Esoterik Kantians assemble!honestly i don't know what to talk about today. just felt like making an esoterik kantian. i'm reading fichte's concerning the concept of the wissenschaftslehre if anyone wants to talk about that tho.
>>25416203At this point it's more "esoteric" to actually follow Kant's dialectic of reason and reject primitive metaphysics given how apparently every single follow of Kant wants him to be Fichte. At least Adorno was able to appreciate Kant's tolerance for the non-identical which unfortunately clashed with his need for apodictic certainity.
most embarrassing threads on /lit/ bar none. the fucking worm thread has more value.
>>25416218and yet— here you are...
>>25416215>how apparently every single follow of Kant wants him to be Fichte.wdym? the daemon that inspired kant ended up moving to fichte once he found the more suitable vessel.
>>25416236>I don't want Kant to be Fichte, I just think Kant's soul moved to Fichte because Fichte was a more suitable vessel!yeah, I think you want Kant to be Fichte.
>>25416240i independently arrived at the fichtean standpoint from purely reading kant alone.
>>25416244Good for you.
>>25416240what you must understand is that at the same time kant publicly denied any agreement with fichte's thinking, privately he obviously was following along the development of post-kantian idealists and naturphilosophen as is made clear by his last unfinished magnum opus, the opus postumum where he himself was attempting to build the bridge between the metaphysical foundations of natural and physics, as well as his own selbstsetzungslehre (science of self-POSITing cf. fichte).
>>25416253Post the quote from Opus Postumum where Kant says that the Transcendental Ego imagines reality into existence and posited nature as its antagonist.
>>25416249yes. this hows that there have been at least two identical yet independent developments of kantianism in this same direction, suggesting that fichte's philosophy was kant's philosophy, in it's consistent form, in other words, the esoteric doctrine contained in the whole, obscured by the apparent contradictions of the parts in abstracto that produces the exoteric strawman doctrine.
>>25416203I used to think Esoteric Kantianism was funny when I thought it was just a dumb meme.But then I discovered the guy making those threads was a genuine retard who trie to astroturf his own theory, that was beyond all levels of stupid, and he took it very seriously. It's not funny anymore, just annoying
>>25416258Why do you find it annoying anon?
>>25416258>that was beyond all levels of stupidnotice, they always call it stupid but never say why
>>25416254don't push me anon. i will do it.
So, uh, is Esoteric Kantianism a real thing, or is this like some post-ironic thing? Because I'm seriously not sure anymore.
>>25416463It's pretty serious stuff man.
Swedenborg chads... Seize the thread
DARK KANTIANISMEvil is the utmost extension of the apperceptive faculty— one cannot withhold from the exercise of excessive acts without imagining them and their consequences. Antinomian cruelty and the imagination required to execute on the desire - despite knowing the suffering it incursions - is akin to the judgment thereof by the Good. Why is God silent? There must be space for Absolute Freedom, and such things are antipodally ineffable to Him. He cannot experience or will it it directly. We are integral to the Providential unfolding if Creation in this capacity, as much and more than only being made in the image if the Godhead.
>>25418016bro idgi
>>25418016Rogue KantianismKantianism gone wildKantianism of the NightSinister KantianismBeyond the Pale KantianismCracked KantianismKantianism on KrackMortal KantbatKantel KrackbatEnlightened Kantianismanti-enlightenment KantianismExtreme KantianismKantianism for the Modern AudienceKreepy Krawly Kantianismkek'd KantianismBlack KantianismChaotic Neutral KantianismKantians in the MistApe Mode KantianismKantianism Klassic
>>25418582based and post-kantian pilled
Nietzsche fucking sucks Kantsisters. It’s just edgelord skepticism about morality b/w a denial of free will - gross dogmatism. No real arguments either, just feels. I’ll read a few of these but no way am I wasting months reading his whole corpus. It’s incredible that pseuds think this sort of thing is “philosophy”. That’s all I have to report for this day today.
>>25418686>gross dogmatismThat's you bruh. Filtered.
>>25418686godspeed kantsister
>>25416215>apparently every single follow of Kant wants him to be Fichte.huh?
