Kant vs einstein

can someone please explain how the special theory of relativity clashes with kant's use of time as a form of human cognition? why wouldn't kant be able to say that the theory is a description like any other, in which our sense of time is implicit?

>inb4 muh op is a retard

im cool woth being dumb. just help me out if you think you can.

pic related is an iphone background mnemonic i made - can post the rest of the series if anyone wants

bump & do post the series please

...

...

The refusal of reality pushed to an extreme inevitably leads to suspect globally the material nature of an environment, paired with atomising the Aristotelian categories of time and space because the memetic expression is incapable to come back to reality and close the trajectory described by Aristotle.

Time and space participate in a new memetic which translates in inclination to abstraction, since through the expression of an interior space, the external reality would need to be put aside.

Therefore Einstein space evoked isn't one of an environment but of projection through being, space and time becoming simple, functioning organs addressed within, which just like dreams where everything is possible extend through infinity.

Please post the rest of the series, it seems interesting.

As for your question I'm not sure what to say. There's a certain split in philosophy between the cartesian tradition of subjectivity as being inescapable, what is now known as correlationism, and realism as plurality of subject-object combinations (among other things). While I don't claim to understand Einstein, his theory has practical consequences that then inform our practice and while kantians can say that our subjective experience allows us to theorize as we do in the first place, the "naive realism" of physics determines our very understanding of subjectivity. As Meillassoux put it (quoting some phenomenologist), we are stuck in consciousness as a transparent cage, forever showing us an outside and keeping us away from it at the same time. My point is just that these are the problems of modernity still actual in contemporary philosophy and have not been resolved as such. In terms of practical philosophy, it's Deleuze versus Lacan for example. And because Einstein creates a schematism in which all other concepts are determined (a straight line and curvature mean different things in Euclid, Newton, Einstein, etc.) a kantian or post-kantian might claim that this schematism is the result of Einstein's own particular subjectivity. Tl;dr the problem is undecidable, but that's ok because the undecidable is philosophy's domain.

I just came up with this on my own and I'll avoid using memewords. Kant's entire system is rooted in reason and both special and general relativity are so far removed from how humans typically experience things (relativistic spacetime is obviously not a priori knowledge). Similarly, quantum mechanics pretty much flies in the face of every metaphysical claim ever made.

>tldr Kant assumes stuff be like it is but it ain't

That art nouveau is ugly af.

It's one example. Gaudi is too jarringly free and fanciful for some.
Horta is one of my favorites

Kant operates under classical (Newtonian) physics, Einstein knows that classical physics can't be extended to all physical events, it can't make sense of them, hence the need for a new physics to replace it.

Kant thinks time as we understand it is an a priori necessary condition for internal representation, this is not a provisional theory, it's an immutable conceptual framework that will not be going away.

Then Einstein made it go away.

yea but Kant didnt think time actually existed though. Isnt that what Einstein showed?

I'm a fan of Mucha and I like that one you posted, but the example in the series looks like someone drank a bunch of food colouring and puked it up.

>the "naive realism" of physics determines our very understanding of subjectivity.
isn't this just materialism?

this. i dont get what they are disagreeing about. to me, a dumbass, it seems like einstein himself was a positivist who may have disagreed with kant that time is a human intuition - but it doesnt seem like the theory of relativity necessarily disagrees w kanterino

>Kant didnt think time actually existed though
Kant claimed that time is real, it is "the real form of inner intuition."

Kant thought we have a non-empirical, singular, immediate representation of space and time, which is presupposed by the very possibility of experience.

>Isnt that what Einstein showed?
Space and time distorded by gravity and all the experiments in which time is investigated empirically (dilation, etc.) is not "time does not exist" and is not compatible with Kant's position.

We can toy around with time which Kant thought not possible. Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion.

>Space and time distorded by gravity and all the experiments in which time is investigated empirically (dilation, etc.) is not "time does not exist" and is not compatible with Kant's position.
>We can toy around with time which Kant thought not possible. Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion.

This belies the conceptual issues in the interpretation of general and special relativity. Einstein was notoriously indecisive when it came to the ontological status of spacetime. Working with formalism and showing something within the confines of your physical model is a lot different than actually saying something ABOUT space and time. Einstein actually did come to the conclusion that they aren't real, see his famous "hole argument". But this is still a matter of debate

It doesn't clash if you accept consciousness as the base of all existence. A well formulated take on quantum mechanics does that. One theory among many. People pick which they like the most, since it is by no means certain.

It doesn't.

It was a meme started by logical empiricists basically with the underlying aim of dismissing everything that came before them as quickly as possible, so philosophy can finally get on with becoming the underlaborer of science.

The simplest way I can put it is this. Every drawing or video that you see explaining relativity shows what's happening in a space and in a time that is something that you already understand. Whatever Einstein says about what's happening there can only be understood by reference to these kind of explanations. The experiments that constitute the empirical support for that theory are only in reference to the Euclidean/Newtonian world we know. Seeing the sun bending light around itself doesn't send you into an acid trip. You just think of an arc going around a star in some kind of static space. You get what's going on.

You can come up with any crazy theory about what space and time are doing, but it in no way changes the fact that we will always start with our ordinary notions of space and time. A good example are string theorists who say reality actually has 11 dimensions. Imagine literally anything you want, but it changes nothing about what we can KNOW.

cool bro

thanks user. this is just a better put way of what i was thinking

thanks man - you know any good resources/books that discuss special relativity/quantum mechanics in sort of lay-terms while talking about their philosophical/metaphysical implications? ive heart the heisenberg book is good, but something like that has to be dated, no?

Heisenberg is still pretty relevant. There haven't been any foundational breakthroughs since then. There's a PEL episode on it too. Maybe read A Briefer History of Time first, it's for plebs but I thought it was pretty good and you'll probably burn through it fast.

yeah, the PEL ep is where i got it from - just listened but didnt read as an intro though. read brief history of time a long time ago and dont remember a single thing except the story about the turtle in the beginning. maybe time for a re-read

art nouveau is shit

dude the Sagrada Familia looks like a gigantic dump of diarrhoea

not that ur necessarily saying otherwise, but i dont think they're supposed to be good. just ways of remembering the time periods of architecture for when you read a history or some shit. i would dig this for painting styles

Where did it all go so wrong?

Also I would include Norman as a distinct style alongside Romanesque (although they are similar in many ways)