"the Noumena is an object independent of our spatio temporal experience"

He's right, you know.

Nietzsche flat-out trashes Metaphysics in its entirety.

His argument is that it based upon an innate mistrust of our senses, which is by definition unreasonable as it's impossible to have a non-sensory experience.

Hume didn't believe in a priori necessary knowledge btw, he thought it was subjective habit, causality is mere custom. Experience is not the necessary mode of our apprehension but experience is only possible because of our mode of apprehension. A prori knowledge is essentially 'cognition' which is when a pure concept of the understanding is synthesized with an intuition using a schema. If you want to understand Kant, understand the schema.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(Kant)

It's obviously more complicated than that, but, that, in an abbreviated form, is what is going on.

how can noumena be an object if objectivity is a part of phenomenological reality (in that objects constitute experience) and phenom and neunom exist independantly to each other?

so how can objects constitute experience and also exist outside of experience?

Hume had it half right, and as you know, that's where Kant comes in. He bridges the gap between Hume, Leibniz, and Descarte. Schiller is simply attempting to restate Leibniz it seems to me

Because he needs to posit a negative limit on knowledge. Noumenal objects are objects that lie outside experience but also underly experience. It's a supersensible substrate for our experience that we will never be able to access, but is merely an object that is necessarily postulated after we posit our ways of apprehending the world. It's just a natural consequence of his system and he doesn't reject that these objects exist, but he doesn't posit them as actually existing either. It's left in a sort of uncertainty. It's the limit. The boundary. You can't demarcate the boundary without at the same time being inside and outside that boundary.

Lol schelling is not solipsist. Neither is fichte. Read the fucking books, or the scholarship. Either way you'll learn to read before you quack.

holy shit relax bro

Right totally and this is the secondary reading of Kant, and it makes total sense to me however Kant's own writing seems to point more towards the first reading what I'm saying.

Did Kant even understand his own philosophy?

Lol trollololing you guys so hard

By making a distinction between objects (Gegenstanden), and a 'pure' object in abstraction (das Ding) with no spatiotemporal determination, which is done in the German but not possible in English.

Because noumena are essentially conceptual objects without intuitions that are only posited without being informed by experience. Think Plato, think Rationalists who thought that they could prove shit without actually being informed by empirical intuitions.

I could make an argument for God right now, and the argument could be tight as hell and have no holes but that doesn't mean the argument somehow synthetically proves something outside of the conceptual realm.

okay that sort of makes sense. So Kant really knew what he was talking about but couldnt communicate it superbly? The misunderstanding of Kant in this case comes from a loss in translation?

I can live with that.

Read about his schema, it's complicated but the translations are fine, you can still get the essence of what he's saying. To say otherwise is just elitist at this point. Kant made himself pretty clear on this aspect.

>flat-out trashes Metaphysics in its entirety.

>his argument is that it based upon an innate mistrust of our senses, which is by definition unreasonable as it's impossible to have a non-sensory experience.

Good lord you're easily impressed.

The schemata of the pure concepts of the understanding are, therefore, the true and sole conditions for providing these concepts with a reference to objects and hence with signification. And therefore the categories have, in the end, no other use than a possible empirical one."[57] In order for categories to refer to perceived, experienced objects, they must be schematized. If a category is not schematized, then it has no reference to perception. An unschematized category can be thought, but can not be known. If something can never be perceived, it can never be known. Schemata represent things in general as they appear, not as they might otherwise exist. "Categories, therefore, without schemata are only functions of the understanding necessary for concepts, but do not themselves represent any object."[59] This act results in the formation of one abstract concept from various perceptions or other concepts. With the transcendental determination of time as the transcendental schema, " … use of the categories is clearly restricted to the range of things that fall within time — meaning, for Kant, restricted to phenomena."[60] Metaphysical entities that are not related to time, such as spontaneous or uncaused movements, immortal souls, and eternal gods, are products of unschematized categories. They can be thought, but not known.

Decent summation

a question on Neitszche actually: is it fair to say that neitszche was like...a meta-metaphysician? trying to discern the purpose of metaphysics?

Or did he also push some kind of metaphysical understanding? Thats sort of the impression im getting from your post

He prefaces this part saying he is using the word object in a popular sense. We can't really say anything about the noumenon.

>he values phenomena more than noumena

Kant is shit, read Aquinas instead.