>>25418708Kant’s followers want him to be Fichte, a guy who provides an all encompassing system that gives you higher knowledge and answers all questions you have about reality. What Kant actually did that made him revolutionary was show that paradox is inherent to thought, that there are certain questions that can never be answered in their very nature. Most people are too mentally weak to accept this uncertainty
>>25418718Fichte and Hegel are basically better and more fun than Kant though, and who doesn't want an all encompassing system really?
>>25418756Just stop claiming that Kant is in line with them.
>>25418764Kant needed them in order to be complete
>>25418768That’s your dogma. It’s not Kant.
>>25418775don't make me bring out the opus postumum
>>25418718Think not that Kant had came to destroy the metaphysics, or the metaphysicians: Kant had not came to destroy, but to fulfil.
>>25418799>>25416254
"...and the further I looked, the more I realized, Kant was not who they made him out to be..."
>>25418828oh you just wait, just wait, you'll see
>>25418819I tip my fedora to you
>>25418939thank you
>>25416254>>25418882
>>25419139>the subject… is… appearance, not thing in itselfFichteanism debunked. Pack it up anons.>The mere representation of one’s own activityYour own activity never actually appears to you, only the representation of it.
>>25419167so, you got filtered by Fichte too?
>>25419167bruh, Fichte did away with the thing in itself—you- you do know that right? right?
>>25419167>The mere representation of one’s own activityThis isn't the own you think it is. He's literally saying, not only is the form of appearance a priori in your mind, but even the content, matter, is just the representation of your own minds activity. This decidedly actually proves esoteric Kant retard right.
>>25420534Nah. Kant is only talking about the subject’s representation of itself having the material element of itself, in self awareness. This doesn’t imply that any other empirical content coming from nature is generated by the subject. There the material element cannot be generated by the subject. It would contradict Kant’s entire work and if he actually ever implied that we would have to assume it was some kind of mistake
>>25420575>It would contradict Kant’s entire worksmfh, not contradict, rectify
nothing will make kant not boring
>>25420594>rectifylmao, just say that you reject the critique of pure reason
>>25420575>This doesn’t imply that any other empirical content coming from nature is generated by the subject.what is the content, the matter of experience, if not sensation? Kant is saying that THAT matter, i.e., sensation, is the representation of one's own activity.
>>25420598smfh again.Kant himself says:>he who undertakes to judge, or still more, to construct a system of metaphysics, must satisfy the demands here made, either by adopting my solution, or by thoroughly refuting it, and substituting another. To evade it is impossible.I'm literally just following his instructions
>>25420604Huh? If sensation is here taken to include colors, sounds, objects in nature, etc then no Kant is not saying in that quote that those things are the representations of the subject’s own activity. That quote is specifically talking about a theory of the subject positing ITSELF as an object. I asked for a quote from Opus Postumum where Kant says the subject could posit nature and no such quote has been provided.
>>25420629you are not understanding, everything IN SPACE IS part of itself.
>>25420634Not sure what you’re trying to say. anyway here’s what the cambridge introduction says about it
>>25420636>secondary litbruh read the text itself
>>25420597that's a (you) problem.
>>25416203I choose you, Johann Georg Hamann!"EnlightenmentardsarefuckingstupidHamann"
>>25420655he suppose say his name in a funny way like "char charmander" or "squirtle squirtle" like that
>>25420636>the concept of the thing in itself is MERELY a thought object
Here Kant accepts the Fichtean concept of apperception as INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG
"orthodox" kantianism is so cooked. we are breaking through. post-kantian kant!!!!!!!!!
The subject is the thing in itself. Kant has transgressed experience, but in the form of a metaphysics of the necessary operations of the mind underlying both the object of inner and outer sense, i.e., the phenomenal self as object, and the external world of nature.
*jaw drops*
THE ETHERTHE ETHERTHE ETHER
What level of autism would you guys say they this guy is?
>>25420647>read aristotle>not bored>read kant>boredergokant is the problem
>>25420774>be me>be read kant>be find it awesome badass schizo shitergoit's a (you) problem
>>25420784it's just linguistic autismpredicates, synthetic vs analytic statements blah blah who cares
>>25420788cope
>it builds its own body and even that body's dwelling place:0
Well, at least we can contain him in here instead of him shitting up the entire board with Kant threads like before.
wissenschaftlehrlingsgesellschaft
>resident kant lolcow>reads the translated versionstupidest board by far, never forget
>>25420876you're only as stupid as you feel
>>25420658Hamann, use anti-rationalistic witicism!"HAMAAAAANN!"
