/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15618605]

did Kant believe in G*d?

[Anonymous No.15618664]

Of course
Like the Dick, his "philosophy" was a huge cope for being told there was no sky daddy

[Anonymous No.15618729]

>>15618605
why are you censoring 'God'?

[Anonymous No.15618773]

>>15618729
he is a kike proably
>>15618605
yeah, basically like fp said, all he ever wrote was mental gymnastics and fallacies to confirm his beliefs

[Anonymous No.15618779]

>>15618664
All philosophy is a cope for unbelievers, it is hogwash

[Anonymous No.15618781]

>>15618773
okay reddit

[Anonymous No.15618790]

>>15618773
so, literally what everyone including you and me do to justify our beliefs?

[Anonymous No.15618793]

>>15618781
nice projection

[Anonymous No.15618797]

>>15618605
the real question is, why didnt Kant believe in the Cunt?

[Anonymous No.15618801]

>>15618790
Why do you need philosophy to confirm your belief when faith is all there is when it comes to God?

[Anonymous No.15618847]

>>15618605
Depends which one you are referring to.

[Anonymous No.15618855]

>>15618847
>which one
the only one.

[Anonymous No.15618895]

>>15618605

No. No one with an IQ over 110 actually believes in God. We're all just faking it because it keeps (or rather used to) the plebs in line and out of the irrational fear that has been drilled into us since childhood that maybe something terrible might happen if we don't act like we believe.

It's all a big LARP, pretty successful one though.

[Anonymous No.15618932]

>>15618855
>the only one
cringe

[Anonymous No.15619051]

>>15618790
no. I just know my morals/metaphisics are made up by myself and not justified.

[Anonymous No.15619309]

did he die a virgin

[Anonymous No.15619362]

>>15618797
His name is pronounced cunt

[Anonymous No.15619381]

>>15619309
Yes, theres speculation he was a repressed homosexual

[Anonymous No.15619400]

>>15618801
He didn't. In fact, Kant wrote a great deal against those who proclaimed to ground religious faith through philosophy. As usual, nobody on this board actually reads

[Anonymous No.15619715]

>>15618605
Deleuze speculates in D&R that Kant saw the "death of God" first and tried to ground Christian morality in reason.

[Anonymous No.15620244]

Yeah, but he denies any proof of God. It's kinda an important figure going through his ethics to teleology, but you don't have to be able to recite the second Critique to be able to read the third one.

>>15618895
Lmao, are you 12?

[Anonymous No.15620258]

>>15619309
no

>>15619381
wrong

[Anonymous No.15620544]

>>15618779
LARP harder faggot

[Anonymous No.15620602]

>>15618605
More like CUNT amirite?

[Anonymous No.15620613]

>>15618895
I have an IQ of 147 (got tested for mensa, but mensa people are insufferable cunts, so I left again) and I can't confirm

[Anonymous No.15620615]

>>15619381
Cope. He was a turbo manlet and had the face of an ugly goblin. No woman wanted to marry him.

[Anonymous No.15620652]

>>15620244
>but he denies any proof of God.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15620662]

>>15620652
Read the First Critique and find out.

[Anonymous No.15620667]

>>15620615
what? this is such a bullshit. women actually really liked kant and he was always witty flirty guy, and he wasnt in particular bad looking guy so idk what ur source is
>>15618605
hard to say and irrelevant question.

[Anonymous No.15620679]

>>15620652
becuz god its only a concept that ur reason produce for practical reasons and there is no way to tell that god exists in reality (and thats cool for kant)
proofs are shite for kant he even said:
>“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

[Anonymous No.15620727]

the way i remember it he always use to flirt with the ladies on his cute walks around town

he stayed single because he was married to his genius

[Anonymous No.15620734]

>>15620727
>he was married to his genius

so basically /our/guy?

[Anonymous No.15620751]

>>15620734
Don't flatter us.

[Anonymous No.15620765]

>>15620679
Can you even fuse faith and knowledge?

[Anonymous No.15620778]

>>15620765
yup, by making proofs

[Anonymous No.15620780]

>>15620778
but there are no concrete proofs

[Anonymous No.15620786]

>>15618781
Yes reddit says kike lol.

[Anonymous No.15620826]

>>15618605
Yeah because he thought without God you can't reconcile ethics with self-interest (via punishments and rewards in the afterlife). But he had no argument for his belief, he just thought without it ethics doesn't work properly.

[Anonymous No.15620864]

>>15620667
You're coping hard. Just because he went to parties doesn't mean he got laid.
>wasn't in particular bad looking
Literally in all of his portraits he is ugly as fuck (pic related - see his disgusting bug-eyes).
That one portrait where he looks decent isn't actually Kant, but another philosopher, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi.

