/lit/ - Literature

Is it accurate to say that Kant made metaphysics mental? As in, after Hume "committed to the flames" claims of speculative metaphysics such as that of the rationalists, Kant revived metaphysics and made it a priori?

Morality is preference. Without preference, there is no morality. An action is called good or moral if the consequences are preferable to the one making the judgment. If it were not possible for me to prefer any experience over another, then all of my actions would make no difference to me. You could not convince me that any action is good or bad, because the consequences would all be the same to me. It does not matter if other people suffer if I do not suffer as a result. I may even have the understanding that others suffer, but this does not mean that I necessarily will prefer to prevent suffering. Now suppose that I could feel suffering, but only under certain conditions, such that no one could cause me to suffer in any way. Then the golden rule still would not make sense, and I would have no reason to care about the suffering of others, even if I know what it means to suffer, and I know that my actions may cause others to suffer. I could kill or rape anyone, and nothing bad would happen to me, nor would it ever cross my mind that I did something bad.

But as you add more and more preferences, such as the preference for life, and sex, and the resulting preferences thereof, then I begin to apprehend that harming others potentially harms myself. So we see the full logic of the golden rule: I know that others suffer, and if they are like me, they will try to prevent suffering, even by harming the one who causes suffering. So if I cause suffering then I risk suffering, and I would prefer not to suffer, so that I prefer not to harm. Obviously if I sense that I could benefit myself by harming others, then I would choose to do so.
And we must remember that from an evolutionary perspective, what I really value is my genetic makeup, which is shared to some extent by my family, and those around me, and all humans, and even the animals, so that even if my life may be lost, I will still value the lives of others, as I live through them.

the more I read greek, and specifically Platonist, philosophy, the more I realize that everything the Germans said had already been said in clearer language by the Greeks and Latins. In fact, I'm starting to believe that the developments in Logic by Leibniz, Wolff, Frege, and Gödel are the only things the Germans have actually added to philosophy. All the concepts in the the German continentals, on the other hand, already existed and were better thought out. The ding an sich is literally just the incomprehensible non-existent God/One of people like Plotinus and John Scotus Eriugena, except they actually gained knowledge about the ding an sich and gave it its proper place whereas Kant just said 'it's the cause of perceptions lol' and left it at that. And Schopenhauer thought that the hindus were some kind of geniuses, but all the ideas of eastern Philosophy are actually much more complete and far better embodied in Greek philosophy. When I read eastern Philosophy, it just feels like they are saying some things that are true and good on them for figuring out the basics but they are woefully incomplete and one sided, whereas a Greek text like the Hermetica contains all their ideas and more. Hegel basically ripped of the neoplatonists and I find his whole dialectic summarized neatly in every other ancient text I read dating all the way back to Plato. Were they retarded? I know these people, especially Schopenhauer, were definitely well read in Greek Philosophy, so why did they try to pass of their shit as their own original ideas? Why did they abandon the framework and in large part even the vocabulary of Greek philosophy and insist on starting their own traditions? Even the things that they did say that were new could easily have been stated in the long established lexicon of the Greeks, but instead they insisted upon jerking themselves off and introducing new terms and models unnecessarily.

The simple question that confuses the Kantian:

Why should I follow the categorical imperative?

was there any deontological ethicists besides Kant? because he seems like the only one I can think of.

also found this interesting article that was a bit eye-opening

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/ideas/2021/11/18/was-kant-the-first-woke-philosopher/

>>20212960
Was Kant a bit of a dumbass? He was trying to gain knowledge while refusing and avoiding getting actual knowledge.

>>20150984
Filtered.

What would he have thought about abortion?

>D1
Stop right there.

>>19731806
> Like, can you actually imagine Nietzsche writing anything except reddit shitposts had he lived today?
You're probably right, but on the other hand, can imagine Kant's autism being channeled into anything other than academia?

>>19507886
Why is it always that picture, that's like the worst one. It's obvious you're doing this on purpose.

I heard someone talking about Kants morality system.They said that many would pickup an immigrant crossing the British Channel because even though it might be illegal the morality of the action would be correct

I’m asking this board to tell me more about Kants morality and if this person is wrong about if Kant would support rescuing immigrants on the channel

>Marx as a thing-in-itself

>>17346305
Ding an sich.

Can somebody who read a lot about Ethics answer me?

>>16465403
Platonism makes the mistake of attributing synthetic existence to that which has only analytical existence.

>Man knocks on the door with an axe
>Asks me where my children are so that he may murder them brutally
>Respecting him as a human being, an end in itself, I refrain from lying to him and tell him where they are
>Am saddened as he murders my children, but I am then consoled by my adherence to the categorical imperative

based ethics

>>14276169
>Academia is for fags who can't philosophy.

When should i move onto the 2nd and 3rd critiques? I've gone through the first one three times now and... it's good. I don't have a 100% grasp, but can I safely move on?

How to break out of the Kantian way of thinking?

What was he going for with this portrait? "Brainlets Beware"?

does anyone really have a critique of epistemological idealism?

Rewrite their conversation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-man-shot-in-quarrel-over-immanuel-kant-s-philosophy-8820327.html

What's a good book that covers these stuff? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

I have a Philosophy exam soon for which I don't have a textbook and don't have any notes either.