is the theory that quark is the fundamental unit of proton and neutron, but a single quark has never been detected alone:

also, photon, is what is used to do most detecting, and any method to use to 'see' a photon, must use other materials and their causal relations, to yield a depiction of our best attempt to witnessing what a photon actually looks like, or use theories and protocals to deduce and reduce from other contextual data what a photon might and must actually look/be like as the thing it is itself.

Can the mind, by proxy of paper, pen, computer, graphing, absolutely accurately depict and behold, what a photon actually looks like as itself.

different animals have developed different eye and mind systems to see the earth differently, what is the true perception of Earth, how does Earth actually exist in and of itself: Humans have embarked on going far beyond merely mapping up what they see, and from our history of science we now know there is more than meets the eye, a tree may contain germs we do not see, and what looks like partless bark on the tree, is actually made of particles, atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, electrons, photons

>I

Literally wrong Schiller was a Kantian

There is literally no point to any of this.

Complete waste of time. Learn history and skills instead of this. No modern philosophers agree on anything non-trivial just like no tarot readers agree on your fortune. Modern philosophy is like thousands of old men spending their whole lives critiquing a movie they haven't watched by thinking about the title really hard.

No meaningful conclusion could possibly come out of it and nothing is accomplished after all the wasted effort

t. I believe in many world, copenhagen interpretation, schrodingers cat, black holes are ununderstandably spoopy, a photon is an alternating magnetic field creating an electric field, higgs boson is a real description of real reality, I understand fundamentally what charge is, I understand fundamentally how gravity mechanically functions, everything in the universe started in the same 0 dimensional unit of space, muh wormholes, muh string theory, muh quantum entanglement can send information across arbitrary distances faster than the speed of light, the past can effect the future bro

how is what Kant says different from representationalism?

Concrete Matter, Time and Space as a priori are a subjective structure which makes intuition possible. Kant does not follow any argumenr against concrete reality, he proposes that it is judge and conceptualized by Human reason. (I.e. he's against Berkley but also against absolutist theories of time, space, and extension.)

t. i watch big ideas and here's penn jillette telling u why philosophy is a waste of time

that is not what he was getting at at all. why do people (and you in particular - i recognize your rambling writing style out of thousands) feel the need to share what they 'think' some philosopher meant without reading any of his works?

you are a 20 yo moron for not knowing the average height back then. just kys, your mom would be happier.

Do you burgers actually read the original texts? God, amateurs.

"Das ding an sich ist ein unbekantess". It's a fundamental truth when you try to think it through.

Amateurs lol.

Exactly what he was getting at you fucking absolute idiot.

Try to highlight what I said, highlight what he said, and contribute your own intelligence (doubt it) to show how what I said was incorrect. Bet you wont, bet you cant. Fucking scum fag. Nice lower cases retarded shit fucker. I know you are not serious, just a troll, but incase you are in any sense a real entity who thinks they know something, great job at not proving that, fucking shit sucker.

>implying Yoda isn't based on Schopenhauer

1. the hair
2. all encompassing 'force' which is in everything

Schopes is more like Sheev

I don't get why he posited the thing-in-itself at all.

If anything our perspective pretty much determines the meaning of the thing you see, e.g a Coke can is a comfortable delivering device for a sugary liquid to you, but to the Maoists, that Coke can is bourgeois capitalist subversion.

Duh, because the question then becomes if two individuals have contradicting perspectives of a single thing, there must be an underlying thing from which both derive their perspectives that does not completely resemble one or either

>there must be an underlying thing from which both derive their perspectives that does not completely resemble one or either

Makes no sense to me at all, unless you're talking about the thing-in-itself being the constellation of matter.

You're getting closer but thats the wrong direction.
Since the chemists reductionist perspective is just as much a way of framing the object as any other.

Okay, so what we have left is some kind of chaotic aether, or chaotic potential.

So, some kind of quantum entangled not-yet-been.

Sort of maybe, not really. Kant never really found an answer towards what this thing in of itself is, only investigated our parameters of what it is to investigate it

Or something, I'm an ignoramous

Yeah, but the problem is that you can investigate anything that defies categorization.

Something without a category literally doesn't exist.(And even some things with a category also don't exist).

you can't*

Yes which is perhaps the most important aspect of the Critique of Pure Reason which is how Kant critiques the empiro-rationalist framework through that very impossibility
Then Hegel comes in to fuck shit up

>Then Hegel comes in to fuck shit up

He always does.

Anyway. Good talk.

Yeah thats about as far as I can go

We get a little farther every day

>We get a little farther every day

We do indeed.

>I don't get why he posited the thing-in-itself at all.

