esoterik kantianism literature thread
LLM general: the thread
>>25284194kys
>We cannot employ an a priori conception with certainty, until we have made a transcendental deduction thereof. The ideas of pure reason do not admit of the same kind of deduction as the categories. But if they are to possess the least objective validity, and to represent anything but mere creations of thought (entia rationis ratiocinantis), a deduction of them must be possible. This deduction will complete the critical task imposed upon pure reason
I think the key to understanding Kant is realizing how radically anti-metaphysical he is. This is difficult because the philosophical lexicon he inherited is so metaphysical. Another esoteric Kantian here got me into Wolff and while I like the guy I think this is why his reading is wrong. He misunderstands Marx in a similar way.
>>25284222>I think the key to understanding Kant is realizing how radically anti-metaphysical he is.the complete opposite really>our criticism is the necessary preparation for a thoroughly scientific system of metaphysics
Has anyone read “ Kant: A Revolution in Thinking”? If so, how good of a book is it in terms of properly describing kant?
>>25284254This is an illustration of my point. He uses the word metaphysics but with a radically altered meaning. If you can’t grasp the nature of this shift you can’t understand any western philosophy after Kant. Kant both criticizes the possibility of transcending experience and yet seems to offer a theory that is guilty of just this. Was he a retard? No, but you need to figure out how this circle is squared to understand him. This requires active reading and independent thought; you need to dive into the apparent contradictions and absurdities of the first Critique and reconcile them. This is not easy but esoteric Kantians know it is rewarding; this is what Fichte, Schelling, Hegel all did. The Critique of Pure Reason is an acorn that grew into the world we inhabit now and is still growing.
>>25284273>He uses the word metaphysics but with a radically altered meaning.The Metaphysics of Nature and Morals>to carry out my plan of elaborating the Metaphysics of Nature as well as of Morals, in confirmation of the correctness of the principles established in this Critique of Pure Reason, both Speculative and PracticalIt's still metaphysics though: systematic synthetic a priori knowledge—but critical because the pure a priori concepts are deduced and not dogmatically presupposed. It's still metaphysics, but critical instead of dogmatic.
>>25284301We might have to agree to disagree. The CPR is so broken that there are multiple paths to interpret it. I think we can both agree that the reason it IS broken, and needs such interpretation, is that Kant is writing at the edge of the limits of language. When Kant talks about being 'critical' I think this means something more than, 'my system is well-grounded unlike all the others'. As I said earlier, how can you talk about deducing pure a priori concepts and, at the same time, deny the possibility of transcending phenomenal experience? I think this is a soluble problem and that's part of the fun of Kant. It's like, 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'
>>25284182Has anyone formulated even a marginally coherent notion of what esoteric Kantianism is or are we just posting the moodboard and Kant with a wizard hat again.
>>25284460>how can you talk about deducing pure a priori concepts and, at the same time, deny the possibility of transcending phenomenal experience?because 1) they're not concepts in the normal sense: they're types of mental activity, and 2) the deduction itself shows they are necessary for experience, consequently valid in all experience, but not valid beyond possible experience.
>>25284549To 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. Exoterically 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 a priori principles.
>>25284549We used to dunk on OP on the regular for not understanding Kant and having an incoherent methodology but he proved immune to the constant humiliations and now we just let him sperg in peace.
>>25284549There is no way to read Kant intelligently except esoterically. The exoteric surface ('whoah, dude, what if, like, my brain created reality') does not even make sense and is also not particularly interesting. Any scholar or philosopher who engages with Kant is going beneath that crude surface in one way or another.
>>25284271Haven't read it but I will say the Short Introduction to Kant by Roger Scruton is really good. He studied all the major idealists and it shows in his interpretation.
>>25284566You can't talk about conditions for experience without, at least apparently, going beyond experience. A condition is prior to its conditioned. Again though I think this problem is soluble but I don't think referring to concepts as 'mental activities' actually fixes anything. Are these mental activities experienced or not? If they're experienced, they are conditioned by the transcendental conditions, whatever those might be. If they're beyond experience, we could not know anything about them.
>>25284574So its bargain bin German idealism? Go read Fichte/Schelling/Hegel instead of posting Kant with a hat.
>>25284605It's frustrating as shit how glib Kant is on this issue. "I have reason, it's right there in front of me, therefore I can examine it. Duh."
>>25284608Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are esoterik kantians. This is canon. Are you all newfags?
