/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15037580]

what was he exactly trying to say? why did he do so poorly of a job explaining it?

[Anonymous No.15037597]

>>15037580
he looks like a money lol

[Anonymous No.15037604]

>>15037580
so who is this based black dude

[Anonymous No.15037607]

>>15037597
I always thought yoda

[Anonymous No.15037621]

just finished (skimmed through) the prolegomena. after the 2nd part i just went to the conclusion and solution that didnt say much either.
good thing i didnt waste my time with his other "master pieces that changed philosophy" you can definitely skip him to more interesting philosophers

[Anonymous No.15037644]

>>15037621
Yes op just read some post kantian philosophers

[Anonymous No.15037688]

>>15037644
i am also OP

[Anonymous No.15037740]

>>15037580
his explanations are fine. Him being difficult is a normie-core meme

[Anonymous No.15037744]

>>15037740
so what was his conclusion?

[Anonymous No.15037750]

>>15037580
>poorly
>the most influential philosopher of the post-classical era, bar none
>literally, you can't begin to write a sentence of serious contemporary philosophy without functioning within his paradigm
>>has been this way since the critique was published
>>>even his harshest critics are operating relative to him
Why do newfags even try?

[Anonymous No.15037753]

>>15037750
so what did he say?

[Anonymous No.15037771]

>>15037753
You know he we wrote books right? What the fuck do you think they're for?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

Bennett's translations:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors/kant

Wolff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d__In2PQS60

[Anonymous No.15037774]

>>15037771
in your own words please

[Anonymous No.15037789]

space and time is in your mind

the 'real' world beyond what we sense is inaccessible to us

also some stupid morality shit

[Anonymous No.15037792]

He crams in as much info as he possibly can that it is overwhelming. He is less concerned about explaining well and more worried about covering every possible base he can. He wanted to make it as thought out as possible. He covers every possible critique of it while he writes it.

[Anonymous No.15037793]

>>15037774
No. This isn't the Feyman's Spoonfeed Your Brainlet Variety Hour (brought to you by Reddit). If you're interested in philosophy, get ready to do some actual reading pleb. If that's too much , chances are it's not for you. And the fact that you're picking Kant to streamline is kind of funny seeing as how he is the first crystal clear example of the advancement of philosophy as a discipline i.e., if you follow the path of Modern philosophy leading to the critique, you are rewarded immensely.

[Anonymous No.15037805]

>>15037753
>>15037771
>>15037774
absolute state of this board. great resources.

[Anonymous No.15037812]

>nobody can explain it even though they actually read it

[Anonymous No.15037821]

>>15037812
>wah wah wah
Here's a (you)

[Anonymous No.15037824]

>>15037580
you get the (OP)'s, but not the (you)'s
get real fag

[Anonymous No.15037827]

>>15037821
you dont have a source to YOU me with or a youtube video of someone else who understands it, while you dont?
i wont accept it

[Anonymous No.15037835]

>>15037789
so a skeptic?

[Anonymous No.15037837]

>>15037827
I posted three separate resources above dumbass. Stop your whining and use your MOST BASIC FUCKING RESOURCES LIKE THE GODDAMN ZOOMER YOU ARE HOLY SHIT YOU POST ON THIS SITE AND SOMEHOW YOURE THIS INEPT?

[Anonymous No.15037842]

>>15037835
No you dumb nigger. You're not ready for Kant if that your response. Go read Descartes Meditations on First philosophy (can be done in a day), Hume's Essay on Human Understanding (likewise), and then look at a few yootoobs outlining Kant's basic approach. It's not that fucking hard.

[Anonymous No.15037847]

>>15037837
you're the dummie that cant even explain what you read. why did you read it ? just to say you did? well you should probably read it again i guess

[Anonymous No.15037853]

>>15037842
Hume (LOL) and Descartes are equally boring
how did everyone else understand kant before you without youtube?

[Anonymous No.15037854]

>>1503784 7
>everyone here post things they've read therefore they must be experts, i'm going to show they are pseuds while outing myself as a faggot
>ehehehehehhee

[Anonymous No.15037859]

>>15037847
It's a fucking 700 page book asshole I can't give your needy ass a soundbite to explain away a seminal text in epistemology and metaphysics. Like holy shit, ayways other people have given debased versions of that explanation are easy as fuck to find.

