>spend teenage years reading memes about how Kant is a crypto-atheist and Hegel is, like, some kind of evil german wizard >actually read them as an adult>mfw realizing Kant was a crypto-sorcerer and Hegel was a realist and pragmatist all alongWhat the fuck. Can we have a thread to discuss the relationship between these two and their thought?
>>24138429Hehehehe, why yes,-- yes we can...
The exoteric teaching of Kant is that human knowledge can only be partially known a priori and that there is still an element of knowledge that can only be arrived at a posteriori and there is an impassible chasm between two, resulting in two different types of knowledge per se. This need not be the case: that gap is a contrivance, a blind to fool thise belonging to a more unenlightened age. The esoteric teaching was the implicit suggestion towards THE COMPLETE A PRIORI DERIVATION OF THE SYSTEM OF ALL THE SCIENCES. There is, in truth, no difference between a priori and a posteriori KNOWLEDGE, only between the pure and empirical METHODS of ATTAINING that knowledge. Deeper reading of the Critique reveals the distinction is not of the knowledge itself, but rather of the means by which the knowledge is obtained. If I learn, empirically, Maxwell's equations, then I learned them a posteriori; if I derived them from pure a priori principles, then I learned them a priori, or rather, I already implicitly knew them in the pure a priori principle, and the explicit derivation of them turns out be a platonic anamnesis. The knowledge itself, the equations as propositions, are nonetheless the same, regardless of their source. This is the esoteric doctrine, the completion of the system, the true transition from the metaphysical principles of natural science to natural science proper, including psychology and beyond. What empirical scientists are slowly and painfully arriving at by the hard teacher of experience, metaphysicians have known since time immemorial.
HEGEL WAS A KANTIANKant:>as objectively considered there can only be one human Reason, so there cannot be many Philosophies; in other words, there is ONLY ONE TRUE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY founded upon principles, however variously and however contradictorily men may have philosophized over one and the same proposition.Hegel:>The different systems which the history of philosophy presents are not irreconcilable with unity... We may either say, that it is one philosophy at different degrees of maturity: or that the particular principle, which is the groundwork of each system, is but a branch of one and the same universe of thought.- Encyclopedia Logic section 13
Esoteric Kantianism is ultimately based on the recognition that Kant did not exoterically exhaust his enumeration of the powers of the mind. Furthermore, exoteric Kantianism creates a chasm between sense and thought, which is taken as the foundation for the limitation of knowledge to thought grounded merely on the physical senses, and the faculty of pure reason limited to the common soil of sense. Exoterically, the critique is the exposition of the consequences of normie consciousness; but, every negation is a determination, and every negation in the exoteric Kantian philosophy is a suggestion towards the positive determination of the esoteric counterpart. Thus, the esoteric Kantian philosophy is the system grounded on a critique rather of the autisto-schizophrenic mind, the enumeration of the powers of which is really not greater than the normie mind, but rather takes into account powers which the normie mind possesses but does not take account of. The autisto-schizophrenic mind is characterized by its minute attention to categorization and separation (autist mind), while at the same time a powerful drive towards unity and necessary connection, as well as reification of the mind-stuff (schizomind). This mind is the perfect environment for the creation of an all encompassing philosophical system surpassing anything the normie mind could dream of.
So, why would Kant create a critical philosophy based on the normie mind? As I mentioned, every negation is a determination, and as Kant himself said, the metaphysicians were dreaming; they were engaging in autisto-schizophrenic thinking while uncritically working from the normie mind. The metaphysics were fancies because the autisto-schizophrenic mind had not been actualized. It was only with the critique of the faculties of that normie mind and the realization that it's claims were pretentious, could the metaphysicians awaken to a new critical metaphysics aware of the modifications upon the normie mind necesssary to engage in metaphysical speculation in its etymological sense, i.e., as real intuition, as as real seeing into the nature of reality. Kant had to do what he did in order to push the metaphysicians to a higher level of speculation, of actual speculation; unfortunately, the exoterically minded do not recognize this, and take the exoteric reading of Kant as a conclusion to the metaphysical project, rather than as a spur to its real beginning.
