/lit/ - Literature

>>4656348

The Critique of Pure Reason totally transformed the way I think about the world. His philosophy is like a drug, but one that affects my interpretation of perception rather than my perception itself. Agree or disagree with his system, it's has the kind of power that makes me love philosophy, and I think his genius deserves respect.

Regarding agnosticism, I think he was right that theoretical knowledge of God's existence is impossible for humans to have, and theoretical knowledge of God's non-existence is impossible in the same way. (This all hinges, of course, on what we mean by "god," especially whether we're using the word in any of the ways that Kant uses it.)

But regarding Kant's personal agnosticism, from what I understand these anons are basically half right:

>>4656357
>>4656362
>>4656511

while these anons are correct:

>>4656375
>>4656396

Kant was an agnostic when it came to theoretical reason, but was not an agnostic when it came to practical reason; that is, our knowledge of what IS the case cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but our knowledge of what OUGHT to be the case can prove the existence of God as a necessary condition of morality.

Personally, I'm not convinced that we need to postulate the existence of a god in order to make human morality binding. But maybe when I'm done reading the Critique of Practical Reason, I'll be surprised to find myself convinced.

>>4613895

I'd estimate my comprehension of it to be around 85%

Which isn't be surprising - I encountered its ideas a posteriori, so I wouldn't expect to know them universally.