/lit/ - Literature

who is the most logically sound philosopher of all time and why is it this handsome little rascal?

>>11248466
STOP refusing to read the First Critique

Stop truncating the indeterminate causal regress

>>11227423
>Kant thought that mathematics was analytic a priori. For example: 7 + 5 = 12.
He repeatedly uses this as an example of a synthetic judgment, not only in Critique of Pure Reason, but also, I think, in the Prolegomena.

>How aren't things in the world spatial? If they weren't extended into space, how would we feel them as solids, for instance?
They are, the phenomena are spacial, ya fucking knob. Try to think of an empirical object without space; this is the kind of thing that would be classed as noumenal. "Things in the world" are spacial in the sense of phenomena, they are not in the sense of noumena, because how could you conceive of an object without empirical characteristics given in space, like solidity?

If you in fact did not bother to actually even read the Transcendental Analytic, the following is the deduction of space:
All empirical objects are represented in space. In other words, we can't think of a determined and definite object without situating it in space.
This means space is a form of perception, a condition of all possible empirical perception.
But if space is a condition of all possible perception, it would not be possible to receive the idea of space from the empirical world, since this idea is the very condition of the subject's relation to such a world.
Therefore space exists in the mind prior to experience.

>>11153414
Immanuel was a good boy, he dindu nuffin to intentionally violate the objective practical law

>>11132962
>>11133104
>>11133118
>Kierkegaard, Engels, Marx, Hegel
>But no Kant
Someone seems deficient in the faculty of judgment

>>11108700
Kant has already completely eviscerated, mummified, and put on display for the edification of future generations all possible arguments (the only three) for the existence of God. The modern revival of scholasticism is a sickening denial of the truths Kant labored his entire life to uncover. I'm looking at you, Feser

>>11096288
Also, Kant. Black?

Is it necessary to read Hume before Kant? Or can I skip him?

>>11065788
Throwing away two thousands years of theology is the philosophy of a great man

>Everyone donates to poor people
>Poor people aren't poor anymore
>Therefore no one can feed "poor people" now
>So it is a moral obligation to never feed the poor

I love the categorial imperative !

>>10908349
>Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.
*simultaneously blocks your path and your most likely direction of retreat*

>>10856919
>ctrl f: Critique of Pure Reason, First Critique
>0 results

Schopenhauer, on Kant:
"It seems to me, in fact, as indeed has already been said by others, that the effect these writings produce in the mind to which they truly speak is very like that of the operation for cataract on a blind man..."

>>10844596
tfw bigbrained

>>10839049
I'm gettin' sick and tired of your shit, Hume.

>>10804018
if so, a rather generous one at that. Kant wasn't nearly that handsome. I'd still suck his wee wee though

The categorical imperative states that moral actions must be universal and evaluated by themselves, not by the outcome of those actions. Kant seems to state that morals determined using the CI are objective, but how is one supposed to decide whether or not an action should be universal? Is that not based on a subjective evaluation? And how could you decide if an action itself is moral when the mechanism by which it is evaluated depends on its outcome? If one wills that stealing is not universal, is that conclusion not based on either an emotional rejection of stealing at large or the impact that universal stealing would have on society?

Also, how does Kant assert that we have free will because of the existence of the noumenal world. Nothing within the phenomenal world give us free will because our brains are governed by the laws of physics and are either determined or probabilistic. How could something in the noumenal world cause a free action? If the mechanism by which we are free lies in the noumenal world, and therefore outside of the mind, could one really be free?