Although exoterically unorthodox this doctrine is perfectly within the Kantian framework when one recognizes thought-objects as having substance, namely the same as sense-objects, differing only in degree not kind; in other words, what normies call matter, and Kant calls substantia phaenomena, is really, in principle, no different than the substantia noumena, i.e., mind-stuff, the stuff dreams are made of. This is not a subreption of the category beyond phenomena because the phenomena-noumena distinction is sublated in this way; noumena and phenomena are, it is true, in degree distinct, but at bottom they the same, two modes of one thing, and therefore substance can legitimately be predicated of both, whereas exoterically its only legitimate use was upon physical sensation. This also sheds light on the supposed paralogism of pure reason; the "I" of self-consciousness, as thought-object, is also therefore substantial; Likewise so is the necessary condition of the self-conscious "I", what William James called Sciousness, or the un-self-conscious "I", as a thought-object of reason. The typical exoteric Kantian remains fixated on the distinctions of the understanding (Either A or B, but not both, the Exclusive Or) without recognizing at the same the necessary unity of reason (the Inclusive Or). Kant left the duality unresolved, yet explicitly everywhere affirms the need of reason for unity as an esoteric clue. Yes, this need of reason is exoterically asserted to be some mere subjective necessity for the unity of subjective apperception, but the astute and shrewd esoterically minded reader will recognize the higher hinted-at duality that overrides that exoteric assertion -- a mere blind to throw off the knaves without eyes to see -- : the subject-object duality itself. There is no subreptive use the categories, and therefore no transcendental illusion because the distinction on which it is founded is not absolute; reason is antecedent, prior to that distinction; thought is the element of both subject and object.
To go beyond the exoteric reading you must not take Kant's words at face value; you must read between the lines. Grapple with the text, and passages takes on a new meaning revealing the esoteric teaching. Expterically he leaves an empirical component to knowledge when he leaves a duality between the pure and empirical; a duality which nonetheless must be resolved according to the unifying nature of reason which Kant himself affirms. Obviously, even exoterically, he is against the Empiricist tabula rasa position, and therefore the solution to the duality can only lie in either subsuming the empirical under intelligible, i.e., the empirical is itself really only a type of thought, or subsuming both the sensible and intellectual components of knowledge under a higher genus. In the first case, knowing the intelligible principles, can reproduce all empirically obtained knowledge through derivation from those principles. If there is a higher genus that grounds both sensibility and intellect, then the question of how by means of this tertium quid we could arrive by an alternative means to the same knowledge obtained emprically or through purely intellectual means would require first coming, in some way, in to contact and knowledge of that thing whatever it may be, and then beginning from those (for now subconscious) principles. But with the first solution, although we immediately find ourselves as having sensible experience and therefore our knowledge (temporally) begins with this experience, by means of critical philosophy we come to realize that not only does not all knowledge arise from experience, but all knowledge (experientially gained and otherwise) can be derived through pure a priori principles: the Platonic anamnesis. The issue is not that there is no emprically obtained knowledge, but rather that it is a means that can be put aside when we he have the more secure means of derivation from pure apriori principles.
What you must understand is that the Critical period was itself a phase or stage in the development of the esoteric system, i.e., the System of Science, or Science itself, that Kant had to go through to refine, purify, and thoroughly ground the system beyond his rationalist predecessors, taking into account and responding to the empiricist school and ultimately overcoming it. In the the first Critique the esoteric doctrine is only found in implicit form as suggested by its internal contradictions, but when thoroughly worked out the true system can be made explicitly communicable. Kant himself realized this by the end of his life and was working it out in the Opus Postumum, where he realized the gap between the metaphysical foundations of natural science and natural science proper had to be bridged. German idealism is not the rejection of Kant it is the development of the germ of the true system of science within his incomplete system. The various developments of German idealism are developments of this esoteric kernel, which Kant himself in his final days recognized. The exoteric system is not complete.
Esoterically, sensation is considered as a form of the mind rather than something external to it. Sensation is a mental construct, albeit, not necessarily a purely subjective one. A major problem of the exoteric Kantianism is the equating of mentation with subjectivity; esoteric Kantianism rejects this fixed idea of the normie standpoint. While exoterically, only the formal aspect of phenomena is attributed to the understanding, or rather, the mind, esoterically the content itself is also attributed to the mind; however, key here is to again recognize the crucial distinction between mind and subjectivity; both the form and content of phenomena are mental productions. Furthermore, this destroys the phenomena-noumena distinction as an absolute distinction; nonetheless, the distinction remains as a relative distinction; they are different but also the same. The exoteric Kantian would here gasp at what would to them appear to be a solipsistic reduction of the Kantion doctrine— but they are mistaken. Solipsism only results from the identification of mind with subjectivity. Indeed, mind is subjective, but it is (and here is the rub) also objective. There is no mind-independent reality; there is subject-independent reality, albeit not in the absolute, and only relative to the particular subjects. This brings into the spotlight the esoteric nature of the core of transcendental idealism: the transcendental ideality of space and time, or specifically, the a priori nature of the space and time as the pure forms of the intuition of all objects of sense. Esoterically, space and time remain a apriori conditions of subjective experience, but they do so not because they are the subjective conditions of experience, but rather because they are the objective conditions of the Mind-world. The world, as an objective mind, possesses space and time as the form of its own objectivity, wherein it may populate itself with what subjectively is called sensation, but objectively is called matter.