>>25420876>tries to bait me>doesn't know that's how i ended up getting into kant in the first place
>>25420881lmfao
>>25420878>>25420884thanks for replying twicelets do a test, summarize>>25420815in your own words and elaborate on what (you) get out of it
>>25420890When Kant says that the the soul is the immaterial moving principle, this is analogous, if not identical, with the spontaneity of the mind. The mind is active, it acts, upon the (supposedly passive) matter of experience. As world soul, or universal mind, it creates both its body (as material) as an inner sanctuary of an outer temple (the world) wherein it can act, when it performs its universal acts (understood under categories) with literally construct the both the inner and outer world of the subject of experience.
>>25421112Are you saying that the conditions of cognition are themselves the deepest metaphysical structures of reality?
>>25421254NTA, but what I've gotten out this whole thing is that Critique of Pure Reason is not the end of metaphysics but its purification. The transcendental structures disclosed by critique are themselves the deepest structures of reality. Logic is generated from self-positing activity rather than presupposed. Imagination is the productive power through which worlds become manifest. German Idealism is an unfinished speculative tradition whose concealed trajectory points toward a rational esotericism in which reason and mystical insight are reconciled rather than opposed. Philosophy is therefore not merely analysis, but initiation into the conditions of absolute self-consciousness.
>>25421272Forget this bourgeois mysticism anon, Kant points toward revolution. Scientific self-consciousness means knowing that you’re not an atomized individual, you’re part of a transcendental network of recognition that encompasses the entire world (the kingdom of ends), and you’re all being screwed and oppressed. Do something about it (non-violent ofc). Kantianism is about the priority of the practical - not the priority of thinking about the practical. Hegel is the one who babbles about “muh speculation” but he was a dirty little dogmatist. Just look at this guy. He looks like a high school choir teacher who gets busted for sucking off his students. For Kant freedom is about furthering the interests of humanity; for Hegel it’s merely “being at home in otherness”. Kant’s practical philosophy says you should definitely NOT feel “at home”, you need to struggle into infinity for what’s right.
>bourgeois mysticismhow do I already know
>>25421300know what?
>>25421377need I explain myself to a pleb?
>>25421379why yes, how did you know?
stop bullying esotroonic kantretard we don't want him to rope too soon
>>25416274The og spammer had a theory about Kant leaving hints on how the noumena could be known by becoming both autist and schizophrenic. It's pretty fucking obvious why is laughable.
kantsisters any good soul willing to slap me with a priori link to opus postumum in epub? i hate pdfs
>>25422047no. you will use pdf and you will like it.
>>25420858wissenschaftslehrelehrlingsgesellschaft
>>25421825i don't see the obviousness. explain.
>>25421825That was the same guy, and it was nowhere near as retarded as when he used AI to help him write explanations of his “system” of esoteric Kantianism, which included the claim that empirical facts could be intuited a priori purely through the power of imagination
>>25422243
>>25422243>the claim that empirical facts could be intuited a priori purely through the power of imaginationIf I recall correctly it was moreso that a priori science made empirical investigation redundant since all empirically discovered propositions could already be known a priori with apodeictic certainty through pure reason alone. Truth be told, I'm still waiting for him to deliver on his claims.
>>25422199wissenschaftsgelehrtegesellschaft
>>25422243He was a twitter now. Someone posted it in one of philosophy generals a while back.
>In the science of knowledge the Ego is represented; but from this it does not follow that the Ego is represented as merely representing; for other determinations of the Ego may be discovered in it. The Ego as philosophizing subject is undoubtedly merely representing; but the Ego as object of the philosophizing may be something more.-Fichte, CCW §7>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.- S.T. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria Vol.1 Ch.9
>>25422430He's talking about acting anon, praxis. The way you take these quotes out of context and interpret them in the most idiotic, faux-mystick way possible is highly annoying; the entire movement is uneasy at best with religion and openly hostile to mysticism, starting with Kant. And Coleridge is talking about atheism and humanism in that quote not sekrit mystickism. You think mystickism is interesting but it actually isn't, this is some 9th grade shit. Grow up.
