/lit/ - Literature

>>18695311
I dont know Kant

>>18695311
read the greeks instead

>>18695311
I don't know why but i kekd heartilly! :)

>>18695311
Basedpilled and red

>>18695311
yes

>>18695320
His ethical philosophy is essentially
>dude human beings are all equal
>just do the golden rule bro
>we all can live in perpetual peace if we just respect each other
>OH LORD KUMBAYAAAAA

>>18695311
He was autistic

>>18695385
That's incredibly naive but also not wrong

>>18695350
Red? Red blooded? Red as a communist? Red what?

>>18695385
>>18695397
So smart. That is why you are posting in a basket weaving forum instead of making laws.

Elaborate, his writing on "perpetual peace" isn't too bad, it's mostly just Hobbes/Rosseau with a bit of his categorical imperative, nothing groundbreaking but wouldn't call it bad.

>>18695416
Kant's ethics operates on a false premise because he judges humans as they should be, rather than how they actually are, which was something Machiavelli showed had no business in the realm of politics 200 years earlier.

Only a guy who spent his entire life in his study with limited human interaction can think that human beings are inherently good.

>>18695416
Ethics and the law have only a passing relation

>>18695474
He literally says man is the only animal that must be educated. Retard

>>18695474
Are you on what? Check out his Groundwork of the MEtaphysics of Morals. He formulates a principle, he has nothing to do with people now following it. And while I'm skeptical of universals, it is definitely not like they aren't a thing in nature as a law that is somewhat enforced even by groups of animals. This is a basis for a rational moral individual.

>>18695311
I agree with you. The decline of Western philosophy started right with that moron.

>>18695474
>Only a guy who spent his entire life in his study with limited human interaction can think that human beings are inherently good.
Yeah that would be retarded. Good thing Kant never said anything like that.

>>18695474
And it is not like it doesn't have any implications. Have you ever heard of game theory? It is based on universal principles that rational agents will follow to their OWN gain. In the sense that, if you are aware of everything, you are literally fucking stupid, hate yourself or whatever if you are not doing that.

>>18695571
There is that too, Kant was literally a fucking university professor. The state of anons.

>>18695311

https://www.lacan.com/symptom16/kant.html

>durr it is your duty to do x
But why? What do I get out of it?

>>18695311
His ethics doesnt matter, his epistemology and metaphysics are earth shattering

>>18695311
Try reading his big boy books, The Critiques. Then you'll understand who the moron is.

>>18695474
Read Kant

>>18695385
lmao filtered

>>18695311
That's why Nietzsche called him the Chinese of Konigsberg (if the word existed then, he would have straight up just called him an autist). I mean, imagine writing On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives during the French Revolution.

>>18697165
>(if the word existed then, he would have straight up just called him an autist)

Literally rewriting history

Are we supposed to take your criticism at face value? Just fucking tell us what bothers specifically you about Kang's ethical and political philosophy, instead of leaving us hanging in the darkness.

I really hate when you pseud do this shit

>>18695385
Literally none of those points are supported by Kant

>>18697165
...You are aware he tended to develop this stuff from a epistemological groundworks, yes? As in, in terms of necissary predicates and shit rather than contextualities like the f. revolution?

>>18695311
Anon.... Just read prolegomena first and go from there. dont just jump in and think you are not retard enough to not get filtered. thats just misplaced hubris probably.

>>18695311
retard alert

>>18695385
Kant used to measure skull sizes to determine intelligence, he didn't think we are all equal and the CI is not the golden rule at all

>>18695311
His epistemology and metaphysics are top tier. His ethics is transcendental autism.

