What would you like to share about the TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION OF THE CATEGORIES anons? Please, don't be shy.

>>21952134 (OP)

Refuted by Hegel.

PURE CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING. PURE CONCEPTS NICHT MISCHLING CONCEPTS. BEGREIFEN SIE?

i haven't got to that part of the book, got it yesterday, just about to start the portion about time

Share with us your thoughts on time.

Anons, if we all think hard enough, we can generate concepts outside of the structure of the pure concepts of the understanding. It’s possible, we just have to think hard enough.

>duuude, there are, like, only two things that you know and a bunch of categories for understanding stuff maaaan

shut the fuck up, you cretinous retard

>DUUUUUDE, DID YOU KNOW YOU CANT RATIONALLY KNOW ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN RATIONALIZE IT!?!? WOAH, HEAVY STUFF. ANYWAY, JUST FOLLOW DUTY ETHIC BECAUSE IT JUST COMES TO YOU AUTOMATICALLY AND GETS AROUND THAT SILLY LITTLE RATIONAL PROBLEM

i said SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!



honestly he's so fucking retarded

I said I haven't read that, but I like his insight on Space, that it must be A Priori, because we perceive 2 unrelatated sensations as occuring in the same time, despite no analytical analysis of them bringing us to that point

>>21952134 (OP)

retroactively refuted by aquinas

Can a Kantian help me out here? 

>My understanding

-The first paragraphs of §24 describes how a manifold of our a priori intuitions can be be determined in accordance with our synthetic unity of apperception in the understanding. 

-This is described as the figurative synthesis and is important as previously only the object-in-general (Guyer's translation, otherwise I think called the transcendental object?) could be brought under the unity of apperception in the attribution of the categories to it. This is the formal condition for the a priori validity of the application of categories to objects. 

-When the manifold of a priori intuition is determined by the understanding under the synthetic unity of apperception, we can properly "think" under Kant's definition of thought in §23, which requires both intuition and being able to bring an object under a concept. 

-Finally, we can think prior to any outer experience about the synthetic unity of the apperception of the manifold of sensible intuition 



>My question

Somewhere in here the imagination is snuck in, with the figurative synthesis becoming the transcendental synthesis of the imagination. It is described as basically a faculty that mediates between the understanding and intuition, but why is that necessary? Later it is described as basically the visuospatial sketchpad, so it is not clear how it could even interact with pure a priori intuition.

the Critique reminds me of the funny orange latin book in some ways, the parts you've read are stupidly easy, the parts you're currently reading are just easy enough, and the parts ahead are gibberish

no retard, according to kant you can know physical truths, just not metaphysical truths. Also, duty ethic is interesting: the will follows reason instead of reason following the will.

i think he perfectly explains how time is dependent upon the proof of alteration and alteration can only exist if we think that two different objects can be considered the same object (a green ball turning red, but still being the same) and thus time is A Priori and not from experience alone
