>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows, that all arises out of experience.
>>25193149What does he go on to say when he develops?Who is he combating with that retort? I'd say that even if you can develop more knowledge starting from certain premises, because the premises all are based on experience every knowledge is necessarily *founded* on experience, but he uses the word "arise" so I'm not even sure his system disagrees with what I just said. Is this phrase even matter to controversy?
>>25193156 guess it means that we must start from experience, but it doesnt nessiarily means that everything comes from experience.It is our starting point, but we shouldnt assume it is the start of everything and there is nothing external to it. though we must admit it is where we must start from, so it cannot be proven or disproven that anything is outside of experience.
Esoteric Kantian Coleridge>The few passages that remained obscure to me, after due efforts of thought, (as the chapter on original apperception,) and the apparent contradictions which occur, I soon found were hints and insinuations referring to ideas, which Kant either did not think it prudent to avow, or which he considered as consistently left behind in a pure analysis, not of human nature in toto, but of the speculative intellect alone. He had been in imminent danger of persecution during the reign of the late king of Prussia, that strange compound of lawless debauchery and priest-ridden superstition: and it is probable that he had little inclination, in his old age, to act over again the fortunes, and hair-breadth escapes of Wolf. The expulsion of the first among Kant’s disciples, who attempted to complete his system, from the University of Jena, with the confiscation and prohibition of the obnoxious work by the joint efforts of the courts of Saxony and Hanover, supplied experimental proof, that the venerable old man’s caution was not groundless. In spite therefore of his own declarations, I could never believe, that it was possible for him to have meant no more by his Noumenon, or Thing in itself, than his mere words express; or that in his own conception he confined the whole plastic power to the forms of the intellect, leaving for the external cause, for the materiale of our sensations, a matter without form, which is doubtless inconceivable. I entertained doubts likewise, whether, in his own mind, he even laid all the stress, which he appears to do, on the moral postulates.
I think he makes a distinction between how we come to learn knowledge and how the knowledge is justified. We learn mathematics by reading textbooks, but that knowledge isn't justified by it existing in textbooks.
>>25193699>but that knowledge isn't justified by it existing in textbooks.Because mathematics itself is a priori and what we use in experience is a language that we ourselves created to better understand it. There is still much in mathematics we could benefit to know semiotically but we haven’t created the language for it despite there a priori existing conditions for a far greater deal of it than we can in experience communicate.
>>25193156This quote is a response to Locke's Empiricist doctrine that 'All knowledge comes from experience.' The difference is that with Locke, the mind is a blank slate and so all knowledge can be explained only by looking at how it first came to us through the senses. For Kant though, experience doesn't fully explain itself, and so knowledge needs to be explained both in terms of what comes to us in the senses, and the mind's internal setup.
>dude we actually think in X way because it's built into our minds bro>btw. something else causes our perceptions but no we cannot know what that something is because we just can'tThis lead to the genocide of 60 million Christians.
>>25193156Also yes I think Kant would definitely disagree with what you said because it's quite an Empiricist statement that the bedrock of knowledge is experience. What Kant wants to do is to look at how experience is constituted in the first place, which means looking at how we are able to put sense data together in a way which makes sense, which for him requires the brain to be quite a complex engine. It's definitely still controversial today because most philosophy in the English speaking world, and consequently subjects like Cognitive Science, are founded on Empiricist principles and generally reject or fail to engage with Kant.
>>25193377>in totoI'm going to use this until it's old.