>>18695474
Could you please tell me which of the arguments in the Critique of Practical Reason treat man as he "should be", or is this just a random thought you had when you've read Kant's wiki page?
>Only a guy who spent his entire life in his study with limited human interaction can think that human beings are inherently good
He literally says the opposite, as he famously claimed that only God can be inherently good (or holy). Humans can only improve (or regress), but they can never reach a status of intrinsic goodness.
>>18697165
Daily reminder that Kant thinks that private citizens can lie for self-defense motives. It's political representatives that can NEVER lie to their constituents (but they can still lie for self-defense purposed to ambassadors, enemy officers, etc).
It's Fichte the one who thought that you should never lie, but he also thought that God literally guarantees that no good can ever come fro a lie and no bad can ever come from a truth (he basically adopts a moral teleology of the world)

>>18697233
What do you mean?

>>18697251
That's what makes him ridiculous. When mobs are slaughtering nobles in the streets "epistemological groundworks" go out the fucking window, especially ones that lead to bizarrely moronic conclusions.

>>18695474
Kant held dinner parties all the time, he was considered quote the socialite. Stop basing your intellectual opinions on memes anon

>>18697276
>When mobs are slaughtering nobles in the streets "epistemological groundworks" go out the fucking window
I hope you're being ironic

>>18697281
Philosophy won't save you from getting lynched by an angry mob.

>>18697251
And the conclusions that he reached just happened to be in line with enlightenment ideology, purely by coincidence? Sounds like he was a teensy-weensy bit influenced by the spirit of his times, tbqfhwy ``fampai"

>>18697284
Give me my free gym membership faggots I want to lift.

>>18697284
How is this relevant for an epistemological framework?

>>18697321
Name two enlightenment thinkers Kant is similar to
I bet you cant do it

>>18695311
Kant was an incel.

>>18697276
>When mobs are slaughtering nobles in the streets "epistemological groundworks" go out the fucking window
no they dont. by their very nature, they stay firm regardless of stuff like that

>>18697436
I will not do that. Instead I will point out that Kant literally wrote a pamphlet in which he explicitly names and approves of the enlightenment. Checkmate, atheist.

>>18697436
They say that because he wrote a quote containing the word "enlightenment" once that every teacher in high school or college quotes to neatly encapsulate their section on the enlightenment.

>>18697468
He gives his own definition of enlightenment, you mong. And nah, you're not giving me two names because you cant do it. Feel free to prove me wrong, until them I'll be sure of the fact that you think Kant agreed with other enlightenment thinkers only because he wrote a pamphlet with the word "enoightenment" in it

>>18697468
yah, he described a zeitgeist of the time, which tbqfhwy ``fampai", with the french revolution and the massive developments in the time period, was not exactly out of the blue. he doesnt even say he agrees with all these people, just that a general "thing" happened and was happening.

>>18695311
Most old philosophers were in fact retarded.
Hobbes be like
>The man is the most vile creature ever, dont ever trust another man
>Lets create a big organization to control and leech from others, and people cannot say no or refuse, because of some social contract that I imagined after smoking weed for a couple of days
>no no no this kind of authority, and man preying on man is fine because the name is "estate" lol social contract family xD

>>18697500
/tilt/ is where is at. High culture right here.

>>18697500
Hobbes literally says the sovereign only maintains his power through the protection of the rights of citizens, and that if he fails to uphold them you are no longer bound by his authority

>>18697493
> And nah, you're not giving me two names because you cant do it.
Rousseau and Wolf
>Kant agreed with other enlightenment thinkers only because he wrote a pamphlet with the word "enoightenment" in it
The entire critical project reeks of the enlightenment. Transcendental philosophy in general could be seen as the final nail in the coffin for ideological justifications of absolute monarchy so it is possible to view the critique of pure reason and the french revolution as the exact same thing.

>>18697525
Yes, China, USA, North Korea are all thriving nations that surely respect the freedom and rights of their people.

Hahaha good one my dude.

