Concepts of intuition (Kant)

DO NOT ANSWER IF YOU HAVE NOT READ KANT OR STUDIED BRAIN PROCESSES

Kant talks about concepts of understanding, and that ideas are concepts of reason (Critique of Pure Reason). He seems to imply concepts of judgment (intuition) yet also speaks like judgment tries to refer an intuition to understanding to see if it has a concept there (Critique of Judgment). Why can’t judgment just recall prior (or innate) intuitions by which to compare new ones? Or why not all three (judgment, reason, understanding) recall prior (or innate) intuitions, ideas, and concepts (respectively) by which to compare new ones?

(For those with an ear for it: Things old: innate. Things new: prior (learned)… and new ones.)

_
This can surely be answered if one hasn’t read Kant nor studied brain processes, ergo… a knowledgeable type.

…or was that meant for someone/s in particular?

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.

I haven’t read Kant. I know about the categorical imperative … but that’s it.

It’s gibberish.

There are immutable proofs. Kant wasn’t smart enough to simply state that people don’t want things to happen to them that they don’t want to happen to them. And that we should direct all of our resources to solve this problem for everyone forever.

No. Instead he wrote gibberish.

Red herring and contradiction. End transmission.

There’s no contradiction there and it’s actually what Kant should have stated. No red herring.

You don’t see things as they actually are.

I told you not to do spiritual work because it would destroy you. I mean it.

I can do it. You can’t.

_
Stop trolling good threads… have some decency, regarding that courtesy.

[size=85]Reply if you will, but I won’t be answering…[/size]

Gibberish is trolling. The OP is gibberish. Kant was gibberish.

Any reply except the one I made is psychosis.

Critique of pure reason?

Critique of pure judgement?

Intuition?

Kant was a retard. Seriously

The contradiction is that you say you didn’t read him, then have stuff to say about what he wrote.

But I wonder about that red herring & the three … for now I’ll keep it to myself.

Some can gain essential Kant without turning one page of Kant. How does this figure? Or how Kan it?

If no then Kan it.

Isn’t it interesting (or interest-free) how the Thing that most fully satisfies our deepest hunger … must be free of inclination?

DUh!

No. Kant was not a retard.
The stuff he was talking about is hard to understand for people without the capacity, patience or intelligence to understand. So whilst I understand that you think he is talking gibberish, we’ll leave it up to other to determine which of the tow of you (Kant or yourself) is the retard.

That was a moral issue.
The notion of intuition relates to Kant’s epistemology.
You are just confused

Intuition is different for everyone. Kant literally never stated a very simple sentence like:

“Since intuition is different for everyone, even mutually exclusive, we need to solve that problem for everyone.“

He’s a retard.

Maybe we are confused when thinking what our deepest hunger consists of? Maybe we exclude that very Thing, and hence misunderstand how it transcends without transforming IT.

Only one is eternal Virtuoso, existing essence, I AM that I AM, Being from whom we get first being, and second being (from Firstborn) … living though we die (or else eventual second death…even while we “live”).

image of God: the inborn firstborn

first

and last

And the beautiful/sublime. As for ethics… To be continued.

Must have all three at its levels or it’s… gibberish.

This leveling the field is as necessary as it is positively nauseating: as if looking back at Charlie Chaplin.