/lit/ - Literature

>Whosoever finds this plan itself, which I send ahead as prolegomena for
any future metaphysics, still obscure, may consider that it simply is not
necessary for everyone to study metaphysics, that there are some talents
that proceed perfectly well in fundamental and even deep sciences that are
closer to intuition, but that will not succeed in the investigation of purely
abstract concepts, and that in such a case one should apply one’s mental
gifts to another object.
i consider myself better than most in terms of verbal reasoning ability, yet still i find myself going back and rereading certain parts of a text, almost always when kant gearshifts into denser and more abstract ideas. answer me this: are there actually anons out there who are able to read heavy literature without pause, fully grasping the depth in implication of all its constituent sentences? might it simply be my adhd? PLEASE ANSWER ME I NEED TO KNOW

Try to refute him.

Is there a book that explains this guy in one go? I don't actually care enough to read his word salad but I want context for other things I am interested in.

>>12780906
Where were you when this man destroyed Hume?

>black people are inferior!!
>black people have lower IQs!!
>black people are not intellectual!!
Pretty funny that you would say that, considering that Kant, the smartest man to ever live, and the basis of all western thought, was clearly an african american.

Kant says that morality is based off of reason, rather than pain and pleasure, and he directs us to follow personalized laws that come from pure reason. He then defines reason using the categorical imperative: Treat your actions as if everyone were doing them, treat others as end in and of themselves.

My question is, how is the categorical imperative not based off of pain and pleasure? What would the point of considering others as ends, and considered your actions as universal laws be if not to minimize the pain of yourself and others? Can someone help me understand how Kant defines the, “Moral,” thing to do?

Ad hominem is not fallacious.

>>12272309
No that would be Immanuel Kant

Should I read Kant?

*blocks your path*

*mumbles in goblin*

what would you do /lit/?

>mfw this doesn't work if you are an autistic moralfag that follows the categorical imperative at all times
Heh... Nothing personell nihilists...

>>12031480
Based

>He became convinced that constipation clouded his brain, and he added an impressive array of laxatives to his room-sized medicine cabinet.

Imagine the smell...

>sex and sexuality
Cringe and bluepilled, absolute yikes-tier

Objectivism is the truth

You guys weren’t joking, this midget is hard to understand. How do I adapt?

Anyone able to help me with this paragraph from Critique of Judgement?
>To apprehend a regular and appropriate building with one’s cognitive faculties, be the mode of representation clear or confused, is quite a different thing from being conscious of this representation with an accompanying sensation of delight. Here the representation is referred wholly to the subject, and what is more to its feeling of life-under the name of the feeling of pleasure or displeasure-and this forms the basis of a quite separate faculty of discriminating and estimating, that contributes nothing to knowledge. All it does is to compare the given representation in the subject with the entire faculty of representations of which the mind is conscious in the feeling of its state. Given representations in a judgement may be empirical, and so aesthetic; but the judgement which is pronounced by their means is logical, provided it refers them to the object. Conversely, be the given representations even rational, but referred in a judgement solely to the subject (to its feeling), they are always to that extent aesthetic.

Next up on our list, /lits/ wet dream, the man who never left his hometown just like you.. it's the one and only Immanuel Kant!

>He never tralled more than 60 miles form his home, his whole entire life.

>He stood less than five feet tall, and his head was disproportionately large for his body. His frame suffered from a slight corkscrew twist, which made his left shoulder droop, his right shoulder curve back, and his head tend to lean to one side.

>His daily walks were so precisely scheduled that his neighbors would know the exact time by seeing him leaving or returning home. HE also died a virgin.

Looks like philosophers aren't that different from you after all!

I don't know why you guys think Kant is ugly. He's adorable. Remember that he's 4'11". He was nice little man who was too cute for this world.
kant is CUTE
C U T E
U
T
E

Does Schopenhauer "complete" Kant? I know someone who contends this, and I argued with her for over an hour on it before she finally copped out and said we should try being metaphysical. I said that's what we're doing. She said we were just talking. I said all you can with metaphysics is study it. She said yeah but study can be pretty intense, it can last all night. I said well if this discussion isn't productive, what good would all night do? She said I just want to get down the thing in itself. I said you've read Kant, you know that won't happen. She said, I read Schopenhauer, so I know it will. I said it doesn't seem like it, and she sighed and said I guess not. And the debate ended

he was wrong

>>11605273
It can be hard to understand what he is critiquing if you do not read Kant especially in "On the Genealogy of Morality" last chapter.

Best order:
1. Kant
2. Schopenhauer
3. Nietzsche

Dammmnnnnnnn kant looked like that?

>>11264607
>baseless

>>11166253
Were you looking for me?