>>25284605They are logically prior to experience, not temporally prior—coexistent even. We have concepts of these mental acts over and above these acts: there is the synthetic activity of causality, for example, and the abstract concept of that represent by english sign 'causality'. Kant infers them from the logical functions of judgment which ARE observable, that is, in an expanded sense (inner sense) empirical. The transcendental, by definition, is not empirical, and hence Kant IS (and openly) doing metaphysics, a transcendental psychology even, but he is critical in that unlike the dogmatic metaphysics, he grounds this dogmatic metaphysics on this transcendental psychology, which we might today call philosophy of mind.
Crowley was an esoterik kantian.
>>25284254I’ve seen altered states more than 80 times, ama
>>25284993In a sense, you can call Kantian philosophy, the metaphysics of the unconscious, the night-side of natural science, die Nachtseite der Naturwissenschaft.
>>25285078I only saw it once and it was great.
>>25284626well, i mean he's right, the givenness of reason is not really different from the givenness of the senses—it's just- there, so to speak. Even, the unity of apperception* is just there, is just given.*which is wierd because it's transcendental, consequently, not empirical, and is yet observable. Who would affirm that they are not conscious of being one person, instead of, say, two or three or half a person?
My Method for Becoming an Esoteric Kantian:I would consider myself as someone who truly and deeply understands the Kantian philosophy. I can confidently debate it among learned peers. I achieved this with my unconventional study method. I buy a six pack of beer, something European, I found Carlsberg best. Then I drink while reading the Transcendental Deduction and Schematism repeatedly until I finish all six beers. This is reading while drinking, not drinking while reading. This is the key. This takes around two hours for me. After finishing I stop reading completely. I would put on a Tarkovsky film, or wander aimlessly in the night while chain-smoking. This gives the mind time to rest and recover. While it is important to read the whole book I contend that the deduction and schematism are the heart of the Kantian philosophy. If one knows the deduction then all else follows naturally. One might ask: Does the beer not inhibit one's ability to understand? Yes, but this is the only safe way to approach the critical philosophy. Oven mitts impair one's dexterity when baking, yet we would be all the more impaired without them. It is far too dangerous to read Kant while not slightly inebriated. Of course beyond six beers one will receive no benefit. The chief benefit of the six beers method is that one does not cease reading at the moment of epiphany rather one ceases at the moment of exhaustion. It is all too easy to feel as though one understands, but through my method one will allow a deeper understanding to come to them of its own accord. I recommend that you do this a couple nights a week for a month or so and enlightenment will follow.
>>25284574LLM bot
>>25284218>starry heavens above me
>>25285160stfu retard that is my superb hand typed post.
>>25285159checks out
>>25285160zoomtards truly cannot grasp the idea that, yes, prior to LLMs, actual humans effortposted from time to time, and sometimes even wrote books. this is unfathomable to them.
>>25285185>>25285173Calm down, samefag. You keep spamming and seething, you might run out tokens for your llmslop.
>>25285192
>>25284580>We used to dunk on OP on the regular for not understanding Kantthat would first require that you understood him, as well as me.
>>25285159I like your method. I think it could work very well. I prefer to read Kant sober; I realize this is dangerous but I'm a reckless person. Generally I, like you, turn to the A and B deductions as the core of the text. Needless to say I read the whole thing cover to cover about once a year but I also read it piecemeal in the mean time. After reading for an hour or two I drink a 12-pack of beer and shitpost on /lit/, punctuated with a walk around the neighborhood. It is during this walk that the awakening occurs, if there is to be any awakening during this session. A combination of arguments here, with contradictions and tensions in the text, resolves itself in a flash of transcendental insight.
>>25285078qrd?
>>25285219Not him, though I'll chime in. Altered States explores the idea of atavism in a bio-temporal sense. In the film this is triggered by the use of isolation tanks/sensory deprivation. While it would be unwise and impossible for me to explain here fully, I can say that in Kant's writings there are hints to strange temporal phenomena and esoteric history. Hegel detected the 'historical' elements in Kant's philosophy, but for a more sci-fi version stripped of Christian and Aristotlean influences there is also Deleuze and Guattari's theory of history in the latter half of Anti-Oedipus. It gives a unified account beginning with natural history, going through pre capitalist societies, and culminates in capitalism. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". >Templeton has long asserted the impossibility of empirical time-travel. Since the ego is bound by its own nature to linear-sequentiality (he continues to insist) neither it nor the organism is ever transported through time. Nevertheless, he describes the Critique of Pure Reason as a time-travelling manual, although of ‘another kind’. He uses Kant's system as a guide for engineering time-synthesis. The key is the secret of the Schematism, which – although “an art concealed in the depths of thehuman soul” – concerns only the unutterable Abomenon of the Outside...
