/lit/ - Literature

pls help me

>>20923846
How do you think Kant would have reacted to being called a "nigga"?

>>20923882

>>20923882
Would it violate the categorical imperative?

>>20923897
No. If everyone started calling each other nigga, the word would lose its power and so wouldn't be offensive anymore.

>>20923846
Yes, 100%. Lucky for you Hume is an easy read.

>>20923920
then maybe the niggers will finally shut up about it.

>>20923920
then, Kant is a nigga.

>>20923933
>>20923920

>>20923920
In fact, now that I think about it:
Not saying nigga gives the word its offensive power.
It is your duty to say it then.

>>20923921
For some reason I think you are being ironic, kek

>>20923846
I watched some YouTube videos about him and read books from other philosophers discussing him. What I got was that he made a distinction between reality as we perceive it (phenomena) and reality as it is (noumena), and the reality as we perceive it is subject to mental categories like time, space and causality. These categories are “a priori,” meaning that they exist prior to any experience. Then there is a posteriori knowledge that requires observation and can’t be ascertained through pure reason alone. This dichotomy is supposed to synthesize the empiricist/rationalist debate of his day, kind of like Plato did the Presocratics.

>>20924018
I think it is the other way around. Time, space is knowledge that can't be reasoned, you just have to accept that it's there. But that's not what Kant is really known for, plenty of philosophers have said similar things. What Kant says that is revolutionary and is still discussed even among neuroscientist 300 years later, is that Kant claims that reality ceases to exist, at least in the forms we perceive it, the moment there is no observer. This is a mind blowing claim once you are aware of the shit-storm surrounding the double slit experiment. Basically cognition drives reality as we know it.

>>20924060
this person has never read a single page of Kant

>>20923920
>>20923924
>>20923933
>>20923963
>>20923979
DO NOT look up the book in pic related and DO NOT look up the wikipedia section on Kant's opinions about race

>>20924018
>What I got was that he made a distinction between reality as we perceive it (phenomena) and reality as it is (noumena),
Already done by Parmenides in 500BC. That's not new, it's not what's new about Kant. Kant's importance is in his "critical philosophy", in other words systematized skepticism. Nothing he said is remotely interesting in any way except to secular atheists who want to push humanity further away from metaphysics.

Let me give you a quick rundown.

>Descartes is a rationalist and believes that things can only be known through pure reason, i.e. mathematics and logic
>Locke and Hume are empiricists and believe that knowledge can only be gained from subjective experience
>Kant realizes that both arguments are at the same time both valid and wrong, and synthesizes the two showing that both pure reason and experience are necessary in order to achieve the most correct possible understanding of the universe

Also, don't listen to people saying you need to read Hume. He's dry, boring, and Kant refutes his entire philosophy on like page 2. Kant is not that complicated if you understanding the context and the arguments he is trying to refute, which I just explained in 30 seconds.

>>20923920
That's not how the categorical imperative works.

>>20924729
>Hume says that the causal maxim can't be proved by any experience
>Therefore, for the causal maxim to be valid, it must be present in us before any experience takes place
>t. Kant
nice refutation, mate

>Hume is dry and boring
He is a very entertaining writer. And even if he were dry and boring, what would that make Kant?

>>20924733
Okay, four-eyes. How does it work then?

>>20924729
>He's dry, boring
Nope
>Kant refutes his entire philosophy on like page 2
Nope. Never refutes. Go fuck yourself.

>>20924622
He was a eugenicist, so what?

>>20924622
>Although he was a proponent of scientific racism for much of his career, Kant's views on race changed significantly in the last decade of his life, and he ultimately rejected racial hierarchies and European colonialism in Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795).
:)

>>20924544
Not even his Wikipedia page.

>>20925112
>>20924544

Never read Kant or 2nd hand sources, but still wrote something that you two Jews can't counter, other than revealing you yourselves have only ever read a wiki. Projection is a bitch.

>>20925097
racismsisters...

>>20923846
Apply the principle of charity to the first book of his critique of pure reason, it's not that hard.

>>20923890
Stupid Frogposter
>>20925294
autism. please end your life immediately.

bump

Just don't. The Covid times have shown me how much I hate "reason". I don't want to stay locked up in order to "survive" because that's what a social order would deem as the sensible thing to do for everyone. I want to LIVE!
Also, I don't know if his categorical imperative is anything close to ethical compared to more "romantic" ways of thinking.
Is it better to just not kill somebody because you think it's sensible to not do so because it should be a "general law" that prohibits killing or is it better to actually not WANT to kill somebody?
One is just a rational calculation, the other is true morals.
Kant is a fucking cunt!

>>20925997
>The Covid times have shown me how much I hate "reason". I don't want to stay locked up in order to "survive" because that's what a social order would deem as the sensible thing to do for everyone. I want to LIVE!

>>20925997
>Is it better to just not kill somebody because you think it's sensible to not do so because it should be a "general law" that prohibits killing or is it better to actually not WANT to kill somebody?
Except that this question is literally addressed in the Groundworks of the Metaphysics of morals. In Kantian morality, intention matters and is a very important factor in determining if you are acting morally or not.

>>20923846
Idk critique of pure reason was the first primary source philosophy I ever read and I got though it okay. Relied a lot on supplementing with secondary sources though.

>>20924060
This person watched the philosophy tube video drunk and decided they know Kant

>>20926302
>this person
>they
It's 4chan and on top of that /lit/. Just use "he", no woman has ever come near the entrance of this board

>>20923846
By reading him

>>20924060
Lol YouTube

>>20925014
work on your anger management issues before trying to engage in philosophical discussion on the internet

bump

>>20923979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUd9-92EEuw&ab_channel=LeanandCuisine

>>20924733
>That's not how the categorical imperative works.

>>20927917
Kek

>>20926279
If that is the case, then what is the ethical difference to other "non-reason" philosophies? He's just using his brain more instead of listening to what he desires?