/lit/ - Literature

Easy.

Now go read a book instead of globbing philosophers you only care about for the meme points.

I feel sorry for you. You’re so childish, you just don’t understand. I don’t mean that as an insult

>>19557357
stop being arrogant

>>19557341
im religious.

>>19557335
Kant ruined his philosophy with abstract category autism, but he is a German so it is to be expected.

>>19557341
How does it reestablish the foundations for metaphysical enquiries?

>>19557604
I second this motion

Kant banished rational/natural theology. But there are other ways to gain knowledge of God. Also Hegel happened.

>>19557626
Yeah, there's no reason to be so dogmatic about Kant. He was right on a lot of things but not everything

>>19557604
It does to Kant what Kant did to metaphysics.

>Lane Craig and other debatelord theists (jay dyer)
The sort of people they debate can't pull out Kant without undermining most of their own positions

>>19557335
Because the non-autistic parts of his philosophy can be replicated simply in English by combining Hume and Berkeley.

>>19557661
Care to explain how?

>>19557335
>how
By addressing Kant.

>>19558070
>>19557626
if we reject Kant's claim that perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation, and rather that its an awareness of the object itself, could we not avoid his idea that concepts are rules for structuring objects of awareness, which is what he uses to set the boundary of reason? We could just say that concepts are not confined to intuitions (Concepts without intuitions are empty according to Kant), and so we could have a valid, yet albeit unempirical awareness of God, as a presupposition from common sense, which was Thomas Reid's point.

>>19558128
>perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation

I don't see how you refute this. But drop a refutation if you've got one.

>>19558181
You could perhaps say that this
>perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation
is a metaphysical assumption. This was a point I read in some article comparing Reid and Kant's thought: that Kant's claims about the nature of objects of perception are metaphysical claims, so contrary to his own belief, that epistemology preceded metaphysics, metaphysics precedes epistemology. I haven't read Kant indepth, so I'm not sure if this is a valid assessment of his claims on perception.

>>19557335
>How can you be a serious theologian after Kant?

How can any theologian take Kant seriously?

The starting point of Kant's theory is that we *can't* trust the senses. Kant reasons from this assumption to his idea of the noumena, or the "noumenal realm." But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.

Thomas Aquinas stands in opposition because, as an initial matter, he trusts in the evidence of the human senses.

If you trust in the senses, Thomas's moderate realism makes sense. If not, you will end up lost in space in the noumena.

>>19557335
By paying bills, fucking pussy, and having beers with friends and a mug that says world's best Dad.
Deception and Theatricality, Master Wayne!

>>19558859
>wanting to use sensory empiricism to prove the existence of noumena

Doesn't make sense. Noumena are inaccessible by definition

>>19557486
Abstract category autism isnt even his final form, Euler. Do you even Set Theory my Aural Fields?

>>19558859
most uneducated post of the year

Doesn’t dyer put forth a ‘transcendental argument’, like kant ?

>>19558930
I don't believe he's read Kant mate

>>19558859
Bro. Did you just read about Kant secondhand or something? It's ok we all gotta start somewhere.

>>19558859
No Kantian takes Kant seriously. I think this is all like pre career math homework. Everyone I've read so far seems to have developed some kind of new rigorous interpretation to trust their senses and only distrusts the senses out of some Academic proof rigor. I'm convinced Kant didn't always doubt like this and like Descartes's demon of doubt just winged it most of his life but was capable at any time of discarding habituated notions just as capable as he was to cling to them.
Guenon found Mystic intuition, Nietzsche found visceral instinct, Schopenhauer found the Will, and translators of the Buddha found ways to translate the Buddha's ethnic cryptic exclusive message with Kantian jargon like the Noumena. We're wasting our time if we don't go tie this back to the Pythagoreans.

>>19558888
>Doesn't make sense.
But you agree with me that Kant's nonsense-on-stilts inference of the noumena cannot be proven empirically.

>>19558975
The noumena are mere ideas of reason. They exist in experience as pure ideas. There a priori existence is itself an idea having no empirical reality apart from its being an object of the mind. But for the human being, they are a necessary idea or object of the mind. We are always stuck within our mind and therefore within our mind, and therefore within our mental reality the Noumena exist but merely as Noumena. Just read Fichte.

>>19558859
>But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.
This is not a controversial idea for neo-kantians. and Kant did not say we couldn't trust the senses lol have you read him? and even if you do trust the human senses, and believe they lead to valid empirical proofs, I do not understand how this provides grounds for speculative theology. you have to go beyond the senses to simply affirm God's existence, which kant showed was impossible, and which Aristotle himself refuted thousands of years prior in his posterior analytics. I myself am a theist who considering all this is not convinced that theology could ever be made a proper science and that "analytic" theology is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

OP doesn't make sense. Neither does Kant.
OP, stop reading Kant.
Simple as.

>>19557335
Kant was wrong about one thing; that a noetic intuition is impossible.

>>19557626
How does theurgy not refute Kants limitations on Metaphysics? If I can literally communicate directly with the supersensible realm then we're back at divine revelation as the starting point of Metaphysics.

The premise of OP is completely bizarre and suggests that we should bring rock 'n' roll hero worship and slave victim thinking to theology.
OP is literally shilling for Satanic theology. Totally weird.
OP, do you have a fetish or something?

>>19559123
I like this judgement and now I like you to brother. Gott mit uns.

>>19559126
>sense of what is above sense
sounds like Sefirot grammatical-semantic trick
So is this thread just Satanic yo-yo tricks, Solomon?

>>19559141
More like math is real because we feel it is real and we get rekt if we dont

>>19558859
>But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.
Ah I see but of course God can..... delusional

>>19559126
>representing experience as apart from experience

>>19559126
Even if we take theurgical experience as absolute anything you draw from it becomes subdued to your own non-absolute consciousness and therefore any system that may be built up upon it becomes but your own reductive interpretation which cannot lay any claim of resembling the original absolution. Ergo any attempts to articulate theurgy become meaningless and subjective.

Check out Kierkegaard, OP.

>>19559193
absolutely BTFO

>>19559193
What do you mean by theurgical experience being absolute?