>>25422430at last, I truly see
>>25422436So you haven't read Coleridge either? ok. major glowie vibes, or maybe just plain hylic, that's always a possibility too.
>>25422455The federal government has no interest in trolling mystick stoners on 4chan. If anything it is in the interest of the powers that be for German idealism to be interpreted as some sort of world-denying, mystick Hermeticism. Also you've been posting the same handful of quotes for a long time and I'm starting to doubt whether you've actually read any of these books.
>>25422464low level glowie tricks
>>25422491>German idealism is a deeply political philosophical movement with its exponents running the gamut from Jacobinism to full communism, though they often hid their more radical political beliefs under the form of metaphysics. By a creative and novel examination of the human condition and the relation of thought to reality, these thinkers attempted to overcome dogmatism - oppressive, abstract thought-systems which threatened to reduce man to an object. They also thought deeply and critically about the nature of modernity and the enlightenment and their insights are still relevant today.>NOOOOO! IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HAVE MAGIC TELEPATHIC POWERS!!!! IT'S ABOUT THEURGY AND NECROMANCY!!!!!! HEGEL WAS A SORCERER!!!!!!!!!!!
>>25422505>deeply political philosophical movement with its exponents running the gamut from Jacobinism to full communism, though they often hid their more radical political beliefs under the form of metaphysics.unbelievable levels of cope>>NOOOOO! IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HAVE MAGIC TELEPATHIC POWERS!!!! IT'S ABOUT THEURGY AND NECROMANCY!!!!!! HEGEL WAS A SORCERER!!!!!!!!!!!postironically
>>25422436>Coleridge is talking about atheism and humanism in that quote not sekrit mystickism.Coleridge was literally a Romantic (literally the exact opposite of humanist and atheist) you absolute fucking dotard
>>25422523Yeah I was wrong about Coleridge. I got carried away. Still you're more retarded on the overall.>hurrr wut iz Schwaermerei>hurrrrr durrrrr wut iz TheosophyWith the singular exception of Schelling all of the German idealists were openly opposed to mysticism and they don't even make a secret of it. I can give you quotes in all of their writings where they criticize the idea of sekrit mystick knowledge.>The same typic guards also against the mysticism of practical reason, which turns what served only as a symbol into a schema, that is, proposes to provide for the moral concepts actual intuitions, which, however, are not sensible (intuitions of an invisible Kingdom of God), and thus plunges into the transcendent.I don't have access to my book but also in part 3 of Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre he criticizes mysticism in his characteristically harsh way, pretty sure it's in a footnote shouldn't be hard to find. They ALL. FUCKING. HATED. MYSTICISM. And spooky irrational shit in general. Deal with it.
>>25422547>They ALL. FUCKING. HATED. MYSTICISM. And spooky irrational shit in general.Yes, if you mean by mysticism spooky irrational shit, but, that's not what they mean. It's not, in principle irrational, only contingently not understood. That's their whole spiel. They are fully rationalists in the sense that they believe the world is rational. Mysticism just means requiring inititation, i.e., you can't just willy nilly understand it, but it requires a prequisite attaining of a new standpoint separating the initiates from the unitiated. That initation is the knowledge attained through philosophy itself, i.e., the gradual that unlocking of the mystery, which is exactly what german idealism is. but your tiny brain can't think outside the box of your fixed prejudice that mysticism = irrational. you just have know idea what mysticism is.
>>25422547>Yeah I was wrong about Coleridgeand about everything else
>>25422547>Yeah I was wrong about Coleridge. I got carried away.lmfao he had to ask ChatGPT real quick only to find out he got self-owned
>>25422601>They are fully rationalists in the sense that they believe the world is rational. Mysticism just means requiring inititation, i.e., you can't just willy nilly understand it, but it requires a prequisite attaining of a new standpoint separating the initiates from the unitiated. That initation is the knowledge attained through philosophy itself, i.e., the gradual that unlocking of the mystery, which is exactly what german idealism is.Show me where Kant or Fichte talk about philosophy as an initiation. Kant actually consistently attacks the idea that philosophy is "special" knowledge, for example in the Groundwork he says his categorical imperative is not meant to go beyond a common sense understanding of ethics, and in the preface to the CPR he thinks common people do not need to study philosophy (i.e. it's not some super special higher stance, they're not really missing something by not knowing it, it's only for the minority who need it). Fichte says the same thing in his 'Crystal Clear Account' - philosophy is not some privileged sekrit special knowledge for based initiates. The position you're shilling is simply not accurate, you're taking random quotes and notions out of context to create this fantastical head canon. What's infuriating to me is that you think this somehow makes German idealism more interesting when, to anyone older than 13, it just looks retarded.