[Anonymous No.15037863]

>>15037853
They read the fucking tradition and accompanying scholarship. Which includes Hume and Descartes. You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.15037866]

>>15037789
>the 'real' world beyond what we sense is inaccessible to us
Yikes , try advaita

[Anonymous No.15037867]

>>15037853
God I'd smack the shit out of you irl OP youre more than just a whiny faggot.

[Anonymous No.15037868]

>>15037842
so kant is an over glorified skeptic indeed

[Anonymous No.15037885]

>>15037859
>>15037867
you must be ugly like kant, thats why your understanding of philosophy is so lame and boring
iu prefer a living philosophy, not being some boot licking bookworm, if its even possible to say that, because you have a very low reading comprehension level since you have no idea what he even said after reading thousands of pages

[Anonymous No.15037889]

>>15037868
good talk, you figured it all out, now go kill yourself OP
the two a priori sensible intuitions that condition all thought salvage epistemology from pure skepticism. the conversation must be changed such that we dont try to mistake metaphysics for epistemology

[Anonymous No.15037897]

>>15037885
What is a living philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15037906]

>>15037885
Also what are you an ESL because holy shit string sentences like an absolute mongoloid

[Anonymous No.15037911]

>>15037580
he worked in a lot of areas so he said many things. Which one of you are you reffering?
why do you think he did a poor job explaining his work?

[Anonymous No.15037925]

>>15037906
>thats
def ESL
>distinction between academic "bookworm" philosophy and "lived" philosophy (xD)
def hasn't read a single page of philosophy without feeling inferior and deeming it as worthless

[Anonymous No.15037930]

>>15037580
If you can't sum something up without rewriting the dictionary it's bs

[Anonymous No.15037942]

>>15037930
>Upvote this, guys!

[Anonymous No.15037946]

>>15037942
yeah, you should go back

[Anonymous No.15037948]

>>15037946
right back at you nigger

[Anonymous No.15037953]

the absolute fucking state of this board

[Anonymous No.15037993]

>>15037942
This board is shit now

[Anonymous No.15038018]

>>15037948
you must feel very badass saying nigger outside of redditt, now feel free to go back

[Anonymous No.15038026]

OP here, enjoying how this thread turned out
much more entertaining than Kant

[Anonymous No.15038064]

>>15037580
>why did he do so poorly of a job explaining it?
On top of being a German, he was also a drunk.
>what was he exactly trying to say?
Two things. One is that everything we know comes to us by experiences conditioned in space and time, meaning our concepts of space and time are a priori. Two is that morality is all about good or bad intent, not outcomes.

[Anonymous No.15038432]

>>15037580
I'd say one of his most important ideas is that reason lives in the head, in the person, not in the universe.

[Anonymous No.15038674]

I recently finished reading his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. I've been trying to identify exactly what it is that makes me disagree with his whole argument, and I think I've boiled it down to this:

Kant says that all human beings possess free will and therefore we are all fundamentally the same, insofar as we are rational beings. Therefore we are all moral agents subject to the categorical imperative because we actually give ourselves our own morality (this is what "freedom" really means, i.e. being a cause in the world rather than an effect caused by some external cause).

Now, the fundamental disagreement I have with this logic is probably in this idea that everyone is ultimately the same if you shave away all our various facticities. I don't see a compelling reason for this to be the case. In the end, I have no certainty of the rationality of anyone other than myself, for the simple fact that I am only aware of my own consciousness. For all I know, everyone else may actually be automata, and I may be the only instance of a rational being in existence. Of course this is a bit ridiculous to believe in practice, but it definitely applies to Kant's argument as he is only concerned with arguing about purely rational knowledge. Moreover, the universalization test of the categorical imperative is not clearly formalized. For example, what is preventing me from applying "in this specific instance with all these infinitely specific details taken into account" as a condition for every maxim that I attempt to universalize? The very fact that I have an impulse to act on the maxim would therefore be all that is necessary to make the maxim pass the universalization test, as I (the only known rational being in existence) willed it in the first place (by having the impulse)! It seems that for someone so obsessed with formalism, Kant is quick to rely on implicit convention and ambiguity to serve his point.

