/lit/ - Literature

Kant and Wittgenstein best philosophers bros

>>20262208
He was a literal retard. His thoughts on ethics alone should deter any reasonable man from reading his work.

>>20262240
>His thoughts on ethics alone
Can you elaborate?

>>20262208
good job!

>>20262208
Diderot's metaphysics was more in the right than Kant.

>>20262248
You could read the refutations given by various philosophers—Hegel, Schopenhauer, Mill, Nietzsche, etc. For example, Mill pointed out that Kant implicitly appeals to the utilitarian principle, which would be a better and more foundational explanation for why actions are moral or not. My view is that he focused too much on this idea of “rational” morality, completely removing the human aspect. We are fundamentally irrational beings. We use reason to achieve our irrational desires. The aim of morality is to guide action, but the aim of action is to satisfy our desires and preferences. Without these preferences, morality doesn’t exist. Kant thinks an action is moral if it can be universalized, but why is that relevant? Eventually he has to appeal to some form of consequentialism, otherwise it has no justification. The whole philosophy just reeks of autism.

>>20262312
you sound like someone who got their feelings hurt.

>>20262208
okay but why did you post Friedrich Jacobi?

>>20262312
Read him again, you haven't understood him at all. (But to be fair: very few people have.)

Hint 1: the use of Cunt's moral principle makes the act of an irrational being that's guided by his desires an autonomous, rational one.
Hint 2: Autonomy is the key term here.

>>20262398
It seems to be a running gag on this site. Maybe because most people don't even realize it's not Kant.

>>20262208
He tried, but ultimately couldn't.

>>20262208
Really, Kant

>>20262401
Define “rational” in this context

>>20262446
Led by reason (instead of desire).

Funnily enough, it's the same Plato meant, when he spoke of the "just soul", but that would lead too far...

>>20262554
>Led by reason (instead of desire)
impossible. Without desire, there’s no reason to do anything

>>20262208
I only read his first critique but people always bring up the categorical imperative. He barely spent a few pages on ethics in CPR, so I don't really know how the categorical imperative works.

>>20262569
Oh c'mon, don't be stubborn. You know what is meant by this. Otherwise, I have to assume you don't have the most basic knowledge about Kant. And my time's too precious to explain the basics over and over again, just because there's another kid that goes: noooo, that's not what I think, he must be wrong.

>>20262587
The go-to book for the explanation of the CI is the "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals". Read the CprR only afterwards.

>>20262312
>For example, Mill pointed out that Kant implicitly appeals to the utilitarian principle, which would be a better and more foundational explanation for why actions are moral or not.
This is absolutely retarded, and no serious reading of Kant could reach this conclusion. Regardless of whether he was correct or not, he definitely does not appeal to the utilitarian principle.
> The aim of morality is to guide action, but the aim of action is to satisfy our desires and preferences. Without these preferences, morality doesn’t exist.
This is just begging the question against Kant.

>>20262885
Maybe I'm missing something, I haven't read him. It seems like the Categorical Imperative boils down to vibe-based ethics with a few extra steps since deciding whether or not a rule is good is arbitrary (will things be better if everyone follows the rule all the time).

>>20262920
The CI is not about whether things would be "better" if everyone follows the rule--if that were the CI, then obviously the CI would fail to be the fundamental test of normativity, because it employs a normatively loaded concept of "better". The CI is a test of whether it is coherent to will everyone to follow the rule--that is, would the intention be self-defeating if everyone followed it.

>>20262926
I see. That's a very lose standard though, isn't it? You could create a CI to murder everyone you meet and it wouldn't be self-defeating, because if universally applied it would accomplish its goal of destroying life. It doesn't seem to be an ethical statement at all.

>>20262942
Whether the CI actually yields substantive moral conclusions is very contested. Many non-Kantians gives objections similar to yours. Kant used suicide as an example of something he thought was clearly ruled out, but his argument to this effect is that suicide would be committed out of self-love, and this would be contradictory. (If he's right about that, then I think he could reject your "kill all others" as well.) I don't think many people think Kant's moral arguments as he presented them are good enough.

A good example of a modern Kantian is Christine Korsgaard, who believes that morality actually follows from two principles: first, the use of the CI as a test of our intentions, and second, the inescapable judgment that our own humanity is valuable.

