Physics Lournal
Powered by 🌱Roam GardenPart One: Transcendental Aesthetic
Summary
The only knowledge of objects we have, that is directly related
Introductory:
The only manner in which our knowledge immediately relates to objects is by means of an intuition.
An intuition can only take place on the condition that the object affect the mind.
The capacity for receiving representations through the modes by which we are affected by objects, is sensibility.
While it sounds counterintuitive, sensibility is something you would possess, not a flower, or a light.
These modes are what we now refer to as "senses".
By means of sensibility, objects are given to us, and it (sensibility) alone, furnishes us with intuitions; by understanding, they are thought, and thus give rise to conceptions.
Given here is a stand in for something like revealed (just not via the hands of an individual.)
It is interesting that the objects are said to "furnish" us with intuitions- it is certainly accurate, in that the flavor of the apple is a property of the apple and not the tongue, but there's the intermediary of the senses that REPRESENT THE FLAVOR TO THE CONSCIOUSNESS.
This book is going to fucking ruin me. Let's go.
An object's effect upon the faculty of representation (by which I assume he means our senses- a "faculty" responsible for representing the world to us.), is sensation(al).
The type of intuition that relates to objects, via sensation, is empirical-intuition.
The undetermined object of empirical-intuition is called phenomenon.
The parts of a phenomenon that correspond with the sensations it causes are it's matter.
That which effects that the content of the phenomenon can be arranged under certain relations, I call it's form.
Let's de-philosophize this: the form of a phenomenon are the rules that describe the set of all various arrangements () of relationships properties that result in a valid instance of said phenomenon.
We literally re-philosophized this.
The ruining has begun.
So a de-philosophication would be more like: You know how a slice of pizza, and a slice of pie have the same shape? They're phenomena. Their form is triangle.
So do triangles decide pizza bro?
Well- no, but if you're going to decide if a piece of pizza is a triangle, the triangle is the standard.
So...triangles accept pizza as one of their own?
Yeah, fuck it that works.
That in which our senses are "arranged" in and by which are susceptible to assuming (ascertaining?) a certain form, can not be itself sensation.
This would be a very bad piece of circular logic.
Therefore, the matter of all phenomena must be realized a posteriori; and the form must lie ready a priori, in the mind, and consciously can be regarded outside of sensation.
All representations are pure, in the transcendental sense. Representation is that which wherein nothing from sensation is met.
In the mind exists, a priori, the pure form of sensuous intuitions, in which all the content of the world is arranged and viewed under certain relations.
Are these relations that lead to form?