>>18697541
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>18697539
>Rousseau and Wolf
Two radically different authors from Kant. Do you realize that when Kant criticizes digmatic philosophy in the first philosophy, he is talking about Wolff? How tf can the critic of metaphysics be a Wolffian?
And frankly I dont know what link you see between Rousseau and kant. I suppose you mentioned him only because it's a name you knew.
>Transcendental philosophy in general could be seen as the final nail in the coffin for ideological justifications of absolute monarchy so it is possible to view the critique of pure reason and the french revolution as the exact same thing.
... Kant was a supporter of the French revolution, and thought it was the most important event in the modern era.

>>18697541
You dont even need to go to such extreme, literally any "estate" by default is dictatorial and anti-individual, since it forces you to follow some arbitrary rules set by a group of people you never agreed on.
Truly civilization is privaty cities with their own laws that you actually choose whether you want to live there/participate or not, while universally human right of self-defence of "dont attack/steal anyone else" is globally applied everywhere.

>>18697567
He thinks that Leviathan = big scary totalitarian state, mostly because he is a retard with a meme-based understanding of Hobbes

>>18697575
*when Kant criticizes dogmatic philosophy in the first critique

>>18697577
Nigga you need to read some Hegel

>>18697090
>that quote
Are there any philosophers that aren't fucking misanthropes? I can't take that shit seriously. 95% of philosophy is just incel rage cause someone triggered their aspergers
What are some philosophers that actually love their fellow man (and not in a homo or hippy sense okay)

>>18697606
Rousseau

>>18697606
Try watching the Teletubbies, it might be more in line with your naive and childish view of humanity. That said Kant wasn't a mysanthrope, quite the contrary. Hell, in the third critiwue he claims that we are justified in believing that the whole universe was made for us (or, that we are the teleological end of creation).

>>18697614
Only read the Social Contract, and very long ago. I've always had kind of a negative perception of him because the Jacobins liked him yet I liked his idea of sovereignty coming only from the people, looking back I guess reading that formed the core of my political beliefs. Will read more from him
>>18697623
>naive and childish view of humanity
sorry for party rocking
Humanity has managed to make some very straight things from our crooked timber

>>18697606
>Are there any philosophers that aren't fucking misanthropes?
If you actually spent the time to read any philosopher, they are usually both massive misanthropes as well as massive philanthrops as well.
They usually criticize and praise in relitively equal measure the nature of man. However, when your idea of people come from the sum total of AZquotes, you can paint a much narrower cherry picked picture than the usually more multifaceted story. Nihilism is just easier to make catchy.

>>18697638
>Humanity has managed to make some very straight things from our crooked timber
As long as those things can be improved, they ought not to be considered straights. Kant does not think that we are idiotic beasts, but he also rejects the claim for which we are perfect and holy. To say that nothing straight has been accomplished, in Kantian terms, is just to day that we are not God

>>18697650
is just to say that we are not God*
Oops

>>18695390
This. Some of the greatest thinkers in history have been on the spectrum. This is why they can describe philosophical ideads so vividly without being burdened by regular human implication.

>>18697666
Kant had a very active social life
Also, cursed trips

>>18697575
When I said Wolf I was trying to establish a link between him and Leibniz but I think that was mistaken as both of them are pre critical metaphysicians. A better example would have been Hume. Rousseau was a name that popped up in some guide to Kant that I was reading recently. It seems that many of the ideas from discourse on inequality made it into Kant's moral philosophy. I don't see how either of them are "radically different" though, while they may have differed on some of the details they all operated under the same milieu.

>How tf can the critic of metaphysics be a Wolffian?
He was a Wolffian before his pre critical phase. It's hard to believe that that influence completely disappeared.
>... Kant was a supporter of the French revolution
So it wraps around back to my initial statement. Why are we even arguing about this when we seem to be in the same position?

>>18697666
idk man. ive met auts. most have been pretty poor with things philosophical/epistemological. too abstract for them.