>>20262984
Thanks for the effortposting, it's good.

>>20262208
I kant believe it's your birthday already

>>20262226
if there was a greater man than Wittgenstein we haven't seen him yet...mans was more of a saint than Kant and Augustine

>>20262208
happy bday, "kant" hehehehehehehehe

He never says anything nice about me on my birthday.

that image doesn't portray kant, op

kant was a little goblin whose own mother hated him

>>20262208
Thats the least amusing depiction of kant Ive ever seen

>>20263152
Because it's not him, kek.

>>20263630
Based. Kant was an ugliest goblin ever. Chinaman of koninberg lmao

>>20263868
Immanuel Kant was a BLACK man. His real name was Immonamul Kandabembe!

happy berfday

>>20262208
that is not kant

>>20263904
>>20263903
>>20263868
>>20263630
>>20263152
>>20263139
newfags

>>20263929
>t. cuntian
>>20263903
jesus christ. De las philosoficos prussico, dios mio

>>20262984
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have the hunch that CI has the function of explaining the origin of morality. Why are we moral? Why don't we steal and kill each other to our own benefits instead of doing things that are not beneficial to our survival by being "moral"? Kan't answer is, the principle of morality is something universal and immanent within us, it just often gets side-tracked by hypothetical imperatives. If we wash off the hypotheticals from every human being, then you'll get a human working entirely informed by CI. Just like if you wash off all the sense data from experience, you'll get pure form of intuition which is mathematics. Am I correct?

>>20262420
it's a running gag well beyond this site

I ____

>>20263903
Mein Negger

>>20262208
immaculate cunt

>>20262920
Filtered, so stupid as to be doomed to forever be immoral and irrational.

shame, pity even.

>>20262208
Where do I start with him? The Prolegomena?

>>20266253
Kant invented the concept of '''''''''''''''human dignity'''''''''''''' in order to impose humanism as true. ZOMG EVERYBODY IS CREATED EQUAL FROM NOW ON, BECAUSE.... THEY JUST ARE OKAY CHUDD!!!1111!!1 DEMOCRACY AND RATIONALITY WORK OKAYY BIGOT!!! MY MIND TOLD ME SO!!! I AM LE COPERNICUS OF MORALITY!!!
It's all retroactive though.
So for Kant, after he has been a racist piece of shit for 60 years and publishing his racist rants all over Prussia, he decided that humanism was so trendy that he wanted to be part of it. He created a whole propaganda from his intellectual atheist head and he came up with the categorical imperative and the transcendental idealism.
Of course, he was an atheist, so he is a cunning little bitch and his hypocrisy shows up when he talks about white lies for instance. Kant like any atheist is desperate to be seen a good boy, but since atheism has no morality and no truth, he had to go about virtue signaling. His little trick for lying is this: ''lying is bad my fellow atheists, but hey if you lie to somebody who expects you to lie, then you're still a good humanist boy''.
And all his crappy mental gymnastics was after he seethed hard due to Hume.
All of this because atheists want that Humanism be true, so they have to kill christianity for instance, but they do it by using relativism. then the atheists are fucked, because relativism applies also to humanism, so they have to build a narrative where humanism is true even though relativism is true too.
Also Kant was the useful idiot to come up with a the whole apparatus for the atheist propaganda. He jumped in the bandwagon about ''''''''maths'''''''.
Kant was a piece of shit and did not understand a single line of maths. He was like the atheists today , the punk ass bitch who raves '''''''I FUCKIN LOVE SCIENCE NOW ZOMG''''''''' even though he never did a single scientific experiment and never studied maths ever.
So this kunt said ''omg newton is like my idol now'' and guess what his little atheist gymnastics is a vain attempt to justify newton as the guy who got it right.
look I am going to be clear. The atheists rejected god and the theist scholars. Instead they replaced god with something else: society. They replaced religions with ''''''''''ideology'''''''''. The priests in atheism are the ones who ''''''''''study society''''.
And the language of the atheists is maths. So the priests must use maths all the time.
Of course this son of a bitch was later on RKT by other atheists who went all ''oomg einstein is so right guys, he's our new jew idol now'' with the exact same reasoning lol.
Ultimately Kant is part of the atheist canon. But with anything atheist, you know it's created for bugmen by bugmen in order for them to dive deep into self indulgence. Egalitarianism is true because it's just is OKAYYYY. There that's Kant for you.

