Yo I know that you need a posteriori knowledge in order to justify all a priori knowledge and the distinction between a...

>Yo I know that you need a posteriori knowledge in order to justify all a priori knowledge and the distinction between a priori and a posteriori but guys this distinction totally makes sense x)

Has anybody ever told you that you are an idiot?
If not then this will be a new experience for you.

not an argument

In order to determine the a priori conditions of experience via the transcendantal thought, you don't need any kind of a posteriori knowledge.

You obviously have no clue of what Kant said.

your post is really embarrassing considering the first sentence of the critique clarifies what you're supposedly pointing out. A priori knowledge is knowledge independent of any particular experience, of course you need experience for any kind of knowledge ("there can be no doubt...etc..")

The transcendental thought is about the cognition itself. In Kant's metaphysics, this is not an experiental being. Therefore, a transcendental thought is not about experience.

>Kant's metaphysics, this is not an experiental being

you're gonna have to elaborate on this. Preferably without hiding behind jargon

Kant's claim is that you can have a direct access to your cognition, without the mediation of experience.

I you can't get this, this is probably a matter of definitions. Just read Kant.

I am not surprised that a Molyneux fan doesn't understand Kant. Please defoo from this site.

okay, I'm still not sure what your issue with this is. I'm going to refer you to B116,A84-B129,A95 and then maybe we can pick up after that

I'm not the user you replied to but maybe you should stick to fiction of you're not willing to learn a few new words.

>of you're not willing to learn a few new words.
that's the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. Even dumber than a supposedly found inconsistency in Kant that is squashed in the book's first sentence and repeated ad nauseam throughout the work.

Was it because I made a typo? Go fuck yourself.

no you stupid retard. It's because you said that if I didn't want to learn new words I should read fiction. You fucking imbecile lol. If I want to go blind maybe I should pick up painting as a hobby too

>If I want to go blind maybe I should pick up painting as a hobby too

not him but what the fuck does this even mean

learning new words and word variation is integral to reading and writing fiction. Seeing is integral to painting and appreciating paintings. Not a great analogy desu but this is a thread filled with idiots and should be deleted

>learns new words from fiction
>calls others idiots

everybody learns new words from reading you absolute fucking retard

You're right. Learning the made up names of fake planets and dragons is real tough.

lel

>all bodies are extended

How can you know that all bodies are extended if you don't know what a body is?

dude god lmao

Explain it to me, how can we know that all bodies are extended if we do not have a previous understanding of what a body is and what extention is?

Who else here /categoricallyImpered/?

All modern philosophy is bullshit. The only philosophers who matter are the Greeks and people who seriously engage with the Greeks ie. Leo Strauss

All bodies are extended is ontological. Knowing what a body is is epistemological.

>dude empiricism lmao

How do you know how to categorize them that way? You must first understand them through experience to do that.