>>18697672
>A better example would have been Hume.
Kant fills up the first critique with refutations of Hume. Hell, the most famous chapter, the Transcendental Deduction, is a critique to both the bundle theory and Hume's critique of personal identity. Kant then proceeds to prove that the application of the concept of causality can be justified a priori. Then in the second critique he gives a refutation of Hume's moral sense theory. Hume was important in Kant's philosophical developement, but he had only an instrumental value, insofar as he showed Kant that the arguments he was using to defend Wolffian/Leibnizian philosophy were weak. He had no systematic value, insofar as Kant then proceeded to accept none of the positions brought forth by Hume.
>Rousseau was a name that popped up in some guide to Kant that I was reading recently. It seems that many of the ideas from discourse on inequality made it into Kant's moral philosophy. I don't see how either of them are "radically different" though, while they may have differed on some of the details they all operated under the same milieu.
I cannot respond unless you say something more specific. They are radically different philosophers, so I genuinely still don't know what link are you seeing between them (and I have read all their major works).
>He was a Wolffian before his pre critical phase. It's hard to believe that that influence completely disappeared
It did. He literally defined his change of mind as awaking from a "dogmatic slumber". There's no section in the first 2 critiques which do not contain at least one refutation of a major point by Wolff: in the first critique the transcendental analytic section ends with a condemnation of all dogmatic philosophy/metaphysics, and in the transcendental section he spends 300 pages refuting every argument and systematic distinction made by Wolff; then in the second critique he refutes his ethics of perfectioning.
>So it wraps around back to my initial statement. Why are we even arguing about this when we seem to be in the same position?
I misread that part of your post. That said, I don't think that being supportive of the French Revolution makes you an Enlightenment thinker. That's too vague of a criterion.

>>18697684
I agree

>>18697586
And you need Hoppe

>>18698019
>Hoppe
Lmao

>>18695311
Anyone who goes into philosophy instead of science or maths is generally a moron, because they're limited by their own intelligence. I think that Kant is given undue respect because his works are difficult to grasp. I think that Kant could have phrased his ideas in a more accessible way. I think that philosophers purposefully obfuscate their ideas to make "philosophy" seem like something on par with maths and science. I understand that there is a philosophy to the study of maths and science, I also understand that it should be a "side-dish" to the main course that is the science you're studying. I think that Kant, along with most midwit philosophers, just muse on unprovable and undeterminable things because they have in their heads that the world should be a certain way and need to justify why they think that. I think most of academia has always been this pointless musing of ideas by the wealthy.

The world is as it should be. Philosophers try to do a second take. They try to say "not like this, but like this". They come charging in, they make a mess, and they justify this mess saying some other philosopher will smoothen out the kinks. People die because of these ideas. They make a mistake when they think they can predict every detail. We don't even understand how a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa will affect the sediment on Ayer's rock in Alice Springs and you're telling me that your big bright philosophical idea will go exactly as you say it will in your tiny little 500 page book? 5000 pages isn't enough to figure everything out.

I hate all philosophers. Even Diogenes. If I could go back in time I'd tell Kant to get a real job and call him a filthy bum. I think he'd appreciate the honesty.

>>18698125
Kant was a famous scientist long before his critical turn

>>18698152
>Dude tidal locking haha
>Woah when you move thigns on a spinning plate it looks like... gravity???

His contributions to maths and physics were minimal

i think kant is one of the many pathological compensations for a disease that hit philosophy more or less from plotinus and christianity. that is, the idea the "being" equates to such a thing as "the one" / "ding an sich" / "brahman". for plato or leibniz the being is the essence, the principle, the arche, not something supposedly "beyond" the universe or the human understanding, but something of which the universe is made.

>>18698174
>Woah when you move thigns on a spinning plate it looks like... gravity???
It's called the Coriolis force and it was in fact an important contribution to physics you serial coper

>>18698204
No it wasn't, I literally figured that shit out on the playground when I was 5

OP is literally a faggot who only made this thread because he saw some other anon posting about Kant either. He 100% read a little Wikipedia and watched a little YouTube and then made this thread.

>>18698231

>>18698125
>>18698231
Pretentious clown.

>>18698244
>>18698250
>He never played on the spinning disc with a ball