/lit/ - Literature

>>13424762
replace Kant with Hegel and Critique of Pure Reason as Phenomenology of The Spirit then it pretty much right

>>13424778
Birds of a feather

>>13424762
She described Jordan Peterson

>>13424969
She wouldn't say Peterson is anything close to as meticulous. His style is just par for the course for mystics.

>>13424762
>I, Ayn Rand, will derive causal necessity and libertarianism from A=A
Rand was a major pseud.

>>13425006
She repudiated lolbertarianism, way to show you've never read her.

>>13425026
A=A though right anon? Genius! Fucking pseud.

>>13425042
>A=A
It's A is A NOT A=A. Very crucial

>>13425055
what's the difference? (not the guy you responded to)

>>13424762
This reads like a /lit/ brainlet temper tantrum.

>>13425095
Not the guy that you responded to but what he's saying is that whether A is true or not, A is implied to get to that answer.

>>13425055
A=A implies a while host of mathematical truths one only arrives at once the axiom of identity is identified.
The amount of apples in this basket is equal to the amount of oranges in that basket, because A = A. But an apple is an apple, and an orange is an orange; that's because A is A.
One must understand that the axiom is qualitative, not quantitative

>>13425169
>while
*whole

>>13425126
i still don't get what you or the other guy are talking about.
i get that "A" doesn't have to be "true".
but how does using "=" change the meaning from "is"

>>13425169
this explains it better, thank you.

>>13425169
Are you saying that A = A is quantitative? Are you joking?

What about the vector x and the scalar x? Are they equal? No. A = A is not just quantitative you dumbfuck

>>13424984
Mystics dont take lexapro and tell people to slave away their lives working like niggers. "Be the best bloody burger flipper you can be" is not something that would come out of a mystics mouth.

>>13425181
The point here is to stress that the axiom of identity can ONLY be qualitative dumber fuck.

>>13425185
>Mystics, all mystics, can only do x
People can and do operate off contradictions champ. Peterson is not a consistent thinker

>>13425198
What is the relation between qualitativity-quantitativity, and extensionality-intensionality? Both are the concept of equality so both of latter part uses law of identity.
I don't know well about philosophy, but I can say about math. In modern mathematics "=" is defined by axiom of extensionality, which is just about extensionality. I thought extension is more related to quantitativity...

>>13424762

Why would you resort to obscurantism if your "evil" idea is already based on consensus?

>>13425408
Who thinks Kant is obscure anyway? He writes much better prose than Rand

>>13425449
Even Rand would agree with this.

>>13425461
Did she ever address her own prose? It's not even that it's workmanlike, like an airport novel, it's just awful. No conception of scansion or assonance or rhythm, actively unpleasant to read. Was it deliberate?

>>13425449
Really tho? I never read Rand but Kant's sentence is quite of a thing. If you give some example on Rand being schizophrenic I would be happy

>>13425169
A = A means A is identical to A in logic.

>>13424762

Kand and Rant:

>think dialectic is a pill
>think quantity of proof can supersede quality of reason
>extremely autistic atheism
>extreme moral prescriptivism
>extremely ugly and feeble
>extremely hypocritical in the true sense of the word, i.e. unaware of their own selves
>extreme misanthropy beckons and feeds pharisaic archons which possess them

Which is which again?

>>13425198
Then you have stated nothing at all. There is no "equal" and "is" distinction like you are claiming since they are both qualitative.

Kant writes like an autistic drooling child. I have never been as frustrated with a book as i have been with the Critique

>>13424762
Not surprised Ayn Rand didn’t get Kant

>>13425533
She's right.

>>13425006
>dude it only counts when you make vague references to "Being" or "The One" or "The Absolute" and not explicitly express the law of identity

>>13425589
A critique composed of an attack on impenetrability is a confession of failure
How can she be “right” if she doesn’t even understand what he said?

>>13424762
>Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty

Aw I’m sorry Rand. Kant might be a little out of your reach

>>13425597
What kind of take is this, no one said anything about the Absolute. The contention being made is that you can't derive things like causal necessity from the law of identity.

>>13425703
They're both the same reification and vivification of such a bare non-concept as existence, so that from that initial leap they can explain everything by the principle of explosion. The one is just in a haughtier, more mystical language than the other.

