kant's theory of mind

anyone?

Not an expert, but for what I know Kant thought that:
1.The world we perceive (through senses) is not "the real world", which would be the noumenon (what things are when not perceived by our senses, their attributes basically --which kind of fits well with quantum physics (objects get affected by our senses because we're sending protons which shape its particles/wave)--)
So then he wonders what can we know with transcendental truth (a priori, without the senses --because they are kind of a looking-glass that doesn't present reality in itself and we cannot get rid of it--): this pure concepts are the analytical a priori truths (which nowadays I don't think they stand as something accepted), which would be concepts taken out purely from logic from an axiom that has no reliance in the empirical knowledge. But what we can know though, is that space and time are conditions understood by our body (the four dimensions) and from that I guess you could try and get out a Pure Concept (but then again, no one has come out with an axiom that nowadays would be considered a Pure Concept --Hegel would nod happily and agree with modern society--).
I'm not sure whether I've answered anything, but I wasn't sure what you were asking either to be fair.

>>9339722
thanks. trying to figure out how his theories of appearance, sensibility, intuition, judgements, understanding, etc. fit together to form his theory of mind. i think the image is attempting to do that, but doesn't really make sense to me.

the pieces are joined in critique of judgement. the confusion maybe arises from his belief in "subjective universality", and the graph is convoluted to make it happen.

>But there is still further in the family of our higher cognitive faculties a middle term between understanding and reason. This is judgement, of which we may reasonably presume by analogy that it may likewise contain, if not a special authority to prescribe laws, still a principle peculiar to itself upon which laws are sought, although one merely subjective a priori. This principle, even if it has no field of objects appropriate to it as its realm, may still have some territory or other with a certain character, for which just this very principle alone may be valid.

>The result is that the judgement of taste, with its attendant consciousness of detachment from all interest, must involve a claim to validity for all men, and must do so apart from universality attached to objects, i.e., there must be coupled with it a claim to subjective universality.

>>9339678
you should have a definition of all those terms by the time you finish reading the CPR.

>>9340250
do you think the cpr, as opposed to prolegomena is necessary to move to hegel, etc.

>>9340272
what is etc. supposed to stand for, the german idealists? if so: they all philosophize according to the spirit of kantian critical philosophy; not to the letter. they cared little about kants specific comprehensive reasoning (especially true for hegel). prolegomena will do.

>>9339458

I think its very self explanatory when you just take it at face value

>>9340387
thought very wrongly. there is little to take at face value here. those terms have unusual content