>A thing in actual existence is identical with the knowledge of that thing.>The possible existence of a thing is identical with the possibility in us of perceiving or knowing it.
>>23779506Cringe, read this insteadhttps://prometheustrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/INTRODUCTION_TO_DE_ANIMA.pdf
>>23779506Is Kant the reason for the proliferation of Jewish thought in the west?
>>23779512Yes, his birth name was actually Immanuel Shlomo Kantor
>>23779506>Aristotle would have considered it very unphilosophical to represent Matter, as some philosophers of the present day appear to do, as having had an independent existence, and as having contained the germs, not only of all other things, but even of Reason itself, so that out of Matter Reason was developed. According to Aristotle, it is impossible to conceive Matter at all as actually existing, far less as the one independent antecedent cause of all things; and it is equally impossible to think of Reason as non-existent, or as having had a late and derivative origin.Based Kantian Aristotle
>>23779512No. That happened because people don't read Kant.
>>23779512>proliferation of Jewish thoughtImagine having to define it explicitly as "jewish" thought. I guess this is your brain on antisemitism
>>23779512Yours is a sad existence.
>>23779517>>23779506This isn't Kantian. In many ways it's exactly the opposite because it denies subject object dualism and the possibility of any untinelligible noumena. If being is to mean anything it is what is given to thought. If things are to be anything it is this whatness, the eidos of things.Likewise with Aristotle space and time exist fundamentally in nature, the principles of the cosmos as a whole, but not actually. Aristotle doesn't have the extreme modern phobia of "anthropomorphizing," because he sees man, and thus intellect, as not only part of nature but the part we are most familiar with and its highest expression we are familiar with. The whole idea of the mind constructing the intelligibility of things is alien to Aristotle, for Aristotle things in themselves are simply intelligible, it would be incoherent to say otherwise.The ancients considered the old "we don't really know things, just our experiences of things," and correctly rejected this as stupid.
>>23779506Well, no. Kant was an aristotelian.
>>23779506>>23779517>he was Kantian>she was Kantianshut the fuck up already about so and so being a Kantian. you don't even know what a transcendental aesthetic is. whatever this thread is on about certainly ain't Kantianism. hell, Aristotle's philosophy of mind is like inverse Kantianism, the way the common sense unites sensible forms without error.
>>23780446>The whole idea of the mind constructing the intelligibility of things is alien to Aristotle,filterrrrrrrred
>>23780480>Aristotle's philosophy of mind is like inverse Kantianismnope
>>23779506As someone else said, you misunderstand Kant. You also misunderstand Aristotle, because by identity he means a point of contact, not complete immersion.
>>23780450Yes. Correct Aristotle was a Kantian.
>>23780446>with Aristotle space and time exist fundamentally in naturelikewise with Kant.
>>23780644*proto-kantianNow stop pretending to be retarded.
>>23780656>with Aristotle space and time exist fundamentally in nature>likewise with Kant.This is inaccurate. time is not fundamental but relational."If, then, there is no motion, there is no time. Indeed when we perceive nothing moving, we do not perceive time passing either." (Physics IV, 11, 219b6-7).Similarly, space (or place) is not an independent entity but something defined by the position of bodies in relation to each other. It does not exist as a separate, fundamental entity."Place is not some separate thing distinct from the objects that occupy it, but rather the boundary of the containing body at which it is in contact with the contained." (Physics IV, 4, 212a20).With Kant, it is even more clear that your understanding is inaccurate: “Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation, but rather subjective and ideal, and it proceeds from the nature of our minds.” (Transcendental Aesthetic, A26/B42)."Time is nothing other than the form of inner sense, that is, of the intuition of ourselves and of our inner state." (A33/B49
>>23780672I am not pretending, but the low IQ to High IQ distribution chart is actually a finite graphical represention of an infinite circle where the highest IQ reemerges on the other side of the chart as the lowest IQ. From my point of view, you are all retards; from your point of view, I am the retard. If only you retards new how high are the heights of the Empyrean.
