[ 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: 212 KB, 1200x1200, immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17165973 No.17165973 [Reply] [Original]

Do you guys ever question a thinker's philosophy based on things they got wrong and obvious flaws in their thinking? Kant, for example, thought blacks were originally white until they were corrupted and became inhuman. Now that we know he was objectively incorrect how do we evaluate his moral philosophy?

>> No.17165990
File: 29 KB, 512x288, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17165990

>>17165973
>"...therefore you should do X and not Y."
>does Y, doesn't want to stop and do X
>"uhhh you can't be in the city if you want to be a signpost showing the city :D i'll go fuck some hookers :D"
Hypocrite retard

>> No.17165997

>>17165973
>Do you guys ever question a thinker when he does the thinking wrong?
Well, obviously. But the example you chose is hardly related to Kant's moral philosophy.

>> No.17166000

>>17165973
>became inhuman
Well, uh...

>> No.17166004

>>17165973
>baby yoda
but yeah things-in-themselves are so retarded i throw out the baby with the bathwater

>> No.17166008

>>17165973
Not only that, I also what struggles they were facing in life and picking apart their biases based on that.
Also how the look.
Lookism is real.

>> No.17166016

>>17165973
I thought this pic rel is a funny photoshopped meme picture but it's real lol
How do you even listen to a goblin like that?

>> No.17166017

>>17165973
>Now that we know he was objectively incorrect
You have exactly two(2) minutes to prove anything objectively.

>> No.17166021

>>17166017
sneed

>> No.17166043

>>17165997
Yea but my schizophrenic brain won't let me take thinkers who got BTFO in one area of expertise (anthropology) seriously in another one (moral philosophy)

>> No.17166055

>>17166043
You are right though, if someone got btfo in one thing, all their ideas could also be false

>> No.17166062
File: 939 KB, 1580x3431, 1609422970869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17166062

>>17166043
>in one area of expertise (anthropology)
Don't worry, even modern institutions fail at that.

>> No.17166074

>>17165973
>Kant, for example, thought blacks were originally white until they were corrupted and became inhuman
isn't that basically what happened? out of Africa has long been disproven.

>> No.17166085

>>17165973
All that proves is that he was autistic, which he already obviously was.
It's pretty easy to separate moral philosophy from a historical conjecture

>> No.17166154
File: 148 KB, 1080x1080, gz0yrcep4o841.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17166154

>>17165973
Shit like this always makes me question the applicability of ethics and their soundness. Like, even if the best minds of their day who make sophisticated and rigorous ethical systems have fallen to superficial judgements of their day then what is to expect from modern ethics? Why hide sociologically accepted statements of your circle behind a veneer of philosophical smoke screen jargon?

>> No.17166273

>>17166062
dios mio, la creatura americana