The problrm isn't that Kant is hard to read, all his terms are well defined, but that Ayn Rand had a low iq.

>>13425747
So nietzsche had a low iq too? Because this was also his opinion of Kant. In Twilight of the Idols he practically says that Kant's inability to write cleanly and plainly is a refutation of his entire philosophy.

>>13425761
>I can't understand it, therefor it's wrong
Sounds like a low iq opinion desu.

>>13425761
It tends to be a feature of shitty egoists like Rand and Nietzsche that they have no patience, because that's charity.

>>13425747
Cope harder

>>13425784
That's a yikes from me dawg

>>13425781
>>13425783
Nietzsche obviously read and understood Kant, because Schopenhauer was his main influence early on, and you need to have a good understanding of Kant to understand Schopenhauer. But just because something is overly obfuscated doesn't make it good.

>>13425761
>So nietzsche had a low iq too?

Yes, very.

>>13424762

>I can't understand Kant ipso facto it's wrong

>>13424778

This is correct though, unironically

>>13425797
You cannot describe something you can’t see, regardless of how many mirrors you use

>>13424778
Thinking like this almost ensures that you will never get it
Hegel and Kant write clearer than Nietzsche and Rand because what they are talking about is true

>>13424762
Wow, Ayn Rand was a brainlet, who knew? :)

>>13425500
>extreme misanthropy
Ayn Rand subscribed to romantic realism (which she formulated), the benevolent universe premise, and the heroic view of man based on the primacy of values.
Only soccies who hate Rand for capitalism would say this.

>>13425832
Is that Jaden Smith when you pass his words through the Kant/Hegel filter?

>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; that whosoever undertakes to judge or indeed to construct a metaphysics must, however, thoroughly satisfy the challenge made here, whether it happens that they accept my solution, or fundamentally reject it and replace it with another – for they cannot dismiss it; and finally, that the much decried obscurity (a familiar cloaking for one’s own indolence or dimwittedness) has its use as well, since everybody, who with respect to all other sciences observes a wary silence, speaks masterfully, and boldly passes judgment in questions of metaphysics, because here to be sure their ignorance does not stand out clearly in relation to the science of others, but in relation to genuine critical principles, which therefore can be praised: Ignavum, fucos, pecus a praesepibus arcent.

>>13425926
>complains about people finding his work hard to understand
>this entire text is a single sentence

>>13425931
A very simple sentence

>>13425883
>that is to say as long as people behave the right way which is coincidentally the way i behave otherwise they're parasites or something LOLZZ1!

>>13425931
it's not a poorly constructed sentence though, it's very easy to follow

>>13426045
>>13426062
Yes it is, except he does the same shit when trying to explain his philosophy. That's where the much decried obscurity comes from.

>>13425926
I keep falling in love with him. The more I learn about him the more I love. Kant is a dreamboat in the history thought

>>13425926
>>13426070
Long, well-crafted sentences make me rock-hard, baby.

>>13425533
>>13425613
>>13425619
>>13425747
>>13425864
Like clockwork.
Ayn Rand got Kant perfectly right. All of Kant's errors arise from his premise that the senses are not on what we base reason. He was wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNN_nhIPMI
Never again will /lit/ say Rand misunderstood Kant.

>>13426206
10/10

>>13426066
everyone in his period wrote like that, no one was shitting on them (e.g. Mill or Locke). Aristotle did this all the time, don't see him being accused of obscurity

>>13426206
>31 views
is this you anon?

>>13426070
>>13426094
Prosefags are such goddamn pseuds holy shit

>>13426231
One of his 3 fans. He's an absolute boomer and I doubt he knows what /lit/ or reddit even is.

>>13425926
>>13425931
Damn that's really just one sentence.
What a madman.

>>13426274
>the man complaining about a sentence being too long
>calling others pseuds for enjoying it
Why, anon?

>>13426206
>all hypotheses are the same
Nope.

>>13426206
>All of Kant's errors arise from his premise that the senses are not on what we base reason

Doesn't he insist the opposite? That the Rational is "unknowable"? He does leave hundreds of doggy doors open for himself in case he has to crawl in retreat if ever called out proper, like all Catholics, but I think this IS his argument.

