Kant and the mind

According to Kant the human mind has three faculties, based on the way we experince the world:

1. Faculty of cognition - representations of objects, the objective relation between them and the unity of consiousness towards it
2. Faculty of desire - the cause of the reality of these objects,
   
3. Feeling of pleasure and displeasure - relation to the subject i.e. a relationship of the feeling of pleasure
   

Kant believes the third area of feelings is neither cognition itself nor desire, it lies between the two and bridges the divide between them. Cognition relies on understanding while Desire relies on reason and between them lies the feeling of pelasure and displeasure which in the term of faculties in called the Power of Judgement. Feelings of pleasure do not rest on emperical grounds and are independent of the faculty of reason. It is not for the production of concepts but rather is the receptivity of a determination by the subject. The connection of feelings of pleasure to reason and understanding is not a direct one, for the Power of judgment according to Kant does not precede the first two, but follows the determination through reason of the object or is the sensation of the determination itself.

The power of judgment is the a priori pinciple that grounds the feelings of plesure and displeasure it is the princple of the subjective relation of the object to the subject and in that sense strictly personal. However, because of its appeal to the transcendental laws through the a priori it achives the semblance of universality.

The whole of nature to Kant is the totality of all objects of experince constituting a system in accordance to transcendental laws. These laws are given by hte understanding a priori. However, it is worth nothing that understanding working within these laws. Now experince itself constitues the general and particular. From the particular the general is brought forth, and from the general the particular is understood. This presupposition that there are general laws to be derived from the particular and there are particulars to the general is an a priori principle in itself, for without this assumption there would be no understanding which strictly relies on the general. Yet this has to be a strictly subjective experince. The general is not to be found in nature or in freedom but lies in the subject's relation to objects. Kant calls this a priori principle is called the Power of Judgement.

Kant onwards...

According to Kant, Thinking or Thought consists of 3 primary areas:

1. Understanding - It is the source of the faculty of cognition and gives the a priori principles. This is the matter of the Critique of Pure Reason, the last post was the understanding at play. All of Theoretical philosophy falls under the understanding, for through the understanding we have the laws of nature e.g. Newtonian laws of physics (Kant is trying to affirm them in response to the empirical skepticism of Hume)
   
2. Reason - It is the source of the faculty for determination of the particular through the general. This is dealt with in the Critique of Practical Reason, and gives the a priori principles of the laws of freedom (morality). All Practical philosophy falls under Reason. e.g. Reason at work: Is this lie I just said Good?
   
3. Power of Judgment - It is the source of the faculty for the subsumption of the particular under the general and gives the a priori principles for the power of judgment.
   

Now as this whole thing is going to be a build up the the power of judgment I shall explain why Kant added the Critique of Judgment to his other two Critiques in the next post.

This post I hope makes clear the distinction Kant makes with the different faculties we think through.

Kant yet again

According to Kant Philosophy is a system of rational cognition through concepts.

Cognition is knowing, perceveing, or conceiving, and is distinct from any from of emotion.
Concepts are abstract ideas

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is trying to outline this system i.e . Philosophy and so speaking is doing philosophy as well. The first primary parts of of the system, in so far as they are concepts, are:

1. Logic - the form of thinking in a system
   
2. Real - systematically considering the objects of thought
   

Kant gives the Real two further distinctions that form the two core philosophical road maps:

1. Theoretical philosophy - Now Theoretical philosophy is the philosophy of nature, it is emperical at its core. It is primarily concerned with principles of the natural world. It studies the possibilities of things in accoarance to natural laws. For instance, physics in a theoretical philosophy as it solely deals with the natural world and is governed by laws of nature, and not my our own laws. There is a practical aspect Theoretical philosophy, namely, in the use of these laws.
   
2. Practical philosophy - Practical philosophy is ethics, morals, morality. It deals and gives us humans freedom, it is the basis of our freedom. It is not a natural object of experince but is rather given to us a priori and is primarly concerned with consequences. The root of this philosophy lies in the will. It determines action as necessary through its own principles (the idea of freedom i.e. morals) without regard to the means, with the object of the will (the good thing to do) being only an indirect result of these morals.
   