Fichte misread Kant to assume that Kant was saying the thing in itself is non-existent rather than unknowable. It's one of Schopenhauer's main criticisms of Fichte, and a major influence on Hegelian thought of all kinds, especially the materialist dialectical kind. Fucking die, it's too late for books for you.

...

rude trolling desu

not becoming of a philosopher of your stature

>it's impossible to have a non-sensory experience

If you stay locked in a human-centric view, maybe.

If the discussion is about what is real and what is not real, it seems awfully childish to claim that humans, a being created out of chance, are equipped with all the senses required to detect everything that could possibly exist.

You are either misrepresenting Nietzshe or Nietzshe is more retarded than I remember.

>rude
tbp[Kantian]h w/u famalam, dying is just what i would do if i were you. you could try not writing anything for ten years too if you want

Sounds like you want to banter but you don't know how

i want to banter about kant but that involves you knowing something of his life and work =/

>it's impossible to have a non-sensory experience.

As close to a Devil-worshiping statement as it gets.

It involves me knowing kant? dude you don't even realize who you're fucking with right now, right now you're probably cringing as you're reading this, or turning red, you don't know how to shitpost properly, I shitpost daily on s4s and do it as a habit, you? you need "creative juices or what ever the fuck. Me? I just type and what ever I type is art because it doesn't take effort. You wouldn't even be able to talk about Kant while shitposting anymore because now it's going to look cringey and awkward as fuck, that's how hot my banter is and how hot yours isn't. Talk about Kant, I dare you.

*cat wraps you in a blanket like kant needed when he disturbed himself at night*
ok anonkun i'll admit your autism levels more closely model kant's but that does not imply knowledge of his work a posteriori

Kant was an OCD bitch, he couldn't even properly systematize his work just like you can't systematize a proper reply to me. The categorical imperative never stated whether it is moral or not when I'm raping you on Veeky Forums with my bantz. Banter me kid. I can't universalize my replies, but you have to cause you're a good little dutiful bitch aren't you

*unwraps blanket*

the catergorical imperitive only applies to rational agents and you my friend transcend the bounds of rationality into pure neumonal autism.

*yawns*
kant knew more about bantz than your boring basic bitch ass; he clearly says in CoJ that you must strain my expectations before dissolving them to nothing for it to be humour, not fulfill my expectations of it's fucking nothing.
>yfw kant tells better jokes than u mr s4s

That only means that you can't comprehend my autism levels of irony and that means my knowledge cannot be shared, and that means that you must visit s4s to really understand me, but that's ok, people say that supersensible realm is unknowable and I'm used to it. I like making you cringe red and awkward because it makes me horny. I hope you think it's bad because the jokes are not supposed to be funny, you're supposed to be feeling uncomfortable, and the more I make you so, the more I win. Because I'm laughing my ass off at how easy it is to make people cringe. Humans are so easy to manipulate, they're like analog controllers, just drop in a bad joke here and there and they turn red. My autism allows me to flow past all these social facades and thus makes me strong, and you weak. Heh, get dumped on kid. You don't understand what level I'm on, and you never will.

As close to Star Wars as it gets

>being horny
>kant
no

that all you got kid? just a few greentexts? I win. You're really bad at this. Next.

>not recognising quotes
>u in 2016
wew good thing every post deserves a response

you must be european, europeans are shit at bantz

you turning red yet?

no just blue and expanding sry bby

Tell me more about Kant while I wack off to your tryhardness right now

you and I both know I'm winning this bantz battle

>wack
*whack
>not checking my dubs
stop false flagging s4s, they are nice board and don't deserve that
>kant
read a book instead of acting like a lonely /mu/tard

This cade has been rude on [s4s]. Thought Veeky Forums could help. Anyway, later.

Heard you don't like weed fagget. You don't like my memes? well fuk you too kid. I have comprehended Kant's transcendental idealism, and Nietzsche's eternal turn. I've majored in STEM. Btw sticky this fagget mod. Anyway, I've read the complete works of Hamlet I've listened to Bach's Brandenburgh concertos and Mozart's Turkish March and Beethoven's mona lisa; just finished Infinite Jest today before typing this. Wtf have you done? 2 weeks ago I completed Breaking Bad and The Wire. I have killed more jews than hitler through my memes. Every time a jew reads my meme he kills himself. HAHAHA. Trump 2016. I got LEM in cs:go and talked to Pro Snookie myself. I once ate shrooms from the ground, a full 1g fagget. You probably think these are all memes and that I'm trying to make you feel bad. Nah kid, these aren't memes, these are all evolutionary fact. Dawkins confirmed himself. The gang bang has already predestination all of these memes for you to consume while eating your doritos. I make 35 billion K in simoleons, what do you even do you no talent hacker?

