How do you unriddle the Kantian problem of the thing-in-itself?

How do you unriddle the Kantian problem of the thing-in-itself?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w
youtube.com/watch?v=vaYVQMpkTYQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

who gives a fuck

Hegel - the "thing in itself" doesn't exist, because nothing can be known without everything that's not it.

I have this thing that no matter how simply or shortly concepts by hegel are expressed I do not understand what the fuck do they mean

i have the opposite problem where i know instinctively what they mean but have trouble explaining why

A thing is only distinguishable by comparison to what it isn't. If you cannot make a determination of it-ness without comparison, then it follows that there is no entirely separate -it-, but rather n multiple, overlapping -it's- that exist on a spectrum of it-ness.

that was clarifying, thanks

Isn't Hegels response something like "If you know every quality of the thing then all that is left is to know that the thing can exist without humans, and then you know the thing in itself"?

This sounds like a more complex version of the Buddhist idea of anatta (selflessness) which gives rise to Mahayanan shunyata (illusion). Anatta is the idea of selflessness. That because nothing is a thing in and of itself, therefore it has no true and immortal self, no true essence. The idea is usually explained in terms of a ox kart. What this true and indivisible thing called "kart"? If you take apart the a kart piece-by-piece, the wheel, axel, spokes, floor board, and lay them out side-by-side, asking as you go along "is this the kart?" What you come to realize is there is no such thing as a "kart". It's an illusion, which is the true nature all things in the human realm, which is one characterized by becoming and disillusion.

Yes.
>Hegel, long since, has replied: If you know all the qualities of a thing, you know the thing itself; nothing remains but the fact that the said thing exists without us; and, when your senses have taught you that fact, you have grasped the last remnant of the thing-in-itself, Kant's celebrated unknowable Ding an sich.
t. Engels

USE HIM AS A MERE MEANS

KANTIANS HATE THIS

...

tfw hegel was derrida

I was going to say something similar. It sounds to be a lot like Dignaga's principle of exclusion (apohavada).

What? no

This is almost pre-Socratic in its clear simplicity.

Derrida was the ultimate pomo hack

Niggas don't know about identity of thought and being

What exact quote is Engels talking about here?

Wasn' Schpenhauer a critic of Kant? Specially in ethics?

He criticised Kant on a many conclusions he drew from his philosophy, but the underlying core of Kant's philosophy, the idea of the thing-in-itself, the idea that space, time and causality among others are only categories of our thinking and do not actually exist outside of our perception, etc. was all adopted by Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer worshipped Kant, but he ammended a bunch of Kant's ideas. Notably, he described a man's essence as his will instead of some unknowable thing.

You are destined to become an analytic philosopher

Your destiny is as a continental philosopher

May your paths never cross again

You just proved that conclusions come first

I swear that I am so attracted to the fact that I don't understand it that I want to seriously begin studying philosophy in order to grasp what he means

shoopy wasnt the biggest Kantian, youre forgetting our dear president of the united states


You have to read Kant's critique of pure reason to understand him, both Kant and Hegel are notoriously difficult. If you start with plato and aristotle, you could work up to them in a year or so. But you might need help once you get to kant. Philosophytube on youtube also has a really easy to understand 5 minuite introduction to kant

thanks, I am not in a hurry anyway since I have a lot of NEET time

youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w

Go to your library and check out some plato

Don't read too many continentals at once, you might OD on their obscurantism and come out as a positivist. I nearly did.

This video is actually a better explaination: youtube.com/watch?v=vaYVQMpkTYQ

...

literally, sincerely and unironically this

No it doesn't.

You meant to say

Why would a presupposed unity exist that the thing would consist of?
f.e. if i recognize something as a table how is that not just my mind imposing at first unity on something that was never united except by my imagination, and then labeling that unity as a table?

sorry if this is not related to the topic.

Shunyata has metaphysical and ontological implications as well but this is the best Holla Forums random Buddhism i've seen. bravo

this attitude will haunt you

Not as much as pointless metaphysics has haunted the western world.

I've had it with mindless german idealism

is this some kind of sick joke