If you were near-hearinged, I’d spell hello & nod my head furiously with a “yeah right” smirk. If you were far-hearinged, I’d wave hello & nod my head furiously with a “yeah right” smirk. If you were blind, I’d flip you off until you made sense.
We must therefore analyze experience in general in order to see what is contained in this product of the senses and of the understanding and how the judgment of experience itself is possible. The foundation is the intuition of which I become conscious that is perception which pertains merely to the senses. But in the next place there is judging which belongs only to the understanding. Kant, Prolegomena, page 43, Hackett, 1977
Are we talking about out of body or near death experiences? I would love love love to study all that in combination with cognitive science and philosophy of mind. Alas I cannot in good conscience continue acquiring student debt after this year.
You may or may not be right about me , not being reducable, but as far as legitimacy is noncerned, …no.
The intuitive aspect so strongly brought out by the lack of certainty( of legitimacy among other things) has to transcend the limits of reason to create a true judgememt.
Kant’s talking about intelligibility according to the principle of sufficient reason.We can’t think rationally outside of the structures of intelligibility that are given a priori. Being itself is unknowable via these parameters. We can know it only intuitively in a different sense. This sense Schopenhauer explicates in his metaphysics of the WORLD AS WILL. For Kant it is the unknowable THING IN ITSELF.
The thing about the thing is that number does not even apply to it. You can’t say that there are a number of things in themselves because the thing is not a thing that can be known. Mathematics is a product of the faculty of intelligibility.
So this inner intuition of Schopenhauer is different from the intuition as defined by Kant. For Kant and the subsequent phenomenologists like Husserl, intuition is the intelligibility of perception. This may be where you’re getting confused. Kant is not referring to intuition in the contemporary colloquial sense.
Schopenhauer’s sense of the word is closer to the way the word is usually thought of today.
The way we use the word may have evolved after Kant as a result of the Romantic movement. Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley - those guys and many others of the Romantic period with their sense of the sublime and the divine in nature. They may have transformed the meaning of the word etymologically. In any case that’s how the word is usually thought of today, not the way the phenomenologist use it influenced as they were by Kant.
Yea, the re-iteration of the general framework of the moral fallacy; between what is, or/and what should be. The point that the fallacy contains the dialectical argument of appearances between Kant and Shopenhauer appears to have no content as far as substantive support to the Romantics’ claim, therefore the all encompassing morally judgmental fissure remains unsupported.
Aesthetic primacy does hold a huge leverage as being supra supportive within reasonable terms of that fallacy.
