Kant and Reason

[Anonymous No.11935075]

People keep posting that Kant was against reason.

He combined rationalism and empiricism for his philosophy.

What are they on about?

[Anonymous No.11935122]

>>11935075
Just look at him

[Anonymous No.11935128]

>>11935075
>People keep posting that Kant was against reason.
What

[Anonymous No.11935132]

>>11935128
That's what I'm saying, I'm really trying to understand him, and people keep saying crazy shit.
Makes me wonder if I missed something or something

[Anonymous No.11935156]

>>11935132
Maybe they're just objectivists in disguise, nobody in Academia would even consider Kant being anywhere near irrationalism. Everybody understands his project is aimed against authors such as Leibniz, Wolff, Pufendorf and XVIII century metaphysicians. I mean, his book is a critique of PURE reason alone. Many of his ethical positions have a very high degree of rationalism, as well as his defense of liberalism. Heck, even his epistemology tries to save philosophy by finding these categories that can't be analyzed by empirical methods.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11935158]

the name of the demon transmitted from SOCRATES to PLATO to all later philosophers is known as the LOGOS, you blind fool

[Anonymous No.11935182]

>>11935156
That was the area my thoughts were tending too.
I'm glad you could clear that up for me.

Even mathematics being synthetic apriori seems based in reason completely which is one of his major contributions.

[Anonymous No.11935188]

>>11935158
Are you some gnostic or something?
A heideggerian anti-humanist?

[Anonymous No.11935730]

>>11935158
quick rundown on logos as demon