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.
Und es gibt mehr...
<3
God bless your lil heart esoteric Kantanon.
The crux of arguments against esoteric Kantianism rest on a quasi-nominalist common-sense normie reading of Kant-- as if Kant himself were the normie consciousness lacking intellektuelle anschauung he describes in the first Critique. Now, I understand the sense of intellectual intuition correctly ascribed by opponents to the exoteric kantian position: that of God creating his object at the instant of his thinking it-- but, the intellectual intuition in the esoteric sense is the realization (unrecognized by the normie) that man possesses this power in micro. In other words, human Einbildungskraft creates within the noumenal realm in the positive sense, in the theatre of the mind if you will, the object out of mind-stuff at the instant of its thinking it, just as God does (exoterically, would) in macro. This mind-stuff is in principle the same as sense-stuff. Kant exoterically uncritically takes the distinction of sense and thought for granted, although esoterically he knows and recognizes (as I have shown before by direct quote) their underlying unity. This had to remain esoteric because of the implicit consequences, namely, what would be made explicit in the consequent objective idealist systems: a what today would be called an autisto-schizoprenic attitude towards the sense-world and the dominant socio-political structures grounded on normie sense-realist consciousness. Contrary to religious lip service, this has never been acceptable to society at large. Religion has only been acceptable as a faith for the many, and even the mystics and occultists were only accepted within the finite constraints of the dominant religious mythology and institutions. A purely rational mysticism out in the open is dangerous because it lays open mysteries to all rational minds, potentially subverting whatever order is at present stable. To this day autisto-schizophrenics are viewed with, at best, mistrust.This distinction, when dissolved, shows the categories to be grounds not only for transcendental apperception (which in turn makes makes experience and synthetic a priori judgments concerning experience possible), but, also, because experience is not merely restrained to sense-stuff, the categories have legitimate use in the supersensible realm of mind-stuff, the noumenal realm in the positive sense understood in a new light. Esoterically, Kant's transcendental unity of apperception is not fixed to a specific range, but is capable of expansion, i.e., it can expand infinitely; and, contrary to the exoteric Ding an sich as a supposed thing beyond the mind-stuff, it itself is simply the concept designating the contingent limit of the present stage of the transcendental unity's expansion.There is no Ding an sich als Ding an sich, but merely as the nihil negativum, a pure thought-object, the thought of the limit of thought.
Kant is not an extreme subjectivist, but an objective idealist (all is one intelligence) who presented an exoterically incomplete system as a suggestive push towards its completion by each individual student of the system. He leaves the esoteric teaching as an exercise to the reader. The subjective 'I' is an expression of an infinite objective 'I' which is one and the same in all its expressions, including each subjective 'I', and therefore the intellect of each and every subjective 'I' is commensurate with the nature of this Absolute. Consequently, transcendental philosophy in its apparent inquiry into the necessary conditions of subjective experience and what knowledge can be derived therefrom, is at once also a microcosmic investigation mirroring the necessary conditions of the one objective spirit and the objective knowledge derived therefrom. The esoteric doctrine does not stop at subjectivity, but uses subjectivity as a means for the finite intellect to understand the infinite intellect, the Absolute.
the hypothesis of a wise author of the universe is necessary for my guidance in the investigation of nature—is the condition under which alone I can fulfil an end which is contingent indeed, but by no means unimportant. Moreover, since the result of my attempts so frequently confirms the utility of this assumption, and since nothing decisive can be adduced against it, it follows that it would be saying far too little to term my judgement, in this case, a mere opinion, and that, even in this theoretical connection, I may assert that I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN GOD.-KdRV A826/B854
But by far the greatest difficulty lies undoubtedly in the subject itself. The latest school [German Idealism] has expressly characterized its philosophy as an ESOTERIC SCIENCE [emphasis added], which would at all times remain confined to the narrow circle of the initiated; yea more, which is also intended to be solely confined to them, inasmuch as what constitutes it philosophy is, that it does not lay aside the veil which is impervious to the eye of the unitiated-- its scientific garb.- Chalybäus
Und so weiter und so weiter...
