/lit/ - Literature

>>22644800
Has Kant ever been refuted?

I mean, yes? But do you understand what intuitions are for Kant? It's a silly question, like are "our eyes moral?"

>>22644812
like, a historical refutation? he is not in complete accordance with Leibniz who argues substances in their base state are 'stupid'. logically, Kant is probably wrong about something? aesthetically, his writing is not so great so maybe his point only corresponds to people who can ignore certain things- his diction is also inaccessible.

>>22644831
>substances in their base state are 'stupid'
meaning that we shouldn't argue that the external world is unknowable or something?

>>22644830
intuition is a unit of intentionality. why isn't there a nature to the intution rather than an intuition merely being an object corresponding to a concept? if it is the concept or some combination of concepts then an intuition is just true or false. which makes them moral. so if i see I substance I just think 'true, false'. i guess my questions is what is the content of the intuition without content? i -don't think- it's just the true or false of the object, i think that's the non-empty intuition.

>>22644869
sorry, that was riddled with typos.
-the intuition with concepts lets you predicate true or false of the object
what is the intuition of the object without concepts?
>>22644847
hmm ok

>>22644869
I really dont understand what youre saying desu on several levels. Are you asking what intuition is "before" it is joined with a concept? Like, what a mind gets with pure receptivity? Kant usually calls it something like "unmediated many". It is by definition comprehensible, but that comprehension is productive comprehension, so you can't really say what it "is", only point to its a priori necessity.
Furthermore, truth and falsity aren't the characteristics of moral judgements, but theoretical ones, so it doesn't matter.

>>22644812
yeah by this guy called albert einstein