/lit/ - Literature

>noumena=mc2

yeah, nah

>his entire ontology got proven wrong by Einstein

You can't just drop this without some explanation.

lolwat? Einstein pretty much supported Kant

>>6104414
please tell me what einstein has to do with kant.

His entire ontology 'got proven wrong' by Russell. Einstein wasn't a logician.

>>6104373
I'm reading Critique of Pure reason and he seems to be implying that space and time are things that we conceive because our reason orders our senses and that it has no existence in things in themselves.

Since we now know that space and time are actually non-euclidean and we can't conceive of them intuitively, everything he says is bunk.

Space and time clearly have an actual existence independent of our perception of them. Just goes to show why philosophers should stay away from trying to do actual science.

>>6104426
It's a pretty common relationship, basically the first connection made by my teacher when learning about Kant.


http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/Friedman_RelativizedAPriori.pdf

>>6104440

>Space and time clearly have an actual existence independent of our perception of them.

decidedly untrue. drop the axiomatic reasoning

>>6104440
lel

>>6104440
>Space and time clearly have an actual existence independent of our perception of them.
This can't actually be logically demonstrated.

Doesn't change that Kant's conception of space and time is still false.

We rely on knowledge that we get a posteriori in order to find out about space and time.

Everything else he says is based on something that's wrong.

>>6104440
Lol stay in school, school boy

>>6104440
>Since we now know that space and time are actually non-euclidean
>non-euclidean

I wish you wouldn't words you don't know the meaning of.

>>6104462
Or maybe you should try to understand what Kant is actually saying. He is criticizing a position held by Authors like Hume, that all we can know stems from sensory data while Kant says, that time and space can not be perceived that way, because they are preconditions for perceiving any sensory data.

He doesn't claim that everything is said and done by this, and nothing more has to explored beyond that, but rather that there are conditions under which the human mind structures all experience and if the numena is different from that, can't be known, because you are stuck with your brain.

>>6104500
A.k.a. transcendentalism. The question that Kant poses and can be said to have never been posed before is this:
>What is the condition of possibility of X?
>What must be the case for X to be even possible?
I think this question is basically the shortest summary of his post-1781 work, at least a huge chunk of it. So he starts with, in Critique of Pure Reason:
>What is the condition of possibility of experience?
In other words: there's experience, sure, but what gives me the ability to have experience? This is a pretty powerful question that attacks some of lazy non-answers that Hume gave.

>>6104500
If I'm not mistaken he's saying that space and time are purely structures of our experiences which is why they can be talked about objectively when space and time are also more than just preconditions for possible experience. Space and time can warp and change depending on things like mass and velocity, things that should supposedly have no effect on them.

I though Kant was supposed to lay the groundwork for all future philosophy. I'm not impressed.

I just realized that this was the same guy who came with the idea of the Categorical Imperative. What a complete philosopher Kant was.

>>6104574
The greatest since Aquinas, and one of the five most important thinkers in the history of the West.

>>6104574
It was also the same guy who came up with the theory of sublime.

>>6104574
How did you just realize that.

>>6104440
> a scientist realised that a more complex theory could be used to describe the universe more accurately in certain conditions
what does this have to do with kant?

>>6104591
This reminds me: does Kant have any theory of memory beyond mere retention and protention of sensuous experience?

>>6104587
he was preceded by Longinus and Burke, but gave it a distinctive spin to the point where we recognise a 'Kantian sublime'

>>6104547
space and time as humans perceive them and as they are used in general relativity are two very different things, and both are useful approximations for understanding an otherwise unintelligible bit of what we call reality

>>6104602

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/

>>6104547
He says, your mind is a tool with boundaries, and even if there might be a world beyond those boundaries, you couldn't know, much like you can't use a microscope to observe the moon from earth ,or it's own lens.

He does not believe, that all knowledge can be derived from his a priori analyses, our knowledge can be extended through experience, theorizing and so on, but there are boundaries to how many activities can be performed with a certain tool.

>>6104728
And the boundaries aren't negative, they are positive in the sense that you can't know beyond them because you keep forcing positive forms yourself. In other words, you can't know something that is outside of your knowing it.

>>6104440

>Space and time clearly have an actual existence independent of our perception of them. Just goes to show why philosophers should stay away from trying to do actual science.

I will give five million dollars to any man who can demonstrate this without the use of sensory experience.

Oh wait, you can't.

Fucking retard.

>>6104448
But it is true. reality doesn't change.

i like how once someone understands kant, the next step they take is to act like a complete fucking asshole to everyone else who proposes a philosophical idea

>I'll now take comments on this deplorable set of views.
-Tyler Burge, after giving a brief outline of Kantian idealism

>>6106763
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." - Albert Einstein

>ethics need god so god must exists
why is is anyone reading this hack

>>6106796
"look lol i can just make shit up" - Albert Einstein

>>6106247
>Oh wait, you can't.
I would even say, you Kant.
(^:>*

>>6104440

>>6104440

You do realize Kant says the same thing about physical reality as well right? We don't deny that the Noumeal world exists, its just that, according to Kant's epistemology, there is a sensory barrier between the things-in-themselves and what we view them as due to the necessary functions of the reason. There isn't a conflict, especially since Kant uses his transcendental aesthetic to detonate time and space as synthetic additions to sensory experience.


You argument is, as far as I can tell, as follows:

1.) The Critique of Pure Reason implies that reason orders our senses.
2.) Space and Time are things which are reasoned, therefore Kant views these things as having no empirical existence in and of themselves.
3.) Einstein has proven that Time has tangible, measurable effects in the physical world.
4.) Premise 3 contradicts premise 2, and as premise 3 has greater support, we must invalidate premise 2.
5.) Kant a shit


I'd point to premise 2 as to where you've fucked up. Kant views time and space as 'transcendental' as we manage to reason with time and space by focusing on what ISN'T immediately apparent from nature. Space is generated from the juxtaposition of objects, time is generated from the juxtaposition of events. To say that time doesn't exist in Kant's epistemology is to be highly disingenuous, as the very fact of its existence is necessary for our reason to function. What Kant is indicating is that the reason orders the juxtaposition of events in a linear fashion in order to make sense of them, just as we do with space for the purposes of our perception.

A final point, even if contradictory evidence arises as to a claim about the noumenal world, that claim must, by necessity, be mediated in the phenomenal world we exist in. I don't mean to argue "hurr durr science r empircal so its shitty", but just that, in a larger sense, Kant doesn't admit to deductive empirical contradiction within the confines of his own system, only an inductive argument that a man in the 1700's might not have had access to formative information regarding space-time or the theories of relativity.

>>6104440
>stem fag gives philosophy a go

>>6106776
And I like how everyone who doesn't understand Kant must make sweeping stupid statements about Kant and people who have understood Kant.

If you had an IQ above 90, you'd realize that it's quite easy to reconcile Kant's claim about the absoluteness of time and Einstein's claim about its relativity. Phenomenologically- and subjectively-speaking, nothing, indeed, seems to be quite as absolute as the perception of time marching forwards. Regardless of whether you're cut off from everything else, you can always count out the seconds. Einstein's claim says absolutely nothing about the experience of the world, and everything about how correctly to model that world from a purely mathematical perspective. Time is absolutely fundamental, phenomenologically-speaking, but is flexible, mathematically-speaking. Learn the difference - it could save your life (and your credibility) someday!

>>6104440
bait?