Finally, and perhaps the strongest criticism I can offer, is the fact that free will is not certain to exist. Of course it feels like we are free, and maybe Kant worms out of this by invoking the complexity of his metaphysics such that he doesn't have to pay attention to the physical world, but it seems obvious that our behavior is determined by physical reality, such that we are demonstrably not causes in ourselves but actually effects of outside causes.

Would love to hear thoughts from somebody else more knowledgeable of Kant's work (this is the first book I've read of his).

[Anonymous No.15038751]

>>15038674
>Of course this is a bit ridiculous to believe in practice,
Why? I've had that thought too, the philosophical zombies idea. But people always say it's ridiculous. No one wants to think they're actually a zombie or actually the one protagonist in an otherwise zombie movie. Why? Weird

[Anonymous No.15038790]

>>15037580
I had to read some of his works in an ethics class and wanted to die. How is it possible that he writes so much without saying anything?

[Anonymous No.15038819]

>>15038790
> How is it possible that he writes so much without saying anything?
Consider the alternative hypothesis: that you just dont get it

[The Shirley Temple Little Darl(...) No.15038825]

From Baby Take-A-Bow to Curlytop and Heidi America's favorite little darling Shirley Temple has been entertaining us for generations. And now through this exclusive TV offer, you can experience the most comprehensive DVD collection of one of the brightest stars in film history but you havent seen Shirley until youve seen her brilliantly restored in b&w,and in color! Presenting the Shirley Temple Little Darling DVD Collection!Eighteen timeless films packed with hours of her unforgettable singing spectacular dancing, and pure wholesome fun the entire family will enjoy together! These classic Shirley Temple films have stood the test of time, and you'll cherish sharing these heartwarming adventures again and again with your family and friends! Bring home the magic of Shirley Temple, with the new Shirley Temple Little Darling DVD Collection! 18 classic family films, beautifully restored in b&w and in color for just2 payments of $24.99 Call now and recieve this collectible photo of Shirley Temple, absolutely free with your paid order! This collection is not sold in stores and only available through this exclusive TV offer! If these priceless movies could lift a nation during the worst of times, Imagine what they could do for you and your family today! Tales of innocense, friendship, courage, hope, and love! and now you can enjoy the original b&w movies, and the beautifully restored color versions, all in one amazing DVD collection, at the most incredible price! These films have been digitally restored and remastered to preserve their integrity and quality! This is a limited time offer, so don't miss your opportunity to own the most complete Shirley Temple DVD collection ever! Call now to order your special edition Shirley Temple Little Darling DVD Collection! 18 classic films in b&w and in color, plus this Shirley Temple collectible photo, all for just two payments of $24.99+5.99 shipping and handling! This offer is not sold in stores so call now! Rush delivery available.

[Anonymous No.15038827]

>>15038751
Human beings are instilled with a sense for the consciousness of other people similar to their own. No human being behaves as though other people are automata for this reason. There is something in us that spurs us to believe that others have internal lives of their own. It must be innate.

[Anonymous No.15038835]

It's pretty obvious :3 the fundamental categories by which the mind understands or interprets empirical, observable, sensory reality, what we consider to be the "outside world" is shaped and determined by certain structures and organizations of that cognitive apparatus which we mistake for being within the "objects" themselves. The objects per se can't be described in their absolute reality in themselves, because any mode of understanding them is necessarily to repattern them within the context of the schemas of rationality. While Hume would say our understanding of causality, the basic principle of science, is based on an induction from experience, Kant would say that our concept of causality transcends experience, and is part of the entire nature of reason itself. It is not that we discover or probabilistically induce cause and effect by drawing a correlation between our experiences, but rather, thinking itself isprimed or constituted to perceive causal relations between objects. In short, our own subjectivity "infuses" what we take to be objective, in the sense that anything considered to be rational must conform to an intrinsic nature of reason.

