>the Kantian analysis of thought disproved the possibility of any direct and real experience of the divine or the realization and attainment of mystic oneness because things of that nature inevitably conforms to the catagories of thought and so can never actually reveal reality as it is but only a shadow of it; even though if God or the Monad/One/Brahman was real and all-encompassing then there is no reason why the divine should not be able to reveal itself in a direct and unmediated way to people who possess the proper requisites and who take the right steps.
Is there a more brainlet take on mysticism and spirituality? (aside from unironic biological-reductionist materialism)
I see people constantly posting Kant as if he somehow refuted that direct mystic/spiritual experience could reveal the nature of the Absolute or reality
Thomas Hernandez
It's less that than that Hegel's response is incoherent and basically just ignores everything Kant said
Nicholas Morris
I wasn't arguing from the perspective of Hegels response but just generally. I agree that for everything to do with conventional and phenomenal existence the Kantian analysis of thought holds water but if there is some transcendent divine being/reality/absolute beyond our ability to grasp through rational thought and beyond our catagories etc; then *hypothetically speaking* there wouldn't necessarily be no reason why it would not be able to reveal itself to the individual in a direct manner equivalent to sight or 'intellectual intuition' etc, (either of its own divine volition, or because of the individual realizing and actualizing unity with God via monism, non-dualism, panentheism etc). It seems to me like I've seen people say that this is impossible because it would have to conform to the limits Kant laid out but this seems like saying the transcendent God/Being etc is limited or confined by the human mind; whereas the mind would only exist because of God and so that's illogical because the creator/projector/emanator should necessarily be able to overcome/transcend that which is a creation/emanation etc of it.
Austin Perry
*there wouldn't necessarily be A reason why it would not be able
Eli Hall
Nuclear weapons are a creation of man, so people have a natural resistance to nukes? Cool
Parker Phillips
>comparing Gods ability to be free from the limits or confines of His own creations with mans ability to withstand a weapon he created brainlet analogy
Caleb Wilson
You say it's a brainlet take, but I didn't see you refuting it.
Michael Gray
You're right But in all seriousness, the point of Kant is that we only ever receive representations of objects, even when we represent them to ourselves-- there is no "direct" transmission possible. A being like you describe would be representing itself to our inner sense without going through the senses, but we couldn't verify any of its claims about itself. That's the real problem
Caleb Torres
It's a non-problem that thought inflicts on itself
Matthew Diaz
He's not denying the ability to experience the spiritual, just the ability to reasonably understand it. Reason only reflects one aspect of reality and we can experience the unreasonable even though we can't logically understand it. Religions and metaphysical systems all reflect this by explaining their concepts through metaphors
Julian Jackson
This isn't that much of a statement though. Certainly there is no reason that x may not present itself to rational intuition however you may as well be saying anything. Kant argues that you cannot prove that x will present itself, or that x exists purely by aspect of its speculation. Though Kant does insist that if something can be beleived that it must exist somehow/somewhere, this isn't really an arguement for spirituality.
You cannot really argue against something that has nothing as its predicated foundation, or at least, there is no point in doing so since it would amount to remarks as empty as the ones you have posited. "Kant and God" is a good example of a paper put forward on this topic.
William Richardson
How was it that someone described Kant on here? A "pedantic goblin"?
>A being like you describe would be representing itself to our inner sense without going through the senses, but we couldn't verify any of its claims about itself. That's the real problem Yes, but wouldn't that not hold water with schools of thought which identify the individual soul/being in part or whole with the Absolute? for example the Vedantins who say that the Atma is really Brahman or how some of the neoplatonists says the being never fully descends into the material realm but that one part of it remains in the intelligible realm in touch with the divine principles; because in those cases (especially in cases where they regard the mind/intellect as separate from the essential/real principle of the soul) it would just be the Absolute revealing or coming to terms with itself, without the meditation of the intellect.
Verifying is predicated on the activity of the mind/intellect and involves cognition or discursive thought, but let's say that hypothetically that through spiritual realization or gnosis the Absolute sees through or transcends the intellect and consciously abides in its own nature as something separate from the intellect; so long as one didn't descend back down in an attempt to pin the experience down and analyze it using that same intellect than this would be a hypothetical example of the Absolute revealing to or becoming aware of itself as the ground of reality and existence without that being mediated or filtered through Kant's catagories.
It seems like many people who post Kant in an attempt to refute mysticism or spiritual realization don't understand him themselves then.