>>24138429>>24138574>>24138540
>>24138628?
>>24138429They were both german bourgeois who were desperate to make atheism hip and cool.
>>24138665Neither were atheists retard.
I'm sure mr. kantGPT means well and he at least seems to have some interesting ideas but every time someone brings up Kant's Prolegomena he reposts the exact same out-of-context quote (the one where he puts USELESS in all caps) with the seeming intent to dunk on people who are reading it before the CPR even though Kant beats the reader over the head with the notion that the Prolegomena is meant as a set of "preparatory exercises" (his words, not mine) for people who got filtered by the full CPR. It makes me take everything else he posts with a large grain of salt at best.
>>24138708>preparatory exercisesto metaphysics proper NOT to the Critique which is the propadeutic. The prolegomena are preliminary remarks to clarify the critique prior to entering the door of the system of metaphysics. They function as clarification AFTER the Critique, but BEFORE metaphysics, hence Prolegomena to any future METAPHYSICS, and NOT any future Critique of Reason.Also I don't use chatGPT.
What are the esoteric ramifications of the formula, "no unity of experience without objects of experience"? Is God a pure unity without passive objects of experience?
>>24138745Yeah no. He wrote the thing specifically because the public and two prominent critics completely misunderstood the CPR due to its density and dryness. You can argue that it can serve as a preparatory exercise for metaphysics as a whole but that's only because Kant himself viewed his system as making metaphysics possible so, like, no shit it would serve as prep for metaphysics in his system. Honestly I don't really give a shit either way, you can view the thing as a preparatory exercise for all of human thought for all I care, it just bothers the fuck out of me when you jump up and down and stamp your feet when people recommend reading the Prolegomena before/along with the CPR like it's some kind of grand cosmic betrayal of the principles of philosophy or some shit. Like, what do you think people were doing in 1783 right after it was published? >>24138747Phenomenal editing.
>>24138748>Phenomenal editing.What?
>>24138748>what do you think people were doing in 1783 right after it was published?Getting filtered. Hence him writing the prolegomena. He thought the Critique would be enough (for the intended audience, NOT the general public btw) but to his surprise even full professors were getting filtered so he wrote it as something you read after the Critique to tie it all up. The general public was the never the intended audience for the Critique nor the Prolegomena. Literally in the first sentence of the Prolegomena:>These Prolegomena are destined for the use, NOT of pupils, but of future teachers
>>24138762Yeah in case you haven't noticed we're on /lit/ and the average anon is more than capable of understanding Kant even if it takes him a little longer than some 18th century polymath might have taken. It's ridiculous to insist that people jump straight into the CPR if they can understand it better by reading the work Kant specifically wrote to aid in understanding the CPR first, especially since we're living 250 years after Kant's time and his ideas and worldview have seeped into the modern worldview to the point that parts of it are more easily graspable to us than they would have been to the average Prussian.Whatever. Keep copy+pasting the same post anytime someone recommends doing things any other way than the way you like. Maybe that satisfies you.
>>24138748>it just bothers the fuck out of me when you jump up and down and stamp your feetI literally do not do this. I am completely cold and calculating as I type in all caps.
>>24138762You really are more interested in debate than discussion. I asked you a question and you ignored it.
>>24138770>in case you haven't noticed we're on /lit/ and the average anon is more than capable of understanding Kantlmfao evenYou do not remember the Kant reading group dumpster fires then.
>>24138778You literally asked one question and I directly answered it.
>>24138786This is my question >>24138747
>>24138789Idk clarify your question. I have no idea what you are saying.
>>24138770>It's ridiculous to insist that people jump straight into the CPRIn fact I never assert this. I always recommend picrel.
>>24138792Kant claims that a unity of experience presupposes objects of experience, and neither pure objects nor pure unities are conceivable in isolation. This is the "normie" reading. If there is an esoteric reading, does that mean we can decouple the terms of this formula, such that we can conceive of pure unities of experience without objects of experience, or pure objects without unities? Aren't Leibniz's bare monads the latter, pure perceivers without apperception? Would that make God a pure transcendental unity not subject to passive intuitions? I'm no expert on Kant but I have no idea what you're getting confused by. If I am mischaracterizing Kant, then explain why and don't insult me.
