So was he flat out wrong, insane, or just taking on too much with this?

So was he flat out wrong, insane, or just taking on too much with this?

Attached: 41ZCBrnXRuL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 20K)

Yes, yes, and possibly.

I don't know, I stomached ~80 pages of this bloviated drivel and learned nothing valuable. if we filter out autism, all the information these pages contained was
>time and space are faculties of human thinking (patently retarded idea)
>humans aren't born tabula rasa and basically have all concepts within them a priori (stolen from Plato's anamnesis)
>we can only understand image of a thing, but not the thing itself (fucking duh)

>time and space are faculties of human thinking
>patently retarded idea

why?

I dont even think he's saying they are faculties of the mind. Nor are they objects (or something with substance) themselves. More like something inetween?

>(patently retarded idea)
y i k e s

Too low IQ for Kant cope.

Bullshit, he's widely regarded as contradictory and lacking clarity in his arguments.

Of all the things you could say about Kant, I dont think he was contradictory.
Lacking clarity perhaps, but he was writing for professional philosophers, not brainlets

Attached: 1550424331630.jpg (700x933, 93K)

if the idea of time and space being a priori intuitions seems absurd to you, then why does the idea of us having access only to appearances and not things in themselves seem self-evident? what would you suppose it is that prevents us from knowing things in themselves? how would you suppose we do math without apriori intuition?
>I stomached ~80 pages of this bloviated drivel and learned nothing
it shows.

If that is the case, why did he publish a second edition that was supposed to be more accessible? He even states that he wanted to include diagrams but it would have been too lengthy. He was publishing for the typical scholar not just his peers.

Thats if you agree math is a priori. Kant wpuld say that 2+2 is not an inherent quality of the sum of 4 but rather something we can derive through reason (which is agreeable), however, can't you also say that 2 and 2 is as much a part of 4 as the whole number itself? Therefore, its not something separate of the concept of 4, merely a part of it.

The greatest advantage of Kant philosophy and the large weakness of anyone who wants to criticize Kantian lies in his consistency. just wtf

No, I dont think it's consistency, its the clarity, which if interpreted in various ways could lead to inconsistencies. He dangerously treads on descartian skepticism of reality but attempts to prove there is some objective truth, just not one that we could ever fully comprehend.

He believes we can make synthetic apriori judgements. That was the point of his book

He couldn't poop and the shit went to his brains

>He became convinced that constipation clouded his brain, and he added an impressive array of laxatives to his room-sized medicine cabinet. He would read through medical journals describing the latest discoveries to see if he could diagnose himself with any of the new diseases.

Attached: 1540141799904.jpg (908x1298, 428K)

The point of the book is to prove whether or not metaphysocs is possible. So we have to assume synthetic a priori judgements are the foundation of metaphysics? I understand reverse engineering the epistemology of humans, specifically in math, but it just will never feel satisfactory for answering metaphysical questions. I could see it being a precursor to psychology and fuctioning of the mind however.

Well to cognize metaphysical realities, it would require synthetic apriori judgements. Kant believed we did have those and wanted to prove this definitively.

He was an insane genius and right about everything, I still can't believe one man wrote this

>bloviated
sounds like such a silly word :3 i have to google the meaning now

also OP don't let the hivemind get to you, keep honest about Kant n what you think of his ideas

What does he mean by thing in itself, as opposed to the appearance? Can you give examples, and how he explained the dichotomy.

read the Critique and find out

all three