/lit/ - Literature

>>21251838
>he's saying you can't make claims about things in themselves. maybe they're mental
Not him but your lack of Hegel shows itself. If they are in fact mental and mental is all that there is, then it stands to reason that they are in themselves. As such the mind knows the mental in itself.
> i'm 100% sure you, 4chan /lit/ kant misinterpreter, are not the one who has solved metaphysics once and for all.
This is not an argument and contributes nothing at all to the conversation. The fact you felt you had to write this only comes of as insecurity in your position.
>he was vehemently opposed to those who held those beliefs.
This is true, hence: "critique of pure reason". Have you read all three? beacuse he goes into more speculative knowledge in the third critique. So he was not an idealist in the strict sense but a little idealist at least.
>also, the claim that NOTHING is beyond our knowledge is simply retarded.
Also not an argument. Why would anything lie beyond pour possibility of knowledge? Give examples or reasons. LMAO the irony of someone clanking down on "4chan-philosophers" and then proceed to not make arguments for their position...

I can´t seem to get my head around this part of the Timaeus. I am reading a swedish translation though but I´m confident that the translation doesnt change the core theme. This particular part is 52d:

"Let this, then, be, according to my verdict, a reasoned account of the matter summarily stated,—that Being and Place and Becoming were existing, three distinct things, even before the Heaven came into existence;"

In my translation he translates it roughly to mean "even before the world came into existence". Now my problem here is that HOW CAN PLACE PRE-EXIST SPACETIME?! It does not make sense. From my understanding, when people are talking about "the world" they are talking about spacetime/the universe.

Is Plato simply talking about the form of place or some rubbish? Also genereal Timaeus thread.

>>15273741
>The unborn don't exist, so you are not deciding for them
They do not exist and you are deciding for them to exist, because like you said they literally CANNOT decide because they are non existent.
>Furthermore, that anon was referring to suffering beyond physical suffering, especially the types of suffering that only humans can feel. Can a giraffe feel existential dread?
Can a giraffe not feel existential dread? What is your point. Social animals can apparently feel very complex emotions beside "fire hot ouch". See depressed animals in oldschool zoos, or that elephant in Honolulu that went berserk. Idk torture a dog and make your own observations...
We are focussing on humans anyway and we don't know that much about our psychology too btw.
>You are also inherently biased to reproduce, but you can overcome that urge.
Not really, it is rather the hard sexdrive. Most beings are conceived by rape. Just look at other primates. Who gets to fuck just fucks. It is not an extreme urge to have children. But it is true that mothers have genetic maternal urges to care for offspring.
You didn't adress that you cannot reverse suicide if you are wrong but that you always can have children. I am not foolproof. Plus suicide in fact does cause great harm in family, friends etc. Especially if you fail and become disabled.
>You don't believe that your life will be meaningful and hopeful, do you?
I am hopeful. Is it rational? Probably no. You underestimate how much is influenced by feelings. My life my responsibility. Doesn't mean I have to choose for potential children to be brought into existence.
>Then you should commit suicide while you're an antinatalists so you don't live long enough to become a "monstrous natalist."
That is incredibly stupid. I have repeatedly said that I am not foolproof. I don't suit antinatalism to me but it just seems to make sense.
>Then why are you arguing with us?
Because arguing is fun?
>Why is it bad to be arrogant?
Because you are being inconsiderate and not aware of others pain. But I just used that worlf because I got called that word repeatedly itt
>Why is suffering bad and pleasure good?
All base axioms are that way. There is not obvios axiom that anyone can agree on. If that were so we wouldn't have all those existential problems.
The things is all living beings agree that suffering, pain discomfort etc is bad. That is why they all avoid it. And pleasure to gets pursued by all living things. It is the most sound axiom there is.
This whole "I am the new contrarian stoic neozai larper who birthes 15 huwhite children to save the west" seems far more arbitrary and pretentious to me