>>24138801I didn't even insult you I just said I didn't what you were saying, don't be a weenie. >does that mean we can decouple the terms of this formula, such that we can conceive of pure unities of experience without objects of experience, or pure objects without unities?Pure unities of experience: Yes, if you understand the noumenality of phenomena, and therefore expand the meaning of 'experience.Pure Objects without unities: If by unities you mean external observers to those objects, yes and no, in that objects always are in the universal object-subject and hence are always objects of the objective subject which both contains all objects and is contained within all objects, but if by unity you mean pure quantitative unity then no; all objects as objects are unities, which in turn are limitations of the unified whole.
>>24138811I didn't say you insulted me. Thanks for clarifying.
>>24138429Hegel based his philosophy off of occult and esoteric teachings.
>>24138814>>24138801>don't insult me.stfu
>>24138818As in, "don't insult me in your response and simply answer the question", not "don't insult me again." Christ, you can be such an autist. I really detest Kantboos. Build your own system instead of dedicating your life to internalizing another man's thoughts.
>>24138823Idgaf years of being brutalized on 4chan have destroyed my empathy. Asking not to be insulted is asking to be insulted: Don't ask to not be insulted retard.
>>24138834Years of talking to rude spergs with chips on their shoulders has destroyed my patience with them. Never met a Kantboo who wasn't one. This is why I've always gravitated to Schelling. His scholars radiate emotional maturity. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
>>24138844Loosen up bro. You're all uptight like you've never been naked in a locker room or something.
>>24138429They were both wizards tbf. Just one went turbowizard while the other went absolutwizarf.
>>24138429Can someone explain the "back to Kant" movement in Germany?
>>24138844Schelling hardly gets talked about here
>>24138429Kant is worth readingHegel is not
>>24138936Neither are worth reading. They're boring.
>>24138936>>24138957Both are kino you bunch of pseuds.
>>24138936based>>24138957cringe>>24139056cringe
>>24139065another pseud
>>24138429fools
>>24138784>Kant reading groupI want to join them.
>>24138913More like back to africa
>>24138537Not even the craziest of the schizo-Idealists thought that you could actually deduce laws of nature from a first principle, they just thought there was a first principle that underlies the possibility of all knowledge, and in that sense all sciences are part of one super-system. That's my only autisto-critique, your posts are highly amusing and not infrequently informative. Kant recognizes the need for unity, but exoterically he does not achieve this, and if you read between the lines and seek the required unity, you end up with exactly what you've been shilling for years here. It is too bad that people think you're arguing for dogmatic idealism or solipsism but people misunderstood the great schizo-Idealists in the same way. I keep making funny faces at work because I'm saying "ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM of ALL SCIENCES" in my head with a German accent all the time.
>>24139992>I keep making funny faces at work because I'm saying "ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM of ALL SCIENCES" in my head with a German accent all the time.Holy fucking cringe.
>>24138784The CPR is not even that difficult (at least exoterically), the first reviewers were filtered because they were too lazy to pay attention. It's about as challenging as a math textbook.
Kantanon, in Fichte the totality of the absolute ego exists only as an ideal ground, and he contrasts it with the "real" ground of the activity of the not-I, i.e. what we actually experience. At least in the first published version of the Science of Knowledge he does not think that the absolute actually exists, it's regulative not constitutive, something that cannot be attained because it's infinite. In order for us to exist as independent subjects we necessarily posit this absolute (whether we realize it or not), or else we become passive parts of nature. But he seems just as hostile to traditional metaphysics as Kant was, and he isn't making a cosmological argument about how reality comes to be, but more examining our role within reality if we are to be subjects. He gets rid of the thing in itself, but he seems to take the (relative) existence of the not-I as a fact - even IF he denies that it has an independent existence (and how could it, if anything that exists for us exists only in relation to us as subjects?) I might just be getting filtered, I've already been filtered five or six times trying to understand this thing. Would be curious to hear your thoughts. Certainly when he speaks of the ego "positing" the not-I he isn't talking about creation, positing means thinking and/or intuiting, for Fichte, and he criticizes dogmatic idealists for having no "real" ground of thought and intuition. He's telling the dogmatic idealists, "no the not-I is real insofar as it affects us and it is not something we can create," and the dogmatic realists, "the not-I can't be the absolute or else you will cease to be a human being." But some of your posts make it sound like you think your ego is quite literally creating reality - and again maybe that is a turn he takes, or whatnot, I'm not criticizing you, just interested in your opinion.
yall negroes goofy
>>24138533We Kant sadly...
