[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 468 KB, 749x499, 3865B8F2-FCE0-4225-8570-49AE2D506223.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261346 No.16261346 [Reply] [Original]

Did Kant’s transcendental idealism really manage to reconcile Heraclitus and Parmenides (Heraclitus’ world of flux being phenomenon and Parmenides’ world of Being as the thing-in-itself) while also making room for the Forms? Was he even human?

>> No.16261363
File: 205 KB, 1163x527, 1598807613376.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261363

>>16261346

>> No.16261367

>>16261346
Didn't Plato already do all those things?

>> No.16261381

>>16261346
kant was sperg full of spooks
intellectualism is a huge mistake

>> No.16261390

>>16261381
yes "intellectualism" is a nonsense term

>> No.16261394

I think you misunderstand Kant's point. Both Heraclitus and Paramedies, and sundry other philosophers after them, attempted to present complete metaphysical systems which explained the nature of reality. Kant took a critical stance and doubted this entire motivating premise (which vastly influenced logical positivism and analytic philosophy by the way.)
He claimed that it was humanly and perhaps rationally impossible to attribute properties to the reality which transcends the senses. He further claimed that our own thinking was almost an act of falsification, we forced reality into a shape that made it thinkable--hence his categories of reason. Heraclitus and the rest of them therefore committed to the error of attributing logically indefensible properties to the Ding an sich.
Statements such as "the nature of reality is change" or "the nature of reality is atoms" always step out of bounds of the limits of human cognition. We can at best understand our relation to this ultimate reality.

>> No.16261405

no real philosopher since Plato has taken those pedantic mystics seriously. they have nothing to do with Kant.

>> No.16261432

>>16261367
Yes.

>> No.16261440
File: 9 KB, 193x266, M. Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261440

>>16261405
>no "real" philosopher
>implying

And then there's also Hegel, Nietzsche and Bowden(if you want to accept that).

>> No.16261448

>>16261405
Why are they mistics while Plato is a "real philosopher" if he took them seriously?

>> No.16261471
File: 24 KB, 554x554, 1586721468379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261471

>>16261346
>Did Kant’s transcendental idealism really manage to
No, nothing in philosophy has ever managed to do anythjing

>> No.16261480
File: 64 KB, 1280x720, PJW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261480

>>16261471
>it's a Nietzschean saying philosophy is useless

>> No.16261484

>>16261346
Plato did this and you are shitposting about Kant

>> No.16261505
File: 2.91 MB, 480x360, 1598565097279.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261505

>>16261480
>muh kant
if kant were alive today he'd be posting pics of his dwarf fortress on reddit, you've been hoodwinked by an autistic man who has been dead for over 2 centuries

>> No.16261506

>>16261367
No.

>> No.16261512

>>16261505
>old = bad
Anon, you've been hoodwinked by Nietzsche against his own intellectual complexity because you misunderstood quite what he was rebelling against. Not complexity, but idle complexity. You take the lowest form of that which can still be considered within a Nietzschean morality, that is the book "Might Makes Right", but that is still the very lowest manifestation of it, that one would argue it is a dishonest idea.

>> No.16261514
File: 106 KB, 430x274, Kant and heidegger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16261514

Who was right?

>> No.16261544

>>16261471
>Kant influenced Schopenhauer
>Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche
>without Kant neither Schopenhauer nor Nietzsche would have been what they were

>> No.16261567

>>16261514
Kant. Heidegger is a bit of a retard.

>> No.16261576

>>16261567
People who say things like this just seem to me to only have looked at Heidegger through a completely traditional intellectual lens and are incapable in their current mode of looking deeper into what he is trying to do, for example how his philosophy relates to God and so forth.

>> No.16262222

>>16261346
No, Kant is the opposite of Plato.
>>16261367
Yeah, but a lot more and without all of the cringe shit.

>> No.16262230

>>16262222
>No, Kant is the opposite of Plato.
Wrong, but check em.

>The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and fleeing its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. It was thus that Plato left the world of the senses, as setting too narrow limits to the understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of the pure understanding (A5, B9).
- Kant

>> No.16262611

>>16261363
haha bro make one for me scheduled Sept. 7