/lit/ - Literature

>>22888639
he was a genius
no one could write what he wrote

>>22888639
He's the endgame of the Enlightenment, an era of thought that we are still existentially imprisoned by.

>>22888689
i don't see how this is the case as he himself believed in enlightenment ideas before he read the real stopper, hume who woke him from slumber

>>22888639
Desu the popularity is a bit new to me.

>>22888717
>i don't see how
stopped reading right there

>>22888717
Kant is Hume's epistemology x Rousseau's freedom, making him the final boss of the Enlightenment

>>22888768
How is this even a point seeing how similar enlightenment is to romanticism after hegel.

>>22888639
I HATE THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
I HATE THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
I HATE THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE

>>22888775
>after hegel
You mean after Kant

>>22888803
so how can he be the final boss and the spawn of essentially the same kind of thought

>>22888806
Because the demonic elements in Hegel are Kantian

>>22888639
>To keep one's Kant healthy, one must do Hegel Exercises
hehehe...

>>22888937
This may be a contender to Fartre

>>22888639
autism

>>22888639
Because no one said we kant.

>>22888824
>demonic elements
wut?

>>22888768
>Rousseau's freedom

>>22888768
kant does not think we are free lmao, he struggles with making rational arguments about morality and free will and god and comes to the conclusion that they are matters of belief alone and not reason

>>22889071
>kant does not think we are free lmao
holy shit

>>22888639
>famous
>high regarded
>autistic
>philosopher
>wrote bad
>hard to read
>difficult to understand

>>22889047
I think he's talking about how those philosophies imply men seeing himself apart and above nature, as if he could be God himself or at least on the same level.
That's would be satanic.

>>22889071
>kant does not think we are free
yes he does

>>22889094
that's not what he said at all

>>22889242
Where does he do this? Do you understand the point of his critiques or are you just taking your talking points from some youtube reviewer? Have you read his three arguments for the existence of god and what conclusions he derives from them? Ontological, Cosmological and teleological arguments?

>>22889270
Second critique. Yes I've read first and second critique.

>>22889302
The second critique isn't about reason and it follows directly from the conclusions of the first which say that we can't know god by reason.

>>22889252
Kant or anon?

>>22889313
>The second critique isn't about reason
>Critical of Practical REASON
why do have cling to being a massive pseud? Just say you didn't read it and don't talk about a book you havn't read. Why are so many anons like this? It's an anonymous image board. Nobody gives a fuck if you havn't read the book as long as you aren't a pretentious pseud and act like you have.

>>22889321
Kant was a based God believer

>>22889332
Practical reason is meant as reasoning through established human knowledge like science, economics, etc not purely logical reason that is only about relation of ideas you pseud faggot, they are not the same thing.

>>22889344
>Practical reason is meant as reasoning through established human knowledge like science
*face palm*
not wasting my time with you

>>22889353
Go away faggot or provide some rebuttal.

>>22889313
>we can't know god by reason.
read it again

>>22889338
I wonder why his writings and Hegel's lead to Marx, then.

>>22889389
Hegel was gigabased God believer too.

>>22889388
Can you address his conclusions about the three arguments of god's existence or are you going to be like the other faggot and get hanged up on the word science like some 15 yr old prude whose sensibilities about philosophy have been shattered by the word?

>>22889444
>Can you address his conclusions
Depends. Did you read the first and second critique already?

>>22889455
Like i said the second is not about pure reason. He rejects god's existence on pure reason not on faith.

>>22889459
>the second is not about pure reason
so you didn't read it. There is a distinction between pure theoretical and pure practical reason you'd know if you read it.

>>22889469
There is no pure practical reason retard, the title of his second book mentions practical reason, you added the pure qualification yourself, my argument remains disproven.

>>22889389
Quigon --> Obi-Wan --> Vader

>>22889489
>There is no pure practical reason
anon you did not read the book. it's embarrasingly obvious.

>>22889399
You mean that if you believe in God it means you technically acknowledges Satan?

>>22889489
>you added the pure qualification yourself
lmao please go back to twitter

>>22889497
No i did not read YOUR book about "the critique of pure practical reason", sorry faggot, it wasn't very good.

>>22889495
not bad. I like it.

>>22889507
Suck my dick you midwit faggot then i'll consider having mercy on you.

>>22889499
Not necessarily. Some people believe in God that aren't Christians. But Kant and Hegel were God believers.

>>22889510
>>22889515
um ok

>>22889527
I guess you don't mean God that is related to Jesus, then.
It'd be an occultist/esoteric/gnostic/etc meaning that which I call satanic, apparently.

>>22888639
1. kant is popular among libertarians, who are disproportionately represented on 4chin
2. kant has a reputation for being hard to read, which attracts pretentious 4chan hipsters
3. kant is an important philosopher, and those formally trained in the humanities (this board being the primary 4chan meeting place for such people) are about as likely to talk about him as they are aristotle or plato

>>22889625
There is only one God. It's the same God.

Because he gave christcucks an out

>we can't prove God exists, but you should believe in him anyway

>>22891256
>we can't prove God doesn't exist
he also btfo'd the atheists

>>22888639
>Intelligent
>Autist
>Virgin
>White
>Died alone
He was a proto-typical /lit/izen.

