/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11324480]

All you need is Kant. Every other "philosopher" is unworthy.

[Anonymous No.11324500]

>>11324480
can't get anywhere in Kant without first going through what he was responding to - Hume.

[Anonymous No.11324509]

>>11324500
yes, but since Hume can be summarized as:
>muh experience
>muh extension
>muh cause
>muh jews
>muh communism
>muh feminism
>muh atheism
it's not like that's a very extensive prerequisite

[Anonymous No.11324517]

>Talks about Kant
>Posts picture of Friedrich Jacobi
I would genocide all you retards if I could.

[Anonymous No.11324522]

>>11324517
yes, but you "kant", can you?

[Anonymous No.11324526]

>>11324480
Why not plato too, that's a big inspiration for kant

[Anonymous No.11324551]

>>11324526

[Anonymous No.11324613]

>>11324480
How can you know that noumena exist if existence is a category and categories are only applied to phenomena?

[Anonymous No.11324621]

autismos perfecta

[Anonymous No.11324990]

>>11324480
How to into kant

[Anonymous No.11325313]

>>11324990
Use lube

[Anonymous No.11325325]

>reading outdated tripe

Love how you guys fall for reading centuries old memes

[Anonymous No.11325356]

>>11324480
That's not even Kant you unknowing degenerate

[Anonymous No.11325366]

stop reading this prussian kant

[Anonymous No.11325430]

I skipped Kant and went straight to schopy.
I feel superior to kantians in terms of wokeness.

[Anonymous No.11325518]

>>11324509
Fucking idiot, what is this?

[Anonymous No.11325523]

>>11324621
>disclaimer: kant actually looked like this

[Anonymous No.11325541]

>>11324517
It's funny because Jacobi utterly btfo'd the concept of the thing-in-itself, but kantcucks conveniently try to ignore it.

[Anonymous No.11325601]

>>11324480
Kantian ethics are a bit dull in my opinion, but I haven’t read him extensively.

Here’s my Kritik of Kant:

Fundamentally, his argument is That moral authority—that is, something that is morally, “correct”—derives itself from a conditional statement on requirement.

For example; it is not “moral” to study, as you are only required to study if you want good grades, and therefore you can sidestep this conditional statement by simply not wanting good grades.

This makes sense, but when we ask, “what is the conditional requirement for morality,” the belief fails.

For example; it is a moral to not enslave people because [some conditional that cannot be sidestepped.]

I left to conditional in brackets because I have not been able to think of any moral conditional that cannot be sidestepped, except for maybe religion, however he entire purpose of Kantian Ethics is to establish a system of morality that doesn’t require religion.

Morality is a biased and relative thing, not everyone has the same belief of what is moral, just look at /pol/.

So to say that morality derived itself from your own requirement to uphold that sense of morality seems to be incorrect, as then every persons sense of morality can be self-validated. The criteria for what is moral is non existent under Kantian ethics.

I may have misinterpreted Kant, if so, please explain my error. I am eager to learn.

[Anonymous No.11325605]

>>11325325
I hope this is a shitpost

[Anonymous No.11325646]

>>11324480
Bump, not because I agree, but because we need more discussions about philosophy on this board.
Also, I believe that is Friedrich Jacob, not Kant.

[Anonymous No.11325661]

>>11325646
>we need more discussions about philosophy on this board
not really

[Anonymous No.11325663]

>>11325605
Sadly, it's probably not.

[Anonymous No.11325688]

>>11325646
>we need more discussions about philosophy on this board
Couldn't agree more, except I'm the only philosopher here.

[Anonymous No.11325721]

>>11325601
Kantian ethics strike a big balance between empathy, sympathy, and the individual will.

[Anonymous No.11326544]

>>11324480
>that pic
That's Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi.