/lit/ - Literature

>>19606325
Not necessarily. He was thinking why humans are worthy subjects of the mere means principle and not animals

>>19606325
Well he spent a book or two trying to say how we all use reason just not pure reason so he can then derive that characteristic of us.

>>19606325
He was probably thinking of the human beings who aren't rational.

No, generality is just something one strives for in philosophy.

>>19606348
or rather probably not, I should say.

>>19606329
>>19606334
>>19606341
I still wonder if he thought of the idea of some theoretical non human rational being.

>>19606348
But he could be trying to accommodate for some non human rational species

>>19606421
You mean God?

>>19606803
Could be but I thought of aliens

Probably has something to do with the notion of "Rational Animal" in pagan philosophy, but calling humans animals as a chirstian is heresy.

>>19606814
Given the context of Kant's time, it seems more likely he was thinking of the distinction between non-rational animals (a la descartes' automatons), Supremely Rational Being (God a la the Scholastics), and rational man, a kind of in between.

I think your letting your Schizotypal obsessions color your reading.

>>19606833
>Schizotypal
No I'm not a schizo I'm just a sperg who has weird speech patterns

>>19606325
Consciousness/rationality is the same in all beings.

>>19606833
I looked it up and Kant embraced cosmic pluralism which means he thought that there were other planets out there and they maybe had life. This makes me think he thought this would apply to aliens who are rational.

>>19606872
I was referring to the fact that your first thought was "aliens" as if anyone in Kant's time was sitting in "I believe" seminars on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. To Kant even the idea of getting to the moon probably sounded a bit ridiculous. Hence the schizo, not your writing style, I didn't even notice anything unusual there.

>>19606887
>>19606893
Meh, well I stand corrected, if you can call it that (ie nice source schizo), fact is Kant wasn't talking about aliens, and quite frankly anyone talking about aliens is a schizo in my book. Same goes for ghosts, anti-natural ramblings of an overactive imagination with little basis in Actuality, no matter how far your Reality may diverge.

>>19606903
I don't actually believe in aliens or anything like that. I am more interested in the history of conceptions of extraterrestrial life.

>>19606920
Whatever you say man.

>>19606325
The categorical imperative leads to moral universalism and is irredeemably flawed. The imposition of will and worldview (in the weltanschauung sense) leads to unnecessary conflict which may be desirable in the context of intellectual debate or dialectic, but devastating if used to justify economic or political ideologies in the real world.

>>19606325
If you know the works of Carl Schmitt you may be familiar with his notion that the fundamental political units of identity are friend-enemy, self-other/alien (this is why the idea of "united, world government" is naive). People can only define and identify themselves against the other, the alien, the enemy... what they themselves are not. In this context the moral universalism of the categorical imperative can only lead to conflict.

>america hours
>youtube/wikipedia guessing when it comes to anything continental

Yes, Kant was absolutely thinking of “aliens” or anything that had the faculty for reason. Only if it’s sense-intuition were completely different would rational maxima not apply to aliens.
But that’s the point: everyone with reason and proper faculty of it will agree (so no women, children, uneducated, i.e. all the posters itt).

>>19607105
its only flawed when taken outside of a Christian context. Everyone who is or was raised a Christian already knows what it means so there's no reason to waste time rehashing the baseline. Only academics like you whine that you cant overanalyze and purposely misinterpret what he thinks for more funding because then you have to do actual thinking instead of reducing everything to your materialist views.

>>19607141
You are absolutely correct because through two millennia no Christian has ever fought, tortured or killed another Christian over any theological disagreement. It is not like the logo or symbol of Christianity is a symbol of torture or pain or suffering and sacrifice. All Christians raised under the strictures of doctrine automatically become aware of its tenets which have no ambiguity or contradiction, making them incredibly easy to adhere to and understand without sin.

>>19607195
glad you agree

>>19607198
I am a believer myself, that is why!

>>19607198
Do you not think that those raised with Christian upbringing should doubt before faith. If you do not question yourself then you are no different to an unbeliever. Presumption is a form or sin because only Providence knows all.

>>19606325
He should have read the Plutarch essay, ‘Beasts are Rational’

>>19606325
He specifically excluded women with the rational part

>>19606325
No it isn't, during his time the Orangutan was considered potentially rational, he probably had that particular arboreal simian in mind.

>>19607141
why do anons hate academics?

>>19607438
>I was lefty when in my university years.
>I was living on handouts and loans, earning nothing by myself, anyone will turn left due to that.
>I came tangentially into contact with antifa and commies but I found them ideologically and behaviorally absolutely repulsive. I expected some deep neo-communism debates about blockchain-verified UBI and streamlined State Provided Basic Living Supplies diagrams to keep my nerdy lefty dreams alive. Instead I found a bunch of dirty retards throwing rocks on the streets and philosophy-tier rehashing of 100 year old arguments while celebrating genocidal regimes.

>I stayed lefty until my first proper work, speculating about UBI with one person who were more interested in high tech safety nets than repeating the genocides of old.

>Lessons learned: Give people fair work for fair pay and communism is dead in the water. Problem is that it's fucking hard to get a job today, lots of demands from everywhere and the baseline autism that internet society have created doesn't make it easier for people to apply. I'm an MD and I'm unemployed for several months, isn't that a bit dysfunctional?

Since no one said it, yes, he was talking about aliens. In the Critique of Pure Reason, iirc in the Doctrine of Method, he claims that the exietence of aliens is one of those positions he would bet everything he has on. Earlier in his career he also wrote a speculative treatise on the possibility of aliens living on the other planets of the Solar system. He was veey aware of these options, and he always wccounted for them in his writings.

