/lit/ - Literature

>>16175586

Kant, he awoke me from my dogmatic slumber

>>16174129

You don't need other philosophers, Kant was right about everything. After Kant there is only babble.

>>9877260
Disassociation is an arbitrary framing of phenomena, not what they "really are"
Only thing worse than those who don't start with the Greeks are those that don't move on from them

Where do I begin with this man?

>>9340497
>not realizing one can form a general consensus about artistic value
>declaring everyone an oppressor for having general ideas outside science

>>24002
tattoos are not aesthetic

listen here noob
>much might be added to a building that would immediately please the eye, were it not intended for a church. A figure might be beautified with all manner of flourishes and light but regular lines, as is done by the New Zealanders with their tattooing, were we dealing with anything but the figure of a human being. And here is one whose rugged features might be softened and given a more pleasing aspect, only he has got to be a man, or is, perhaps, a warrior that has to have a warlike appearance.

>Now the delight in the manifold of a thing, in reference to the internal end that determines its possibility, is a delight based on a concept, whereas delight in the beautiful is such as does not presuppose any concept, but is immediately coupled with the representation through which the object is given (not through which it is thought). If, now, the judgement of taste in respect of the latter delight is made dependent upon the end involved in the former delight as a judgement of reason, and is thus placed under a restriction, then it is no longer a free and pure judgement of taste.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16j/book1.html#SS16

>>8378687
>Implying sensory input isn't always already organized for us by the categories of thought before it reaches our conscious awareness

kant was great. prove me wrong
protip: you kant

Who are some of the biggest autists in intellectual history?
I nominate Kant as king of the spergs.

Why was Kant against jacking off?

Why did it take until Kant for someone to realize that we don't have direct access to the eternal world, only what our senses tell us? Isn't that incredibly obvious?

Undecidable, but a necessary postulate for practical reason.

I say this every single thread. No one listens.

Kant. Always Kant.

>Freedom of the will is a necessary presupposition for practical reason.

The Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals are good places to start. I would also recommend Henry E. Allison's Kant's Theory of Freedom.

>>5117345
>>5116978
>>5116811

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/

>>5102466

I shouldn't engage, but I...

>by definition

Maybe if you prescribe to a specific type of non-cognitivism, i.e. emotivism. But this is not a very widely held position, so it's a little, um, grandiose to pretend that ethics is "defined" in such a way.

As to OP: pic related