Is there anything higher than reason?

[Marioxs34]

Hi, guys, i just read Kant's critique of pure reason. There, Kant says that the infinite nature of the cosmos can be easily critiqued by reason and, therefore, a mystical and arational study of the cosmos can be easily overcomed. What are your thougts on this?

[Sugarcoat]

What is meant by reason?

[Marioxs34]

Well, the use of your rational mind to explore reality

[Ishanga]

On 7/13/2025 at 1:08 PM, Marioxs34 said:

Hi, guys, i just read Kant's critique of pure reason. There, Kant says that the infinite nature of the cosmos can be easily critiqued by reason and, therefore, a mystical and arational study of the cosmos can be easily overcomed. What are your thougts on this?

Do we know all there is too know about an Atom, one of the smallest aspects of reality? Does anyone know all there is too know about a cloud, a leaf, a blade of grass, or anything else on this planet? No they don't but these things affect all life, even a tiny Bee affects life as we know it, so reason will only go so far, beyond that is mystical experiences and grand knowing's that are not logic based or explained via logic or reason...

[Leo Gura]

Stop wasting your time reading Kant.

Edited July 14 by Leo Gura

[Basman]

Kant is a nerd.

[UnbornTao]

I've heard he is notoriously difficult, so stay open to the possibility that your conclusion might not be the whole story to what he tried to get across.

Where does he say that, btw?

Edited Thursday at 01:12 PM by UnbornTao

[Sugarcoat]

On 2025-07-13 at 7:13 PM, Marioxs34 said:

Well, the use of your rational mind to explore reality

Well so you mean Kant doesn’t agree with the rational paradigm?

[Carl-Richard]

Reason and human imagination grants the ability of conceiving of an unknown separate from what is immediately known (Being), which allows you to postulate something outside of what is right here, right now, which makes Being only absolute with respect to the known. But that is not in itself to argue in favor of any particular unknown more than any other. The unknown could be anything. Being could be limited and outside of it rests a pink elephant, but you can't argue for that absolutely; it might as well be green, or yellow, or a bird. And if that is the case, why bother with it?

Edited July 20 by Carl-Richard

[DocWatts]

Rationality should be learned and transcended - a stop rather than a destination. Metarationality is its higher form.

From 'In The Cells Of The Eggplant', written by David Chapman, with an audio version narrated by my friend Matt Arnold.

"Meta-rationality is particularly useful when rationality isn’t working well. Its value comes into view when you have seen rational systems fail enough times that you start to notice patterns of limitations to their use in practice. You realize that solving technical problems within a fixed set of concepts and methods is not always adequate. You become increasingly curious about why, and what to do about it."

Edited July 23 by DocWatts

[Eskilon]

On 13/07/2025 at 2:08 PM, Marioxs34 said:

Hi, guys, i just read Kant's critique of pure reason. There, Kant says that the infinite nature of the cosmos can be easily critiqued by reason and, therefore, a mystical and arational study of the cosmos can be easily overcomed. What are your thougts on this?

I just learned that Kant is literally the antithesis of metaphysics and to Leo lmao.

Quote

An influential theory about the limits of metaphysical knowledge was proposed by Immanuel Kant. For him, knowledge is restricted to the field of appearances and does not reach the things in themselves, which exist independently of humans and lie beyond the realm of appearances. Based on the observation that metaphysics aims to characterize the things in themselves, he concludes that no metaphysical knowledge is possible, like knowing whether the world has a beginning or is infinite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge#Limits

[UnbornTao]

23 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

I just learned that Kant is literally the antithesis of metaphysics and to Leo lmao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge#Limits

 

Quote

An influential theory about the limits of metaphysical knowledge was proposed by Immanuel Kant. For him, knowledge is restricted to the field of appearances and does not reach the things in themselves, which exist independently of humans and lie beyond the realm of appearances. Based on the observation that metaphysics aims to characterize the things in themselves, he concludes that no metaphysical knowledge is possible, like knowing whether the world has a beginning or is infinite.

It sounds like what he's pointing at there is our ignorance of the nature of things in and of themselves.

In my view, he's essentially saying that what we call knowledge is entirely based on how things relate to ourselves, which is distinct from what they are in themselves.

For example, we perceive and make sense of objects, and this is what tends to fall into the category of 'knowledge' for us, while the being or presence of the thing remains unknown. The conclusion at the end is reasonable, but ultimately mistaken - that's where direct consciousness comes in. 

Edited July 29 by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

For example, we perceive and make sense of objects, and this is what tends to fall into the category of 'knowledge' for us, while the being or presence of the thing remains unknown. The conclusion at the end is reasonable, but ultimately mistaken - that's where direct consciousness comes in. 

Yeah, it somewhat makes sense to come to this conclusion if reason was everything there is. But it isnt.

[UnbornTao]

28 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Yeah, it somewhat makes sense to come to this conclusion if reason was everything there is. But it isnt.

Checkmate, Kant.

[Xonas Pitfall]

‎ 

Emptiness

Presence

Now

Emptiness

Everything

All

⮔𓍰𓎂ꝍỾ࣯࣯

Truth

Being

Isness

I am

Edited July 30 by Xonas Pitfall

[UnbornTao]

On 7/20/2025 at 2:22 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Reason and human imagination grants the ability of conceiving of an unknown separate from what is immediately known (Being), which allows you to postulate something outside of what is right here, right now, which makes Being only absolute with respect to the known. But that is not in itself to argue in favor of any particular unknown more than any other. The unknown could be anything. Being could be limited and outside of it rests a pink elephant, but you can't argue for that absolutely; it might as well be green, or yellow, or a bird. And if that is the case, why bother with it?

Is conceiving - imagining what isn't - what you are referring to as 'unknown' here?

Rather than Being as what is immediately known, I'd just consider that to be the act of perceiving and experiencing. 

Depending on what you mean by that, but if Being were already immediately grasped, that would suggest that direct knowledge of its nature has already occurred. Still, it is only graspable through consciousness, instead of any other conventional means.

Quote

which makes Being only absolute with respect to the known

I'm not getting where you're coming from.

I need my fucking coffee.

Edited Thursday at 01:44 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

The picture above is not Kant, by the way.

Edited yesterday at 06:31 AM by UnbornTao