Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Support us on Patreon!

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.13355196 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, he was often pictured this way because he was actually ugly as sin, that's why he used this facbeook profile picture pose and tilted his head down a little so that people won't have to look at him from upfront.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13355196

I just had a thought. If we take modern medicine and its organ transplantation into account, shouldn't the categorical imperative demand each and every one of us to try to be as fit and healthy as possible? The reasoning here is that organ transplantation can save lives, and if we keep our body so healthy that we if possible do not ever need organ transplantation, atleast not due to preventable causes, then the donour organs can go to people who do need them. Consequentially, if we keep our bodies healthy, we are also much more likely to become organ donours ourselves, which again can save those lives who do need donour organs.

Is this too much of a stretch of what Kant meant when he coined the categorical imperative?

>> No.13345322 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 94485401285.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13345322

why the fuck is reason a necessity for perception, reason is superseded by experience itself

stupid fucking wanna be catholic

>> No.13304204 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 4head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13304204

>>13303977
>>bubbutbut sex is bad because...uh....duhhhhh....
>There has yet to be a logically valid counterargument
Casual sex is objectifying. It breaks the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and is therefore immoral.

>> No.13284183 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 1557073223781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13284183

Why were the soviets afraid of him (particularly).

>> No.13267238 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13267238

>>13266858
Stop having sex!

>> No.13214988 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 05BE159A-7F21-4869-B384-F503716C489D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13214988

ywn physically manifest the sheer grandeur of the transcendental in the form of your own forehead

>> No.13108557 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 214356789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13108557

Guys help me understand
Does the capacity for morality come from the noumenal world?
Is the a priori thought a noumenal thing?

>> No.13052460 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(self-painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13052460

I don't want to read him. I want to refute him.

Which philosophers btfo of this pedantic goblin?

>> No.13043666 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13043666

>>13042326
>serve a purpose

>> No.13041898 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13041898

What does Kant have to say about it? He basically destroys the subjective solipsistic thesis ("only I exist, and every phaenomenon I percieve is a creation of mine"), but he does not seem to have much to say about those brands of solipsism which states that our subjective pheanomenic experience is externally simulated.
All I know is that he would say that we could still derive logic, scientific laws and moral laws out of that simulation (out of ANY simulation, actually).

>> No.13032589 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Cunt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13032589

>>13032527
an intuition a priori

>> No.12758216 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 885F9DD6-4189-4523-9CB3-8BD75A9BE352.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12758216

>>12758203
That’s me

>> No.12758164 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 0A98044A-0158-4603-AAB6-C3749C12B986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12758164

Is it better to learn Latin or Classical Greek?

>> No.12722508 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, kunt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12722508

How do I prepare myself to read Critique of Pure Reason?
I've heard that in order to understand it you would have to understand many previous things and I am willing to do so, so where do I start?

>> No.12683986 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12683986

I was trying to sleep last night, but I was kept up by the fact that 238 years later, and someone still hasn't managed to completely take down his system of transcendental Idealism . Even cognitivist biologist are not even close. What the fuck? Is there really no answer after Kant? Did he really finish metaphysics? Everything I have read still hasn't been satisfactory as an answer.

>> No.12656495 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12656495

>>12655721
This nig

>> No.12564358 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 1549420698132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12564358

A Copernican revolution; your mind will begin to revolve around Kant's massive dome.

>> No.12524821 [View]
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, 6B92E30B-1D04-4CCE-9CE7-CD76A9C56DF3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12524821

What’s the difference between trascedent and transcendental?

The way understand it is as follows:

transcendent: that which we can never comprehend or experience

Transcendental: that which is a precondition for comprehension (or knowledge) ie space and time, categories etc.

>> No.12157745 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12157745

Good luck topping this one

>> No.11933192 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11933192

Is he overrated or do people just hate him because he writes like a retard?

>> No.11901865 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11901865

*zaps u with mind rays*

>> No.11865970 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11865970

I've got an ethical dilemma for you /lit/, based on real life events.
There was a car accident in which a car hit a pedestrian, who then died. In car there were two brothers, both intoxicated. But before police arrived at the scene, the brothers exited the vehicle.
In the course of investigation the police was not able to determine which brother was driving. Neither admits the guilt, they both say it was the other one.
The punishment for killing a person when DUI is very heavy, up to 20 years. But a passanger could be charged at best with failure to administer first aid, a minor offence.
What should police do in this situation? What should the courts do, if anything? Should both brothers be charged with causing the accident, even if it logically impossible? Should both brothers be let go, because there is no conclusive evidence? Would it send a message to society that it's okay to DUI and lie since police can't prove a thing? What is the desired moral outcome?

>> No.11674731 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11674731

>>11674280
Is Kant the earliest example of the myspace angle?

>> No.11545958 [View]
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, immanuel_kant_painted_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11545958

Brainlet here.
I'm in need of some help. I'm going through the CPR and I'm having some difficulty understanding just what the fuck this autistic German means. So in the introduction to the second edition, he says that cause and effect can't be a priori notions because you need to have empirical experience to get to that. Okay, fair enough. But then once I start the book proper he literally says that getting that 7+5=12 is an a priori notion, although a synthetical one. Is the implication here that the rules of mathematics aren't subject to cause and effect? And if not, why not? Is it because you don't need space and time to determine the result? That's the only reason I can think of why. Help me...



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]