/lit/ - Literature

>>22117695
>1. Kant is wrong, so in that case, why read him?
I've picked this one, but I have read him. so I'll just find a different brand of schizophrenia from some other philosopher.

>>22117695
>It's like satanic dark magic ripping open the matrix level knowledge that we probably aren't supposed to have
not really. it's just a description of how Kant's mind works. it limits knowledge far more than it provides it. but your naive scientific realism is ultimately the correct view, I've already thought about it enough so you can trust me and not worry about it.

>>22117703
>it limits knowledge far more than it provides it.
This is what troubles me. Isn't this defeatism though? The more I read Kant (I was reading him all night), the more I think that Ayn Rand's quote that he was "the most evil man in history" is not just being edgy. His views seem to be so damaging and regressive to progress, it's basically throwing in the towel before the journey has even begun.

I sense some big pseud energy from Kant though, also from the more I read him. Most of the great philosophers had day jobs. Aristotle did everything, Descartes and Leibniz were mathematicians, all the analytics were mathematicians. Kant was...a philosopher? Cool I guess. If I had to guess, I imagine that Kant was butthurt that he wasn't as smart as a lot of his contemporaries, so he created a philosophical system that is one giant cope of "Dude like we just can't know everything just trust me lol." It's beta as fuck, and I think I'm done with Kant.

>>22117752
Kant taught mathematics and astronomy, he had more of a day job than plato and aristotle who were just aristocrats. I agree that the spirit of his philosophy comes off as poisonous, but it's mostly mundane and in practice doesn't really contradict naive realism or common sense at all. Kant wasn't butthurt about not being smart and his goal wasn't to limit knowledge, but to try to save it from Hume's skepticism, only he couldn't reverse it in entirely and save his leibnizian conceptions, only partly coped by trying to preserve at least some innate ideas, which was his real mistake if you ask me. He was a lutheran pietist who had his conservative views overturned but at least had the intellectual honesty to try and confront the opposition. if anything he was a counter-enlightenment thinker.

>>22117752
>Most of the great philosophers had day jobs. Aristotle did everything, Descartes and Leibniz were mathematicians, all the analytics were mathematicians. Kant was...a philosopher?
Philosophy is meant to be practiced after all, it's a means to a end.

>>22117779
My point was that Kant isn't known for any mathematical or scientific breakthroughs of his own. But yeah.
Also I find Hume's view far more uplifting. Didn't Hume specifically say that he was not a skeptic, but that we just need to learn to take more knowledge from our subjective experiences? Remember, this was at a time when it was considered unmanly to show emotion and it was believed that only logic and rationality led to knowledge. I think Hume basically ended epistemology, or at least the sane part of it. He said to understand the limits of rationality, and also be mindful of the rich experiences life has to offer. I guess it's like what Nietzsche said: A philosopher is only correct if you agree with him.

>>22117815
>My point was that Kant isn't known for any mathematical or scientific breakthroughs of his own.
he was the one who came up with the idea that stars are produced in nebulae

and if you want to believe that math and science and logic work, kant is a far better pick than hume

>>22117752
>I sense some big pseud energy from Kant though, also from the more I read him. Most of the great philosophers had day jobs. Aristotle did everything, Descartes and Leibniz were mathematicians, all the analytics were mathematicians. Kant was...a philosopher? Cool I guess. If I had to guess, I imagine that Kant was butthurt that he wasn't as smart as a lot of his contemporaries, so he created a philosophical system that is one giant cope of "Dude like we just can't know everything just trust me lol." It's beta as fuck, and I think I'm done with Kant.
Beyond retarded paragraph. You’ve misunderstood Kant in almost every possible way: his lifestyle, his intelligence, his place in the history of philosophy, and most importantly the actual consequences of his system on epistemology and the ability to practice metaphysics as such. I think one of the major causes of your complete misunderstanding of his philosophical project is the very fact that you barely read Critique of Pure Reason. I would recommend at least getting knowledgeable on the Transcendental Dialectic section to understand the Parologisms and Antinomies of pure reason. I genuinely can’t fathom how you think Kant is more of a skeptic than Hume. Kant’s whole project is the attempt to ground knowledge and action in absolute certainty, whereas Hume primarily tore down the ability for knowledge to obtain a priori validity. Also how in the world did you interpret Kant’s project as distrusting the sciences? He literally framed his Critical philosophy in the prolegomena as an attempt to provide a solid foundation for the natural sciences which he saw as having valid processes of reasoning, especially math which he considered to be known with complete certainty.

