/lit/ - Literature

check it out
https://youtu.be/BYGGHlgpdlw

>>22318929
>Kant said what he needed to say briefly, precisely, and concisely.
ftfy

>as regards the comprehensibility of a system of speculative cognition, connected under a single principle, we may say with equal justice: many a book would have been much clearer, if it had not been intended to be so very clear.

>Space is not a conception which has been derived from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is, to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent them not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in separate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation. Consequently, the representation of space cannot be borrowed from the relations of external phenomena through experience; but, on the contrary, this external experience is itself only possible through the said antecedent representation.

What do you think bros? Is space real or ideal?

>>22271685
>They must exist,
necessity is a category, therefore the thing in itself only necessarily exists as a thought, an object of the mind, but that object of the mind, that noumena in the positive sense recognized merely as subjective, is not the thing in itself, since the thing in itself as transcendent cannot have any categories, including necessity, predicated of it. you've outed yourself pseud. and victory is mine.

>>22250863
>The being-there of whatever we receive is what posits a dilemma to the the Kantian critique, for admitting the existence of things in themselves as ground of these sensations is problematic, but at the same time that denying them likewise is problematic, for it would result in radical subjectivism, solipsism (account only for the subjective activity)

What part of
>Kants conclusion is agnostic with respect to the thing-in-itself; Kant is agnostic even with respect to a cause our sensations. But he does not deny there is a mind-independent cause of sensations like Berkeley-- which means he is not a subjective idealist, but neither does he affirm it, theoretically, speculatively.
did you not understand?

>All we know is we have sensations. PERIOD.

>Coffee — he called it a “great power in [his] life” — made possible a grueling schedule that had him going to bed at six, rising at one in the morning to work until eight in the morning, then drinking eighty cups before putting in another seven hours.
>Whenever a reasonable human dose failed to stimulate, Kant would begin eating coffee powder on an empty stomach, a “horrible, rather brutal method” that he recommended “only to men of excessive reason, men with formidable intellects.”

Do you mean humans describe the world one way and manage to prove it another? Almost like there is a human bias to all of our knowledge. Like we a priori do this and can't understand reality any other way.

>>17271680
But he was a goblino

>>16421400
If we put all together, that the virgin has never had sex, that the non-virgins have, and that the virgin demonstrates about non-sexness, this would seem to constitute no small part of our knowledge. Nevertheless, I dare assert that all these non-virgins could be placed in a most awkward embarrassment, if it should occur to somebody to insist upon the question, just what kind of a thing that is about which these people think they understand so much. The methodical talk of learned sexhavers is often simply an agreement to beg a question which is difficult to solve, by the variable meaning of different sexual positions. For we seldom hear at origies the comfortable and ofttimes reasonable “I do not fuck.” Certain newer virgins, as they like to be called, overcome this question easily. A hymen, they say, is a being possessed of purity. Then it is no miracle to see virgins; for he who sees sexhavers, sees beings possessing sex. But, they continue, this being in virgins, possessing purity, is only a part of sexhaving, and this part, the animating genitals, is a spirit. Very well then. Before you prove that only a virginal being can have sex, take care that first of all I understand what kind of conception I must have of a virginal being. Self-deception in this matter, while large enough to be seen with legs half-open, is moreover of very evident origin. For, later on and in old age, we are sure to know nothing of that which was very well known to us at an early date, as sexhavers, and the man of thoroughness finally becomes at best a sophist in regard to his youthful purity.

This is the ideal male physiognomy. You may not like it, but this is what peak intellect looks like

>I’m not listening to your utilitarianism because it hurts my feelings :(
Why do people take this hack seriously?

AS IF IT WERE EVEN A QUESTION

>And so I did spend many years searching, looking for, perusing every single problem, every single particle of my brain in the hopes that I would finally, after so much profound toil, after so many decades of excruciatingly difficult mental examination, walk the very first definitive steps in the fire-paved road towards the secret diamond of the mind. Never give up! I told myself. And give up I never did, and kept striving for my manifest destiny when one morning, just as the cocks were singing in the backyard and I was having another one of my soul-investigating armchair sessions, something strange suddenly struck me, which I was left aghast when I saw, for it was nothing less than the very Critique of Pure Reason that I had so often dreamed about.

U serious, Immanuel???

>>12756588
>Elaborate on this.
I don't have to, he already did.

>>12256486
Why does he not look like a tucking gremlin in this painting? Where did the other depictions of Kant go so horribly wrong?

>"For Kant, the Jews were "a nation of swindlers," "a people composed solely of merchants," and "slaves of the law"; since the Old Testament has no concept of immortality, the Jews lack a sense of "higher values," are materialistic, and thus devoted only to material survival.
>On Jews — e.g., the Jews are “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.”
Any truth to these? I see some scholars reference them, not just fringe (more like cringe, amirite?) stormretard websites.

>1. “The race of the whites contains all talents >and motives in
>itself.”

>2. “The Hindus . . . have a strong degree of >calm, and all look like philosophers. That >notwithstanding, they are much inclined to >anger and love. They thus are educable in the >highest degree, but only to the arts and not to >the sciences. They will never achieve abstract >concepts.”

>3. “The race of Negroes . . . [is] full of affect and >passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be >educated, but only to the education of servants, >i.e., they can be trained.” (In another context, >Kant dismissed a comment someone makes on >the grounds that “this scoundrel was completely >black from head tofoot, a distinct proof that what >he said was stupid.”)

>4. “The [Indigenous] American people are >uneducable; for they lack affect and passion. >They are not amorous, and so are not fertile. >They speak hardly at all, . . . care for nothing >and are lazy.”

>Kant ranks the Chinese with East Indians, and >claims that they are “static . . . for their history >books show that they do not know more now >than they have long known.” So Kant, who
>is one of the most influential philosophers in the >Western tradition, asserted that Chinese, >Indians, Africans, and the Indigenous peoples >of the Americas are congenitally incapable of >philosophy.

welad. who knew kant was so redpilled? basically the JBP of the 18th century

Okay then Kantians, do you just willfully ignore Kripke?

Is a posteriori necessity too detrimental?

What's the best thing to read in order to get and idea on what Kant is about without actually reading his work?
I'm only asking this because I want to read schopenhauer.
Would I be missing that much if I just went ahead and started with The World as Will and Representation?

Name one time Kant was better than Bentham

>>11042563
Anon, please have a seat. This German munchkin would like to have a little chat with you.

>>10504826
>holding ontological commitments to infinite entities that are causally inert and don't cohere to objects

You all disgust me.