/lit/ - Literature

>>9252139
>Is Kant to blame for philosophy turning into autismal circlejerk of meaninglessness that it is today?
>I just finished Kenny's history of philosophy and it seems like everything was going along just fine until this manchild showed up
No, you're thinking of Hegel and his crackpot metaphysics in new clothes and everything that followed a la socioeconhistoricistempirical doodle doo, Nietzsche, DUDE PHENOMENA LMAO and ultimately les frenchies.

Kant warned us of all of this in the ole tranny dialectics but of course everyone ignored the parts which cucked their worldview and overinflated egos so what we got instead was nu-idealists Goethe and Schiller propagating empty phrases like "dude reality aint real lmao" "mind makes reality" and so on and that was literally the extent of the German idealists' understanding of Kant, plus a few buzzwords they picked up from the wikipedia entry like noumena which they categorically misused. You think I'm being edgy but actually read Hegel's take on Kant, it's frighteningly low iq low reading comprehension drivel. Honestly like he read the wiki entry of copr and only half way. Better than Neetcheesie's "thoughts" on the matter sure but then again everything is better than neetcheese. Get some standards will you? (Fun fact: Did you know Kant ignored the weimarcucks' pleading for correspondence? He smelled the brainletism half a Germany away)

tldr really it's the 19th century when philosophy went wrong because nobody understood the critiques at the time (it's only recently that physics and cog science have been starting to catch up, meanwhile in philosophy we have Zizek, Peterson and 420 lmao phd theses per day on Hegel, Marx and Cheesie..).

What I've come to accept is that in the end it's a normie norm world. Kant is dry and unfulfilling -- Hegel is intriguing and mysterious. Spiritual. You can give the normie a book but you can't teach him how to think critically. It's not a """""""hero archetype"""""" thing to do.

>>8619726

I'd say Caygill's Kant dictionary, from my own experience. Tremendously helpful.

>>8552762

As for Kant's actual face...

>>8543130
>>8543250

1. Kant criticizes the introspective method of Descartes as naive, for assuming that it *just can* have acces to some I-in-itself. But isn't Kant's own method of transcendtental reflection equally naive for assuming that it *just can* reliBly separate the formal elements of knowledge from the material elements?

2. What could justify Kant in assuming that all intelligences, human and non-human, must function in accordance with some same forms (namely, those of reason)?

3. Kant criticized Aristotle's caregories for the "haphazard" method of their discovery - but Kant bases his own categories on the forms of logical judgement. Wasn't the historical discovery/canonization of these forms equally haphazard?

> tfw the difficulty becomes the fun

>>7988420

>>7798123
>>7798147

"There are scholars for whom the history of philosophy (both ancient and modern) is philosophy itself... Unfortunately, nothing can be said which, in their opinion, has not been said before, and truly the same prophecy applies to all future time; for since the human reason has for many centuries speculated upon innumerable objects in various ways, it is hardly to be expected that we should not be able to discover analogies for every new idea among the old sayings of past ages."

- Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Preface

>>7470032

Kant was born in 1724.
He was 45 in 1769.
Firtst edition of Critique of Pure Reason was published in 1781.

More to your point.

>>7305243

Whether or not Kant was successful against Hume will depend on who you ask. His general strategy, and the particular details of how he argued for it, were pretty brilliant though - a paradigmatic example is that Hume said that we can't derive knowledge of causality from experience, so Kant instead located causality in the mind and thus made knowledge of experience derive from it. If causality is just a way in which the human mind organizes the data it receives, then any and every possible human experience, past present and future, will conform to the law of causality, and we won't have to explain causality by habit, as Hume did, with the resulting problem of induction.

And given the opening paragraph of that wikipedia page, I'd say that Kant is a phenomenalist. For Kant, a thing "exists," is "real," if it is perceived in space and time, or is connected with what we perceive in space and time (thus magnetic fields exist, even though we can't directly perceive them, because we can perceive the effect that they have on some metals). But space and time themselves, and thus every object within space and time, are only ways in which our mind receives raw sense data and imposes order on it - space and time do not exist on their own apart from human minds. Kant argued that there is something that is (not something that "exists," or has "reality," insofar as these words imply spatiotemporal attributes, but rather something that "is," a "being," since these words can refer to things conceived as spatiotemporal OR as non-spatiotemporal) independent of our minds, but can't have knowledge of it; humans are limited to knowledge of appearances, prohibited from knowledge of the underlying thing-that-appears.

>>7305248

> Can you explain why you think it is so much a matter of our existence?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this - you might have in mind some more contemporary idealistic ideas from philosophers I haven't gotten to yet. Unless there's another way you can phrase your question, the most I can say is that the phenomena I described - rocks falling, seasons changing, planets orbiting - depend on the existence* of human minds because all those phenomena occur within space and time, but space and time are only the forms of the human mind's faculty of sensibility. We have no justification for asserting that there are other, non-human intelligent beings who intuit things through space and time - and even though we can think of such intelligent beings as possible, the rocks and seasons and planets would then merely depend on the minds of those beings, and still wouldn't exist in-themselves.

*Here I use the word "existence" loosely, since technically the word only applies to what is wholly spatiotemporal; yet the human mind is not within space and time - rather, space and time are only attributes of the human mind. It would probably be more accurate to say that space and time depend on the "being" of the human mind.

>>7106988

> mfw I'd be impressed if you could describe in any detail what Kant actually meant by "faith."

>>7077261

> to be free

It is a negative concept: independence from the laws that govern the deterministic mechanism of nature.