>some things can be true and not true at the same time Woah
>>24763963did you mean to post hegel? Kant doesn't think that the thesis and antitheses of an antinomy are both true, he thinks that the fact that they contradict each other is what proves that the attempt to apply the categories beyond the bounds of possible experience was erroneous in the first place.
>>24763992I’m almost done with the book and the last 100 or so pages have just been about how God can exist and not exist simultaneously within the framework of the physio-theological as an idea regressed from nature, or something to that effect.Also triangles, this guy loves talking about triangles.
>>24764006I see. I stopped reading after the dialectic of reason. I don't know how the fuck he goes on for another like 300 pages after that. I assumed that he just repeated more of what he already said, like he had been doing the whole book.
>>24764022>I assumed that he just repeated more of what he already said, like he had been doing the whole book.He does
>>24763963fil. tered.
>>24764039Negative.Once past the categories of understanding there really isn’t that much new information being injected. It’s essentially a recycling of the same ideas from the Transcendental Dialectic onwards
>>24763963He doesn't argue that ever or at all.No things can't be true and not true at the same time.
>>24764057fil. terrrrrrd.
>>24764084It's literally what the last few hundred pages of the book are about.
>>24763963The only thing that Kant ever said that wasn't dogshit is addressing the mind body split
>>24763963is this non-dualism?
>>24764275No, Kant stays strictly out of the realm of metaphysics and that is a key theme throughout the book as well as a sharp boundary set by the distinction of phenomena and noumena.Kant focuses exclusive on the world as appearances as they are apprehended by sensibility and that other matters beyond the senses fall into ideas of pure reason. One of the necessary ideas discusses dialectically is that of the existence of a supreme being above and before all others. He demonstrates how in 2 expressions of pure reason God could not exist but how in a third it is possible.He goes on to say that it is possible then for God to both exist and not exist simultaneously as an idea.Kant also makes clear that because God would exist beyond the world of appearances as they are perceivable to us it is impossible for us to know Him a posteriori through experience therefore he can not exist as a concept of pure reason.He goes on to say that we should use our reason discerningly so that in effect we aren’t chasing our own tails with postulations in the realm of experience that can never be proven empirically because it’s a subject which can never be proven in that way.He makes an analogy of having a set number of materials to build and edifice but all the builders (philosophers) have different plans and so that everyone is building little rinky dink huts that aren’t roomy enough or tall enough to survey the land.Best I can do for phone posting at 1am
>>24763963lets be honest... for Kant time is only existing in the world of phenomena... and in this world no thing can be true and not true at the same time... only the thing in itself can be different from the phenomena...
Can you give an example of something that is true and not true at the same time?
>>24765106Necessary existence of a world's author (God)
>>24765106A white lie is not a lie.
>>24765130This seems to only fulfil the untrue condition. White lies are lies, though they may not carry the negative connotations that unqualified lies do. That doesn't mean they are now true.>>24765127Elaborate.
>>24765146Kant sets his system firmly in the knowable world (universe) and draws a sharp boundary therein as to not over step into metaphysics. The entire book is on using sensibilities to apprehend the world through appearances - though we are only to ever know things as they appear to us and never as they are in themselves. Ideas which we may conjure up which may only ever exist as ideas are to be judged and evaluated through reason and reason alone as they don't exist in the world of experience and can never be proven empirically through experience. In the example of God we can look at nature, the symmetry and harmony of the world as we know it, and so forth, and extrapolate that there must be some creator of all this. Likewise, because this creator could by definition never be known and therefore never be proven He may exist as an Idea of pure reason but also could just as well not exist through other arguments of reason which logically sound. Therefore God can only ever exist to us as an idea and that idea can both be true and false simultaneously.
>>24765146The judgement "A white lie is not a lie" is true in the strictest sense of the word, but not true in a broader sense.
>>24764317Doesn't the presupposition of a reality behind "appearances" and the idea that the relationship between the two cannot be known amount to a metaphysical thesis?
>>24765178He doesn’t describe the thing in itself as a separate reality he uses it as a boundary.By Kant’s definition noumenon are unknowable in the strictest sense.When you see or think of an apple it has qualities; color, shape, size, weight, smell, taste, touch, sound, etc.You are only able to apprehend it in this way, as phenomena, as representation apprehended by the sensibilities. You can not know an apple as it is in itself.
>>24765163It's a poorly formed statement then, which doesn't clearly state its arena.A statement can be true with one set of definitions, but if you change the definitions it can become untrue. That isn't really very shocking.The definition you have changed here is "lie". In the strict definition it means a statement that is false. In your broader definition it means a statement that is maliciously deceitful. A white lie is defined as a lie that is not malicious. It's just word games to say that that is an example of a statement that is both true and untrue.
>>24765127this demonstrates that metaphysical theses can be represented as true and false, but that indicates, for Kant, a limit to the credibility of metaphysical representations, not an actually contradictory case inherent in the phenomenal world.>>24763992hmm, well, not quite. in hegel the simultaneity of theses is a historical, today we would say political, rather than a metaphysical case of contradiction. history itself has lead Spirit to a stage of contradictory consciousness that needs to recognize itself and evolve.
>>24765246>You can not know an apple as it is in itselfthis is a misleading simplification, a better simplification of Kantianism would be to say that there is nothing to know about the apple per se, because there's nothing per se that can be represented, i.e., be known. nothing can be known per se. the in itself is the end of what can be known. and hegelism is just taking this "end" in the full aristotelian sense, emphasizing finality.read it again>nothing can be known per seeverything here depends on how you read this statement.
>>24765582It has nothing to do with the phenomenal world as far as the idea is contained in itself which is what Kant developed his entire system for - to distinguish between what is knowable what is left to pure reason.A great deal of this book is spent arguing against taking the conclusions one arrives at through reason and then imposing them upon the phenomenal world without empirical support as dogmatists like Leibniz did.
>>24765595>It has nothing to do with the phenomenal world as far as the idea is contained in itselfyes that's more or less what i've said. people take kantianism to be a kind of solipsism, or at least an intersubjective idealism, because they feel the limit placed on representation by CPR is too strict to remain realistic. the appeal of Hegelism is that it accepts "noumenality" may turn out to be a shrinking field. That doesn't mean its a correct reading of the actual argument of the CPR. As you said, "it has nothing to do with the phenomenal world." But that nothing has substance according to some 20th century lines of thought
>>24765589I'm pretty sure Kant makes a distinction early on in the Cirtique on how objects are known to us through appearances and therefore impossible to know in and of themselves but that an immediate knowledge of things as they are in themselves would be possible to a divine intellect, though he doesn't use that term specifically.
>>24765618divine, ie not temporal, ie not empirical, ie never given in evidence, ergo speculative, ergo whose to say, ie antinomical.
>>24765626100%
yeah but so the realization that kantianism is just common sensical can feel crushing after oh say 700 pages but it opens the gate to the pristine temple of Encyclopedia Logic