I'm not trying to prove it the existence of it logically but I've seen people post Kant in Neoplatonism or eastern threads in an attempt to say that the theurgy or spiritual realization they study is impossible. I guess my point is that for people who already accept the possibility of that as true and who don't care about proving it logically then Kant arguments do not refute the possibility of theurgy/theosis/moksha/etc occuring because if their conception of the One/Divine was true then it's completely possible that it could hypothetically happen in the way their doctrine explains that it does. The idea that Kant proved that the sort of experience in question is impossible only makes sense if you base it on the presumption that either God isn't real or that he couldn't reveal himself to the soul in an unmediated manner that transcends the intellect and senses, which wouldn't be accepted as correct by the schools mentioned and many others.
Luke Miller
Look at Kant's last work. Even he realized he needed to go beyond mere categories of thought to glue it all together.
Andrew Lee
can you elaborate?
John Cruz
Get this, it's on Kant's Opus Postumum: >a work Kant himself described as his "chef d'oeuvre" and as the keystone of his entire philosophical system But it was ignored by everyone this whole time. It's kind of hard to follow so I recommend Hall's analysis.
Basically he argues Kant had already partially committed himself to something like Substance even as early as CPR, and by the time of OP had ended up deducing an a priori "ether" or "caloric" as not only the bridge between critical metaphysics and physics but the unifying transcendental condition of the possibility of anything at all (NOT just of possible experience).
>because things of that nature inevitably conforms to the catagories of thought and so can never actually reveal reality as it is but only a shadow of it Unless you take LSD :)
Cameron Scott
But it is common knowledge late Kant was senile, so...
Parker Turner
hmmm that's very interesting, I had never heard of that I'll have to look into it, thank you
Josiah Phillips
That was the excuse for literally suppressing this work for over a century. It's perfectly lucid.
Bentley Morales
I mean what you said doesn't make much sense if Laplace was right to say thing in itself is a stand in for hypothetical/unobservable entities such as ether or caloric.
Leo Anderson
fuck off guenonfag, jesus fucking christ
David Long
>unironic biological-reductionist materialism Seething that you're so wrong that you're throwing tantrums at the obvious truths.
Carson Campbell
Yes there are issues with the very notion of things-in-themselves that have dogged Kant since the beginning, but the a priori ether is not a hypothetical unobservable, it's an actual and necessary transcendental material condition of experience.
Parker Cook
All theology eventually boils down to bad epistemology.
Henry Rogers
All epistemology is covert metaphysics.
Isaac Brooks
Yea Forums is guenonian board sweetie
Gavin Ramirez
To what extent did Hegel and the other German idealists, Bergson, Whitehead, all those french pomo people address this? It seems like much of their thought involves anti-Kantian polemics, do they address the seeming about-face Kant made in the end of his life or do they just ignore or weren't aware of it? I have only read a bit of them
David Taylor
They weren't aware of it. It was first published in the 1930's then ignored.
Sebastian Thompson
Term-larping and drawing conclusions from that. LMAO
Carson Sanchez
Lmao how come I've never heard about this? What?
Adrian Sanders
>and by the time of OP had ended up deducing an a priori "ether" or "caloric" as not only the bridge between critical metaphysics and physics but the unifying transcendental condition of the possibility of anything at all (NOT just of possible experience). >tfw Kant was the ultimate incognitio undercover eastern-neoplatonic-spinozian mystic all along and was just acting as the ultimate double-agent for the purpose of causing pseuds to misread him and expose themselves
It basically is a scandal of Kant scholarship, plus it was covered up by Kant's estate for 130 years.
Alexander Evans
>In this chapter I turn to Kant’s Opus Postumum, the text in which his relation to Spinozism is at its most puzzling and intriguing. In this final text, Kant appears to affirm a single material substance produced by the subject’s self-positing. This substance, the ether, is at once a material and transcendental condition of possible experience, and goes some way towards satisfying Maimon’s and Deleuze’s demand for a genetic condition of real experience. Moreover, a number of cryptic references to ‘Spinoza’s transcendental idealism’ are out of line with Kant’s usual antagonism towards Spinozism. yep.
Joshua Thompson
>mfw Kant lived long enough to transcend his own system >mfw Kant became the alternate universe version of himself that embraced the naturephilosophie
Grayson Collins
>subject's self-positing Kant ended up a Fichtean?
