And simply,in other words, relating Kantian categories to Newtonian physics ex post facto , is trying to find a deterministic reductive link, where the corresponding existential intention somehow foretells rocket science.
That type of argument nowadays may be rightly said to be rocket science, but aside from the Chinese there were no signs. that anything like what the world has today would be in the works.
The essence of the argument consists in the relative difference and not the analogy between the two logical systems of arguing.
Relatively speaking. it presents an imminance which could not be transcended.retro-actively.
A note: this explanation is the only way, that I can ‘transcend’ the particular existential , intentionality, as they appear in various contexts. Otherwise this forum could go on circularly, indefinitely, with reductions into projected ad hominims, or unnoticed empirical , masking as contradiction and hidden tautology.
In regard to the question of the differance; and it is strictly a self edifying project, I must agree, on basis of the slight difference between Kierkegaard’s aesthetic and Heidegger"d analytic, that I presume to further my umderdtanding.
Two levels exist : within that gap. (or without for that Matter, (as substance):
1 : the field of imminance
2: the field of transcendence
Transcendental philosophy cannot reduce below the level of metaphore, it can not reduce below toward the clarity of reason, therefore abstraction can not fill the gap between it and myth.
Imminance is the approach as the finctional derivative approaches an absolute, below the categories of aesthetic justification of reason. The Narcissus myth, can not be apprehended other then a pre-supposed allegory, because. (and this is important) the connections between the construction of perception have not to a substantial degree- overlap the conceptual and existential identity of the self.
Narcissus was punished for this presupposition, as was , the bringing of the fire: Prometheus.
The presupposition of Kierkegaard was defensive in placing God over aesthetic perception, but I think that political move, can be likened to the deliberate misunderstanding which Nietzsche was trying so desperately to avoid.
Their forward look could not ignite, or fire off the presumed understanding. The differance was greater then what he projected probabilistically into the future. The same with other 1st rate thinkers mentioned above.
The imminent and relative aesthetics could only be described in terms of metaphore. But metaphore, clarity and myth, were to become too differentially significant: as can be asserted by the coming philosophy of sign theory, of which modernists have trouble with the faire of connecting the dots: even between modern and post modern philosophic transitions of sign , signal, semantics & structure in the acquisition of meaning.
A modern German philosopher,Herbert Marcuse , author of The One Dimensional Man, tried to bypass understanding of reducing the transce dent field to the field of imminance, but his failure is obvious by looking at what happened to the new left during the 60’s; such short cut simply, does not work.
There are profound relevant, down to earth examples of how this huge failure came about, but a structural analysis precludes any existentially reduced examples, since such, will change upon the analytic interpretation of them.
Aesthetic reduction , then will need to give primacy to eidectic reduction, and as such, produce a faux neo -aesthetic, which has the affect of immediate and total nihilization of structural
integrity.
Dali’d use of delusional, hyperbolic return to the myth (Narcissus); bypasses all of the metaphoric content that Nietzche took so much pain to bring across aphorismically.
Same with Jesus’s Parables, most being lost on reason.
The Antichrist had some compensatory things to allude to, but the level of explanation appeared contradictory.
The immanence of contradictory visage, created the decisively abstract hyper realization of Dali, and the figurative representation suffered an imminent fall from gods grace into the middle ages’ obsessipnal representation of saving grace through a dialectic of imminent revelation through the transcendence of the essemtialism. Maritain, a French Catholic modern philosopher tried to bring this across.
The false ideal-idolatry must have been present for Kierkegaard, and the faux body as well to modern French
philosophers , namely : Guattari and …Deleuze
Extreme search for Dasein can reveal the basis for Heidegger"s difference, albeit sleight , from that of Kierkegaard.
For Dasein, for all practical purposes, the Self, through time can be substituted, and imminance is the shortening duration of the self through the effects of science. How does the impression of this immanence becoming an essential part of the self? Through repetition , eternal recurrence.