/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15332899]

Any good books refuting Kant?

[Anonymous No.15332906]

“Refuting” what specifically?

[Anonymous No.15332911]

>>15332906
It doesn't have to be specific, could be his epistemology, ethics ect

[Anonymous No.15332938]

>>15332911
Here I’ll kill it for you. Kant says that our concepts like cause and effect and necessity don’t apply to noumena, but he says that noumena “cause” phenomena.

[Anonymous No.15332957]

>>15332938
Aren't Noumena used in a strictly negative sense, since our own representations can never extend to an independent reality? Wouldn't the category be only applied to the Phenomena in this case, the noumena merely being an abstract negation with nothing actually applied to it. I don't see where Kant implies an application of Causality to Noumena, could you point out the paragraph number?

[Anonymous No.15333052]

>>15332957
I’ve only just started on Kant and upon returning to the paragraph in question have discovered that i totally misunderstood what he was saying. Here it is anyway if you want to see my mistake. It’s from paragraph 32 of his prolegomena.
>And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants also the existence of things in themselves, and thus far we may say that the representation of such things as are the basis of appearances, consequently of mere beings of the understanding, is not only admissible but unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.15333076]

>>15333052
I'd recommend you read the Phenomena Noumena section at the end of the Transcendental Analytic in the Critique, it helped me clear up a lot of the ambiguity around the concept of Noumena, and its thankfully a lot clearer than the rest of the Analytic.

[Anonymous No.15334042]

>>15332899
So you are dissing kant, yet cant refute him????

[Anonymous No.15334066]

>>15332899
The entire history of philosophy after him.

[Anonymous No.15334068]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_Philosophy
Enjoy, faggot

[Anonymous No.15334079]

I only engage philosophers who are 6ft or above.

[Anonymous No.15334115]

Critique of Cynical Reason by Sloterdijk.

[Anonymous No.15334282]

>>15334042
Not dissing Kant in any way (despite what the image implies i guess that was just to get attention)