>>24385796
you don't understand Kant on a basic level.
>You can't intellectualize noumena by definition
Noumena (In KANT) by definition are intellectual. That's why Kant used the fucking word "noumena" a greek word derived from "nous" which means intellect. Read the section of the Critique of Pure Reason where he actually defines Noumena, "The Ground Of The Distinction Of All Objects In General Into Phenomena And Noumena."
>They lie outside human perception
perception is the confluence of sensibility and the understanding. an purely "intellectual" intuition would be an object that is created by the understanding alone, hence "intellectual" as opposed to sensible.
>Kant spends a good chunk of time arguing that space and time are "an intellectualization"
no, he doesn't. he argues that they lie in the mind, but they are not intellectual because he uses the word "intellectual" in a specific sense. time and space lie in SENSIBILITY, which in Schopenhauer becomes more unified with the understanding but in Kant is highly distinct from the understanding.
>>In Schopenhauer all intuition is intellectual intuition
>No
Dude, he literally says in the very section, EXPLICITLY, "all intuition is intellectual intuition." I guess you didn't understand what I was saying because you skimmed this part or your lack of understanding of Kant prevented you from understanding what Schopenhauer was saying. you are using the word "perception" without understanding how perception is specifically defined in Kant and how Schopenhauer later modifies Kant's notion of perception.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

What is the most /lit/ school of Buddhism?