>>13424778
Fpbp, except Hegel didn't have a clear conclusion. Kant is nowhere near as hard as Hegel. Kant defines his terms precisely, he's just dense.
>all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions
Nobody who has actually read Kant would say this. He spends large sections autistically defining his terms.

>>13426627
He says that knowledge begins with the senses but doesn't come from the senses. Or something like that. We can observe gold to know that gold is yellow in color, but our understanding of the concept gold applies this to all gold a priori without us needing to go and look at every piece of gold in the world to know its color.

How many people fit in this Venn diagram of 'people who have the brains and the philosophical background knowledge to read and understand The Critique of Pure Reason' and 'People who take Ayn Rand seriously'?

>>13426741
Anon, these two categories don't overlap.

>>13426741
Me, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, this youtuber lad, many. Occasionally lolberts not up to the task of Objectivism drift into our ranks so they can't. Peikoff calls them "1 time objectivists". Happens all the time.

>>13424778

pots reads nothing like copr and hegel was a great stylist

>>13426686
Part of the objectivist critique of Kant is pointing out the non sequitur of the whole concept of a priori. EVERYTHING is a posteriori, nothing is a priori.

>>13426664
Floating terms detached from the evidence the senses. He meticulously spends time detaching his terms for concretes. Definitions must always return to reality, Kant provided Rand the material to identify her new logical fallacy "the floating abstraction".

Kant essentially did to philosophy what science fiction does to science.

>>13425783
>Nietzsche
>no patience
he wrote thousands of pages by hand while violently ill and nearly blind despite never being read widely.

>>13426879
I know right? To get something out of Kant, let alone actually understand him well enough to develop a critique of the Critique, you'd need a working knowledge of, at a minimum, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Leibniz. I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't see how someone could study all of those, then read the Critique, and still be impressed by Atlas Shrugged
It's very difficult to believe posters like this: >>13426900

>>13426948
not at all what Kant says.

>>13427038
I'll oblige you anon.
>Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Leibniz
Funny, in his History of Philosophy series alone Leonard Peikoff meticulously addresses and summarizes every one of these philosophers. Elsewhere in the e-campus Peikoff always refers to Rand's tutelage of these philosophers, with which he often had difficulties.
Having done this he still concurs with Rand's assessment of Kant, and even expounds on this in greater detail.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUo37wPD7sqYZGzlkhCldY2mpx4hjYk50
https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/history-of-philosophy/

>>13427038
I got him pretty well without reading Leibniz, I had read the others though

>>13427128
>Kant doesn't posulate a priori as a serious criterion with which to assess by
What? Yes he does.

>>13427270
*postulate

>ordered Kant's Prolegomena, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and the Critique of Pure Reason a few days ago
I imagine I'm in for a good time.

>>13427270
no fuck you. that is what I am saying Kant says. Don't twist this around now that you realize your mistake.
you said that some believe everything to be a posteriori >>13426948

>>13427431
No -I- believe, -Objectivists- believe everything is a posteriori and that nothing is a priori

>>13427453
those are called simply called empiriscists, anon.
To an idealist Kant would be called an objectivist mind you.

>>13427463
Rand took great lengths to identify mistakes in both empiricism and rationalism and how they are a flase dichotomy. Objectivism is not a form of empiricism.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul-body_dichotomy.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZG-uhYb5JA

>>13427555
I will assume you mean rationalism as it is also referred to as idealism
>Objectivism is not a form of empiricism.
Objectivism inherently has the notion of something exterior to my being; if it weren't as described it would not be objective but something radically different. How could I ever come to realise this exterior being but through my senses and therefore it being emprical.
>im not gonna watch a 2.3 hour video, sorry.
>also

>>13427646
Empiricism concurs with Objectivism on the senses but is wrong about abstraction. It thinks all logic is -necessarily- floating and detached from concretes ie rationalism. Objectivism understands that real robust logic is an integration of both the primacy of existence and man's conceptualization of them. Empiricism allows only low level concepts and repudiates abstraction.

>>13424762
>Rand vs Kant

The absolute state of this anime board

>>13428161
Hey at least no one is posting Stirner mr anime man himself.

>>13427646
>>also
...
Also what?

