/lit/ - Literature

>>10988383
He was making huge strides in math and science before he read Hume and decided to give up on all that and solve the epistemological gap. He was literally one of the smartest people to have ever put pen to paper.
>Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics,[41] but he made significant contributions to other disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."

>In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms.[42]

He needed Hume to wake him up from his dogmatic slumber.

>>10988383
He has a lot to think about before destroying all previous existing philisophy

>tfw you get that amazing rush of understanding while finishing chapter 3 of the Groundwork

>>10988414
>in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."

This sounds awesome

>>10988383
It's better that way. Books written by young people are always mediocre

>>10988452
Which groundwork?

>>10988472
You really can't Google "Immanuel Kant Groundwork" and just look at the results?

>>10988414
>smartest people ever
>only thing good is the good will
DELUSION!

>>10988537
How was he wrong?

>>10988414

Kant was basically a once in a millennia genius.
It's all there in that wry smile of his.

>>10988414
dude wikipedia

>>10988383
he didn't have /lit/ to guide him and mold him

>>10988607
It's common knowledge wtf did you want quotes from a biography or something

>mmmm... noumena

>>10988537
>not making a distinction between the absolutely good, discernible through reason, and the merely pleasant
you will remain a slave to the sensibility your whole life

>>10988537
Imagine being a 105 IQ 20 year old idiot and thinking you know better than Immanuel Kant
Oh wait its very easy to imagine

>>10988414
Did he really postulate that nebulas were island universes a.k.a. galaxies? I thought that was a 20th century idea.

>>10988966
He postulated this about Andromeda in particular

Because at the point he had achieved peak or at least near peak germanism

>>10988560
>>10988740
HE just makes assertions, it really is pathetic you both have fallen for this guys' opinions. How can there be an absolute good? Who is to judge?
>inb4 Nietzsche dick-rider
>>10988892
Appeal to authority. You can do better

>>10988537
ugh, fuck, WRONG. only thing thing we consider good WITHOUT QUALIFICATION is the good will.

>>10989466
>How can there be an absolute good?
Good emanates from existance and all men know good a priori without any need of justification of it.
Your interpretation of abstractions is worthless Neetche. Your perspective is worthless in the wiring of reality which is what a man of wisdom should attempt to understand

>>10988445
>>10988582
>once in a millennium genius
Literally didn't come up with a single true concept or a single thing that could benefit anybody in any way. Is this the power of "genius"? Do you stop being a "genius" when you improve human comprehension or human existence?

>>10988383
cleaned up his mental, got out of his own way

>>10989739
So bc my fee-fees say their is right and wrong, there is.

the state of /lit/

>>10990013
Isn't the you argument you presented so far: "my fee-fees say their isn't right and wrong, so there isn't"? You can't take a philosophical system that's centuries old and just say "I say it's wrong so it is till you convince me otherwise!". The philosophical system gets the benefit of the doubt. You need to present systemic arguments against it to show why it's invalid/unsound. You can't just stop your foot on a Taiwanese river fishing forum about your unsubstantiated opinion and pretend you did anything intellectual.

>>10990152
The burden of proof is on the initial asserter m8

>>10990236
yeah, so get cracking on your refutation of the critique of practical reason and the metaphysics of morals

>>10988582
You mean this smile?

>>10988582
>>10990279
No, wait — that kant be right.

>>10988582
>>10990279
>>10990283
I'm ... trying to find the wry-ness in his look.

>>10988582
>>10990279
>>10990283
>>10990289
Hm. Maybe if we try a different angle? Some people look better in portrait.

>>10990279
>>10990283
>>10990289
*blocks ur path*

>>10988582
>>10990279
>>10990283
>>10990289
>>10990298
I think the knowingness might rest more in his gaze than in his smile.

>>10990279
>>10990298
>>10990307
>>10990283
>>10990289
damn
dude had a thick neck

>>10990279
was Kant a (((negro))) ?

>>10990377
brothers and sisters...

>>10990377
HOL UP

>tfw brainlet and will never be able read and grasp Kant
i want off this ride

>>10988414
yeah, at his time it was still possible to be an 'universal scholar' because the knowledge in every branch was so limited
today you must even specify in a single branch of science like physics or bilology

>>10988414
>we would be colonizing galaxies if Kant didn't pick the wrong book
Damn.

>>10988466
>>10988466
Like Hume's Treatise of Human Nature?

>>10989739
>all men know good a priori
No they don't. They only have the capacity for empathy which good/bad is derived from. Therefore, as emotions (empathy) are subjective so are people's ideas of good/bad.

>>10992093
PLATO BTFO
ARISTOTLE BTFO
AQUINAS BTFO
KANT BTFO
ANSCOMBE BTFO

>>10992093
>They only have the capacity for empathy
Stealing from a person and giving it to another is universally known to be bad, eventhough you might have more empathy for the person which you are giving it. Good is not related to your feelings in the slightest

>>10992176
>Stealing from a person and giving it to another is universally known to be bad
Is Robin Hood bad?

>>10992195
All communists are bad

>>10992195
>>10992202
ROBIN HOOD WAS STEALING TAX MONEY AND RETURNING IT TO THE CITIZENS

ROBIN HOOD WAS ANCAP

REPEAT

ROBIN HOOD WAS ANCAP

>>10992202
Do communists think they themselves are bad? Or is that just you (according to your emotions)? If not - how do you objectively know communists to be bad?

>>10992215
>feudalism
>taxes
pick one

>>10992176
>Stealing from a person and giving it to another is universally known to be bad
This is an undeniable origin of all private property, and don't get me started on "aristocratic rights", aristocracies were eliminated in their entirety long ago, all those who took advantage of the aristocratic order's death and became sole owners of capital acquired it because of immense machinations and swindles.

>>10992217
(hint: he's an idiot and an ideologue)