>>24140139Or like you talk about objects as being simply a lesser quantity of mind-stuff. That's a Fichtean idea, the ideal ground, that the activity of the world is nothing but a division of the original, absolute activity of the self-positing ego, and is simply nothing in its own right. But this exists in tension with the real ground, by which the not-I does have independent activity. Fichte wants to keep both of these things, and resolve the tension with practical reason. That the not-I is simply a product of the I purely and simply is something that ought to be, not something that actually obtains. It seems like you're grabbing onto only one side of the equation, and if you do this, you really do risk becoming a dogmatic idealist or solipsist.
>>24140175It would be a top-shelf effortpost to explain how Marxian ideas are already present potentially within Kant and how they developed through Hegel to reach the Communism we all know and love. I just don't know enough to write it.
>>24140213We all know that. Not a good look for Kant and Hegel.
>>24138570thank God!
>>24140139>>24140193You would have to be a complete idiot to think the Kantanon can answer questions like that.
>>24140139Which kantanon are you addressing?
>>24140139>He gets rid of the thing in itself, but he seems to take the (relative) existence of the not-I as a fact - even IF he denies that it has an independent existence (and how could it, if anything that exists for us exists only in relation to us as subjects?)>(and how could it, if anything that exists for us exists only in relation to us as subjects?)You answered your own question.
>>24138844I've met three Hegel scholars in my life and every one of them had bad breath. I don't have a theory to explain it or anything, make of it what you will.
>>24140386Yeah but just because the not-I only possesses activity insofar as it affects us doesn't mean it doesn't have any independent activity at all."Let us once again explicitly note that the inference to a real activity of the not-I is based upon the fact that the I's state of being passively affected is something qualitative - which is something one must assume in reflecting upon the mere principle of causal efficacy - and that the validity of this inference extends no farther than the validity of this proposition. When we examine the second reciprocal concept, that of substantiality, we will see that, in reflecting upon this concept, the state of passive affection can be thought of only as something quantitative, that is, as a mere diminution of activity and by no means something qualitative. Accordingly, we will see in this reflection that when the ground disappears so does that which is grounded upon it, and the not-I will again become a purely ideal ground. To put the point succinctly: If the explanation of representation, i.e. speculative philosophy in its entirety, proceeds from the fact that the not-I is posited as the cause of representation, which is posited as an effect of the same, then the not-I is the real ground of everything.... The I itself is merely an accident of the not-I and by no means a substance. In this manner we obtain a materialistic Spinozism.... If, on the other hand, the explanation of representation proceeds from the I as the substance of representation and from representation as a mere accident of the I, then the not-I is by no means the real ground of the representation, but only its ideal ground, and therefore the not-I possesses no reality whatsoever apart from representation. The not-I is not a substance, not something self-subsistent nor posited purely and simply; instead, it is merely an accident of the I. Such a system, however, can provide no ground whatsoever for the limitation of reality in the I.... From this it follows that the true point of contention between realism and idealism concerns the path one should take in order to explain representation. It will become evident that this question remains completely unanswered in the theoretical part of the Wissenschaftslehre; or rather, it is there answered by claiming that BOTH PATHS ARE CORRECT: under a certain condition, one is required to proceed along one path, and under another, opposing condition, one is required to proceed along another path. In this manner, human reason... falls into contradiction with itself and is caught in a circle.... This conflict of reason with itself must be resolved... and since the absolute being of the I cannot be sacrificed, the conflict must be decided to the advantage of the second-mentioned manner of inference, just as in dogmatic idealism - WITH THE DIFFERENCE that our idealism is NOT DOGMATIC but PRACTICAL; it does not determine what IS but what OUGHT TO BE."
>>24140431Again, you're not going to get a serious response from the Kantanon. The ideas you're talking about are things he knows at second-hand and has woven together into this crude philosophy he calls 'esoteric Kantianism', in which autistic wizards are masters of reality. And, again, you would have to be an idiot to take him seriously.
>>24140516I'm not that down on him and I think he has read this stuff, more than I have. I think he also might have more to say for his interpretation. Maybe I'm just less inclined to think that other people are idiots than you are. I know he isn't a professor, this is 4chan, I'm sure he's an autistic hobbyist just like myself, but I'd still like to hear a response to these issues.
Word Games
Bump
>>24140431>>24140193>>24140139Have you read any Peirce?
>>24142136Not yet, I have a friend who’s really into him though. Why, what’s the relevance here? Spoon feed me I have enough to read right now.
>>24138793Can’t pirate that, recommend me something else.
>>24142822The whole I and not-I thing from Fichte parallels really well with Peirce's categories. Summarizing it would probably not do it justice so just take a note somewhere and read him when you're ready.
