/lit/ - Literature

When we killed God and needed a replacement for our need for religious devotion

Kant was BTFO by Taleb

>>14157269
I don't know but it's way more annoying when philosophers act like they btfo all of philosophy and the possibility of doing philosophy except to btfo philosophy again, repeatedly. I miss the days of speculative metaphysics, when people just wanted to construct bold creative systems that said everything they could say about the way reality really is. That's what lifts the spirit. The other stuff, not coincidentally, is made by and for people with depression.

>>14157269
Parmenides, there's some great lines from Nietzsche on this on his notes on the presocratics

>>14157269
Philosophy has always been about exposing systems, critical philosophy about refining them

>>14157269

Totalizing dogmatic philosophies already took root in Hellenistic times.

Philosophy fags are cringe

>>14157305
The problem I have with Kantianism is its emphasis on universal moral truths that we should all take to be true, even if we're not going to get there. Kantianism tends to be extremely narrow, focusing on the facts in the domain of morality, not on the facts of the natural world, and hence it's difficult for it to see how anything can be right or wrong unless it's in one of the domains, even though it can't see why we would want to take a particular fact in the natural world to be in that domain. I'm not saying that Kant's ethics is wrong. I think he was probably a good philosopher, but he was probably more focused on a kind of perfectionism than a kind of relativism. And the way I see it, if we want to take an action that makes someone else happy, even though we think it's wrong, then that makes our actions a kind of moral rightness or wrongness.

>>14157378
Nigga read Kant before speculating on his philosophy and worth. What you wrote has literally nothing to do with Kant.
>>14157305
This retard never read Metaphysics of Morals, nor the Groundworks nor the second critique, yet he is still willing to talk about them.

>>14157378
Why don't you just read fiction though? You are going to get the same spiritual lift if you think what you are reading is somehow possible

>>14157269
Never, that's just the interpretation of people lacking sufficient philosophical knowledge gaining access to previously obscure materials.

>>14157551
Do you deny that there is an element of "finality" in philosophy from Kant onward?

>>14157559
Yes.

>>14157269
There's always been theoretical and pragmatic arms of philosophy. If you're gettting into a philosophical discussion about 'the nature of things', then the goal isn't to promulgate interesting opinions, but to apprehend truth. On a pragmatic, personal self-help kind of application, there is much more room for relativity of approach, since in this context utility is more important than truth.

>>14157305
If he means civic nationalism, then I agree.

>>14157581
>If he means civic nationalism, then I agree
Taleb prefers localism as an alternative to nationalism

>>14157305
jesus what a brainlet. who the fuck keeps shilling this guy here?
he can't even write a logically consistent phrase in a fucking twitter post

>>14157601
He's smarter than you

>>14157570
Then how do you explain the shift in philosophy after Kant from being primarily concerned with aesthetics and metaphysics to ethics and politics? Schopenhauer's metaphysics existed for the sake of his ethics, until you get to Nietzsche whose philosophy was only about ethics. Even post-Kantian metaphysical philosophers like Heidegger or Whitehead have armies of followers who insist that their systems are definitively how reality works because they are more concerned with the practical aspect (ethics) than the aesthetics (metaphysics).

>>14157305
>It you treat

>>14157627
Not him you're just cherry-picking. What about Husserl and the early Analytics?

>>14157618
What does that even mean?
>he’s smarter than you
You believing that, what if another guy says Nassim is an idiot and barely read Kant properly, do you see what I mean, what you said essentially is utter nonsense

>>14157618
and "smarter" in what aspect

>>14157627
There was no shift, Kant didn't even think he had to write the Critique of Practical Reason, since he had already grounded all of its contents in the first part of the second book of the first critique. Kant "choosing" to become a moral philosopher after the Critique of Pure Reason is a Schopenhauerian meme