Current Events > Does anyone here want to discuss Kant lol

(+) Yeah! (+)

His refutation of idealism is driving me crazy

---

Sorry, I Kant right now

message deleted? oh no

---

treewojima posted...

Sorry, I Kant right now

Oh god dammit

---

No, I'm falling asleep already.

---

treewojima posted...

Sorry, I Kant right now

Lmao

---

THEOREM.
The simple but empirically determined consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of external objects in space.
PROOF
I am conscious of my own existence as determined in time. All determination in regard to time presupposes the existence of something permanent in perception. But this permanent something cannot be something in me, for the very reason that my existence in time is itself determined by this permanent something.

It follows that the perception of this permanent existence is possible only through a thing without me and not through the mere representation of a thing without me. Consequently, the determination of my existence in time is possible only through the existence of real things external to me.

Now, consciousness in time is necessarily connected with the consciousness of the possibility of this determination in time. Hence it follows that consciousness in time is necessarily connected also with the existence of things without me, inasmuch as the existence of these things is the condition of determination in time. That is to say, the consciousness of my own existence is at the same time an immediate consciousness of the existence of other things without me. (Kant B276)

this is it

---

treewojima posted...

Sorry, I Kant right now

lmao

---

This is not categorically imperative.

It's logical. What's wrong with it? Why is it hard to accept?

It doesn't prove that minds other than our own exist, just that there's something which we need to "exist in" since obviously we couldn't be thinking unless there's some kind of space & time in which we think in.

---

Does Kant ever actually define "categorically" as a separate word, that is to say is there a German word for it that is different from the German word for Universal?

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Does Kant ever actually define "categorically" as a separate word, that is to say is there a German word for it that is different from the German word for Universal?

Only CEman I know of who may know this is...probably just RebelElite but he's not into philosophy AFAIK. And also suspended :/

---

treewojima posted...

Sorry, I Kant right now

Literally every person who clicked this topic did so to post this
---

If all it means is that there is something we need to exist in, then that's not so bad.


---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

If all it means is that there is something we need to exist in, then that's not so bad.

Yeah the way I understand it, it's basically saying that a mind needs to occupy space and time in some way - otherwise how could it function in any way?

---

pure_temper posted...

Yeah the way I understand it, it's basically saying that a mind needs to occupy space and time in some way - otherwise how could it function in any way?

Wow, I see why you got your notoriety as a religious poster. Hahaha.


---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

treewojima posted...

Sorry, I Kant right now

Literally every person who clicked this topic did so to post this

I did it purely to maximize the good in this topic

take that, Immanuel

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Wow, I see why you got your notoriety as a religious poster. Hahaha.

what do you mean? ;)

---

Sounds like a precursor to phenomenology but I'm not sure if the claim of a physical space/time conflicts with it at all.

---

Hold on, let me reference Hegel. I know that time itself cannot be the persistent thing for whatever reason (I'll figure that out later).

Being itself is a pure abstraction. There can either be something, or nothing. Essentially this is the same thing because if there is nothing and we are talking about something, then nothing has already become something.

treewojima posted...

take that, Immanuel

Yay you knew where this is going

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Being itself is a pure abstraction. There can either be something, or nothing. Essentially this is the same thing because if there is nothing and we are talking about something, then nothing has already become something.

Maybe the nature of reality is that there's always something, and that "once upon a time there was nothing" is the same as saying "married bachelor" or "square circle"

---

pure_temper posted...

Maybe the nature of reality is that there's always something, and that "once upon a time there was nothing" is the same as saying "married bachelor" or "square circle"

Do you think the production of novelty is important for a productive philosophical conversation? Does a conversation have to do something, or is it arbitrary?

There is a Cartesian argument that proves that motion can exist outside of the body, but I cannot fucking find it.

---

Is kant a game, movie show anime or something else?

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Do you think the production of novelty is important for a productive philosophical conversation? Does a conversation have to do something, or is it arbitrary?

Novelty is necessary not just for productive philosophizing, but for life in general. Say we ever become immortal one day and run out of novel things to do.

We'd go insane out of boredom.

I believe that's what happened to Lucifer.

---

pure_temper posted...

Novelty is necessary not just for productive philosophizing, but for life in general. Say we ever become immortal one day and run out of novel things to do.

We'd go insane out of boredom.

I believe that's what happened to Lucifer.

Still haven't produced an idea for you yet, have I? Guess we shouldn't talk lol

---

skermac posted...

Is kant a game, movie show anime or something else?

huh?

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Still haven't produced an idea for you yet, have I? Guess we shouldn't talk lol

Are you saying that you're trying to produce a novel idea for me, but haven't succeeded and you feel like we can't have a good conversation until you do? Or are you saying that I'm misunderstanding you and that you don't feel like it's worth talking with me about these subjects?

---

pure_temper posted...

Are you saying that you're trying to produce a novel idea for me, but haven't succeeded and you feel like we can't have a good conversation until you do? Or are you saying that I'm misunderstanding you and that you don't feel like it's worth talking with me about these subjects?

The former, lol, that's what you said when you initially came back. >_>; I guess I shouldn't hold a grudge, hahaha

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

The former, lol, that's what you said when you initially came back. >_>; I guess I shouldn't hold a grudge, hahaha

I don't recall saying we can't have a good conversation ;) If I thought that I'd have never posted in any of your threads. You're a smart dude!

<3

---

German Idealism is my nemesis.

A priori
Primacy of time or space
Things-in-itself
Intuition
Concepts
Manifolds

Seriously. Kant, Schelling, and Fichte give me headaches.

I prefer Kant's perpetual peace and democratic theories though

---

Anyway, the secret to novelty is to intersect with as many subjects as possible. Intersectionality is a powerful tool for generating novelty.

Here's an attempt at illustration. Most minds exist at the intersection of just a few subjects, like this:



Your mind though exists at the intersection of many subjects, like this:


Imagine a dot at the center of all of those circles, with each circle being a subject.

You can also expand this to 3 dimensions, where the circles become cylinders. And as you move up the cylinder and add more cylinders, that represents 1) intersecting with more subjects and 2) deepening your knowledge of each subject, making the intersection more powerful.

Because you can start making connections between subjects that others have not thought of.

It's only recently that as a species we've become able to operate this way. AOC, Greta Thunberg, to a lesser extent Elon Musk, etc, are people who intersect with many subjects and deepen their knowledge with every passing day.

Your mind is like that, MedeaLysistrata.

---

Literally who

---

While I cant remember the full details of the argument I made, I do remember finding Kant and a host of others to generally just be full of shit because their judgement is clouded by ego.

---