/lit/ - Literature

>>23592453
Look I admire your gumption and passion, really I do. But your entire worldview derives ultimately not from Hegel or Kant but this fat bastard right here.
>How can I know a cause? All there are are associations of events. One thing and another, where's the causality?
And the sane response runs something like this:
"A cause, properly understood, is an explanation of something. Of course we don't perceive causes any more than we perceive the number two. But they are both part of the world outside the mind. If things outside the mind weren't truly caused in themselves then they would be unexplainable, which means they would be irrational, which means they couldn't exist in the first place. And by the way causes properly understood are simultaneous with their effects, not one thing and then another."

The unhealthy response is what Kant did.