>>25422680Read Chalybäus.>But by far the greatest difficulty lies undoubtedly in the subject itself. The latest school [German Idealism] has expressly characterized its philosophy as an ESOTERIC SCIENCE [emphasis added], which would at all times remain confined to the narrow circle of the initiated; yea more, which is also intended to be solely confined to them, inasmuch as what constitutes it philosophy is, that it does not lay aside the veil which is impervious to the eye of the unitiated-- its scientific garb.
>>25422698Why would I read a secondary like that (and a very poorly regarded one too) when I've already read all the primaries and know what these philosophers were saying?
>>25422714poorly regarded by who? you? lol ok
Does anyone have that goblin Kant plays cosmic chess with (You) in space meme? I've been looking for it for years. It looks like this but with goblin Kant in lieu of Pepe.
Ok I rate this thread 8/10
>>25423015>>25423014>>25422745>>25422698>>25422601>>25422509Idiot.
>>25422680>Show me where Kant or Fichte talk about philosophy as an initiation.>Fichte says the same thing in his 'Crystal Clear Account' - philosophy is not some privileged sekrit special knowledge for based initiates. The position you're shilling is simply not accurate------------------------------------smfh, there is a knowledge that cannot be taught, but can only be suggested: self-knowledge that that cannot (by it's very nature) be taught by another. You cannot reach a person how to be aware of themselves: you either already are, or spontaneously become, conscious of yourself—you cannot be made conscious just by teaching, but requires the only really sufficient of spontaneous enlightenment. It is not a fact to be learned, but something that must be intuited first to be concieved. German idealism is only esoteric when you have not crossed the bridge connecting the esoteric to the exoteric, i.e., that which leads you into the inner circle of understanding, or becoming enlightened, and which is nothing other than the gradual learning, or thinking through or reasoning through, of the whole system itself, through its various stages or grades. The first initiation is the first critique.literally Fichte:>They certainly will not deny that every science and every art presupposes certain primary rudiments, which must first be acquired before we can enter into the science or art. “But,” say they, “if you only require a knowledge of the rudiments, why do you not teach them to us, if we lack them? Why do you not place them before us definitely and systematically? Is it not your own fault if you plunge us at once in medias res, and require the public to understand you before you have communicated the rudiments?” I reply: that is exactly the difficulty! These rudiments cannot be systematically forced upon you—they cannot be taught to you by compulsion! In one word, they are a knowledge which we can get only from ourselves. Everything depends upon this, that by the constant use of freedom, with clear consciousness of this freedom, we should become thoroughly conscious and enamored of this our freedom.
>>25423101He’s not talking about a mystick insight he’s talking about a sense of freedom. “Look he’s talking about a precondition… must be magic lol!” I’ve honestly met cats and dogs that were smarter than you.
>>25423099>idiot
>>25423103>he’s talking about a sense of freedomthat is the mystic insight you absolute dummkopf
>>25423109And here we reach the final stage of the retard’s cycle - claim that perfectly ordinary things like a sense of freedom are ackshually esoteric Rosicrucian mysticism.
>>25423114holy npc. hilarious self own. i've literally never seen anything like it. some might say its the greatest self own ever seen.
>>25423114
>>25423114It's esoteric. You... wouldn't get it.
>>25423117>The error of the mystics is that they represent the infinite, which cannot be attained at any time, as something that can be attained in time. The complete annihilation of the individual and the fusion of the latter with the absolutely pure form of reason, or God, is indeed the ultimate goal of finite reason; but it is not possible at any time.Idiot. Pic very related if your German is even good enough to understand it.
>>25423014IIRC it was based on this goblin Kant.