I bet you can't even meme harder than this, I've seen some genius memers here but only a few who can see my deepness. You can't convert me, you can only be me. Pz for now until i see a better meme. My meme will get so hot that I know I will get popular, see my initials on my cute af body. Cant even lift my body I bet. I dont check dabs of the biggest losers in town who can't even get on my level
I was acquainted with Mozart before anyone could even speak. When I was just a little baby my parents played this for me and I became smarter than anyone here. Here's the video, though it's already too late for you because you're a big dummy now.
youtube.com/watch?v=noFteCr3GO4

I post memes on [s4s] 24/7 kid, what was even the last book you read last time? you can't hit shit kid. My lil bisexual bro already raped you all, and he's only a 21 year old philosophic genius. He was right, you kids are ez.
*coughs* fuck this weed is dank. Thanks for the lite kid.

*hiccups*

the meme that never was. My sweet copy pasta ;(

I would like to remind you all that Nietzsche was a writer who constantly revised what he had been saying throughout his bibliography. It is usually not very useful to make categorical statements based on early Nietzsche.

Regarding this whole metaphysics question, perhaps the early Nietzsche was indeed a bit more aggressive, but in the GM there is also a new focus on the relationship between the society and metaphysical thought. I do recommend reading what he wrote on Schopenhauer.

>it seems awfully childish to claim that humans, a being created out of chance, are equipped with all the senses required to detect everything that could possibly exist.

And yet we're not in a position to think otherwise.

Entertaining the thought is philosophical navel-gazing.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TwoObjInt

>ITT fucking retards who didnt understand the most straight forward section of the critique of pure reason: the transcendental aesthetic

Meta-metaphysician is a better description for someone like Derrida, though it certainly applies to Nietzsche. I find Nietzsche's work too practical (in an experiential sense) to be merely meta-metaphysical. Nietzsche loathed professional philosophers and academics. He referred to them as nutcrackers.

reminder that Kant fucking RUINED philosophy forever

>trusting what a manlet says
kys

this

Nietzsche does not follow this in a extrict sense, all cognitive products of ours for Nietzsche are anthropomorphic assimilations bases on Aesthetic and poetical potency in human vitality. In the case of Schiller the Noumenon is exemplify by art as a condition of human thruth and objectivation of subject. Guess what, Noumenon is for Kant the epistemological limit of human representation(i.e. all representations are determined by human qualities). The difference strives in the Idea of art that Schiller weaves after his reading on Kant, in which he sees a necessary Art as thurth for the spiritual necesseties of History while Kant sees art as a product of genious with universal qualities and no "thruth". Nietzsche, in his view, follows Schiller in the aspect of art as thruth, but is the thruth of a Will to power of individualistic measure whereas Schiller is of Historic position.

A priori isn't knowledge but faculties that determine our experience, for example time and space as intuitions. If we did not had an inherent disposition for time and space there would be no possibility of experience. This implies that time and space are only ontological qualities of human faculty of experience and not extrinsecal absolut elements of nature as Newton proposed. Kant tries to, and I think he successes, to overcome cartesian solipsism and Leibniz metaphysics. In the case of Hume, what Kant argues, is that because we have a permanence of concepts in schematic understanding we form a concept of substance that is necessary for categories presented to experience. (remember that Aristotle defined substance as the base in which being's categories are expressed, Kant is basicaly saying that our experience forms this concept precisely because there's a limit in which we can understand and perceive objects, this is the noumenon). I find really interesting that people today take noumenon as such a polemic topic when Kant's investigation in critique of pure reason does not revolve in noumenon itself.

...

*teleports into the negative self-positing of your subjective becoming*

*unsheathes phallus*

nothing personnel, kid...

The categorical imperative would state that is inmoral to "rape someone on Veeky Forums" because you are humiliating him with offenses and you have break the law of respect. I'm not the guy who you answer to but. Why don't you try to actually read Kant's moral works instead of typing the first idiotic thing that comes to your mind?