Let's talk about the thing in itself and how every single fucking time someone mentions the "thing in itself" they reveal that they either have never read Kant or approached him with so many pre-conceptions that they absolutely failed to grasp the fundamental aims of his project.Kant is absolutely not some kind of phenomena-noumena "dualist" that posits that there is a world "out there" being "filtered" through sensibility. Noumena is purely a LIMITING CONCEPT on human cognition. It is NOT an "entity" or "world" "out there" that the human mind posits as "causing" our intuitions and Kant never implies it is such. Furthermore, you cannot attack Kant on the basis that the concept of the thing-in-itself is self contradictory, because Kant never naively posits the thing-in-itself as something that exists "out there" that causes our intuitions. The thing-in-itself is the CONCEPT of something not intuited via sensibility. It is not something objectively posited which our sensibility then "filters."If you don't understand this basic fact, you should not be permitted to discuss anything when it comes to philosophy. If you have ever seen anyone describe Kant as claiming that the world is "filtered" through sensibility and categories, then please dismiss EVERYTHING that person has ever said about philosophy.>I call a conception problematical which contains in itself no contradiction, and which is connected with other cognitions as a limitation of given conceptions, but whose objective reality cannot be cognized in any manner. The conception of a noumenon, that is, of a thing which must be cogitated not as an object of sense, but as a thing in itself (solely through the pure understanding), is not self-contradictory, for we are not entitled to maintain that sensibility is the only possible mode of intuition. Nay, further, this conception is necessary to restrain sensuous intuition within the bounds of phenomena, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensuous cognition; for things in themselves, which lie beyond its province, are called noumena for the very purpose of indicating that this cognition does not extend its application to all that the understanding thinks. But, after all, the possibility of such noumena is quite incomprehensible, and beyond the sphere of phenomena, all is for us a mere void; that is to say, we possess an understanding whose province does problematically extend beyond this sphere, but we do not possess an intuition, indeed, not even the conception of a possible intuition, by means of which objects beyond the region of sensibility could be given us, and in reference to which the understanding might be employed assertorically. The conception of a noumenon is therefore merely a limitative conception and therefore only of negative use. But it is not an arbitrary or fictitious notion, but is connected with the limitation of sensibility, without, however, being capable of presenting us with any positive datum beyond this sphere.
you want to be smart so badly
>>25374111Sounds like projection. I made this thread solely to correct peoples misinterpretation of Kant. I have no other motive.
>>25374111go away, let OP get it out of his systemI don't like Kant and I think I'm one of the people who set him off, but to call the man stupid is absurd. He's clearly got a lot of gear-grinding going on upstairs and you sound like a jealous person that feels the need to put others down in order to maintain self-image.
Boy that critic thread really pissed in your cheerios.
>>25374118
>>25374108is this fichteanon trying to bait esoterik kantanon again?
>>25374108>Noumena is purely a LIMITING CONCEPT on human cognition. Only in the negative sense>you cannot attack Kant on the basis that the concept of the thing-in-itself is self contradictory, because Kant never naively posits the thing-in-itself as something that exists "out there" that causes our intuitionsHe does in the sense that we must apply the category of causality to it insofar as we are to think anything at all. Whether in itself it has causality is moot point from the Kantian standpoint—but we must THINK of it as having causality as noumena in the positive.
>>25374245*as noumena in the positive sensedamn my dystypia
The Goblin of Konisberg
What the hell happened to the /lit/ Kant culture? These threads used to run into the hundreds of replies. There were three or four hardcore kantians always arguing, Kant memes, like ten Kant threads a day. /lit/ sucks now.
I just had the notion that contradicting all that OP says with random bullshit I made up would be really funny, but I won't do it I guess
>>25374426*short king
>>25374108Does it make sense to ask whether the thing-in-itself actually exists?I'm still reading Kant but I've had this question for a while. Reason could be limited with nothing beyond that limit, no?
>>25374108Aristotle, Descartes and Hume are as prerequisites as Kant and Fichte to Hegel and as Hegel to Engel&Marx and Moses-dick-sucking Hess.
The only positive application is to say noumena can't be thought of. The easy route is to say substance can be turned concept but the categories don't support this.>the PSR is technically a contradiction >m-m-muh schopie!>m-m-muh clarity >m-m-muh post-schopenhauerism is just realizing shit evolves?!Yes. Welcome to Nietzsche and Hegel either way. There are anti-natalist threads here for you if this is too much too fast.
in a sense isn't the purpose of noumena just propaedeutic for the illusory nature of dialectic? also doesn't Hegelian chemism basically establish that ideas which would grasp a noumenon still interact with though?
>>25374445you best start believing lit has Kant threads, you're in one
>>25374540Yes, as Kant said in the quote you cannot rule out possibility that there are other modes of intuition. But I would also agree that you don’t have to actually posit it as existing to lit reason, only the possibility of it.
>>25374108Neti neti, mein Hitla.
