[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 164 KB, 554x700, 033CE781-9D2F-4D75-BBEB-D1BCC3D43074.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22287106 No.22287106 [Reply] [Original]

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.

>> No.22287127

>>22287106
then what's your alternative, o wise one?

>> No.22287146

>>22287106
Name One(1) thing that Kant ever said or did. Ill start. Go for a walk autistically at the same time everyday.

>> No.22287152

>>22287146
Oppose Dr. Jensen’s vaccination because of the “consequences” he perceived of “absorption of brutal miasma into the blood”

>> No.22287154

>>22287152
Sorry, Jenner*

>> No.22287157

>>22287106
Why? This is indeed a problem when this passivity and receptivity implies a thing in itself as ground. But otherwise, as you put it simply concerning intuition as sensible, I can't see the mistake.

>> No.22287221

>>22287157
It does not account for the active intuition of imagination, such as seeing an object in my imagination spontaneously through willing it, which is neither passive nor sensible.

>> No.22287234

>>22287221
You think it's active but it was forced on you by your circumstances
+ you can never imagine something completely unrelated to something you've seen before

>> No.22287241

>>22287234
>pure a priori intuition

>> No.22287245

>>22287106
>only mode of receptivity for man is sensibility.
it does not occur to him that we actually receive thoughts and do not produce them spontaneously. I, as a high IQ anon did, however, recognize this.

>> No.22287271

>>22287241
?
pure a priori intuitions, space and time, are forms of sensibility, not the matter.

>> No.22287280

>>22287245
Dieser

>> No.22287282

>>22287245
thoughts, which are organized judgments of perception

>> No.22287323

>>22287271
>pure
contains nothing I've ever seen before
>a priori
I can imagine it before I seen it

Case in point, super high IQ math.

>> No.22287332

>>22287323
Yes, they are pure and a priori because you don't need to experience them, they are the very conditions of your experience.

>> No.22287338

>On the other hand, self-consciousness would also be impossible if I represented multiple objective worlds, even if I could relate all of my representations to some objective world or other. In that case, I could not become conscious of an identical self that has, say, representation 1 in space-time A and representation 2 in space-time B. It may be possible to imagine disjointed spaces and times, but it is not possible to represent them as objectively real. So self-consciousness requires that I can relate all of my representations to a single objective world.

>> No.22287433

>>22287338
source?