Waiting for a reply >>13427135 hopefully

>>13424762
thats pretty based desu

>>13425761
Nietzsche liked to shittalk, it was part of his approach to philosophy (and he was much better at it than Rand). He was also rather strongly aesthicist.

>>13427038
I struggled a bit with Critique of Pure Reason but I found it mostly understadable with only a bit of Descartes behind my belt.

>>13427135
>Leonard Peikoff
>literally who
>some internet radio talkshow host
OH NO NO NO NO

>>13429981
Bro he's Ayn Rand intellectual heir

>>13430529
*'s

>>13424762

Ladies and Gentlemen!

The definitive example of "Projection!"

Brought to you by the unreliable narrator of the selfish mind.....

>>13428161
I heard Kant used to carry a small pistol around as a matter of personal safety, so I imagine he'd win if she started a fight

>implying a woman can ever rightfully criticize rationality on solid grounds, or even construct a rational philosophy
lmaoing at ur life, objectivists

>>13424762
the critique of pure reason is perfectly intelligible. i find its structure somewhat odd but he explains all his points. its not fucking hegel

>>13427337
>based and Kantpilled

>>13426989
Can you define reality? :)

>>13430529
>Ayn Rand's intellectual heir is a literal who internet radio talkshow host

>>13427463
>To an idealist Kant would be called an objectivist
Kant was an idealist

>>13431948
He's in a classroom in those videos bud. Teaching. Don't be an obtuse moron lest you be embarrassed once it is identified you didn't even pay attention.

>>13432220
>classroom
he's lecturing at the Ayn Rand institute; that's a think tank, not a school.

>>13432240
But it certainly isn't a goddamn radio program, don't be evasive. And are you trying to denigrate thinks tanks or something? Be explicit, academia atrophying to such an extent it has warrants the erection of parallel structures. Thinks tanks are one such option.

>>13432433
>h-he's not a radio host!
whoops. also, yes, I am trying to denigrate think tanks

>>13424762
>Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty
Hahahaha telling on herself

>>13432450
>pic
News to me, what relevance does this have? Certainly as radio how is as subject to the variance in quality youtube channels are. Don't be a zoomer, radio has the potential to be perfectly respectable as other mediums.
>also, yes, I am trying to denigrate think tanks
ALL think tanks, as such? Clearly unwise, things have to be assessed contextually.

>>13432532
Rand is very clear, concise, and literalist.

>>13432240
>that's a think tank, not a school
And?

>>13432542
>Certainly as radio how is as subject to the variance in quality youtube channels are
Well I mangled that sentence. *Certainly radio is as

>>13428022
and how is this suppsoed to be a rebutal of Kant?
>>13431956
lmao not in the sense of Berkley or Descartes though, nor in the german idealist sense.
He sees critical idealism as essential to not fall into scepticism. But he advocates a very weak form of idealism as it hinges entirely on objects being given to us, anon.

>>13428725
kek

>>13432450
>also, yes, I am trying to denigrate think tanks
Why?

>>13432542
>oh you are a philosopher?
>y-yeah
>wow, so like you are a big deal?
>I have my own radio show
>radio show? isn't that sort of low brow for a philosopher? don't you teach?
>y-yes
>what school?
>it's a think-tank
>oh?
>the Ayn Rand institute
>oh...

>>13424762
>the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality
The irrational notion is using Critique of Pure Reason as the example. Rand is walking backwards (I'm writing this in an inner city Dublin accent).

>>13434683
Are you?>>13427038

>>13434758
no

>>13434775
Thought I was witnessing some cope. Nevermind

>>13432450
>anyone who has ever had a radio show is bad
That's like saying anyone who has their own website or youtube channel is bad. Radio was based brainlet.

>>13432812
It is an elucidation on the difference between Empiricism and Objectivism. Kant tried to answer the former but "reality as it really is in itself" is a redundancy.

>>13437315
>reality as it really is in itsel
>strawmaning Kant in face of idealist accusations.

>>13429949
You clearly didn't get the Critique then because Descartes is not necessary for the Critique in the slightest. For all the oens the Critique then actually bases pn and refrences yes, but not Kant himself.
retard
>>13427142
right? lmao Kant only mentions the Monadologie like a dozen times LUL bet it meant nothing-