>>19606325
>>19606348
>>19606354
>>19606421
>>19606427
He had angels in mind.

>>19606325
He was thinking of angels. Surprised >>19607554 was the first to straightforwardly get it right in this thread. /lit/ is such an autodidact trash heap.

>>19607565
But I’m an autodidact, anon.

>>19606325
No, he was thinking of fellow neurodivergents. NTggers can never truly get Kant.

>>19607565
A thought on angels I had when considering Johannes Eriugena recently: the tradition of medieval scholasticism divided all creation into a sort of fourfold quadrant
- created, creating: Man
- created, not creating: Angel
- not created, creating: God
- not created, not creating... er I forgot this one (not sure if it is the Adversary or maybe Satan or just the void). Anyway this completely medieval theogony made me think of object-oriented programming in computer science, constructors etc and how you create and destroy objects and instances etc. And when I checked it... academics now call this form of medieval scholasticism object-oriented ontology! It is like this mudcore theologian invented a computing paradigm!

>>19607565
Kant believed in aliens though
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/abs/kants-wager-kants-strong-belief-in-extraterrestrial-life-the-history-of-this-question-and-its-challenge-for-theology-today/CE39900C5CE58194FE2933CE9D3BEAC7

>>19607554
>>19607565
>>19607623
>>19607702
>>19607910
Read this, then read the goddamn Doctrine of Method (which is very short). He was actually thinking about aliens

>>19607910
> If it were possible to settle by any sort of experience whether there are inhabitants of at least some of the planets that we see, I might well bet everything that I have on it. Hence I say that it is not merely an opinion but a strong belief (on the correctness of which I would wager many advantages in life) that there are also inhabitants of other worlds.’
Well he would lose everything since there are none in the planets we see

>>19608012
I’m still making my way through the transcendental doctrine of elements

>>19608020
Here's the passage in which he talks, so that you can be sure that I'm not lying

>>19608039
in which he talks about it*
>>19608018
To this day we still do not have the tools to actually check wether planets in habitable zones are actually populated. It is a congecture for us as much as it was in Kant's time

>>19608044
I mean thet in the planets we see, as Kant said, we found nothing. Also have we even found any habitable place in the universe?

>>19606903
Read Kant antrhopology lectures. He is pretty much a "humans-are-the-center-of-the-world" type of enlightenment lib at the time. No aliens, or demons.

>>19607910
>only GO INSAAAAAAAAANE AAAAAAAAA if you GOOOOOOOOOING INSAAAAAAAAAANE AAAAAAAAAAAAA is universally applicable

>>19608061
>I mean thet in the planets we see, as Kant said, we found nothing.
Haven't we just checked the surface of the Moon and Mars (which are not in habitable zones)?
>Also have we even found any habitable place in the universe?
We know of lots of planets that are potentially habitable.

>>19607139
No it wasn't america hours it was early morning European hours when I made this thread

>>19607565
So people should get a philosophy degree? Seems like a waste of time

>>19608808
>Haven't we just checked the surface of the Moon and Mars (which are not in habitable zones)?
you are confusing the issue now with simply living beings? wouldn't we have traces of intelligent life off the surface?

>We know of lots of planets that are potentially habitable.
speculations? have we actually been to these places, measured, tested the environment there?

>>19609927
>you are confusing the issue now with simply living beings? wouldn't we have traces of intelligent life off the surface?
Living life could also frolich below a planet's surface, and with it intelligent life too. Regardless, since the Moon and Mars are not in habitable zones it makes no sense to expect anything on the surface in the first place. What we should check instead are planets and moons in habitable zones, but at the moment we do not have to tools required to check their surfaces.
>speculations? have we actually been to these places, measured, tested the environment there?
iirc habitability is calculated with criteria like distance from the star of the system, or planet size. None of those planets (apart from Earth) are in our solar system

>>19606325
>In an early work he had also said: “In view of the endless duration of the immortal soul throughout the infinity of time, which even the grave itself does not interrupt… shall the soul remain forever attached to this one point of world-space, our earth?” He goes on to contemplate the possibility of the soul’s future reincarnation on other planets which would be “a new dwelling place for us to occupy after we have completed the period of time allotted for our sojourn here”6.
uh yes

>>19607702
Based philosophy
Cringe programming paradigm

>>19607105
Are you going to argue any of those conclusions of yours or just wait for us to forget about them?

>>19607554
Based

he wanted to exclude blacks

Who care. Categorical imperative is absurd.
>>19611557
lol

>>19610119
But as you said we barely know what is in the planets of our solar system, I’m skeptical of these speculations

>>19612520
Then me and Kant are still right: it is still conjectural wether aliens exist or not. You were being the bad empiricist when you claimed that having examined the surface of the Moon and of Mars was enough to rule out this possibility.

>>19612715
>mars and moon are not in habitable zones
>there could be intelligent life in habitable zones
>mars and moon, the nearest we could explore, were barely explored
>speculations about thousands of light years about possible habitable zones

I’m not saying this. I’m saying that these speculations about habitable zones are ridiculous and have no weight at all, assuming anything from non empirical evidence is whay you are doing, if I’m playing the bad empiricist, you are not playing the empiricist at all.
Also until we find anything (intelligent life, which, if it were truly intelligent, there would be traces of it on the whole place) in Mars or Moon I’m right, there is nothing there.