Solipsism, etymologically from the latin meaning 'only oneself', is an apparently unresolvable problem in contemporary philosophy. But this, as we know, is only because the philosophers of today refuse to venture beyond the threshold of the normie standpoint. If, as esoteric Kantianism does, they would dare to speculate into the regions beyonds the confines of normie realism, into the realms of 'superipsism', then here they could actually make some progress. The exoteric Kantians claimed Kant to have proved the existence of a supersensible world, but, their pretentions notwithstanding, all they proved was the existence of a unique idea, the idea of the non-ideal, das Ding an sich. However, as I have shown, this idea, although unique as being the highest abstraction, was nonetheless, like all other content of experience, an object of thought. And further, it did nothing to resolve the issue of the existence of intelligences beyond my own. For this reason Jacobi was right to call this exoteric Kantianism a solipsism-- but beyond the letter of this external understanding laid a deeper wisdom.When the chasm that separated man and reality was bridged by the sublimation of the exoteric distinctions, the conditions of the transcendental unity of apperception were found not merely for the unity of the self-conscious individual man, but rather for all unity of conscious intelligence in general; and the rationality of the world was found not to be merely belonging to our preculiar mode of apprehending this world, but essential to the cosmos itself.This cosmos, as in itself a production of universal thought-acts (called the categories by Kant), necessarily contains them in all its parts, including the finite unities of conscious intelligence within it, and which as unities of conscious intelligence must also use the categories in all their thinking. In effect, when (you) look out into the world, you are looking at a finite portion of the infinite experience of a unity of apperception encompassing the entire cosmos in its unity. In this greater sense, solipsism is true, because the cosmos is this infinite self, not (you), not (me), but, an 'I' rather that contains (you) and contains (me), which nonetheless (and this is of great significance) is analoguous to humans in its rational essence.
Du hast Kant gelesen. Sehr gut.
>>24092689>the cosmos is this infinite self, not (you), not (me), but, an 'I' rather that contains (you) and contains (me), which nonetheless (and this is of great significance) is analoguous to humans in its rational essence.mfw the jains were right
>>24092689Aber verstanden? Das ist die Frage. Das ist die Frage.
>>24092698Ich habe auch verstanden natürlich.
>>24092689Nicht nur gelesen, aber vervollkommnen.
>>24092643solipsism is only a problem in the first place because of your g*rman philosophers. fuck off
>>24092745Nein dummkopf. Du hast keine Ahnung.
bump
I wish these threads were banned. OP never explains anything. Hes just going to treat me like an opponent too. With this thread and the guy dumping Tarzan books. This board is a graveyard.
>>24093260he's tiresome. curt, humourless, unwilling to engage. I'm over it.
>>24093260>never explains anything.I understood it just fine.
>>24093260>You must, however, take care not to dialogue with every one, especially with a vulgar-minded man. With some persons the dispute cannot fail to take a discreditable turn. When the respondent tries to make a show of escaping by unworthy manœuvres, the questioner on his part must be unscrupulous also in syllogising; but this is a disgraceful scene. To keep clear of such abusive discourse, you must be cautious not to discourse with commonplace, unprepared respondents.
>>24093275He has still not even defined what esoteric kant is or what makes it different. He never quotes Kant. He doesn't reference any kant book. Its just constant contextless arguments refuting someone who doesn't exist and then when people ask what he's talking about or who he's directing it to he just insults you. What is this thought? What does it believe? What are its arguments? Its like watching a BBS of only one person making in jokes to himself. I don't understand what he's saying. This thread is just spam
>>24093288I'm here with an open mind. I don't get why you think I'm judging you. I just want to know what you're saying
>>24093292>He has still not even defined what esoteric kant is or what makes it differentI've been explaing for years. Literally every thread is an exposition and development of it. I give quotes and you retards complain all I do is quote. So I explain and you retards say I never explain. In any case, from last thread:>Esoteric Kantianism is ultimately based on the recognition that Kant did not exoterically exhaust his enumeration of the powers of the mind.
>>24092643Get some new material Berkeley. Kant wasn't a solipsist. Your fear of engaging in dialectic already tells me Leibnitz was right about solipsism anyhow. We already know you don't know anything.
>>24092643>In effect, when (you) look out into the world, you are looking at a finite portion of the infinite experience of a unity of apperception encompassing the entire cosmos in its unityYou might be interested in pic related. Not quite esoteric kantianism, but fits the above description
>>24093314I just discovered these threads yesterday Part of your problem i think is you assume everyone is against you. I'm being sincere. I truly just want an explanation
>>24093314>Kant did not exoterically exhaust his enumeration of the powers of the mind.Nor esoterically.
>>24093314Put a reading list in your OP if you want a general
>>24093319>Kant wasn't a solipsist.You didn't even read my post.
>>24093329this specific thread wasn't a general
>>24093328He did if you have eyes to see.
>>24093324I don't assume that. I assume a thorough background in exoteric Kantian philosophy.
>>24093324OP is arguing with people who are just insulting him rather than helping me the one person who wants to believe him and get involved.
>>24093323it's on my list
>>24093359Have you read the first Critique?
>>24093371I've never read philosophy i don't know where to start for this. I just want to be cool like you since you are really smart. Also you speak German and have secret conversations I want to learn that. I just think you're cool and better than me so I want to learn from you.
I don't get how this solves the problem of other minds, could someone help me?Why isn't everything in MY mind?
>>24093349>jacobi was right>to a greater extent solipsism is trueKant addressed this in the prolegomena but you opted for a mind centric utilitarian rebuttal to your own assertion. You are entitled to your solipsism. Leibnitz basically said it ultimately comes down to 2 females trying to out twat each other which is inherently self-defeating. Once some sort of dialectic or PSR related thought enters the conversation the twats go fume in their litterboxes or realize it is stupidity.
>>24093379>I've never read philosophy There is no royal road to philosophy. Pick one philosopher, master his system and terminology, then every other philosopher will make sense in terms of that philosopher. Read this. It's free on google play books.
>>24093406You still are not getting it. Solipsism here is not of your subjective finite experience.
>>24093402It grounded on an unsublated subject-object duality.
>>24093354Reason doesn't intuit shit. You are dense.
>>24093379Plato - Complete WorksAristotle - Complete WorksThe Holy BibleAquinas - Summa TheologicaDescartes - Philosophical Writings of DescartesSpinoza - Complete WorksLebiniz - MonadologyKant
>>24093413What is your definition of solipsism then?
>>24093490Sound's like something a hylic would say.
>>24093539Literal first sentence in OP. You are not understanding however because you fixated on a certain understanding of self, which if you'd actually read my post, would have made clear. Instead you chose to be retarded.
>>24092643Great post anon. My only objection to this is that it really sounds like getting to Plotinus but from a modern philosophy perspective. What I take to be the main idea of your post, namely that thought can be seen as a constitutional part of the cosmos rather and as an epiphenomenon of it, really is one of the foundations of neoplatonic philosophy. It's interesting to get there through Kant because you solve solipsism instead of participation and/or what the hell is "mind" doing in something like a corporeal world and what are qualia - but the point really is pretty much the same.Kudos to you for explaining it with such clarity though - and double kudos for having actually read Kant and came up with some interesting ideas about him.Do you have any interesting reading suggestions on the subject, btw? I have read the three Critiques, but if there's any secondary literature or other philosophers you found englightening on the subject, I'd be happy to check them out.
>>24093547Conflating rational intuition (a complete chimera) with intellectual intuition is not even sophistry, but plain buffoonery.
>>24093553If you are going with the traditional definition of solipsism then your claim that Kant was a solipsist is already moot.
>>24093555Indeed, Kant himself says as there is only one Reason, and therefore there is really only one philosophy. Hence, although the terminology is different, the underlying truth is the same. But the Greeks spoke in terms of their time, and due to their (the Greeks) remoteness in time I believed the Germans more congenial. If you have already read neoplatonists and also Kant then their reconciliation would probably get you to where I am. Sadly, due to time constraints, I've only read Plato and not the neoplatonists; nonetheless what little of Plato I read I found enlightening and influential in my development of this esoteric Kantianism. Unfortunately, I found the form of the dialogue uncongenial to my temperament, and looked for a way to build off the critical system of Kant, and present a Platonism tempered through the fire of Kantian critique in a scientific systematic form. I am not the first to do this; German idealism leans in this direction, but what distngishes my thinking is that, since I have no academic career hopes and am anonymous on this platform, I can explore themes and follow arguments to places which would be viewed negatively by the contempary academic establishment (although I am seeing a shift in the idealist direction at the present time). Two philosophers I would recommend are Carl du Prel and Adam Karl August Eschenmeyer. Unfortunately, their writings are largely untranslated. Of course, the writings of Christian Wolff, Alexander Baumgarten, and Georg Meier (the big pre-Kant rationalists) and Fichte, Schelling and Hegel (the big post-Kant idealists). I would like eventually to learn Greek to read the original idealists, but for now there is so much to read in German (that remains untranslated) I will be reading the Germans for the foreseeable future. But life is short and art is long. In any case, it was said by Hegel the Germans re-explored the entirety of philosophy anyways and anything said before could be found again amongst the Germans.
