[ 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: 56 KB, 416x599, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21657350 No.21657350 [Reply] [Original]

>heralded as one of the greatest philosophical minds of all time
>the categorical imperative: a breakthrough in European way of thinking
>literally just restated the golden rule "treat others the way you'd want to be treated" in academic terms
Reading philosophy is a joke. You'd gain the same kind of wisdom just reading the testaments

>> No.21657356
File: 43 KB, 399x385, 16689584455627457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21657356

>>21657350
>thinking the categorical imperative was Kant's contribution and the breakthrough in European way of thinking

>> No.21657365

>>21657350
How about you look into transcendental philosophy you nigger?

>> No.21657378

>>21657365
If Kant is considered "peak" philosophy, I hate to imagine what kind of drivel would come out of transcendental philosophy

>> No.21657396

>>21657350
Plato and Nietzsche is peak philosophy. People pay attention to Kant only because he is handy to the historians of philosophy as a figure that put an end to the boring rationalist and empiricist debate. Other than that, he had a few great ideas in epistemology, in politics, but his moral, aesthetic theories are just bland protestantism in systematic and scientific appearance.

>> No.21657439

>>21657350
Kant is a joke, but Nietzsche is not.

>>21657356
fpbp

>> No.21657467

>>21657356
>>21657365
>just the same thing Plato said but in a giant volume and in german
Why did you even fall for this meme?

>> No.21657519

There's a marked difference between the mere golden rule and the golden rule proved rigorously.

>> No.21657754

>>21657519
One is common sense and the other one uncommon sense?

>> No.21657777

>>21657396
>>21657439
Was Nietzsche even a real philosopher? Is there any work of his that is rigorous philosophy?

He just has his aphorism with psychological insights and for some reason pathologizes metaphysical systems. Very shallow and sad!

>> No.21657795

>>21657777
He was a philosopher in a way that mattered.

>> No.21657799

>>21657777
Semi-wasted quads.

>> No.21657807

>>21657350
The man's solution to the made up problem of objectification was marriage.

That's all you need to know really.

>> No.21657880

>>21657350
Yes it's sad to see that all of the bright minds working in Analytical Philosophy are only there to restate in obtruse or obscure logics that it's very important we care about climate change. Math is for the most part equally complicated and useless, but there's some dignity to all of it being done for its own sake.

>> No.21657894

>>21657350
>literally just restated the golden rule "treat others the way you'd want to be treated" in academic terms
you seem to not have understood the relation between philosophy and its language. In some sense philosophy is its language, philosophical progress is progress in understanding, which is in the case of a priori objects a progress in clarifications of meanings.

>> No.21657914

>>21657777
>Is there any work of his that is rigorous philosophy?
From time to time, he started an attempt to give the appearance of philosophical argumentation, but you can really see how tormented that man was, when you read him. The length of his aphorisms is the length of his attention spans. Nietzsche was no (rigorous) philosopher, but that does not mean that he cannot touch or move you deeply.

>> No.21657923

>>21657777
just because he does not lay down his philosophy in a systematic appearance does not mean it is not systematic or coherent in itself. Nietzsche is more rigorous than Kant, who accepted a lot of scientific dogmas and made thought loops without having the courage to admit it

>> No.21658138

>>21657923
If you don't lay down your arguments in argumentative form, there is no way to distinguish your premises from your conclusions. There is no argument without argumentative form. You don't need to write in formal logic, but N's aphorisms are not argumentative. N himself even says so.

>> No.21658163
File: 66 KB, 666x408, philmeme_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21658163

>>21658138
Yeah
>>21657923
>Nietzsche is more rigorous than Kant
Yeah sure he is, LOL

I mean, he does raise good points and psychological insights but I don't think he realized the depth and breath of systematic theology which he was against.

>> No.21658389

>>21657350
you're so retarded it's unreal
even if you're trollin

>> No.21658545

Ok I am going to come across as an idiot, and I probably am, but I still like to know. I don't understand why Kant is always regarded as some amazing philosopher when it seems like no one can simply sum up the important things he said, clearly and simply. If what he said was so mindblowing then why is it so hard to communicate?

>> No.21659950

>>21658545
Because Kant is a meme. Think of it as an inside joke that got out of hand in academia. Restating biblical truth truthisms as profound philosophical revelation is not a breakthrough