Kantian Metaphysics

bump plz

>>7457230
I cannot even make sense of your first sentence.

>properties of the mind independent world
I suppose is mind-independent?

> then there can be no separation, plurality or differentiation within the Noumena
We CAN'T TALK about differentiation within the Noumena.

>Transcendental Self imposing the structure of space and time upon the world?
Self-imposing. This is not true. It makes no sense to talk the 'self' as a willing ego.

>How can the Self exist within the Noumena if its not located within space?
Why being located within space is a requirement for the self? The possibility of differentiation does not need to be made within space unless the claim relies on a posteriori premises, reason why Kant proceeds with Trascendental Arguments.

>>7457230
transcendental as in the self transcends an experience by imposing time and space upon it to make sense out of raw sense data. not a good use of the term at all

self is noumena and noumena to kant is impossible to know. you cant know a thing in itself or whatever the fuck

>>7458025
yea but if self is noumena then how does it exist. a self must be differentiated from everything that is not self. and differentiation does not exist in the noumena because space only exists within the mind. and all juxstaposition and separation can only occur within space

the noumena must be a singular unity if space and time are imposed by the mind, so how does a self exist in the noumena? does that make my question a bit clearer?

>>7457993
>I cannot even make sense of your first sentence.
whats unclear about it? by mind independent world i just mean the Noumenal world.

it's always a debate just how "realist" kant is. on some readings he might as well be realist about space and time. but i prefer to take him at his most unrealist (because this gets you closest to hegel).

anyways...

with the noumenal, always think the purely logical. i said this in another thread, but this is the key to understanding the categorical imperative.

space and time are just one way of differing

if i say A is different than B, i have told you nothing about where those are in space or time or anything about them whatsoever. yet, that difference remains THINKABLE

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/

sup.

>>7457230

You're getting confused OP, the Transcendental Self and the Noumena are equivalent. It's the field of time and space which brings about the individual Self encapsulated so to speak within the body, itself just being the body in tangent with it's environment.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 282x397px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 282x397px

>>7460137

I don't think OP is confused in that way - I think OP has hit upon something that Kant either doesn't explain at all, or only explains sporadically and in hints.

So, as for my own interpretation:

> the Transcendental Self and the Noumena are equivalent.

This migt be misleading, because although a human's transcendental self is a noumenon (AKA thing-in-itself in my usage, though Kant might not use the terms strictly synonymously), God is also a noumenon in Kant's system. Yet God must be conceived as radically different from a human's transcendental self; Kant's second critique in particular gives the model of God distributing happiness to all moral agents based on their moral virtue, which requires God's omnipotence and omniscience; and Kant's third critique describes the kind of intellect we'd expect God to have - an archetypal understanding, within which the existence of a thing isn't distinct from the knowledge of it, or even the intuition of it - which would be vastly different from, and in fact unimaginable to, the human intellect. So we'd be safer saying that all transcendental selves are a kind of noumena, but there might be noumena that are not transcendental selves. Though God would be an inteligence, and thus we might expect God to have a transcendental self too (though Kant doesn't say, from what I can remember), God's transcendental self would be so unlike that of a human, I think it would prevent us from even implicitly equating all noumena, or equating all transcendental selves, or equating all transcendental selves with all noumena.

File: 3721_11638_24009.jpg (29KB, 300x245px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x245px

>this entire thread

File: image.jpg (155KB, 457x600px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 457x600px

>>7460137

>>7460137

> It's the field of time and space which brings about the individual Self encapsulated so to speak within the body, itself just being the body in tangent with it's environment.

Yes, time and space and the sense data organized by them constitute the empirical self of outer and inner sense; and from this phenomenal, experiential consciousness of the world, I must conclude that there is a noumenal, transcendental self grounding the appearance of my empirical self.

Which brings me to >>7457230

This transcendental self turns out to be just the human faculty of understanding in its pure function; my faculty of understanding churns away in its organizing activity, taking up into its forms (the categories) the raw input given to it by my faculty of sensibility; and it is only this regular activity of my understanding that allows me to become conscious of empirical objects (which includes my body and inner train of thought). I can only have knowledge of what *results* from this organizing activity of my understanding/transcendental self. I cannot know what my understanding/transcendental self is in-itself; I can merely think about it, which amounts to employing the empty forms of my pure understanding, which, without some intuitive data, are incomplete for knowledge.

But there are the two keys to resolving OP's question, on my reading. 1) My transcendental self is just the function of my faculty of understanding; all the empirical humans that I encounter in the world, with bodies and behaviors like my own (especially rational behavior like language and ends-oriented actions) must each have the same kind of faculty of understanding, and thus all humans would have the kind of transcendental self supporting the empirical self they each know in their own introspection. 2) Even when we don't have all the ingredients for knowledge of X, we can still merely think of X, merely represent empty concepts that could apply to X without any intutive data of what X is like. Thus Kant says we can, for example, represent noumena as "a thing-in-general," "some thing = X," and by "thing" we think of the unschematized (unmixed with the forms of space and time, which can't apply to noumena) categories, the merely logical forms of thought, like subject/predicate, ground/consequent. In this way, we can think of noumena as subjects that are not themselves predicates of more fundamental subjects, and grounds that are not themselves the consequents of deeper grounds. The general fact that our undrstanding has 12 functions of judgment, which are tied to its twelve categories, shows that for Kant, we can draw purely logical distinctions, separating objects of thought, wihtout any recourse to spatiotemporal determinations, as per >>7458190

File: 1431021964248.png (130KB, 1553x1716px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1553x1716px

>>7457230

File: image.jpg (49KB, 350x433px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 350x433px

>>7458190
>because this gets you closest to hegel

My Nigger.

File: 1425906714025.png (148KB, 550x229px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 550x229px

>>7461633

>I don't understand
>Therefore it's shit

>Kantian Metaphysics
>Kant Memes
>Can't

File: 1450124991676.jpg (200KB, 2038x1359px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 2038x1359px

Kan kant know nuffin ?

File: image.jpg (135KB, 741x580px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 741x580px

>>7464354

No.