/lit/ - Literature

>>15735341
>impure a priori
By impure here he means not analytical.
>pure a priori
By pure here he means not empirical, which as we know from Kant may mean either synthetically a priori or analytically a priori.

If you judge it by the letter it is a blatant contradiction, yes. But since the whole point of the work is to drive at this very distinction (synthetic, thus impure--i.e., requiring intuition--but also non-empirical, thus pure) the issue is understandable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2YtqUrr3Jw

this is me trying to read any philosophe desu (and yes even the greeks. plato is hard.)

>>14788038
>Reminder that Kant did two thousand sit-ups each morning before going down to the University of Königsberg fraternity to duel the latest members

You could have fooled me if it wasn't for this. This manlet never lifted in his fucking life.

>all this posturing for The Golden Rule

Why

>utterly fails to refute Hume in your path