/lit/ - Literature

>Hey man, you should totally tell me, and everyone else what to do. I talked to the others, they think it's A-OK!

>>3672394

>Now, this *ain't* what Kant says, and we could get into why that's the case

Could we actually? I am curious.

I thought that I had agreed with Kant, who believes that it is impossible to determine anything objective about nature. But instead, that there is an objective rationality, subset to reality as a whole. Because the car exists (evidently reality exists), the motor (reason) exists inside it, even if the motor isn't the car itself.

Whereas Hume believes there is no objective reality whatsoever, and only the independent perceptions of it.

By the way, here is the passage I'm drawing from in chapter III of Groundworks. Does Kant not briefly subscribe to evidentialism after the semi-colon and in the last sentence?

"But this conception of a system of nature is
confirmed by experience; and it must even be inevitably presupposed if experience itself is to be possible, that is, a connected knowledge of the objects of sense resting on general laws. Therefore freedom is only an idea of reason, and its objective reality in itself is doubtful; while nature is a concept of the understanding which proves,and must necessarily prove, its reality in examples of experience."

Hobbes

biggest bootlicking fuck ever

>People can't be trusted
>thats why we should trust the governing of our lives to one very easily corruptable person who is brought up spoiled by granduar and developing a god complex

>also you can't question what the leader does ever hurrr durr

>also without our glorious leader everything will IMMEDIATELY fall apart and everybody will kill each other (this is logically fallacious btw)

five words come to mind when reflecting upon my time spent /lit/: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

>>2977096
OP, I have some bad news for you...

HUrring the durr up in 'dis.

Yes, animal [read: homo sapien] instincts govern our every move, since we are animals. It's a tautological question. BUT, the type of animal instincts such as selfishness, empathy (limited) and so on affect various people in various degrees.

Some people rationally (that is disinterestedly) see that applying empathy beyond ones natural tendency to express it towards loved ones, countrymen and so on, is a virtuous act, and do so. Some people also see that not fucking every chick you see (>tfw no gf) is a rational decision, but in these cases it's hard to determine where rational decision, learned behaviour (cultural norms etc.) and evolutionary logic (you gonna get yo' cracka ass whooped if you fuck Shanaynay AND Laquisha Barnes) play their part.