>>22891347
>/lit/izen.
the correct term is /lit/erati

>>22888639
Unironic answer is because most anon's here are bookfags. Bookfags typically are losers who are driven through their neurosis to self reflect. Many people become very successful through this process and can be seen as essentially the individuation process found in every religion and philosophy that's worth a shit. This typically involves shedding away with fantasies and opinions, getting control of your emotions, achieving discipline, overcoming obstacles and achieving goals via hardening yourself through pain and suffering; making yourself stronger mentally and physically in the process. Especially physically because your brain is still a thing and is heavily dependent on your diet and exercise....

All things "intellectuals" pretend they don't need as they continue to suck their own farts while seeking meaning and guidance in life from other neurotic assholes via books. Kant is was of the finest in this regard. Why do you think guys like Nietzsche and Jung, Evola, Junger, and even just religions in general like Christianity are shunned here at the same time a hyper intellectual turd such as Kant is praised? Just remember that these are the same people that get depressed over gender and actively vote to take your guns away.

>>22888639
Because he's ugly and we like to laugh at him

>>22889071
Kant thought Adam and Eve became free when they left the garden.

>>22891731
He thought many things but couldn't prove them, so he settled on the belief argument.

>>22891412
>Kantians are libturds
"interesting" "take," fellow mouth breather

>>22891412
>Why do you think guys like Nietzsche and Jung, Evola, Junger, and even just religions in general like Christianity are shunned here
the fuck? do you actually browse this board?

>>22888639
His philosophy is incredibly influential. Pic related misses the opportunity to include Kant as the influence for Schopy and Hegel

>>22891412
>Why do you think guys like Nietzsche and Jung, Evola, Junger, and even just religions in general like Christianity are shunned here at the same time a hyper intellectual turd such as Kant is praised?
Browse the board b8 fag.

>>22892292
Point is, he thought we were free.

>>22893363
Yes and he showed you can't prove such claims or thoughts, hence belief.

>>22889389
>DUDE hegel was like this EVIL WIZARD and his books are actually OCCULT SPELLS and he created COMMUNISM and TRANNIES and like totally RUINED EUROPE and and
No one who thinks this has ever actually read Hegel.

>>22893377
Same goes for thinking we're not free though, right? So I fail to see your point.

>>22891412
Fuck off newfag

>>22893408
We can prove that we are not free, kant wasn't able to prove that we were free. You just have to name what you think we are free for me to prove we are not.

>>22893469
>We can prove that we are not free
no we can't that a major conclusion of the first critique

>>22893486
i am talking about now retard, you said we can't prove we are not free. After darwin that proof is now available because we understand how organisms evolve.

>>22893469
>We can prove that we are not free
We can't, because freedom isn't scientifically measurable, it is itself a matter of belief

>>22893566
Like i said name the freedom you think we have and i will disprove it, if you can't then your argument is meaningless, it doesn't mean others don't have names for such freedoms.

>>22888639
In awe at the size of this lad's headcase . Enough brains for two in there

Kant is to us what Plato or Aristotle was to the Romans

>>22893520
>darwin
couldn't into metaphysics and free will is a question of metaphysics NOT natural science, which already presupposes an unexamined metaphyics.

>>22893580
>Like i said name the freedom you think we have and i will disprove it
Name an unfreedom you think we have and I will also dispute that. Point is, freedom or lack thereof is all a matter of belief, and you didn't really understand Kant if you failed to grasp this.

>>22893621
>belief
not just belief: rational belief

>>22893637
Scientifically unverifiable all the same.

>>22893641
go back twitterfag

>>22888639
Because western civilization is abandoning the categorical imperitave in order to normalize racial and gender discrimination as a matter of policy in educational and career opportunities.

>>22893621
Freedom is a word that applies to human action. Its not a belief, you are trying to stretch the definition to avoid admitting that you are not really saying anything meaningful.

>>22893621
unfreedom is not even a word faggot, how fucking desperate are you lmao

>>22893662
>Freedom is a word that applies to human action
That's literally the issue in question you absolute mental midget. DOES it apply to human action? DO humans have free will? smfh right now

>>22893690
That's a specific sense of freedom, its not the only one, you inbred midget. And its definable if you were not so stupid you would find a philosophical definition, but you are a coward who is too afraid of looking it up to avoid me btfoing your argument that we can't prove it doesn't exist.

>>22893667
What a retarded response. "unfree will" has been used before anyway.

>>22893709
>specific sense of freedom
stfu twitterfag please go back

>>22893734
go back where to your mother's bedroom?

>>22893744
twitter obviously you insufferable monkey

>>22893652
>>22893734
>calls others twitterfags
>also doesn't understand Kant
Oh the ironing

>>22893752
make me

>>22893767
>Oh the ironing
indeed

>In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "causal-connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain. It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being in itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted—mythologically. The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of strong and weak wills.—It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself, when a thinker, in every "causal-connection" and "psychological necessity," manifests something of compulsion, indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings—the person betrays himself.

>>22888639
Disagreeing over what a kraut philosopher meant 200 years ago is no more intellectually demanding than arguing over which Batman movie is best.

The only difference is that the Batman movies are entertaining.

>>22893842
>The only difference is that the Batman movies are entertaining.
you obviously didnt see justice league

>>22894715
A movie with batman in it, is a batman movie pure reason...