/lit/ - Literature

Was he racist or nah?

>We make everything ourselves.

>>19162516
No

Im tryingna read the critique of pure reason and this nigga legit off his rocker

It doesn't matter if he's wrong, nobody makes better constructed arguments in metaphysics than Kant.

Is he officially considered no.3 after Plato and Aristotle? If not, then who is?

>>15095723
That's not me responding... those are Kant's own words from his On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (1797)

>>15077067
Yeah Hume influenced Kant a great deal. We can see a lot of Kantian philosophy as a response to empiricism. Kant is all about rationalism.

Is there any real value to idealism besides it being an interesting theory? How do these ideas benefit anyone?

I thought we were done with these nonsensical dogmatic metaphysics.

Does the second categorical imperative imply that taxes are immoral?
When you tax someone and take some of their wealth, even if you are appropriating it for the greater good, you are using that person merely as a means to upholding that end.

>>13429805
Ahem Kant here: We cannot know the Supreme Being absolutely or as it is in itself. We can know it as it relates to us and to the world. By means of analogy, we can know the relationship between God and us. The relationship can be like the love of a parent for a child, or of a clock–maker for his clock. We know, by analogy, only the relationship, not the unknown things that are related. In this way, we think of the world as if it was made by a Supreme Rational Being.

Mr. Chink how based am I?

Does Kant btfo the Buddhist concepts of non-self and non-being?

If you're interested in casually mentoring a mildly autistic anon drop me a message on discord: Kurtis#5182 or post your secure/anonymous contact deets

Just looking for some general guidance/somebody to bounce ideas off of :^]

Even if the moral realists were right, why should I behave morally? Barring some sort of punishment in the afterlife which I don't believe in, there is literally no reason for me to follow the "laws" and "imperatives" laid out by the moral realists. Every other law I know of has me bound. I physically cannot break the laws of physics; abandoning the laws of logic would destroy my comprehension; let me try and transgress the laws of the state and I will be thrown in prison. But what happens if I break the moral "law"? Precisely nothing.
>b-but you can be illogical
Not on the most fundamental level; I challenge you to try for a day to stop believing in cause and effect or in the modus ponens.
If by illogical you mean it is possible to make invalid deductions, then yes. But logic, unlike morality, doesn't have in itself any categorical normative claim about how you ought to act. "If you want to get at truth, you should be logical" is a conditional norm. In other words, only IF you want to do thing X, should you do thing Y.
>b-but morality is the same! If you want to get at the Good, you should be moral.
This is not true. The Good is defined as that which you should strive for. To say "you should strive for the good" is to utter a tautology: you should strive for what you should strive for. But what if I don't want to strive for the Good? A very strong case can be made for the utility of truth and therefore logic, but no similar case can be made for the Good.

Imanual Can't once wrote:
"I Believe Whatever Doesn't Kill You Simply Makes You...stranger."

Post more God-tier quotes!

>For sensuous perception represents things not at all as they are, but only the mode in which they affect our senses; and consequently by sensuous perception appearances only, and not things themselves, are given to the understanding for reflection. After this necessary correction, an objection rises from an unpardonable and almost intentional misconception, as if my doctrine turned all the things of the world of sense into mere illusion.
Why was Kant so angry in this passage? Did he just think that Idealism itself was too absurd to even be considered?

The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the ridiculous. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to adduce a single example where a Negro has demonstrated talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who have been transported else- where from their countries, although very many of them have been set free, nevertheless not a single one has ever been found who has accom- plished something great in art or science or shown any other praise- worthy quality, while among the whites there are always those who rise up from the lowest rabble and through extraordinary gifts earn respect in the world.

Now that the dust has settled, we can all agree he was dogshit, right?

>In his doctrine of transcendental idealism, he argued that space, time and causation are mere sensibilities
??????
ok hes sayig these things arent real just our imagination? where's the proof.

>start with Kant/Hume and go from there
you people need to stop giving advice like you know shit about anything

you memeing tards literally made me waste my money and my time on this goddamn autist that is beyond outdated. this idiot literally believes in a world where things *really* are conducted based on the understanding that people have inherent value. and the icing on the cake? he gives absolutely no proof whatsoever. and every. single. idea. is nothing but an alternation of rationalization and words. I literally sat through 8+ pages of this guy ramble on about the categorical imperitive, planting his philosophy in a rational basis.

I'm just making this to let other anons know not to fall for this meme. these people are not smart. /lit/ needs to stop recommending them. they have absolutely no value in the modern world and to call it "philosophy" is an insult to the actual field of study.

go with guys like Forest Gump and Rainman. they are far more pertinent and potent in their respective autism.

I am taking a module on Ethics and Kant's 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral' is a required reading. Which is the best translation available? I am looking for an academic work, as close as possible to the original with comments on obscure parts and the German words provided with their original meaning in such parts. I was thinking to go with Zweig's edition or Gregor's. Any insights and experience with Kant's translated work would be appreciated.