>>25423014This one actually.
>>25423136Note how huge his brain is in comparison with his mouth. With you, I’m afraid, the relation is just the reverse.
>>25423130Again that's not the own you think it is. The goal is to rule over time rather than let time rule over you, to lord OVER time. Of course you won't do that IN time—you have to go beyond time to achieve that ultimate goal of finite reason. I actually agree, and my thinking is consistent with, this Fichte quote. I just see something in it you do not.
>>25423144Bro it’s bedrock to Kantian-Fichtean thought that we can’t escape the form of time. You’re talking like a dirty little Hegelian dogmatist. There’s no grand reconciliation, no heaven or hell, only eternal struggle. Pic related, a struggle session. That’s what we’re gonna do to you in the coming Fichtean socialist state. I’m the guy on the right. Your bourgeois mysticism will be ruthlessly purged.
>>25423156first of all: gaysecond: >it’s bedrock to Kantian-Fichtean thought that we can’t escape the form of timeonly exoterically
>>25423161Hey man if it’s “gay” to ritually humiliate other men in public in highly sexualized ways and braid their hair while you do it then I guess I’m gay.
>>25423167i'm glad we can agree
>>25423143Silence, benighted pickle sucker.
>>25423144But that’s wrong, you fucking retard.> >The fact that the finite mind must necessarily posit something absolute outside of itself (a thing in itself) and yet, conversely, must recognize that what it has posited outside itself exists only for the finite I (that it is a necessary noumenon) constitutes that circle which the finite mind can expand infinitely, but from which it can never escape. A system that takes no account whatsoever of this circle is a dogmatic idealism since, in fact, it is only this circle that limits us and makes us into finite beings. A system that fancies it has escaped this circle is a transcendent, realistic dogmatism. The Wissenschaftslehre occupies precisely the middle-ground between these two systems and is a critical idealism, though one could also call it a real-idealism or an ideal-realism. (p 343 in Breazeale’s trans of the Grundlage)Inb4>n-no it has a sekrit meaning! You got filtered!
>>25423175>A system that fancies it has escaped this circle is a transcendent, realistic dogmatism.>t. doesn't know about the esoteric method of reading the positive in the negative, i.e., cognizing the next dialectical step the assertion necessitates
>>25423175>>25423281like for example here:> The complete annihilation of the individual and the fusion of the latter with the absolutely pure form of reason, or God, is indeed the ultimate goal of finite reason; but it is not possible at any time.He here clearly show us the goal, and then goes, "but don't do that mmmkay? *wink wink*".Well, assume it is possible, i.e., posit the negation, the antithesis, and then investigate the conditions of its possibility. Don't become fixated on the finite determinations of the understanding; the goal is known, reason has reached it already and shown us the idea. I see your:> A system that fancies it has escaped this circle is a transcendent, realistic dogmatism.and raise you my:> if our science of knowledge is a correct representation of this system, it is absolutely certain and infallible as that system; but the very question is, whether our representation is or is not correct, and of this we can never furnish a strict conclusion, but only a probable proof.
>>25423136So handsome
>>25423281>>25423329What level of total imbecility is this? Sir, can I help you? Are you ok?
>>25422464> If anything it is in the interest of the powers that be for German idealism to be interpreted as some sort of world-denying, mystick Hermeticismbruh> we can remind ourselves that man has a duty to rise to that abstract universality of mood in which he is indeed indifferent to the existence or non-existence of the hundred dollars, whatever may be their quantitative relation to his fortune, just as it ought to be a matter of indifference to him whether he is or is not, that is, in finite life (for a state, a determinate being is meant), and so on — si fractus illabatur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae was said by a Roman, and still more ought the Christian to possess this indifference.-Science of Logic section 145
>>25423379no, i'm super ok
>>25420641this just goes to show the true nature of esoterik kantianism: a schizophrenic echo chamber.reading philosophy, or really anything, without at least checking secondary lit is midwit behaviour.
>>25423717>reading philosophy, or really anything, without at least checking secondary lit is midwit behaviour.that's something a midwit WOULD say.
>>25416203What's esoterik Kantianism?
>>254207677
>>25424331a forced meme by a /lit/ newfag who doesn't understand kant
>>25423724kek