[Anonymous No.15620906]

>>15620864
>implying his brilliance and extended cranium wasn't a form of beauty
>implying woman and men alike wouldn't jump at the chance to fuck the famed Sage of Konigsberg
>implying you wouldn't submit to him as he gently caresses you and rubs his massive forehead against yours, directly uniting your noumena and sharing knowledge directly

[Anonymous No.15620908]

>>15620864
That's just the German look tbf
Have you seen their "women"?

[Anonymous No.15620910]

>>15620864
>the butthurt when you realize your casual penpal relationship with your oneitis will never match the level of intimacy of kant's romance with his own mind

stop taking it personally and just admit that some men were born better than you

[Anonymous No.15620951]

>>15620864
>That one portrait where he looks decent isn't actually Kant, but another philosopher, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi

implying kant's intellect wasn't literally the source of illumination to which the term "enlightenment" refers, radiating so intensely that it reflected off all surfaces and thus was literally seen in the face of every attractive man by all his inamoratas

[Anonymous No.15620968]

>>15619051
Based

[Anonymous No.15620973]

>>15620544
cope more kafir

[Anonymous No.15621248]

>>15619381
every fucking time

[Anonymous No.15622024]

>>15620908
this. he was a fairly average dude from what ive read. just nerdy af.

[Anonymous No.15622062]

He thought that God was an entity that no one would be able to prove but whose existence was necessary to acknowledge for the functioning of reason.

[Anonymous No.15622302]

>>15618895
Keep 'faking it', friend.
Not sure what you're faking, but it's obviously important to you.

[Anonymous No.15623149]

why does it matter OP? if you need big brained theories to justify your beliefs it's not true faith

[Anonymous No.15623212]

>>15618605
He was raised in a quite strict protestant family, and as such believed in God and attached quite a lot of value to it. His own conclusions, very much based in enlightenment thought, lead to a denial of God as a metaphysically ordering force, but he is not quite able to come to terms with that yet. He sort of justifies it to himself through placing God in the world of things in themselves.

[Anonymous No.15623231]

>>15620864
the insecurity radiating from this post is immeasurable

[Anonymous No.15623352]

>>15623231
that bitch was getting wet just talking about it

chad kant confirmed

[Anonymous No.15623355]

>>15622062
Not true, he explicitly denies this view in the third critique. God's existence simply cannot be comfirmed.

[Anonymous No.15623359]

>>15620906
>>15620951
underrated

[Anonymous No.15624846]

[Anonymous No.15624855]

>>15624846
>evil exists
bold claim, proof?

[Anonymous No.15624876]

>>15624855
jewsus approves of murdering cops over a dead nigger?

[Anonymous No.15624912]

>>15623355
it can, degenerate. You are just incredibly stupid. civilized humans are retarded beyond imagination.

[Anonymous No.15625043]

>>15618605
Yes

[Anonymous No.15625094]

>>15624912
Not according to Kant, and Ill remind you that this thread is about his views on the matter.

[Anonymous No.15625123]

>>15618605
In Brahman more specifically.

[Anonymous No.15625129]

>>15625123
cringed real hard rn, sir

[Anonymous No.15625135]

>>15624846
Debunked like 500 years ago. Read a book

[Anonymous No.15626782]

>>15620864
why do you want him to be an incel so bad lol

[Anonymous No.15626803]

>>15625135

No, it wasn't. It's airtight.

[Anonymous No.15626865]

>>15626803

[Anonymous No.15626911]

>>15624855
>good exists
bold claim, proof?

[Anonymous No.15626926]

He did believe in God.

[Anonymous No.15628271]

>>15624846
Good and Evil don't exist, not even in the Christian moral scheme. In Christianity whatever pertains to the telos of a thing is good and what detriments it is evil. It isn't so different from Spinozist ethics really, except in Christianity there is an explicitly Transcendental plane that mixes in with the Immanent Logos. Evil and Good are just subjective human experiences that are found nowhere outside of us, the moral code that God passes down is meant as a means to an end (unification and love of neighbor and God) rather than as some kind of dogmatic set of rules that exist objectively.

[Anonymous No.15628825]

>>15624846
t. highschool atheist

[Anonymous No.15628849]

>>15618729
lurk moar

[Anonymous No.15628901]

>>15626926
So only really dumb or really smart people believe in God?

[Anonymous No.15628978]

>>15628901
Define God.
But yea, it seems that that's the case.

[Anonymous No.15629008]

>>15628901
Smart people I would say. Besides Kant, Swedenborg and Pascal were geniuses who ended up becoming very religious late in their lives.