>>20262587
iirc the categorical imperative is:
>always act as if the maxim behind your actions could become a universal law
and
>always treat people as ends in themselves, not means
The first definition means that you should only do something if it would be okay for everyone to do it, and the second basically means you should treat others nicely. I could be wrong though.

>>20266259
Dude, you could have really used your time to read something and get a little bit more educated. Instead you write a whole lecture composed of bullshit and buzzwords. Honestly, take a shower, hit the weights, get a clue, have sex and above all: take your fucking meds.

>>20266028
...is written with only one "g" in German.

the enlightenment is the stupidest mistake human beings ever have made. the "idea" of reason is a lie, literally the entire project of modernity was based on a lie. not a noble lie (which is a requirement for human community), a stupid lie that opened up space for human hubris and technics to enslave humanity endlessly

even so-called "anti-modernist" or "reactionary" movements spring from this; heck, the nazi's used modern technology and "scientific racism" to slaughter millions of people. whoever's reading this: wake up, you're living a dream

>>20267037
Alternatives?

>>20267091
there are none, it's too late lol

>>20266916
There are nine different formulations (or "formulas" which is closer to the German name) of the Categorical Imperative which fall under four categories: the universalization formulas (4), the end-in-itself formulas (2), the natural-law formulas (2) and the kingdom-of-ends formula (1).
The most important one is the so-called basic formula, which is:
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law!
Every other formulation is derived from this basic formula of the CI. Thus, there is only one CI but there are different formulations of it.

>the second basically means you should treat others nicely
The end-in-itself formulas mean you shell treat others not only as tools to reach your own goals (or as a "means to an end") but instead you should always act in a way that helps them to reach their own goals, too (or as an "end in itself"). A merchant for example can be totally nice and have fair prices, but as long as he only uses you to make a living he doesn't obey the CI. He obeys it only if he sells things to you because he aims at your own wellbeing, too.

>>20262208
Was Kant a bit of a dumbass? He was trying to gain knowledge while refusing and avoiding getting actual knowledge.

>>20267037
Irrationalism is a decidedly post-Enlightenment phenomenon. Ancients didn't have the idea of reason, as you say, simply because it was so elemental for them. In the Middle Ages, reason was counted as a form of intuition.

>>20267494
the ancients talked about 'logos', which has a miriad of meanings: reason/word/speech/ground/opinion etc. this leaves room for a terminus, in which humans can experience reality directly. the idealisation of reason was such a catosrophe. it's a religion which colonizes and mechanizes every aspect of life and leads to the scientific nihilism ("bro love is just chemicals in your brain bro") which is so prevalent nowadays

now post la creatura

>>20267037
>>20267583
If you prefer to live in a town that stinks like a cesspit because there's no running water and people dump their feces right down on the street; if you prefer to be forced to follow an ancient code that may never be questioned no matter how stupid and antiquated its rules are; if you prefer to die before you become 30 years old either because of the yearly war with the tribe next door that follows a slightly different code or because of a sepsis you got because one of your rotten teeth started to fester... well, why don't you just go for it?

>>20262312
>we are fundamentally irrational beings
Fuck off retard

>>20262208
He has a nice haircut.

>>20262208
Nietzsche gives him a massive compliment somewhere. Somewhere something to the effect of "he had a greater mind than Plato, but lacked the feeling or soul that true philosophy requires" I'll find it and report back

>>20266259
Holy autism

>>20268219
cope

>>20268226
" if you prefer to be forced to follow an ancient code that may never be questioned no matter how stupid and antiquated its rules are"
like the principle of sufficient reason? turning an instrument into a goal? like sheer technocracy?

you reek of whig history and chronocentrism, retard. so glad that all that knowledge allowed "us" to drive people into death camps and propped up a system of control so wide and powerful that we'd literally live in 1984 if any political movement with utopian ambitions seized power

>>20267412
>The end-in-itself formulas mean you shell treat others not only as tools to reach your own goals
why
>>20267412
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
why

>>20267037
You seem to imply that justification of reason as good is circular because it relies on reason. In order for your argument to hold, by "good" you need to mean "true". Now, the truth of reason is not derived circularly from the truth of reason (this would just be a statement of anti-foundationalism with nothing to back it up), but from a foundation. Note that, being an anti-foundationalist, you can't deny that there might be a foundation because you have no grounds to say otherwise (for if you had such grounds then you would have a foundation).

