/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15762241]

Holy shit guys. He actually solved all of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15762250]

>>15762241
>ethics

[Anonymous No.15762280]

>>15762241
>18th century
>solving anything

[Anonymous No.15762293]

>>15762241
kant is a hack. he was wrong about space, time, and math, causing his whole system to fall apart. besides that, even with kants system, modern metaphysics has still proved an entire useless and futile endeavor. he also contradicts himself in paragraph 7.

[Anonymous No.15762322]

>>15762293
>he also contradicts himself in paragraph 7
Wrong.
Also, want to know how I know you're a fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.15762349]

>>15762322
wrong
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/64369/did-kant-classify-the-same-proposition-as-both-pure-and-impure-a-priori

[Anonymous No.15762392]

>>15762349
Nice adherence to authority, I suppose you got this idea from the thread posted here 2 days ago about this?
The statement "Every change has a cause" is a proposition a priori, but impure, because saying that every single change has a cause implies that you've observed changes (impure), and deduced from this that every single change does in fact have a cause (a priori).
The statement "Every change must have a cause" is a proposition a priori, but pure, because the additional "must" implies that the statement has been deduced (a priori) by itself, without observation of any change(s) (pure). The addition of 'must' isn't used to mean that there is required a cause for each change, but rather as a sort of logical indicator that shows the statement has been deduced without empirical evidence, as, from some theoretical deduction, it follows that there MUST be a cause for every change.

[Anonymous No.15762408]

>>15762392
lol cope. "Every change has a cause" is not the same as "Every observed change has a cause". the "must have" is not meaningfully semantically different.

[Anonymous No.15762414]

>>15762408
Did you really just try to argue me on semantics, then say that I was arguing semantics?

[Anonymous No.15762435]

>>15762414
seethe more, brainlet. the only answers are either kant contradicted himself or that he was a shitty writer who couldnt communicate his ideas clearly, which in effect is the same as contradicting yourself.

[Anonymous No.15762445]

>>15762435
Or maybe, you're just a faggot midwit who can't understand that the addition of "must have" implies that the statement is pure.

[Anonymous No.15762466]

>>15762408
It may be the case that every change has a cause, but that doesn’t mean every change must have a cause. To say that every change must have a cause goes beyond simple observation, because you cannot empirically observe that every change MUST have a cause.

[Anonymous No.15762471]

>>15762445
I already explained why its reasoable to see no effect on the purity with that change. "Every change has a cause" implies it holds for unobserved changes. if Kant meant it your way, that means hes a shitty writer. the more believable alternative is that of the stack exchange answer, which copes by theorizing that he changed the definition of pure in section II without being clear about it, again making him a shitty writer and the last person i'd want to look towards for a rigorous system for metaphysics.
>>15762466
nope. no difference. "every chage has a cause" is quantified over all changes already.

[Anonymous No.15762472]

>>15762466
>empiricism

[Anonymous No.15762492]

>>15762471
The other anon cleared up my thought process much better. Yes, "every change has a cause" is already quantified over all changes, but it doesn't imply that these changes MUST have such causes, which would be something that must be deduced theoretically.

[Anonymous No.15762521]

>>15762492
nope, no difference. "every change has a cause" says that all observed and unobserved changes have a cause. if you observe a new change, you know it must have a cause because every change has a cause. to me it seems like you are trying to say "must" is trying to commicate that the proposition is necessarily true, which is dumb because a proposition cant declare itself to be necessarily true. that is something that has to be proven by principle of contradiction from outside the proposition.

also you have to keep in mind how he determined propositions involving change to be impure
>Pure knowledge à priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition à priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.
by this logic, both propositions are impure.

[Anonymous No.15762568]

>>15762521
>nope, no difference. "every change has a cause" says that all observed and unobserved changes have a cause. if you observe a new change, you know it must have a cause because every change has a cause.
The idea that I'm getting at is that, while every change has a cause (even changes which haven't been observed), saying that every change must have a cause is a separate statement, as it concerns the need for causes and not simply the existence of causes. We can say that all changes have causes with the statement "Every change has a cause," but saying "Every change must have a cause" says that it is required for changes to have causes. What I'm arguing is that it's the difference between the existence of something and the necessity for something, respectively, the second of which would require pure a priori reasoning to deduce. Also, while it may be required to include the actual conception of change itself in making the first statement, the second statement wouldn't require the experience of change, only the proof that they require causes.
I understand that this is fairly shaky reasoning, but I think it's important to argue regardless, as opposed to simply saying Kant didn't know what he was talking about with no counter argument.

[Anonymous No.15762576]

>>15762521
How do people this retarded get through the day?

[Anonymous No.15762587]

>>15762568
>the second statement wouldn't require the experience of change, only the proof that they require causes.
according to Kant, you can't even talk about change until you experience it and form a conception of change from your experience, thus all propositions involving change have an empirical element mixed in, thus are not pure a priori and you can never reason that "all changes must have causes" pure a priori because pure a priori you don't even have a conception of change yet. This is why I consider the stack exchange answer to be a more believable hypothesis of Kant's imprecision.
>>15762576
just look at the second part of my post. By Kant's reasoning, both propositions are impure. The only way to rectify the discrepency is to assume Kant changed the definition of purity.

[Anonymous No.15762627]

>>15762587
>according to Kant, you can't even talk about change until you experience it and form a conception of change from your experience
Didn't realize this, I suppose it really is a contradiction. I can't think of any other way to fit this if he defines propositions regarding change specifically as inherently impure, unless there's something lost in translation.

[Anonymous No.15762719]

>>15762627
it doesn't have to be a contradiction if you take the stack exchange answer's interpretation that he basically redefines pure, since "necessity" doesn't seem to exclude judgements derived from experience. no matter how much I look at my translation it seems pretty iffy still and the distinction between pure and impure makes less sense then, but the stack exchange answer somehow makes it seem likely.

[Anonymous No.15762734]

>>15762241
Pretty much but faggots want their relativism and nihilism. It sure makes for a more fun and wild ride but in the end what Kant argued is entirely intuitive.

[Anonymous No.15763202]

yeah

[Anonymous No.15763936]

>>15762349
Ahahahahahah holy shit
Did you not even read the answer? It's obvious you haven't read CoPR, but come on.
Post better bait next time