>>25285264>he describes the Critique of Pure Reason as a time-travelling manual
>>25284218>Apperception (eidetic), Notional, positive holos 'analytic' to the True Infinite, or Good, what equally and antipodally Is and must Be with Absolute certainty>Apprehension (physis, contingent conceptual aggregates), Conceptual, negative, determinate negation bounded to & by alterity/difference 'synthetic' bridging of the Subject's Weltschauung & intention, and the World at large, what OughtThe Absolute Finite of the Person has metaphysical contrapuntal correlary.
>>25284566There are truth claims that oblige performative contradiction were they to be denied. We cannot deny our presence or others', and ultimately a proof of God is at the end of that road (e.g. Essentia Foundation Physicists disavowing materialism in various ways and from myriad disciplinary backgrounds converging in their worldview).
>>25284574>Pure (Notion) vs. Mixed (Conception)We as Subjects are not the only entities of this type (being not principally or primarily physical beings/a body), conscious or objective.
>>25285338go on...
>>25285099>The Dark Ground of Spirithttps://youtu.be/UkVs-Iua2AI?si=Xgv9JURYcCSvGuNohttps://youtu.be/WZlHxKP75N0?si=nshb4UHuVmVshac8
>>25285159>Symposium maxxing
>>25285264>The key is the secret of the Schematism, which – although “an art concealed in the depths of the>human soul” – concerns only the unutterable Abomenon of the Outside.Neo-Weimar arrives from the future.
>>25285303anon, what means this?
>>25285320Can any anon make sense of this post? The densest philosophies can be glossed; even Hegel has a “gist”. Make it make sense.
>>25285423For (You)
>>25285421Yeah these threads have a way of degenerating into low IQ schizobabbling. It’s much easier to be a schizo than it is to understand German idealism.
>>25285379thanks, especially for the first one.
>>25285426Ok that’s actually fucking funny. You have convinced me you are not a mere bot or schizo troll.
>>25284549>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.
>>25284549HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT FICHTE?
>>25285446Yeah I can’t help myself man. He’s just so cool and underrated and I want to tell people about him, popping into any philosophy thread to give Fichte’s take. But alas, “the average man would rather be a piece of lava on the moon than an Ich”. I’m in love with Fichte - not in a gay way but even so.
>>25285264>AbomenonDu kannst Esperanto?
>>25285471No lol I was just jerkin yer chain there fella
>>25285472alles klar
>>25285219It’s incredible in a way that’s hard to describe. The religious metaphor is slathered on thick like spackle, and generally what I love about it is the contempt for the material Ken Russell (director) had. The writer was a famous crabby Irish TV writer and this was his passion project and interfered to the point that he was banned from the set. And ultimately Ken Russell decides to do things like have 3 characters all say their dialogue at the same time instead of it happening one line at a time. The last thing that makes it great is that, had it came out a few years later, it would have been saddled with lots of cheesy computer generated fx - the high budget practical effects are endearingly janky. Plus it has the lowest stakes ever, a narcissist doctor slamming drugs until he almost poofs himself out of existence, but it’s played like something that would shake the earth itself. There are many time skips and smash cut editing choices too, which make the plot murky and hard to follow in its entirety
when it is clear, it is obscure.
>>25285482and the alien goat jesus thing, the turning into a monke thing
>>25285444Blessed post. Normies think the Kantian esotericism is simply anodyne agnosticism and humanism. “The moral proof for the existence of God doesn’t even make sense!” I would say Kant is on the edge of language in what he says and I can’t do justice to it in a 4chan post while mostway through a 12 pack but Fichte is the only one of the three who understood it. I think Schelling and Hegel are, not stupid people, but stupid readers of Kant for sure. Schelling actually is fucking stupid desu. Fichte understood the radical theological and political implications of Kant. He was an anarchist and a communist; he is the only one of the three who radically criticized liberalism and capitalism and saw through them - as a staunch idealist, not a materialist. And he was not a political hatchetman, or even a social theorist like Marx, but a speculative theologian of the highest caliber. And he had a fat body DEAL WITH IT SHITLORD.
What are some examples of Esoteric Kantian literature? I would put forth Algernon Blackwood's Ancient Sorceries as one example. Lacan famously said that Sade was a Kantian, anyone have thoughts on that? Is Goethe's Faust an esoteric Kantian text? How about Hesse?
>>25285572yes all esoteric kantian. picrel is preeminent example.