>>22117695
More a too much bussy issue.

>>22117882
>an attempt to provide a solid foundation for the natural sciences which he saw as having valid processes of reasoning, especially math which he considered to be known with complete certainty.
math is not a natural science

>>22117882
i was being ironic

Who would you anons say is the Anti-Kant?

>>22117695
>If Kant is right, that actually is a bigger problem and opens the bigger can of worms.
Appeal to consequence, ie "it brings my consternation to think that this world view is right and therefore it must be wrong". Stating this as an argument against the views in a public forum is also a rhetorical maneuver in the form of an appeal to emotion. You want people to join you in an emotionally negative response towards the viewpoint. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.

>>22117695
Bertrand Russell: "So you like fiction, do you?"

>>22117779
>Kant taught mathematics and astronomy, he had more of a day job than plato and aristotle who were just aristocrats.
I'll just remind you, that both Aristotle and Plato created their own schools in which they taught, and Aristotle was literally a workaholic scientist. They werent really grape eating and wine drinking aristocrats.

>>22117695
Pro-tip: the Greeks BTFO """modern""" """"philosophy"""" before it even existed. Don't bother reading any philosophy newer than Boethius.

>>22117695
you sound like some kind of american

>>22117882
Both Kant and Hume are troglodytes. No rational being should waste time reading some apes basically throwing feces at each other.

>>22117695
He found Hume to be a faggot and wanted to clarify what one can know and not know

>>22117695
Reading people that probet the limits of knowledge and them sellf made error is off great value. It is like a vax against story tellers.
Trough years of study in philosophy i noticed that people often hold views of such figures without knowing they ever existed. And i tell you, if you dont know the errors and flaws of judgements of others you will be subdued to it and become uncosciouss follower of that idea (not because you are stupid but because you never took one level higer then that idea).
My experience with philosophy is that of gaining pluralistic view of world and uncertain grounds of each one of them.
It trully gives you "freedom" for you are no longer subdued by low level of ideals.

>>22119056
Ill just criticise my self...
Yeah it is a word salad that says: Every philosopher is worth reading for it brodens your worldview.

>>22119056
>>22119078
I agree with you anon, I share the same mindset as you. Unfortunately we're a rare breed on this site as well as outside it. Who have you studied so far in philosophy? Found any good deep cuts that /lit/ ignores?

>>22118085
>math is not a natural science
Which is why I addressed it as well.

>>22117695
>he filtered another one
lmao

>>22119330
Whiteheads process metaphysics is a refreshing gem i discovered lately. Did not have time to immerse my self in his works, i have been preocupied with Chalmers and Dennett lately.
Apart from that, almost any philosopher. Altho i cannot claim i scraped every inch of theyr works.
Sometimes i have a feeling philosophy degree is a speedrun and while it is quick it often jumps over some details (which are often very important).
Hbu anon? Any work occupieng your mind lately? Any gem to share?

>>22117695
Bro, if you're already getting filtered by CPR you aren't ready for the real Kant

>>22119008
Okay ignautius

>>22119634
Right now been reading Nietzsche and thinking about his metaphysics or critique thereof. Eyeing a Derrida book on friendship to check next. My main research work is actually analytic metaphysics so I'll start on that soon now that it's the Summer.
>Sometimes i have a feeling philosophy degree is a speedrun
It really is. In my experience people don't go for breadth. They do read a lot but it doesn't tend to cover ground horizontally. Keep up the interest.