>>23780684>remains within the confines of the fixity of the understandingeverything you just pointed out is rationally reconcilable and the apparent contradictions is only your failure to see the unity in the apparent differences.>confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.- Kant, CPR 2nd PrefaceI have mastered the one true system of philosophy. I resolve all apparent contradictions in the whole of the one universal reason.
>>23780727show, don't tell
>>23780727Also, i never said kant or aristotle contradicted themselves. I'm saying that you misinterpreted the text. The both deny space and time as being fundamental
>>23780739I give the suggestion, and leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
>>23780753Nein. You little understanding cannot reconcile space and time's fundamentality and relativity, universality and particularity.
>>23779506I do see some important points of agreement between Kant and Aristotle, probably most importantly in epistemology. They agree that all of our cognition, even very abstract cognition, ultimately comes from and refers to sensible experience. On the other hand, they both recognize the difference between thinking in images and abstract thought itself. And then even further, they both understand that all of our abstract thinking occurs along with imagination. I also enjoy Kant’s project as an ambitious exercise in psychology, more than Aristotle himself ever attempted, as long as I can manage to ignore the bits that are crazy.But you are wrong if you assume that Aristotle's theory of cognitive identity is a nod toward any sort of idealism. Aristotle taught that our thoughts are likenesses of things (De Int 1, for example), not things themselves; our concepts are in a state of potency to actual objects (Meta 13.10). They “become” forms in the same sense that your ocular sensorium “becomes” color, or rather in an even more distant sense, because the thoughts in our intellect about the world can be false or incomplete, whereas sensation qua sensation is always true – it’s not as simple as that when we understand truth, we are somehow ‘seeing being itself’. Aristotle did think that the world is, in a sense, thought. But I don’t think he had anything like a Neoplatonist understanding in which our intellect is a mirror image of a supernal one, or we have an undescended intellect in heaven, or have innate but hidden knowledge of all things, etc. If anything his account of the soul is an attack on Platonic theories – where they assumed that we had an immortal soul that somehow participates in God (as in the voyages in the Phaedrus etc.), Aristotle is saying that God alone is the intellect that is “separable” from matter and that exists always. And God’s intellect is not like ours at all; it’s transcendent and can’t be approached discursively because of its simplicity, one of his main criticisms of the Platonists being their various extravagant theological theories. (Another major point of at least spiritual agreement with Aristotle here)
When it comes to Kantianism in general – Aristotle would have rejected the skeptical arguments that gave rise to it out of hand. Kant would be, to him, proving what is obvious by means of what is less obvious, and in this case, where what is being proved is not even really provable, I mean the possibility of the synthetic a priori knowledge, he’s actually stumbling away from truth. I think this line from the Eudemian Ethics is appropriate to him and his followers: “There are some who, through thinking it to be the mark of a philosopher to make no arbitrary statement but always to give a reason, often unawares give reasons foreign to the subject and idle – this they do sometimes from ignorance, sometimes because they are charlatans – by which reasons even men experienced and able to act are trapped by those who neither have nor are capable of having practical and constructive intelligence. And this happens to them from want of education; for inability in regard to each matter to distinguish reasonings appropriate to the subject from those foreign to it is want of education.”
>>23780727No you're being a dick, his point is sound - Kant didn't understand how place could be relational and that's part of why he makes it a priori in the first place, same with time. On the question of space and time Aristotle's views were actually more modern than Kant's.
>>23781287>as long as I can manage to ignore the bits that are crazy.What are the Kantian parts you consider crazy?
>>23781287>you are wrong if you assume that Aristotle's theory of cognitive identity is a nod toward any sort of idealism>Aristotle did think that the world is, in a sense, thought. You would not call this idealism?
>>23781290>what is being proved is not even really provable, I mean the possibility of the synthetic a priori knowledgeYou don't believe in the possibility of proving synthetic a priori knowledge?