>>25285572Fichte would say the Bible itself is esoteric Kantianism except for the Jewish parts. This is not one view among others it is a meta-view, that’s why people cream their pants when they see it. Also, Fichte was not an antisemite.
>>25285572look up T. K. Oesterreich
>>25285611Shut up retard
>>25284182we made it into a Medium article and none of you faggots told me???
ARISE FOR SKRITCHES, PAX TIBI
Naval gazing thread
>>25285804that's two articles bros. we are cooking.
>>25285820>naval
>>25285808PAX TIBI
>>25285829and you brother
>>25285804>>25285821How did we grow so powerful?
>>25285821fuck that shit left is true johnsons
>>25284849Wait, what? I never heard of this before.
>>25285804Nice shoop
>>25284182What does me accepting Kants metaphysics entail?in theory would "magic" be real or somthing
>>25286504are you saying it's shopped?
>>25286512Yes, newfag. Lurk more.
>>25286513literally nobody says that, oldfag larpersecond, it's not. it came out 11/5/25https://medium.com/@cadaverminimal/demystifying-channer-culture-f100a6ed6364cope more
>>25286534Nta, shoop as slang for photoshop has been common for almost two decades, urban dictionary's entry is from 2007, learn your lingo bro
>>25286534>newfag>preddit spacingSure is summer ITT
>>25286550kysspacing is based and claritypilled
>>25286544i'm not your bro and nobody uses it anymore. that's not oldfag. that's dinosaurfag talk.
>>25286562>"ur larping as an oldfag">doesn't know shoop>"UHHH THAT DOESN'T COUNT"Lol okay newfag
>>25286565ok old man
>Rajeesh, the llmsloppa spammer newfag, seething over not knowing 4chan lingo>gets called out>doubles down in cope>when not spamming llmsloppa, writes like a dimwitted ESL imitating zoomer muttsSaar, do the needful
>>25286575gayand i'm not indian. holy projection and rent free.
>>25286509in theory, yes
>>25286568>"shoop isn't a word larper">"okay it is but no one uses it anymore">"okay people still use it but that just means they're old because i never done seen nobody use it in a tiktok"Embarrassing mush brain you got there
>>25286633nice bald head you have there old timer
>>25286633thanks for the bumps btw gramps
>>25286534oh shit it is real
>>25284605The definition of transcendental is that [thing that is experienced] could only be the experience if [thing that isn't experienced] was the case. Otherwise there'd be an infinite regress of explanatory causes which leads to the impossibility of knowledge (and therefore experience) but we have experience and knowledge, therefore transcendentals (eternal ideas) are true.
>>25286822>the impossibility of knowledge (and therefore experience)first of all, sophistry.second of all, picrel
>>25287065what a coincidence. I'm receiving his first book of occult philosophy today actually.
>>25287065imagine a post-kantian agrippa
>>25287076i dont need to. post-kantianism is merely the recovery of the art of the renaissance magus. time is a flat circle, as above so below, jovian revival of the melancholic, &c
>>25287071im trying to nail down what edition to seek. i dont need something older than 1900 but i would like a scholarly/synoptic text for the occult philosophy. but you know there's so much pulp in the occult literatures.
>>25287083i just ordered the cheap dover edition of the first book on natural magic. it was like $14. it looks cozy. dover books are usually cozy. i wish they printed all three books.
>>25287086yuck
>>25287106why? i love dover. cheap and super cozy. i'll post pics when it arrives.
>>25287080>post-kantianism is merely the recovery of the art of the renaissance magus.i'm listening
>>25286614What type of magic? could you define it pls
>>25287130no
>>25287108got it. combine with kant right now.
>>25287065qrd?
>>25287083>i would like a scholarly/synoptic text for the occult philosophyyea me too. it's kind of old but maybe Francis Barrett's The Magus?
>>25284182
>>25284273who is the nerdy looking guy in the pic?
>die Erkenntnisse (Apperception & Apprehension) KNOWING>DAS Erkenntnisse (legal useage, supervening) KNOWLEDGE as such.
>>25287932wut mean?
>persons, events, and memory, all knowledge thereof is Kairotic>Naive Empericism is Kronological recollection of the Self for reference against the procession of the Sensibility's theatre of the world is more egregious than the taking The Manifold for granted— The Understanding itself knows before Reason's play and The Knower takes its paths into view.Man is the measure both of all Things, and Time as such. We ourselves are the manifold of and for Creation, and ultimately Revelation— we bear witness to one another with our presence.
