>critic claims philosopher misunderstood concept they literally invented
>>25374068that's how it work sometime
>>25374068>Kant claimed that we can know absolutely nothing about the Thing-in-Itself >Hegel pointed out that by labeling it unknowable Kant was already claiming to know something about its properties
>>25374079The thing in itself is a limiting concept on human cognition. It simply means something that would be intuited without the use of the faculties of sensibility. It isn't some "entity" Kant is positing that he defines by some property it is supposed to possess in itself of "unknowability." It is merely a concept that is well formed within the context of Kant's broader epistemology. Thus, these milquetoast critiques that take it at face value as some general "unknowable" thing absolutely fail.
>>25374079>hurrr we displaced theories of God with theories of material and then took the most well known contradiction about the unknowablity of God's essence and projected it onto an unknowability of the essence of object and in the process generated a corollary that deprives human thought of any possibility of certainty about anything whatsoever All western philosophers from Kant onwards should be lined up and shot, all western philosophical books from Kant onwards should be burnedanyone speaking in their jargon should face harsh punishments like tarring and feathering
>>25374087Without the thing-in-itself I cannot enter Kant's system, but with it I cannot remain :)
>>25374068>critic claims MYANEE
>>25374068Plato did misunderstand the forms somewhat when he tried to apply rigid linguistic definitions to them, which is what led to the plucked chicken incident.
>>25374185Plato never even establishes whether forms of things like "chickens" even exist. If anything, he has a young Socrates consider the idea in Parmenides and then never talk about it again because it was dumb as shit.