Something (matter) exists, not only nothing.
Monkeys do not Know Everything there is to know about exactly how matter exists.
Do we, can we?

Matter exists exactly as it exists to (in, of) itself.

Do we, can we, know exactly how that is?

Imagine if God created a universe, and fundamentally knew, understood, everything about the fundamental substance and characteristics, how it actually looked and was, it used to create the realm, Can we know, understand, everything God would know about the universe?

idiota!

To clarify or add:

Is the quantity of absolute fundamental truth > total potential human knowledge

Are humans limited in any way, from fully absolutely grasping the absolutely actualness of reality

Remember to write in your diary, to tell your grandkids, that yes, I, actually spoke to you once. The closest to significance you have ever been.

I was with a 14-year-old girl that is taller than that.

>IMMANUEL
>immanent
>founded Transcendental Idealism

>What kills me?
the car

. . . yes there is, you fucking retard.

>>IMMANUEL
>>immanent
>>founded Transcendental Idealism
>Immanuel (Hebrew: עִמָּנוּאֵל meaning, "God with us

>en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/immanent

>he thinks photons are equivalent to light

> If time and space are a priori, what really happens if I get hit by a car? What damages my internal organs? What kills me?

From Kant's point of view:

Since space and time are a priori forms of reality itself - the empirical world - your body suffers a physical effect from the force and direction of the vehicle according to the same laws that govern how any other physical object would be affected under those conditions. This description is at the level of your physical, empirical, phenomenal body and the spatiotemporal consciousness bound up with that embodied experience - the only epistemic level at which you can have strict knowledge proper, the level of consciousness that you are operating at currently with the rest of us, the domain of consciousness that you cannot really escape in this life.

But just as your body is a spatial, physical phenomenalization of your being-in-itself, so the car that collided with your body was the appearance of some thing-in-itself; Kant seemed to think that a plurality of things-in-themselves was likely for the plurality of spatiotemporal objects we encounter in/as the world. But Kant certainly would have said that each individual person is the representation of a single, unique, rational thing-in-itself - with dignity, in fact; with absolute moral worth.

One of the lessons of the first critique is that the conditions of your empirical existence don't necessarily imply any conditions of your being-in-itself; the termination of the life of the former doesn't necessitate the termination of the latter. Even though we can never know, or even imagine in this life, what such an afterlife existence and/or rational intelligence would be like (since it would be otherwise from our only source of data: the embodied experience of our current spatiotemporal universe) we can still merely *think* it without logical contradiction. Disembodied rational consciousness is not conceptually impossible.

> chaotic aether
> quantum entangled

If either of these imply that the thing involves space or time in any way, then it's not what Kant means when he writes of a "thing-in-itself."

>Kant never really found an answer towards what this thing in of itself is, only investigated our parameters of what it is to investigate it

This is true of the first critique - but in the second, and in his other later moral works, he does flesh out more of the rational domain of things-in-themselves, but from the perspective of rationally justified practical belief, rather than the first critique's perspective of reflectively examined theoretical knowledge.

> the problem is that you can investigate anything that defies categorization.

For Kant, "categories" are the basic and innate functions of thinking that our mind applies to sensations in the production of knowledge - in the production of our mental grasp of the objects of spatiotemporal reality, math, and logic. If something defies the space and time laws that apply to the categories, if it "defies categorization" in this way, then it can only be investigated (assuming it can be investigated *at all*) with the purely formal laws of logic and the completeness-seeking principle of reason.

>Something without a category literally doesn't exist.(And even some things with a category also don't exist).

Not sure exactly what you mean by "category." Maybe "abstract concept?" Don't want to assume. But Kant would allow for some domain of being that cannot be categorized, that cannot be at all sufficiently represented to a spatiotemporal human mind.

this. rationalists cannot imagine two different experiences ''from the same thing'', so they posit that ''one thing exists''. as usual with retards, they inference the existence of a a thing external to them from their ''subjective experience'', but only because they assume that ''one thing exists'' beforehand.
rationalists are so retarded that they get mad once they are told this.

>2016 still reading Kant.
>2016 believing in reality as anything more than a rhetorical device.

Apologies but it's unclear to me if you're presenting this as an interpretation of Kant's position, or maybe as a response to it.

>Something (matter) exists, not only nothing.

Matter is not Kant's thing-in-itself. Kant's thing-in-itself is a something that is not spatiotemporal, cannot be known, can only be conceptualized.

> Monkeys do not Know Everything there is to know about exactly how matter exists.
Do we, can we?

No, there will always be scientific questions to pursue empirically, always more about nature to discover on the micro and macro scales. Though reason seeks a complete system of knowledge in this life, such is only a rule to keep it constantly regulated in its empirical use, and the data of the natural world is inexhaustible and always somewhat unpredictable.

