Kant

Was he right about synthetic apriori ?

Attached: kant.jpg (964x1388, 154K)

Yes. There is definitely a priori elements in our cognition that invades our scientific and metaphysical judgements.

Only retards like Krauss or black science man go full empiricism when it comes to knowledge.

A simple example of a synthetic a priori is “something exists”.

>to know something you must have something that lets you know something
Wow
So smart
Thank you Mr. Kant
Best philosophy
10/10
Would buy again

Yes, otherwise mathematical statements could be proven through mere logic, but Gödel among others has shown this to be impossible. The only question, then, is whether mathematical statements are a priori, that is, if there is such a thing as pure perception, i.e., not its sensible content, not the understanding, but something which mediates the two. This must be the case, since it is a condition of sensibility; it is only a matter of what exactly pure perception is.

Another way of saying the above is that mathematics is not merely the content of logic, and therefore cannot be proven by the rules of logic alone. Mathematics has an intuitive content and therefore proceeds synthetically, which means that its statements can be denied without (necessarily) contradicting themselves, that is, they need some measure of proof beyond logical analysis.

Quite of a lot of philosophy is "common sense". It might seem trite but when you get into the ideologies of some people, it becomes obvious how important it is to establish common sense first.

Also, don't discount the extent to which philosophy has been internalised as "common sense". A lot of what you think you intuitively know actually had to be discovered or at least systemically described by somebody at some point.

>replying genuinely to a disingenuous poster
mate, just ignore him/her--you're better off offering a job to a NEET

Based

I was referring specifically that space and time are structure of mind instead of something out there. Or did I read it wrong ?

BTFO'd by Spinoza

more like synthetic gaypriori haha

no synthetic a priori for kant designates propositions which are knowable a priori but for which it does not necessarily make sense to deny, unlike analytic a priori propositions such as "all bachelors are unmarried males"

or I mean rather for which the denials are not contradictions

His analytic/synthetic distinction is bullshit. His own example of 7 + 5 = 12 as a synthetic argument shows this. 12 is not a synthesis of new knowledge from the argument; the argument describes the operators (equation and addition) and the concept of the homogeneous quantity (which he was correct about). That the pupil has to learn the name "12" for the sum of 7 and 5 does not make this synthesis any more than teaching the pupil the name "sentence" synthesizes new information in their conception of a grammatically complete string of words, the thing we name a sentence. So he was necessarily wrong because the distinction is meaningless.

Formally, the arguments argument is: a+b=c. How can this be proven logically? The content (number) only reveals its truth and this content is intuitive.

>Also, don't discount the extent to which philosophy has been internalised as "common sense"
I think the moment when I truly understood this was when I first started reading Shopenhauer.
In the intro of pretty much all of his books, he talks of Kant, and how one could not even hope to understand ANYTHING written by him (Schopenhauer), if one wasn't to first read and fully comprehend everything Kant had written.

I was intimidated, but still pressed on and read Schopenhauer's writings...only to find incredibly comprehensible concepts throughout.
That's when it hit me, just how "normal" it is for us to think of stuff like "Time and space are subjectively experienced, and might be 'created' by our minds".

I wonder how it must be to be born witihout that thought, and to only find out in one's adult age. Or never.

Attached: 1510093281176.png (522x511, 325K)

He was right about everything.

Attached: 1546770247796.jpg (186x270, 17K)

it has nothing to do with "names"
adding a number to another implies time

except getting laid lmao

How do I drown in solipsism and cease this

through intuition alone you could figure out 5+7=12 even without the vocabulary to express what you are doing. dolphins can do math and they have no language to express that whatsoever.

Synthetic a priori is really mind bending to get your head around and requires quite a bit of thinking.

A fellow student back in grad school made the example of a boat rolling down a river. The way I understood it is that the experience of seeing the boat rolling downstream is a posteriori synthetic but the idea of seeing the boat in its various phases and understanding the movement of something as non-static, i.e. the boat floating not in its various stages but as a continuous movement is a priori synthetic. Its the way we "know" our experiences.

you dont understand gödels theoreme

Was he referring to the boat example Kant himself provides in the Second Analogy? But this says nothing of the sort which you describe.

>Mathematics has an intuitive content and therefore proceeds synthetically

Worth noting that research in neurology tends to suggest mathematics is not exclusively handled by the language centers of the brains and rely on pre-linguistic intuitions that have equivalents in apes and even some birds.

Try to argue the same about his exemple of the sums of the angles of a triangle now. I'm waiting.

please enlighten

An exemple that I like is how our common language is filled with expression linking head or brain with intelligence when even the contemporaries of Aristotle didn"t know of the central role the brain plays in cognition.

Not him, but Gödel's theorem only tells you that a certain kind of logical systems have proposition that can be written but no proved within them. It allows however for proving those propositions in larger systems of the same kind, or in system of a different kind entirely.

Gerhard Gentzen did just that by proving the consistency of usual (Peano) arithmetic using an unusual kind of recurrence reasoning.

More importantly Gödel's theorem are strictly theorems of formal logic, they say absolutely nothing about statements, ideas, intuitions, truths or facts outside of that relatively limited scope. So they couldn't even tell you wether a non-logical intuition, for instance, has a logical equivalent, they lack the power to even mention non-logical intuitions.

>someone out there actually shares Peterson's 25 IQ interpretation of Godel
shocked to see this in the wild desu

That's more or less the point I was trying to make. What Kant calls "pure intuition" I call a rudimentary form of abstraction. The conceptual content of a sum is: addition, equation, and the homogeneous quantity. The particular numbers in the sum don't really make a difference. I don't need to add 621 and 467 to know that 1,088 is a number that can be a sum, it's not a synthesis because it doesn't really add anything to the three concepts necessary to arrive at a sum.

It is the same thing. All that he calls "synthesis" is a further elaboration of the concept of a triangle. The three sides are what make the interior angles sum to 180 degrees.

No, he was just trying to salvage an unsubstantiated dichotomy so he could make empiricism more compatible with his transcendental epistemology.

Does the 'form' of our experience shape all of our experience? Yes. Does this estabilsh a certain dichotomy or boundary between 'form' and 'content'? No. Is any knowledge/concept/intuition possible without both? No.

If you have to qualify the a priori distinction with 'synthetic', why not just admit that it's a dubious distinction in the first place? We can simply refer to the understanding which stems most directly from our experience itself as 'apodictic', without suggesting a divide in what is far more likely to be a continuum.

Read postmodernists like Foucault and Derrida. You'll be in for a fun ride.

Attached: 3B468578-4124-4327-B1AD-64295CC1E7D1.jpg (727x1093, 195K)

He knew it would drain him of his powers.