>>24093562You still don't get it. I told you it hinges on your understanding of self.
>>24093558You are remaining at a fixed distinction between reason and intellect. This too must be sublated.
>>24093623Traditional definition: the only thing you can know is that your self exists.Kant acknowledged the external world which already makes your point moot. If you would like to redefine solipsism you can. If you would like to claim Kant was a solipsist you can. I acknowledge the external world and your descartian I. You are free to disavow instead of reciprocate. I am already aware solipsists know nothing. They still have to use the same language as the rest of us and whenever they talk they frequently acknowledge aspects of the external world either way. It's only when the external world becomes bothersome that this becomes an issue. An issue for them, I don't care.
>>24093622Thank you for the suggestions, my German is rather weak but getting better - I'll keep these titles on my reading list.My background is more in the ancients and I'm not sure I agree with Hegel there! In my few explorations of German philosophy I have found that there is a lot that sounds radically new compared to the Greeks, at least in term of perspective. Kant in particular, if you start seeing how it works (which I'm not sure I did correctly) was absolutely groundbreaking for me. There has been no such focus on how knowledge is build in ancient philosophy, as far as I know - although you have extremely interesting bits of philsophy of mind, such as Aristotle's De Anima. The sole exception is maybe, once again, Plotinus.It's also very interesting to see how, to a certain extent, the way experience is build in the critic can resemble a sort of ancient-philosophy cosmogony - with formal principles intervening to inform and shape brute (formless?) content. Kant retrospectively helped me understand how Platonic ideas coud work, in that regard!
>>24092750address me as sie please
>>24093421Sorry, I don't understand sublation yet. Could you rephrase it?
>>24094270Sublation is when you are looking at something and you think you know what it is but then you realize it's not what you thought it was, but that realization doesn't make the thing go way, rather, although in a sense the thing is the same, it reveals itself as something different.
>>24094359So... What would "unsublated subject-object duality" mean?
>>24092643You’re a halfwit
>>24095244Just plain subject-object duality. Sublating that duality reveals it to be two modes of a unity. They are still there, but not in the way you initially took them.
>>24095246You're a no-wit.
>>24093314First of all you are saying two different Kants1. Esoteric Kant2. Exoteric KantIf these are two different things you are trying to say, maybe you should spell it out more clearly instead of using two similar terms "Esoteric Kant," and "Exoteric Kant." Those similarities are what's confusing people.
>>24095481If you can't distnguish between 'esoteric' and 'exoteric' then that is unfortunate for you. I choose my words to say exactly what I mean.
>>24095487Nobody knows what that means.
>>24095491Don't assume when you don't understand something that no one does.
>>24095491>>24095481>>24093260>>24093307dumbasses, stop inflating his ego by telling him that the problem is you don't get it. read the critique and plotinus or proclus and it would be extremely easy to understand it. every time you tell him that you don't understand, he cums in his pants because you're proving to him that he is a superior being who has unique understanding of esoteric doctrine.
>>24095651It's an avatarfagging bot. There are others like the daoist pepe one.
>>24095657I guarantee this dude is not a bot, he's just chris chan level autistic
>>24095651>read the critique and plotinus or proclus and it would be extremely easy to understand it. >easy
>>24095707Elements of Theology is only like 100 pages, you can indeed easily read it one sitting. I admit Plotinus is more difficult mainly because of the length, and my eyes glazed over during “on the genera of being”, but generally speaking no philosophy book is as difficult as they’re hyped up to be. The critique is no more difficult than Plotinus, again the main problem is Kant’s writing style and the unnecessary bloat, not the material. Also the secondary material on Kant/the critique is quite good so you don’t even have yo actually read the critique if you don’t want.
>>24096310Philosophy is the study of wisdom. The only prerequisite for truth is that it be indisputably true. It need merely be well stated to gain assent. Of course it cannot be derived from senses. Only after careful meditation on the first principles will one be able to determine that even an omnipotent god can only inspire a faith which in and of itself can be fallible. Only when a truth can be elucidated that is known to all will this be known. As of yet there has been nothing of this sort. Even with a god of my own creation and a soul only I can possess leaving the rest of the world to mindless automata and having read the works of learned men and conversed with them I still do not possess this. That is how I know no one possesses such a thing.This is a Descartes board now. Enjoy the Renaissance v2.0. Subatomic particle death to all knowledge!
>>24093533>Bible>Aquinas - Summa Theologica
>>24095399>Sublating that duality reveals it to be two modes of a unity. They are still there, but not in the way you initially took them.I still don't get how these "two modes of a unity" aren't produced by my mind.
>>24096984not your mind. a mind.
>>24097008What do you mean? Why isn't that mind mine?