>>20267583
Scientific nihilism arrises because of retardation, not reason. Love obviously can't be reduced just to chemicals because this would be to deny the phenomenon of love as phenomenon in the first place which you are analyzing.

>>20268913
i'm immune to your sophism, german idealist. you are so deep into plato's cave you can't even see were the light is coming from
>>20268921
love is not a "phenomenon", and im not "analyzing" it. do you understand that there are things to love that are mystical? that cant be understood by piling heaps of abstractions on them.

>>20268881
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Considering your second question, concentrate especially on the passages about "freedom". You also have to know the word "autonomy" literally means "self (given) law" in Greek.

>>20269079
I'm not the guy you're replying to but, honestly, why should anyone reason with someone like you who doesn't regard reason as a means to realize truth? Doesn't make sense. Therefore, oh enlightened master, I wish you good luck with your oh so deep epiphanies or whatever you call them.

>>20267412
>as long as he only uses you to make a living he doesn't obey the CI.
I don't get it. He can still respect
>>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law!
Just fine. It sounds like they're dfiferent rules.

>>20269079
It's funny, since you aren't denying reason, you are denying the reason of others.

>>20269184
The fact that you have to drop a wikipedia page and a stanford philosophy page to answer such a simple question is strong evidence that you don't know yourself.

>>20269581
The end-in-itself formulas are derifed from the basic formula as follows:

1) according to Kant, from the basic formula follows the duty to act altruistically (I personally think that argument isn't correct, but whatever)
2) Kant introducts another premise/axiom: every human being acts in a way that it treats itself as an end in itself
Therefore, 3) Since every human being acts in a way that it treats itself as an end in itself, a universal law that hinders them to treat themselves as an end in themselves can not be wanted. But since it's your duty to act altruistic, it's not only your duty to not hinder them at it, it's also your duty to actively help them with it.

>>20269623
Honestly, if I was talking to people who new at least a little bit what their talking about, you were right. But why should I invest a lot of time to serve someone an answers on a silver platter just because he typed in the word "why". If he's really interested in it, he will read the articles, if not he will have forgotten everything I might have written by tomorrow either way.

>>20269797
Fuck all the spelling errors, I'm tired.

>>20269797
>weird deduction
>introduces yet another axiom
This sounds sloppy

>>20269797
>he describes things to strangers for them and not to clarify his own ideas
keep on posting those wikipedia articles!

>>20269835
The introduction of another axiom is fine, since it's a classical and well accepted one. And you know only about the weirdness said deduction because I told you about it, you don't even know why I think it's incorrect.
Yet, you think you can call it sloppy...
You're like a little prick that thinks it can have a say with the adults: you don't know shit but are arrogant enough to think you can judge everything. And I won't waste any more time with you. Go back and annoy your teachers in high school, idiot.

>>20269879
You sound like a midwit so I got bored halfway through sorry mate

Do you guys think he was happy?

He never had sex. He probably masturbates furiously to control his urges. Just like everyone here.

>>20262426
i kant even

>>20270280
>He probably masturbates furiously to control his urges
He's still masturbating?

Today is my birthday

>>20270280
He says that masturbation was wrong though. Can't was #nofap #volcelgang

>>20270551
Happy birthday, anon!

>>20270584
There is no way a man can live without popping a nut from time to time. Besides to concentrate you cant be horny. How could he write philosophy while enduring to nut?

>>20262208
Happy birthday. I miss this lil nigga like you wouldn't believe.

>>20270591
Thank you!

I'm reading Schopenhauer's refutations right now

We have this thread every day

>>20262208
He died a wizard (encountered no women sexually)

>>20269606
i'm denying the IDEA of reason, as something which is inherently good

>>20262312
>he focused too much on this idea of “rational” morality, completely removing the human aspect.
you sound like my driving instructor

>>20271063
the futur of any racist

>>20262208
It's fucking EASTER, you KANT

>For Kant's particular complaint, as described by other biographers, a quarter of a grain of opium, every twelve hours, would have been the best remedy, perhaps a perfect remedy.
Why didn't Kant listen to Thomas De Quincey's eminently sensible advice?