[Anonymous No.15038956]

>>15037621
>skimmed through the proglomena
>skip him to more interesting philosophers
brainlet take.

>>15037885
Oh, nevermind, I'm just falling for bait. Looks like you got us good OP congrats

[Anonymous No.15038968]

>>15038835
Your description of Kant's system is sound but your :3 face means I'm afraid your post is going to have to go straight into the trash.

[Anonymous No.15038999]

>>15037580

A slave of Yaldabaoth.

[Anonymous No.15039005]

>>15037744
yes philosophers all have one single conclusion that can be summed up in a sentence

[Anonymous No.15039013]

>>15037885
actually this is pretty funny bait lmao

[Anonymous No.15039014]

>>15037835
Jesus h christ

[Anonymous No.15039509]

>>15038674
A maxim is certain rule in the form of; if x then do y in order to achieve z. You can't maxims that have any content whatsoever, there are some limitations, for example, y needs to be sufficent to achieve z. Z can't also be anything becuase any goal we have, we have becuase of some human need. So if the goal of act is to get a certain object, then the goal in the maxim should be formulated as the general psychological need that the object fulfills. Also the condition needs to be motivated by the goal, if the condition isn't needed to fulfill the goal, then you have no need to fulfill the condition.
For example; "If you have my specific genetic code, then I should do action x in order to make myself happy". The condition "have my specific genetic code" is not motivated by the goal, meaning that it is not motivated. In contrast;
"Steal money whenever you can in order to achieve happiness" is motivated becuase having some money is necessary for a comfortable life. This has been an unsufficent abridged version. For more, se Potter Jr (1975).
References:
Potter Jr, N. (1975). How to Apply the Categorical Imperative. Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy, 5(4), 395-416.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=philosfacpub

(Serie, serienummer). Förlagsort:
Förlag.

[Anonymous No.15039518]

>>15037580
He was trying to give a philosophical justification for lutheranism

[Anonymous No.15039581]

>>15037580
There is no Subject-Object connection. We cannot know the world Independent of the Mind (this is Noumena or the Thing-in-itself). But that does not mean that Kant is a skeptic. Instead he posits that the world we do know is a Dependent World or Phenomenal World that is subsumed under rules of human cognition. Space and Time are forms of Intuition (an immediate representation of an object). Intuition is the root of all thinking. Thinking is mediated representation of the objects of experience. Understanding and Sensibility are two distinct roots of experience, mediated by the faculty of human imagination. Kant is trying to find a way to prove synthetic a priori knowledge;
Synthetic: Combination/Amplification of a Subject by Predicating something 'more' to it, think "all bodies are extended" which is Analytic (extended already contained in the subject bodies) vs. "all bodies are heavy" which amplifies the subject body.
a priori - Outside of experience (pure), potentiality
Kant says that we need three faculties for this type of knowledge: Sense, Imagination and Apperception (basically Consciousness). A Perception is Consciousness combined with Appearance (as opposed to the thing in itself).
The Understanding supplies pure forms a priori (Categories) that subsume the phenomena of experience, think Causality or Unity.
I can't really explain to you how he justifies a lot of this stuff since he takes about a hundred pages in the Critique to Deduce the Categories and open up the Schema of Pure Reason. Just read the book, since this is a very rough explanation of Kantian Idealism.

[Anonymous No.15039723]

[Anonymous No.15039894]

>>15037889
Empiricism doesn't and never has needed 'saving'. 'Pure skepticism' (impossible for anyone to live by that) is pure retardation. We can't and never can be 100% certain about any non-apodictic knowledge, but this changes nothing pragmatically nor does it change that empricism is the only conduit to knowledge.

>>15037868
No, he's an aggrandized quasi-idealist. He wanted to establish idealist certainties without sacrificing empiricism (i.e. sounding like a mystical crackpot). He failed, but his framing of the questions still made him very influential, and he holds great appeal for idealists (and even some mystics) who want to make a case instead of appealing to faith.

[Anonymous No.15039970]

Kant is completely worthless. High-level pseudery.

[Anonymous No.15040061]

You can't fool me OP, I can't teach you philosophy because I understood all of Kant now fuck off and spout memes somewhere else