[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.79 MB, 1000x1333, photo-1567987768246-df799f9c8afb(1).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18813449 [Reply] [Original]

Generally I spend most nights with my roommate talking about metaphysics and epistemology, hes not a reader of any phil related content but hes got a great head on his shoulders and is arguably better at discerning and recognizing logical fallacies than me (someone who studies philosophy at uni).

So tonight we were discussing the role of "Moral Perfectibility" that is present in Kant's work, particularly in 'Religion within the bound of Bare Reason' and we arrived at a discussion about the Rationality of Man as opposed to the Irrationality of Animals.

Basically his (my roommate) argument went like this:

P1: Kant can only claim that animals are Irrational by proving that they do not 'act'* with Perfect Reason.

P2: To prove animals do not 'act' with Perfect Reason Kant must know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.

P3: Kant cannot possibly know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.

C: Kant cannot therefore conclude that animals are definitely Irrational.

Look at it with this metaphor: a rat completing a maze with the most "Efficient Path", we can, as outward observers with perfect knowledge of the maze (reality), know what the optimal path a rat might need to take (act) to qualify as a "Perfectly-Efficient-Rat". From there we need only observe the rat and label it accordingly. But Kant is not an "outside observer" to the rat and the maze, he is, in fact, WITHIN the maze with the rat. Kant does not have epistemic access to what the optimal root is and thus cannot judge the rat to be either rational or irrational.

Now I understand that some of y'all would be quick to note that P3 is in contention, I'm not the biggest Kantian but I am fairly certain that Kant did claim that he knew what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like. I brought this up but my roommate was fairly quick to dismiss it, I was going to ask why but before I could he went to bed; perhaps I'll ask him in the morning.

What are your thoughts? Can Kant know how a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act? Why/Why not? I'd love to hear your thoughts.


*(because we cannot talk to them and can only discern their nature through experience and observation; we cannot know if an animal is 'rational' A Priori)

>> No.18813471

>>18813449
How can someone still strawman or not understand a 18 century author?
you and your roommate are faggots.

>> No.18813483
File: 34 KB, 474x632, 1626396550078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18813449
>P1: Kant can only claim that animals are Irrational by proving that they do not 'act'* with Perfect Reason.
>P2: To prove animals do not 'act' with Perfect Reason Kant must know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.
>P3: Kant cannot possibly know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.
>C: Kant cannot therefore conclude that animals are definitely Irrational.

>> No.18813486

>>18813471
fpbp

>> No.18813514

>>18813449
What is "perfectly rational being"? Is a brain damaged cripple a "perfectly rational being"? Is that person even human? Where is the line between a human and an animal? Fuck Kant and fuck all idealists.

>> No.18813518

>>18813471
In what way did I straw man him? I'm genuinely curious, I am still learning Kant and really wanna know if I am genuinely misunderstanding him. What was our mistake?

>> No.18813560

>>18813449
You could sum this entire several paragraph long post into a couple sentences and we would take it a lot more seriously. We don't need to know about your dipshit roommate and what he thinks of Kant. As for the actual argument, no, you can't know if humans are perfectly rational beings, you can only work under that assumption and hope it leads you in the right direction because that's the only thing you can do.

>> No.18813566

>>18813449
did Kant classify the Perfectly-Rational-Being as something akin to noumenon? I think this is the same dumb argument Hegel had in that because we don't know the thing-in-itself we essentially can't know if we actually don't know about it which Kant already took care of in the Prolegomena.

>> No.18813593

>>18813566
not that I know of, Reason doesn't have any connection to the Noumenal from what I can gather, Reason, or rather, Understanding, arises Intuition (the methods by which we Experience reality.)

Reason is, strictly speaking, a product of Us, its *our* contribution to reality, its not something there out in the world but rather is found in the Transcendent (the relation between reality and our experience of it).

At least, that is how I have always view it in Kant's work, I might be wrong though.

>> No.18813600
File: 43 KB, 574x960, 1626554367342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18813593
>Reason is, strictly speaking, a product of Us, its *our* contribution to reality, its not something there out in the world but rather is found in the Transcendent (the relation between reality and our experience of it).
no.

>> No.18813667

>>18813593
Please go to office hours, homie.

>> No.18813670

>>18813600
actually anon this is pretty accurate

>> No.18813686

>>18813600
Wasn't this discussion the entire point of the First Critique? (specifically the Transcendental Aesthetic) that Reason is fundamentally connected the The Subject and Experience? That "Pure Reason" (Reason without Experience) cannot provide us with any justification of knowledge?

>> No.18813695

>>18813670
By saying this, if OP believes you, you are hurting his philosophical development. He says he is a phil major. Someone majoring in philosophy should have a better understanding of Kant than what is on display on this thread.

>> No.18813700

>>18813686
Hence a Transcendental *Idealist* position?

>> No.18813707

>>18813695
I am trying to learn, can you direct me to any specific sources/online lectures which will make reading Kant (and getting the right interpretation) easier?

>> No.18813751

>>18813695
give reasons or fuck off

>> No.18813849

anglo cringe.
please stuck to making utilitarian Summ functions, thanks.

>> No.18815155

>>18813449
>put the rat back into the rational
Nick Land

>> No.18815705

>>18815155
can you expand on this?

>> No.18816110

>>18813471
Fpbp
Op you and your Roomate have a long way to go

>> No.18816126

>>18813449
Couple of fags.

>> No.18816318

>P1: Kant can only claim that animals are Irrational by proving that they do not 'act'* with Perfect Reason.
anon, with all due respect, how could your roommate have possibly thought this was a valid proof? it's incredibly fallacious to think that just because you don't act with Perfect-Reason (i.e. like God) that means you are irrational. Kant never claimed that because animals aren't perfectly reasonable that means they are irrational because then he would have to claim humans are irrational because perfect rationality doesn't exist. If I was you and he said that to me I would've bit his face off.

>> No.18816415

>>18816318
Not OP but I think he's treating rationality much in the similar vein of Privation; if an animal is not Perfectly Rational then it must at least be partly irrational etc.

And I'm fairly certain Kant did think humans were irrational, considering that the vast majority of them don't follow the Cat Imp. (Something that a Perfectly Rational Being would see as their Deontological Duty and be obliged to do so).

>> No.18816586

>>18815155
based and checked