/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13728902]

Was there ever a philosopher or Kantian who didn't reject Kant, but thought that he didn't go far enough in his critique? That he needs to be radicalized into a form of radical skepticism and that the validity of the categories to guarantee objective knowledge itself must be doubted, that reason itself must be overcome? If I understand correctly Nietzsche thought something similar, but rejected Kant, and limited his criticism to practical philosophy

[Anonymous No.13728922]

>>13728902
I really think Kant is the strongest one. When neo-Kantian arrived, the primal focus of them was refuting, or suggesting an alternative of dialectic of philosophy of Hegel. Category was really not their concern

[Anonymous No.13728990]

You are right that Nietzsche extended the critique in that way, but wrong that this meaningfully implies a "rejection" of Kant. Nietzsche is extremely post-critical, post-transcendental, not anti-critical or anti-transcendental. Many of Kant's immediate successors made this move as well: Hamann and Schulze are two of the most famous, and they both championed "neo-Humean" scepticism as in a sense more faithful to Kant's ultimate intent (i.e., a critique of reason) than Kant himself was.

But the fact of the matter is that almost anybody post-Kant who isn't a metaphysical idealist of some kind is bound to be an extension, not a rejection, of the critical project to strike at its own foundations. Virtually everybody post-Nietzsche at the very least is "meta-critical" in this way, and they have various forms of lebensphilosophie, existentialism, linguistic or hermeneutic immanence philosophy, etc., to show for it. Most people these days are "sceptics" in the familiar sense that all-conquering Enlightened Reason reduced everything in the world being dependent upon itself, and then turned around and blew its own brains out. Most contemporary philosophers take this as a good thing, since Enlightenment and Reason were so tyrannical for trying to rationalize and technologize the world, but their solution is basically "now we can all smoke weed and chitchat about our preferred forms of hedonism until the end of time." Nietzsche critiqued Enlightenment but he also said this:

One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."

[Anonymous No.13729004]

>>13728990
Are we even last men?

[Anonymous No.13729032]

>>13728990
The problem I've always seen is that existentialism and so on really do not lead to overcoming reason at all. A person who overcame reason would be perfectly equanimous, would it not? To act upon a certain desire you need reason, even if it is just purely instrumental. I think Nietzsche saw this too, if I understand him right. But I am not sure anybody else saw this. Maybe Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.13729040]

Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.13729042]

>>13729004
The very fact that we're 150+ years into this horrible fucking bourgeoirgyporgy, and there are still people left who aren't happy about it, makes me think that maybe we missed something after all when we collectively decided that human beings are just bundles of animal impulses, fundamentally hedonistic and selfish, and infinitely shapeable by social engineering. If it were true, going on two centuries of propaganda reinforcing it should probably have caused progressive docility, not rising anger.

But I guess a neoliberal could always say entropy only ever appears to be defied locally. Of course it was going to take a century or two to level out the human being and iron out all the historically acquired bumps: national identity, religion, ideas of transcendence in general. Last time we were pushed to the breaking point of degradation, we had a global war. Now we just complain about it on Twitter, and a few "mentally ill" terrorists freak out for a while. I guess the holdouts of difference are getting smaller and smaller, viewed absolutely, and we'll be reduced to the utopian ideal of brownian hedonism by the end of this century.

[Anonymous No.13729057]

>>13729040
How

[Anonymous No.13729082]

>>13728902
Kuhn described himself as a Kantian with shifting categories.

[Anonymous No.13729797]

>>13729040
>>13729057

pls respond

[Anonymous No.13729801]

Schopenhauer and the neo kantian school of thought, Husserl, Heidegger

[Anonymous No.13730829]

>>13728902
>into a form of radical embrace
ftfy

[Anonymous No.13731310]

>>13728902
Change "radical skepticism" to radical inquiry and Peirce is your guy. I'm not sure what you mean by not rejecting Kant, if attacking the epistemological foundations of the critique like so doesn't count as a rejection. You are being too vague, this is nonsense to me. Regardless, Peirce did all of that, kept the architectonic scheme and built an open system grounded in his own, more general categories. He used logic, he didn't trust reason at all.
Disclaimer: I haven't finished copr yet

[Anonymous No.13731361]

deleuze

[Anonymous No.13731393]

>>13729042
Not the anon you're talking with.
In a way, the diffusion and absortion of control structures in their most general form by the general population is somewhat in it's infancy, altrough ot'a moving on a fast clock.
Those days you can't speak about it without being derided as ludite, comunist, weirdo, antiquated, conservative, etc depending on which aspect of the system you criticise and to who.
We were made into wardens to each other's cells.
The next step then would be to turn people wolly into their own jailers.
In other hand, it'a true that the colonization of people's subjectivity through certain economic, social, &c ideologies is an old agenda, which did see plenty of success into helping to obscure the modern mechanisms. It was also fruitful into shifting the blame and atention from the external logic of society to the individual's own character.