/lit/ - Literature

... though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)...

>>23332413
> But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.

>as such

>>22733187
>the missing capstone of the Great Pyramid.


>No one, it is true, will be able to boast that he knows that there is a God and a future life; for, if he knows this, he is just the man whom I have long wished to find.
- Canon of Pure Reason

Empirical science can not refute that which by definition is not yet empirically verifiable. Notice I said not yet. I say that because if you open yourself up to this possibility you will see that what is empirical depends on the limits of human sense and cognition as they now are, but what they are now is merely one way of experiencing reality by one conscious organization at one stage of a continuum of such organizations each with different capacities. And if you believe in evolution you would realize that our human experience is not the only possible kind of experience and that if we can modify our organism to access an extended range of sensations and cognition a whole new type of experience and hence reality is possible.

captcha: SHTAY

>If, then, we suppose an object of a non-sensuous intuition to be given we can in that case represent it by all those predicates which are implied in the presupposition that nothing appertaining to sensuous intuition belongs to it; for example, that it is not extended, or in space; that its duration is not time; that in it no change (the effect of the determinations in time) is to be met with, and so on. But it is no proper knowledge if I merely indicate what the intuition of the object is not, without being able to say what is contained in it, for I have not shown the possibility of an object to which my pure conception of understanding could be applicable, because I have not been able to furnish any intuition corresponding to it, but am only able to say that our intuition is not valid for it.

>The Apprentice of a Merchant or Tradesman, a Servant who is not in the employ of the State, a Minor (naturaliter vel civiliter), ALL WOMEN, and, generally, every one who is compelled to maintain himself not according to his own industry, but as it is arranged by others (the State excepted), are without Civil Personality, and their existence is only, as it were, incidentally included in the State.

>>22420678
>>22420885
many of you will get filtered, many of you may even be constitutionally incapable of understanding Kant

>should any reader find this plan, which I publish as the Prolegomena to any future Metaphysics, still obscure, let him consider that not every one is bound to study Metaphysics, that many minds will succeed very well, in the exact and even in deep sciences, more closely allied to intuition [what can be sensed], while they cannot succeed in investigations dealing exclusively with abstract concepts. In such cases men should apply their talents to other subjects.

But in the end success depends more on determation to achieve the goal and persistence in attaining than in innate ability. If you actually want to understand, you will.

INB4 have sex
>Sex is for materialist normalfags. It was the redirected orgone from his sex organs to his cognitive organs from voluntary celibacy that produced the supermind and the corresponding super thinking abilities of the great Kant. Develop the self discipline to resist sexual desire and thereby acheive the intellectual heights of the Empyrean like Kant did. The never ending chase on the hamster wheel of sexual gratification is mere cope for those that can't into Kant and their seetheposts against Kant are the only way they know how to release their pent up sexual frustration. I would tell them to kys but I am not so cruel, and instead I invite them to read a copy of the first critique today. Good day, sirs.

And of course St. Paul
>It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.
- 1 Corinthians 7:1

INB4 Kant retard durrr
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through it

>the conception of pure and merely intelligible objects is completely void of all principles of its application, because we cannot imagine any mode in which they might be given, and the problematical thought which leaves a place open for them serves only, like a VOID SPACE, to limit the use of empirical principles, without containing at the same time any other object of cognition beyond their sphere.

>>22365589
INB4 Kant is retard durrr
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through it

>>22361611
>What is philosophy?

>Philosophy is the system of all philosophical cognition. We must use this term in an objective sense, if we understand by it the archetype of all attempts at philosophizing, and the standard by which all subjective philosophies are to be judged. In this sense, philosophy is merely the idea of a possible science, which does not exist in concreto, but to which we endeavour in various ways to approximate, until we have discovered the right path to pursue—a path overgrown by the errors and illusions of sense—and the image we have hitherto tried in vain to shape has become a perfect copy of the great prototype. Until that time, we cannot learn philosophy—it does not exist; if it does, where is it, who possesses it, and how shall we know it? We can only learn to philosophize; in other words, we can only exercise our powers of reasoning in accordance with general principles, retaining at the same time, the right of investigating the sources of these principles, of testing, and even of rejecting them.

>>22351763
>I don't understand why /lit/ ONLY knows about Advaita and Buddhism

Sex is for materialist normalfags. It was the redirected orgone from his sex organs to his cognitive organs from voluntary celibacy that produced the supermind and the corresponding super thinking abilities of the great Kant. Develop the self discipline to resist sexual desire and thereby acheive the intellectual heights of the Empyrean like Kant did. The never ending chase on the hamster wheel of sexual gratification is mere cope for those that can't into Kant and their seetheposts against Kant are the only way they know how to release their pent up sexual frustration. I would tell them to kys but I am not so cruel, and instead I invite them to read a copy of the first critique today. Good day, sirs.

>>22346343
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson brainlets?

>[Critique of Pure Reason] will render an important service to the inquiring mind of youth, by leading the student to apply his powers to the cultivation of genuine science, instead of wasting them, as at present, on speculations which can never lead to any result, or on the idle attempt to invent new ideas and opinions. But, above all, it will confer an inestimable benefit on morality and religion, by showing that all the objections urged against them may be silenced for ever by the Socratic method, that is to say, by proving the ignorance of the objector. For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error.

>>22337892
this

>as regards the comprehensibility of a system of speculative cognition, connected under a single principle, we may say with equal justice: many a book would have been much clearer, if it had not been intended to be so very clear.

>That we must not imitate, in philosophy, the mathematical usage of commencing with definitions—except by way of hypothesis or experiment. For, as all so-called philosophical definitions are merely analyses of given conceptions, these conceptions, although only in a confused form, must precede the analysis; and the incomplete exposition must precede the complete, so that we may be able to draw certain inferences from the characteristics which an incomplete analysis has enabled us to discover, before we attain to the complete exposition or definition of the conception. In one word, a full and clear definition ought, in philosophy, rather to form the conclusion than the commencement of our labours.[4] In mathematics, on the contrary, we cannot have a conception prior to the definition; it is the definition which gives us the conception, and it must for this reason form the commencement of every chain of mathematical reasoning.

the root ontology of Traditionalism is a hodgepodge of late 19th century esotericism and hermetic syncretism, post-Kantian Religionswissenschaft and Protestant theology, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and its early 20th century offshoots, which also had a post-Kantian epistemology, and a healthy dose of Romantic theory on religion and myth, which has been described by Beiser and other scholars as "neo-Platonist," or as the "archetypal" strand of Kant interpretation. Read any myth-related text of Schelling and you will see Traditionalism. Actually, read Paul Bishop's book _The Archaic_ for a decent discussion of the core concept(s) from which Traditionalism sprang. Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism that involved a re-introduction of archetypal (i.e., Platonic) metaphysics with a vaguely emanationist structure -- that is, bootleg neo-Platonism.

This movement was (and remains) deliberately syncretic because when you identify the primary forms or archetypes with a symbolic and mythic structure (as ALL of the traditions I just outlined did), you get a philosophy and history of religion that makes all traditions into particular instantiations of underlying immutable principles (as all of the traditions I just outlined concluded). Just read _The Oriental Renaissance_ by Schwab, which was praised highly by Mircea Eliade, about whom both Guenon and Evola complained in correspondence that he was a Guenonian Traditionalist who wouldn't cop to the fact and that he was getting credit for Guenon's ideas especially. Eliade agreed; so Guenon, Evola, and Eliade agree that Eliade is a reasonably faithful transposition of Guenonian philosophy, and Eliade embraces Schwab's diagnosis of syncretic, Fruhromantik neo-Platonism as the basis of the Traditionalist worldview, e.g., as its syncretic neo-Platonist framework effortlessly reduces and re-appropriates Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, and everything else to be simply an emanation of its own "central, really real" myths and archetypes. That is why "Hinduism looks like neo-Platonism," a favourite line of Traditionalists -- real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing." Traditionalists did not save or invent the method of comparative religions -- they killed it, and laminated its corpse.

tldr: Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant, under which paradigms traditional neo-Platonism, and Christian and especially German mysticism were reinterpreted by the early Romantics. And it's a late-comer to the game at that.

Right from the beginning, Kant presupposes that intuition can only be passive, receptive, and that the only mode of receptivity for man is sensibility. This is a fundamental mistake that will invalidate the remainder of the critique.

>>22272840

Do you guys think that modern Cognitive Science is the true successor of the Transcendental Analytic of Kant?