/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16602190]

It doesn't matter if he's wrong, nobody makes better constructed arguments in metaphysics than Kant.

[Anonymous No.16602277]

Schopenhauer did. But then again, he couldn't have created his "system" without Kant.

[Anonymous No.16602871]

>>16602277
Based anon who understands Schopenhauer beyond a "le sadman" level

[Anonymous No.16602877]

>>16602277
I still have to read Schopenhaurr's main texts, but I've read that he believed that Schulze's objection to Kant was correct. If that's the case, then he misunderstood everything Kant saidnin the first critique.

[Anonymous No.16602888]

>>16602877
Interesting, why would Schulze be incorrect?

[Anonymous No.16602909]

>>16602190
Out of the way, Kunt.

[Anonymous No.16602974]

>>16602888
Because he assumes that the judgement "noumena exist" positively determine noumena. This is certainly not the case for Kant. Rather, the judgement "noumena exist" is analitically identical to the negative judgement "phenomena is not all that exists" (remember that "noumenon", in the negative sense, is defined as a non-phenomenon). The fact that noumena is not all that exist is argued a priori in the trascendental deduction (where it is proved that we cannot "kickstart" our receptivity with our mere ttascendental apperception). Furthermore, "noumena cause our experience" is analitically identical to "phemomena are not a sufficient cause for the presence of our experience". Again, by doing so I do not determine any noumenon, rather I determine our representations and our faculties as insufficient as a possible cause of my experience (as in: if this where all there is, we could not have an experience).

[Anonymous No.16603013]

>>16602190
*joins your aufklärung silently*

[Anonymous No.16603028]

Kant constructed his arguments better, Heidegger was righter.

[Anonymous No.16603118]

>>16602974
Understood. Thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.16603126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGkug2pvHE