>>23781619The idea that there can be no necessity in the 'noumenal' world, that the only way for causation, time, space, etc to be real is for them to literally be within a mind. Not caused by a mind, mind you, but actual thoughts. That's not the Aristotelian conception of the relation of God to the world.>>23781653No, because the things that are brought into being by God are not ideal. If I make a paper airplane, is the paper airplane ideal because I made it in accord with thought?>>23781662I don't think that it is possible to demonstrate causation, the validity of induction, etc, no. First principles are not demonstrable.
>>23780640Aristotle's system is a realism, not a transcendental idealism. the substantial form, thing in itself, etc., is simply grasped by the mind.
>>237816961. Kant never said there was no necessity in the noumenal world. Noumenal has two senses: a positive sense as an object of the imagination subjected to human categories of thought; and, a negative sense as the concept of an object not subject to human categories of thought or human forms of sensibility. In the positive sense, as subject to human categories of thought, there is necessity in the noumenal world; in the second sense, Kant neither affirms nor denies the existence of a causality independent of human thinking. He is agnostic on this point (exoterically-- esoterically there is another doctrine, but I will go on about that later). By saying about causation, that for it and space and time to be real is to be literally within a mind, yet not caused by mind you fundamentally misunderstand Kant. For Kant, causation is a pure act of thinking (by who? therein lies a key to the esoteric doctrine), not necessarily only within the human mind, but of reason itself-- all rational being performs this act by nature of being rational. When a mind, that is to say, a active unity of consciousness, a unity of conscious will, performs this act on itself, it necessarily portrays itself has having a cause (and everything else it portrays to itself for that matter), and therefore, since causality is a part of it, portrays causality as itself caused. And by what you may ask? The exoteric Kantian would stop here and say this is the limit of human knowing, and consider the classical metaphysical response as a dogmatic affirmation. But anyone who has mastered the system knows the true esoteric doctrine, creation ex nihilo-- yet nothing is as it seems.
>>237816962. You presuppose, at least, the matter the paper airplane is made out of is not itself a product of thought.
>>237816963. First principles are only so through a self imposed limitation. The only limits to thought are those you freely choose to accept.
>>23781886The thing in itself is grasped by the mind in the Kantian esoteric doctrine-- it is nothing.
>>23781941Demonstrate to me what a line is. My point is as simple as that. And no, talking about the necessary conditions for a line to be is not a demonstration of the being of the line, nor is showing me a line a demonstration of the line, which should explain why it is a line. And no a definition of line does not do this.Didn't Kant set out to put a stop to rampant metaphysical speculation?
>>23782035A line is not a first principle. First principles are metaphysical, not geometrical.Kant set out to make metaphysics scientific, not to end it.
>>23779512you a lobotomized nigga
>>23781948That still isn't Aristotle because the thing in itself is still a something for Aristotle, it is ousia and form.
This is a very high quality thread for this site. I find this is often the case when classical philosophy is discussed, whereas threads on modern philosophy, particularly German idealism and post-modernism are terrible.So I guess it isn't surprising that the shit posts relate to Kant.>>23780635>>23780640Honestly, I find this in professional scholarship too. People writing on Aristotle are happy to discuss the various merits of different interpretation, whereas I also am a big Hegel fan, and with Hegel (or Kant) scholars are endlessly going on about how so and so has failed to understand x properly.>>23780656I mean, there are many interpretations of Kant—I've even seen Avoresean group mind interpretations of "mind"—but frankly this is to the contrary of the great bulk of Kant scholarship.
>>23782760This is the only post itt that mentions hegel and yet Hegel was an Aristotle fan and his thought is closer to Aristotle than Kant's. What. gives. Everyone is always disprespecting hegel out of some small dick syndrome.