>to smart to know own limits
How brave

>>22120265
Top kek

>>22117695
> What possesses someone to write a book like this? Literally is it no pussy? Serious question.

Imagine actually being irony poisoned enough to think that being the author of an epoch-making book like Kant’s Critique is some sort of negative.

>>22120994
>fuck bitches all the time. Chad life for real
Die and never be remembered
>channel autism into austere project of thought and rationality
Become famous in your own lifetime, forever alter the course of intellectual history, work is remembered and talked about for decades.

>>22121307
Imagine how retarded you would have to be to pick the latter.

>>22117695
>What possesses someone to write a book like this? Literally is it no pussy?
Kant was a turboautist. It's that simple. I've heard a legend that people in Konigsberg winded their watches based on where he was. That's how rigid his mind was. Got to be there on that time or else i'll just die
>>22117938
Sounds plausible

>>22117695
The critique is an old sword which has long since slain the foe it was designed for. Now it is little more than an old relic for the passerby who live under its peace to idly regard, and ultimately to forget.

>>22117752
Embarrassing post

What happened to /lit/ for a post like this to take place?

>>22117695
youre not cut out to do philosophy. go learn engineering

>>22121982
Almost everyone on this thread was retarded. I hardly come here. I was surprised to see.

>>22117882
Except this guy

>>22121982
/lit/ is getting smarter

>>22119056
>Reading people that probet the limits of knowledge and them sellf made error is off great value. It is like a vax against story tellers.
This is completely wrong. Limits to knowledge do not set limits to reality. It doesn't protect you against anything, and neither does it do anything positive for you.

>>22118885
ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥiā (PBUH)

>>22117695
Kant made me insane that's for sure

I just Kant.

>>22120265
>tfw no musky, punk, jewish gf

>>22117695
I have read Descartes’ Meditations and I am finishing Hume’s Enquiry tonight. What should I expect from CPR?

>>22124254
Kant is a synthesis of the rationalism of Descartes and the empiricism of Hume (which I'm sure you probably know already).
Kant acknowledges that knowledge can be both a priori (rational) and a posteriori (empirical). Simple enough.
But the complexity begins when he makes the distinction between an analytic and synthetic statement.
An analytic statement is a statement that essentially defines itself. The classic example is "All bachelors are unmarried man." The sentence is analytic because it requires no further investigation. All needed info is contained within the sentence itself.
However, a synthetic statement is a composite sentence, such as "The sky is blue." Simply from reading that sentence on its own, it is not self-evident and must be proved empirically. The property of "blue" is not an exclusive property of "sky" and vice versa.

However, this is the point where Kant takes it up to 11. He realized that despite how contradictory it sounds, there are instances of statements that are both a priori AND synthetic. Meaning that the sentence is both self-evidently true on its own and yet at the same time also requires testing. How is this possible?
Here are some examples of synthetic a priori statements:
"All triangles have three sides." This is a rational a priori truth that requires no testing, because it defines itself. But it also does require testing, because to understand what that sentence even means you have to understand the meaning of the component parts of it. In order for that sentence to even make sense, we must know what a "triangle" or a "side" is before it can even become a rational truth.

This of course leads to a brain-hurting chicken/egg situation of questioning where knowledge actually begins, at the base definition level of empirical testing or the a priori level, and starting with either leads to contradictions and problems. The deeper I got into Kant, the more that I realized the implications of him are disturbing. For your sanity, I highly recommend stopping at Hume and just picking a side to either be on team rationalist or team empiricist. It's honestly not worth it, I promise. Either he's wrong and he's a schizo or he's right and knowledge is meaningless. Either way, don't read him.

>>22124336
That was a bad example of a synthetic a priori statement. Here is a more classic one:
"Every effect has a cause." This statement is a priori because it requires no empirical testing to be proven; it is true in all cases. But at the same time, it is also synthetic because we need to investigate what "effects" and "causes" are on their own before we can formulate a priori truths about them.

>>22124336
Kant is so awesome bros