Now, Kant claims that all other chocies made other than that out of freedom are Technical becuase they belong to the art of bringing about a wish into existence and fall under theoretical philosophy.

However, there are still judgements made on objects that fail to be either theoretical or practical since they do not dtermineanything about the object or the way in which to produce it. Instead, trough these objects, nature itself is judged in a subjective relation rather than the objective relation to the object. This judgement is grounded in the laws of the power of judgement which form a part of our cognitive faculties.

Kant the cunt - preclude

After somethought over my previous post I figured I needed to add some background detail on how kant believes the world is...

Kant's first big book: The Critique of Pure Reason aka First Critique
Here, Pure Reason is used to deliniate the faculty of cognition from a priori principles

A priori in this case is the transcendental form/framework of knowledge, they are pure intuition in that they allow emperical experince and knowledge, aka a posteriori. The three most basic frameworks constituting a priori are: space, time and causality.

The Critique of Pure Reason is then the investigation of Pure Reason and the limits of a priori knowledge. The only way this is accomplished is by creating principles of cognition a priori through the understanding.

Kant's second book: The Critique of Practical Reason aka Second Critique
Here, Reason (different from Pure Reason) operates within Pure Reason and understanding with regard to the faculty of desire.

Finally, but most importantly to feature in from hence forth: The Critique of Judgement aka Third Critique

More on the third critique later...

Kant the cunt

So I figured the lonely potatoes would like to hear some expositions today...

The aesthetic property is the subjective end of any experience with the phenomenal world. To be more specific it is the relationship of the subject with an object. An objective experince concurrently would be the relationship between an object and a subject. Is there a difference? yes. The objective experince entails properties of the object, the subjective experience entails classification i.e. naming of the object, feelings, understanding and interpretations. Within the relm of subjectivity there are multiple areas of cognition itself, but that is a matter to be discussed in the next post. So the aesthetics in the broadest category is the subjective experince of the world.

peace...

and don't I write better than that cunt?

In commemoration of that is fried

there is something quite unique about the taste of fried food... it tastes good... it goes really well with fried potatoes aka french fries more infamously known as freedom fries. A term that suddenly made all those western hamburger munchers of totalitarian regimes realize that at that moment of time as they ate thier fries with ketchup, they were experiencing hte purest form of freedom available to all humanity. It is the potatoe my friends, the potatoe that grants freedom to all man-kind. It is the potatoe that gives the allusion of there actually being a freedom, for the potatoe has us under its spell. It is an evil but clever manipulator of human minds and infiltrator into our subconsious. It has made us dependent on it, on all foodkind in general. It has made us its slaves, we cannot survive without food, although some time in the disstant past, water realizing the power food had gained upped the stake and also successfully administored a devestating defeat of all will power and human intelligence. Without food we can survive, a few weeks at best, but without water a few days at best. How fucked up is that?

It was the potatoe family of the food kingdom that came up with this ingenuous plan, a plan much later mimicked by odyssus to enter the fabled walls of troy. But let us not forget it was the potatoes that was the horse, and yet we still cherish it, worship it even, dedicate it to every single dish imaginable, use it as main course, as apetizer, as desert, as snack as paste... anything... it has obtained utter domianance over us.

If man kind is to truely be free, it must first be free of potatoes, there fore I purpose launching all 10,000 odd nuclear warheads we have calculated to detonate at teh same time, so as to avoid the potatoes from gaining any warning and blasting them over all prominant potatoe fields all over the world. This is no laughing matter my friends, for humanity must unite, we must fight this treat... least everything is lost...

are you eating chips you traitor????

The Scotsman fallacy

the argument goes like this:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."

Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

ah.. but anyone who eats porridge is a retard... and anyone who talks about porridge in relation to identity doesn't really know how sensual taste can be

Durk

durken duh indeed... somtimes you do the things you should never do...