>>23782760At one point after reading Hegel I did go back and re-read Aristotle and Kant. The full Hegelian explication in SoL definitely skews towards Kant and does so in a way that offers a sort of Kantian style challenge. At any rate, I was unable to ever fully elucidate a strict 1 to 1 equivalence between the 2. I am inclined to side with Hegel personally though, the Aristotelian classification system is more cumbersome by comparison, this is not a statement that has any bearing on applicability or validity, the definition of a per accidens is the result of the system's expansive nature. In Kant's system there aren't really per accidens, his system is designed with a bare minimum style setup, a per accidens is possible but not likely in most uses. The overlap is in subject and then for Aristotelian language the independent - substance for Kant which is thing in itself. You can move spatial and temporal to subject when processing translations between the 2 since Kant determines that to be the only true and pure A Priori. Passivity is moved to sensuous for Kant, and activity is moved to mind for Kant. As far as the rest of Kant's categories are concerned they are designed for maximum efficiency in logic usage, and the translation between the 2 systems at that point is less of an issue, or if anything offers benefits for the usage of Kant's system.
Kant more like kant make sense because its intellectual masturbation like most philosophy
>>23783033https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyrrhonismThe end. The rest of these fags just write books for money.
>>23782760>So I guess it isn't surprising that the shit posts relate to Kant.conveniently ignores the Kantian effortpost
>>23783106you mean your stale INTELLEAKTUAL ANSCHAUAAUNG (I'm so quirky teehee :3) shitpost that got boring last year
>>23783113no. but intellektuelle anschauung is real tho. i referred to this one. it must have filtered you:>>23781924
>>23782552>the thing in itself is still a something for Aristotle>A thing in actual existence is identical with the knowledge of that thing.>The possible existence of a thing is identical with the possibility in us of perceiving or knowing it.What thing in itself?
>>23783149Yeah, and I was referring to that post. It's completely retarded, especially in the followup post where you tried to say that Aristotle and Kant were in agreement and that the thing-in-itself is nothing. Double retardation. Even if that's what Kant thought (it's not), it's certainly not what Aristotle thought, as it violates one of the tenets that he agreed with and lifted from the Eleatics. >>23783162What do you take it to be if not substance and/or essence?
>>23783173>Aristotle and Kant were in agreement and that the thing-in-itself is nothingThere is no thing in itself for either. Being is thinking. The thing in itself, is the pure concept; from the standpoint of the finite intellect, nothing; but, that nothing from a higher standpoint, the critical standpoint, is a concept, the pure concept, thought of as substance by the finite intellect.
>>23783113It's not a shitpost. I literally believe in intellektuelle Anschauung. And I'm not the only one.
>>23783235>let me just ignore everything Aristotle said and backport all my stupid modernist concepts onto what he said and pretend that he agrees with meneck yourself retard>>23783245no, it's just you and a handful of other illiterate zoomers
>>23783260i am enjoying your seething.the eternal is both modern and ancient. literally posted academic book on intellektuelle anschauung.
>>23783269yeah, morons who make shit up, don't bother to read the original text, and don't even try to make sense annoy me. you're not bright, you're not creative, you're not funny, and you're not special. get a new shtick.
>>23783294cope.
>>23783294you didn't even acknowledge the book btw.
>>23783315not going to acknowledge academic slop when you can't even regurgitate the basic tenets of Aristotle's work, let alone discuss it dialectically.
>>23783336you can't even regurgitate the basic tenets of Kant's work, let alone discuss it dialectically.
>>23783339if by >tenets of Kant's workyou mean >the goofy work of fiction I made up in my head to feel like I'm an original thinkerthen yeah I can't regurgitate that. I'm not going to furnish my mind with refuse
>>23783353no. you know neither the exoteric nor the esoteric kantian doctrine.
>>23779506I know that's a joke, but Kant can be interpreted in a very Aristotelian way. Kant is, in a way, analyzing the mode by which the being of reality is received by our intellects. Kind of.
philosophy has no impact anywhere on earth in any practical way>>23779512
>>23783388Kant rejects intellectual intuition
>>23783395I don't really know what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Or with my comment
>>23779506Its essence includes its mode of availability, because all is Mind; its 'phenomenological' presentation emanates from its own apodicity just as that being ultimately is an emanation from/of/for the One.
>>23783388It's not a joke.
>>23783410Well, maybe it should be
>>23779506aristotelian ethics is similar to kants also. kant literally calls his book the critique of 'practical' reason, just like Aristotle talked about how virtues are something you need to practice to get good at
>>23783395>t. doesn't know
