有睇哲學書嘅入嚟揮個手 講你睇乜書

啱，我可以補充多啲
理性主義往往要求我哋承認有一個本體，真係有個靈魂，我嘅身體只不過係外表。而經驗主義認為我係冇本體，只係一堆經驗嘅集合。
呢兩者其實係講緊我「就係」乜乜乜，但康德無答過我「就係」咩，因為我地其實reflect on effect of formal unity, 從未知道過formal unity係乜，上述兩個代表憑乜嘢講我「就係」？

Formal unity只係為感覺經驗建立coherent嘅過程將A同B結合，所以我嘅經驗先至有規律性，同時借此知道我係同一嘅

因為formal unity唔代表有個本體喺背後，所以當我解釋同一性時就冇再咁神秘啦，因為康德解釋成係構造經驗嘅一部份，但又唔係經驗自己喎（當然我地都會有感覺到嘅我，叫做inner sense，但呢個唔係formal unity，但呢度問題會較複雜我唔講，而且牽扯到後面講靈魂嗰段）

多謝您嘅補充

巴打
我今日睇左你講嘅categories
我認同 好認同

又或者講
我
起碼睇唔到...你點可以俾Kant relates to Casualty (Hume's causality) FROM YOUR QUOTE

hummm...
但我唔係完全同意咁區分"理性主義者"
最起碼
經驗主義者唔會否定soul靈魂存在

繼續傾吧
繼續傾哲學係最正啦

單單係"理性主義往往要求我哋承認有一個本體，真係有個靈魂，我嘅身體只不過係外表。而經驗主義認為我係冇本體，只係一堆經驗嘅集合。"呢句我已經不能同意 sorry ar
只係 Leibniz and Spinoza (both so-called rationalist) 佢地對"外表"appearence6解讀已不同 更何況Kant對appearence嘅解讀都會唔同

或者 就當我企喺經驗主義嗰一幫 試下嚟個護航吧

你係咪想我對laymen嚴格區分？

你嚟講spinoza同leibniz點講appearance?

多謝你咁講
我估你都係高手
解下#530我已經驗好好
向你學嘢呢

不如搵人開個命題，再各自用返自己睇過既野去解答？
如果唔係好難討論咁

Casuality我借題發揮同講吓啲例子順便令你易明啲姐，唔知我咁做有冇解到你明

真正quote喺B209、B213/A171、B216(質）、A509/B537, A766/B794
我地攞A766/B794做例子
Understanding could not discover let alone lawfully infer from concept that we antecedently have of these thing(太陽曬蠟燭蠟燭會溶）…nevertheless we can cognise the law of the connection with other thing a priori(但可以令事件之間有connection呢點係understanding conceptually given俾我地）, although in relation with third thing, possible experience, but still a priori(我地為form，actual and potential嘅經驗為套form嘅matter）…though without experience, I could determinately neither the cause from the effect, nor the effect from the cause a priori and without instruction of experience.（只有connection本身係已知a priori，但係explicit嘅connection係需要經驗提供，i.e. natural science, i.e. association a posteriori)

有時好難捉一個位，講得簡單易明，啲人話你唔夠準確，講得嚴謹，啲人又唔識睇

Category只係擔保我哋嘅經驗係至少有categories 去處理所有經驗，因果一例、實體一例
除非你想支持一個嬰兒可以憑範疇就諗到蘋果，呢個世界係唔需要科學嘅，咁我冇嘢講（interestingly, Fichte，佢延伸kant嘅intellectual intuition，可能有類似諗法，我唔係研究佢，呢個係大約概嘅諗法。所以乍聽我會認為係荒謬嘅，除非你有興趣研究佢囉）

And without

我希望攞到平衡點，但睇怕好難
不過應該剩返呢度就可以解決晒你所有問題啊，咁我就大功告成走啦喂

你跟住呢啲quote同passage好可能就得出同我差唔多嘅結論，就係Kant do the basic, Hume do the rest

#519嘅疑問應該唔使再解釋

可試下呀師兄
你有冇命題開下?

學到嘢巴打
我overall明好多 始終冇細讀CPR 好多睇完都只點到即止 亦唔識再問落去
講真 就算一個sem course讀CPR 好多都係會skip

明好多咪好，我唔敢講話我interpretation一定最好，但起碼你咁睇返上下文係通咗，好多時你通完之後返睇最好啊。（我睇完cpr都有一段時間，所以你問我我都係憑印象同記憶答你嘅，明明印象佢講過但quote要搵真係好9q麻煩）

講美學講fichte純粹係我吹水唔抹嘴，入邊有幾多水份呢（就算我講康德，有啲argument同terminology我已經skip咗，除非你好識銳住嚟問，咁我先至無可奈何地答）。不過我唔理啦總之吹得簡單易明又好聽就得

到我發功
哲學撚 埋嚟玩
叔蛇講虛無 道家啲friend in terms of space and time

"This vanity finds expression in the whole way in which things exist; in the infinite nature of Time and Space, as opposed to the finite nature of the individual in both; in the ever-passing present moment as the only mode of actual existence; in the interdependence and relativity of all things; in continual Becoming without ever Being; in constant wishing and never being satisfied; in the long battle which forms the history of life, where every effort is checked by difficulties, and stopped until they are overcome. Time is that in which all things pass away; it is merely the form under which the will to live — the thing-in-itself and therefore imperishable — has revealed to it that its efforts are in vain; it is that agent by which at every moment all things in our hands become as nothing, and lose any real value they possess.

That which has been exists no more; it exists as little as that which has never been. But of everything that exists you must say, in the next moment, that it has been. Hence something of great importance now past is inferior to something of little importance now present, in that the latter is a reality, and related to the former as something to nothing."

一段得兩句

我#546出左叔本華
嚟睇下解下文 得幾句
唔多

我又試下
個passage嘅內容應該係
•喺無限嘅空間同時間中、喺相對嘅同互相依賴嘅事物中、喺生命中必經嘅困難中等等，睇到一切嘅事物都係毫無意義嘅
•只有現在先係真實嘅。當事物成為過去嘅時候，佢嘅意義亦都消失

師兄高手

我試試補一個位 師兄兩次提"意義" 但段文冇講到"意義"(meaning) 但講"價值"(value) 甚至"重要性"(importance)
正正人生命必須喺時間之中 令生命失去真實性 生命無法係其"生命-自身"之所能 生命嘅存在亦成為虛空vanity

生命在。
一定程度的意識在。
生命要續存，不會是無條件續存，只要生存條件不滿足就會死去，也就是消失。

生命本能上想續存，就要抵抗死亡的不斷挑戰。

生命不斷再用於世界，想要滿足條件，想要在續存之上進一步滿足欲望，但世界就不斷將其拉向死亡和不滿。

一刻戰勝了死亡，下一刻死亡的可能就重來。
一刻的續存不能保證下一刻的續存。

一刻的續存，意識自以為有價值，其實只不過是與過去和未來斷裂的一刻。
在時間中就是生命與死亡和不滿持續鬥爭的過程。
意志一直反抗，最終卻沒有生命可以永生，意識自以為認知到有關自己存在的價值，最終都會隨死亡和意識的消亡而失去價值。

一刹似乎確實的存在，面對過去無限的虛空和未來無限的虛空，其實渺小得，與虛空沒有重大差別。