> Matter exists exactly as it exists to (in, of) itself.

Not for Kant; it exists only as mental representation for consciousness - whether for a single perceiver alone or for a community of perceivers whose private experiences all naturally agree sufficiently for mutual recognition and cooperation.

> Imagine if God created a universe, and fundamentally knew, understood, everything about the fundamental substance and characteristics, how it actually looked and was, it used to create the realm, Can we know, understand, everything God would know about the universe?

If the universe were actually infinite in time and/or space, then an individual human mind, a finite knower, could know not know absolutely everything about a never-ending expanse; even a square quarter inch of kitchen table contains atoms, fields, and energies at smaller and smaller levels, that I could research unendingly. Space and time can never be completely traversed, since they are part of your very mind; space and time form the network of causal experience you call "knowledge," so you can't have knowledge *of* them as objects in the way you have everyday knowledge of physical objects *in* space and time. Space and time are "in" your mind already, so no matter how far you travel or imagine, you "carry" space and time with you.

>If either of these imply that the thing involves space or time in any way

You could think of it as pure potential.

I mean, your future will at some point exist in both space and time, but right now that future is just a void.

TL;DR: Kant: "You have eyes, therefore you cannot see. You have ears, therefore you cannot hear."

What if space and time are Archons?

>lol dude its all like subjective man *rips bong*

>implying 5' 0" was anything approaching average height in any era

>lol dude its all like subjective man *rips bong*

Sure is.

That's a nonsensical question OP, it's clearly the car that kills you. You're showing clearly that you didn't understand Kant, as his whole Critique was trying to show that there is infact and Objective reality outside your senses.

> TL;DR: Kant: "You have eyes, therefore you cannot see. You have ears, therefore you cannot hear."

Are you counting on Randian interpretations of Kant in order to understand him? In my experience this is a bad move; mischaracterization, insult, and exaggeration is what I've found from them more often than not.

> What if space and time are Archons?

What do you mean by "archon"? Something like what many presocratic philosophers sought, a basic and ultimate stuff that the universe is composed of?

> You could think of it as pure potential.
> I mean, your future will at some point exist in both space and time, but right now that future is just a void.

Seems like the concept of "potential" involves the concept of a temporal progression, with some potential becoming actualized as time goes on. But if the concept "potential" does require this time determination, then it can't be Kant's thing-in-itself. Though the future might not be real yet, and could now be said to be "potentially" real, in what manner does that "potential" exist if not as the potential of some currently real spatiotemporal being? All of this seems to involve the forms of time and space, rather than transcend them.

>But if the concept "potential" does require this time determination, then it can't be Kant's thing-in-itself.

Well it doesn't. Because it isn't a category until it actually becomes actualized(e.g becomes your present experience).

We call it "the future", but actually it isn't anything at all. It's just a void.

Something (matter) exists, not only nothing.

>Matter is not Kant's thing-in-itself. Kant's thing-in-itself is a something that is not spatiotemporal, cannot be known, can only be conceptualized.

I used the term matter, to signify, the fact that somethingness exists besides only nothingness.

The point of thing- in-itself, is, that somethingness is always exactly equal to itself, but Kant was weary whether or not we could fully comprehend exactly what that somethingness was. All that exists is thing-in-itself, the phenomenal impressions and sensations we receive from the interactions of things with themselves, is sent to our senses, and depictions are created in our mind. Kant was wondering how accurate the end result in our minds, could be to the actual actualness of what actually exists, as that which exactly exists in and of itself.

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."

y u mad tho?

the best answer is "it's complicated," a lot of people have wondered the same thing, and a lot of kant interpretation involves taking positions that seem to make no sense or leave gaping lacunae but then going "THE LACUNAE ONLY APPEAR TO EXIST IF YOU ARE A PLEB!"

tom rockwell does some stuff on kant as a representationalist, short book, but i bet the introduction would have a nice little summary of previous interpretations

I said that extremely happily, bubbling with supreme joy. But that, which you defined as being mad, was said, because I keep encountering absolute fucking idiots, who make critical statements without backing them up, and that cretin did it to me, so I joyously told it why it was incorrect and that I sought explicit examples of why it thought it was correct in saying something false.

This is really good, and I basically agree with everything you write about the *relations* of things-in-themselves as the x "that appears" grounding our natural spatiotemporal experience.

But what threw me off, and what I still don't get, is why "somethingness" should be used here as synonymous(?) with "matter," since in the context of transcendental idealism there is plenty of somethingness-in-itself that is rational, non-physical - definitely not "nothingness," but definitely not spatial "matter" either.