/lit/ - Literature

>"Hey Immanuel, what time is it?"
>"H-hey anonette, a-actually I can't tell you that beacu-because that would necessitate using me as a means to an end rather than an end of in, end in of uhh, end in myself."
>"Uh... Alright..."
This is your brain on Kant

We posts authors/thinkers and inexpertly diagnose them. I'll start
>Autism

I give up, what secondary literature best explains this manlet's philosophy?

This madlad conclusively proved in the Critique of Practical Reason (chapter 1) that free will exist, even in a deterministic world.

>mfw I prove an objective moral law
>mfw I prove we have free will

Can you refute the argument for free will he gives in the Critique of Practical Reason?
For those who haven't read it, check the Introduction and then read the definitions and the 4 theorems in the first chapter. It can be done in less than 30 minutes

>>16366683
Kant changed his mind after he wrote his second critique. While the 1770s Antropology has a (now infamous) section dedicated to racial distinctions, in the 1790s Anthropology he says that race has no effect on the capacity for thought nor action (practical and theoretical reason). Also in Perpetual Peace he argues against all forms of colonialism, and claims that every population has equal dignity (so, no "Europeans must lead the world" schtick).

Dunno why people keep quoting Kant's pre-critical writings as if they have any relevance on the Kant we actually study. Here's another big news: before the first critique Kant thought that the existence of logical laws proved the existence of God. Is it relevant? No, because he refuted these claims in the books we actually read and study (his three critiques)

The first part (the first 4 theorems) of Chapter 1 of Kant's Critique of Practical Reason conclusively proves that we have free will even if the physical world is fully deterministic.
The whole passage isn't that long, just around 20 pages.

>>16331165
>mfw OP is an NPC devoid of practical reason

Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason
>redditor: OoOoO wE cAnNot kNoW nOtHinG
>Enlightened Chad: We can obtain objective knowledge of the world, and we have access to an absolute moral law.

>be aphantasic
>tfw Im actually really good at reading philosophy books
The imaginative schmucks are the real NPCs, that's why they have so little going on when it comes to their internal monologue. Aphantasia is reserved for true thinkers only

>>16038192
This

Is he worth getting into, or are his works considered invalid?

>What does it matter now whether you did those or not in the past?
>If you gained knowledge & [reflection] , that positively influences the present. If you [participated] and whatnot, it does not influence the present at all. Actually, since you lose time from positively-influencing activities, it is negatively-influencing.
Hedonists BTFO.

>>11249641
>you are merely making appeals to authority
No you gaylord, I'm not saying "these writers thought Dante was good, therefore he was good" I was simply attacking the other anon's argument of Dante not being relevant to the modern age when he is in the top 3 influences in XXth literature. I was discussing his importance, which can be objectively studied.

>>8654085

I'm glad you didn't lie, anon.

Looking for something to help me understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, something similar to David Harvey's Capital video series.
Also whats your thoughts on Kant and his books?

>>7792796
The form of your posts are shit. The content of your posts are also shit. Stop posting loser.

Why have Germans been so instrumental in Philosophy?

Kant's moral and ethical theories make absolutely no sense.
The categorical imperative and deontology in general is stupid as fuck and has basically no real world value. The face that it was used in some court cases is pathetic too.
Anyone else hate Kantian ethics and all the morons that tout it as perfect?

Should I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before I read his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals?
Should I read Hegel before I read Stirner?

Is it stupid to think that, as far as phenomenology goes, Kant is the end-all be-all? Does anyone try to blow pure a prior out of the water or is Kant just untouchable?

How often do you think Kant masturbated? He died a virgin at 79

The argument against free will that uses Cause and Effect is flawed.
Cause and Effect is temporal, and time is a concept that only related to appearances, not things in themselves (the noumena)
So those of you who do not believe in free will, how do you disprove it now?