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.)
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. 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.
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”).