Is God the thing-in-itself?
Once you name it, it becomes a thing, a piece of knowledge, not reality.
Yes, this nigga wrote thousands of pages to explain the simple truth of there being a God, and God being beyond the grasp of human understanding.
>>24820713Sounds like he wasted his time, philosophy can't explain God nor reality.
dumb nyg binged on coffee burning his adrenals should have enema'd it and got to the next level (Swedenborg)
>>24820701It’s pretty simply really. Thing in itself is the stuff that is causing your sensations. A chair is probably a chair but you’ll never know for sure. God could be out there but you’ll never know. He argues that moral duties prove god, the thing in itself isn’t really related to his god.
>>24820701I put my original answer into ChatGPT so it point out any errors since I don’t want to give wrong information if I can help it.No. For Kant, the thing-in-itself (noumenon) lies beyond the bounds of experience and cannot be known or even conceived positively — it is what reality is in itself, independent of our mode of perception. God, by contrast, is not the noumenon but a regulative idea of reason — a necessary postulate that gives unity and purpose to moral law. While speculative reason cannot prove God’s existence, practical reason demands we assume it, since morality presupposes a highest good and a rational order of justice in which virtue and happiness correspond.
>>24820716>You cant explain Karate because you didnt invent itTrve, but also fqlse
>>24820716prove it
>>24820701God is the will, The infinite substance, The mediator between the cause and effects and such and such
Thing-in-itself = pussyKant died a virgin.
>>24820701I've seen Kant mentioned so many times on this board. I don't understand /lit/'s obsession with him. Seriously, what is so great about him? The categorical imperative is a bullshit principle that NO ONE lives by, and transcendental ideality is so esoteric that it holds no real value. Astrophysicists don't believe that space and time are a priori, and I value their opinion far greater than some autistic god-fearing virgin from 250 years ago.Reading Kant is a waste of time.
>transcendental ideality is so esoteric that it holds no real valuehmm
>>24820701No, although the thing-in-itself is the eternal will of God.
>>24820716We cant explain god because he's irrational
>>24822269What a profoundly retarded thing to say
Even if you knew the thing-in-itself, if you could hold it in your hands, what good would it do you? Wouldn't you be crushed by absolute certainty? What is the True Being of an armchair going to reveal to you? Will it get up and start talking in tongues and forgive your sins? People want to rape objects
>>24822253This is the closest answer in the thread I think. Ultimately the Highest is so transcendent we can't know it. Continue OP, you're beginning to leave the cave. God speed
>>24821182>astrophysicists don't believe that space and time are a prioriWhat are you talking about?>is so esoteric that it holds no real value.Ironically there are astrophysicists who at least superficially believe something quite similar. Take John A. Wheeler's participatory anthropic principal for example.
>>24820701No, you are.
>>24821182We care because he burned virtually all Western metaphysics prior to him to the ground and no one has really managed to build something new that everyone accepts. If you don't care about that kind of thing then just don't read him.
>>24820701that's the Forms
>>24822637>the Highest is so transcendent we can't know itThe knowing subject transcends space and time, and the Good transcends the subject. Makes sense that the supreme transcendence of the Good isn't knowable.
