Kant is fugly

[Anonymous No.17226217]

What does Kant's physiognomy tell us about him?

[Anonymous No.17226224]

>>17226217
He didn't married either, anon. There is no hope.

[Anonymous No.17226232]

>>17226217
that moralfags are autistic and ugly

[Anonymous No.17226234]

>>17226217
baby yoda

[Anonymous No.17226288]

>>17226217
Empiricists and rationalists are bugs.

[Anonymous No.17226532]

>>17226217
Metaphysic of Morals is incel-tier nice guy cope

[Anonymous No.17226547]

>>17226234
YEED

[Anonymous No.17226564]

>>17226217
That no amount of philosophy is worth dying alone, literally abused and robbed by your caretaker. Didn’t he have a shot at marrying some duchess at one point?

WHAT DOES TRANSCENDENTALISM MATTER IF NOBODY CARES?

[Anonymous No.17226604]

[Anonymous No.17226656]

>>17226532
You haven't even read the Groundwork, don't you?

[Anonymous No.17226678]

>>17226604
i would commit unholy acts to her disgusting little delightful skull

[Anonymous No.17226694]

Reminder that based on the death mask from his remains, Kant was a chad and looked like pic related. Little men with little minds like OP will post that caricaturish painting to feel better about their intellectual inferiority.

[Anonymous No.17226713]

>>17226217
excuse-moi?

[Anonymous No.17226783]

>>17226217
Kant is awesome, shut up faggot.

[Anonymous No.17226784]

>>17226713
*Entschuldigen Sie

[Anonymous No.17226789]

>>17226217
>>17226694
>>17226713
After all this time, I still don't have a definite image of what Kant looked like in my head.

[Anonymous No.17226810]

He was actually popular with women and was looking for a wife for a while but ended up choosing to study the transcendental idealistic blade instead

[Anonymous No.17227202]

>>17226789
Like this.

[Anonymous No.17227209]

>>17226789
>>17227202
...and this.

[Anonymous No.17227222]

>>17226789
>>17227202
>>17227209
But not like this.

[Anonymous No.17227234]

>>17227222
Lies. This is Kant and you're just slandering him.

[Anonymous No.17227250]

>>17227202
This is the most accurate, but the other side of his face could make him look more like either one of these>>17226713
>>17227209

I can't imagine him turning his head.

[Anonymous No.17227886]

>>17227209
>>17227202
>>17226694
If this is a more accurate depiction of Kant, why the hell does OPs pic exist, how did a portrait artist fuck up so bad?

[Anonymous No.17228320]

>>17227886
because the other two portaits are more idelized in the style of the late 18th century to flatter the portrayed, while the op's is less stylized?

[Anonymous No.17228337]

>>17226217
who cares how he looks. He was genius, this coming from someone who is certainly not a Kantian, Kant's thought was revolutionary and shouldn't be written off because of his face. If you really like philosophy, you should read the first critique.

[Anonymous No.17228345]

>>17228320
These two>>17226713
>>17227202

Are too specific to be just idealised. This one>>17227209 doesn't get the strength of his features.

[Anonymous No.17228547]

>>17226604
Instantly super cool anime girl; Mayumi Shintani must be her seyuu.

[Anonymous No.17228636]

>>17226217
What does your obsession with his physiognomy tell us about you?
That you are a gay man.

[Anonymous No.17228649]

>>17228636
I'm not gay, I just like femboys

[Anonymous No.17229126]

>>17227886
OP's pic is just a low quality miniature made when Kant was an old man. You probably only recognize it more because OP is a shitty forced memer

[Anonymous No.17229131]

>>17228649
Based

[Anonymous No.17229166]

>>17228345
sure, who cares how he looks. you're just as retarded as op for feeling like this is important

see my comment >>17228337

[Anonymous No.17229646]

>>17226217
I love him so much. He's like an old cartoon character. A little genius with extremely bizarre habits and a comedy manservant to act as the straight man (although I imagine him to be no taller than Kant, and that they both walk together at a fast speed like in an old buster keaton film)

[Anonymous No.17229681]

>>17226604
the queen's gambit (2020)

[Anonymous No.17229687]

>>17229681
no

[Anonymous No.17229793]

>>17229646
>OMG I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!! HE'S SO WHOLESOME 100, LIKE A REAL LIFE KEANU CHUNGUS! I WISH HE WAS STILL ALIVE SO I COULD GIVE HIM REDDIT GOLD!
soijak.png
Dilate

[Anonymous No.17230308]

>>17226217
GOBLIN

[Anonymous No.17230316]

>>17229793
This. Kant is reddit.

[Anonymous No.17230322]

>>17226217
et phone home

[Anonymous No.17230324]

Socrates was ugly as hell too. Spinoza was the best looking philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17230336]

>>17230324
imo its derrida

[Anonymous No.17230343]

>>17226694
God, look at that head. his brain mass is so big. somehow he is able to pull of the grey look while still looking good.

[Anonymous No.17230352]

>>17227202
This always seemed like a very odd and iconic abgle. do we know why the painter pained in this "looking slightly down and to the side" angle?

From what I remember, conventions were rather strong on how you were portrayed oin art, and this seems pretty out of left field. looks cool though.

[Anonymous No.17230362]

>>17230352
its to show off his intellect i think. it emphasizes his forehead/big brain and makes him look serious and in thought

[Anonymous No.17230923]

>>17230352
>>17230362
No, it's because Kant was a manlet with a 5head so this is POV looking at him in three-quarter view (popular angle to paint a subject).
You can trust me, I know :)

[Anonymous No.17230929]

>>17230336
All philosophers are ugly, anon. I remember a woman philosopher saying that.

[Anonymous No.17231422]

Kant was not fugly (see pic related), that's just a bad painting done when he was very old (at that point, I think, he had lost most of his teeth, which was a normal thing for old people in the 18th century).

Also in his youth and maturity he had multiple occasions to marry beautiful women, but he always delayed the affair because he had never been sure wether he could financially support a family. Kuehn in his biography says that in that period it was a fairly common concern for intellectuals who were born into non-noble families. Also remember that in Kant's time there was no tenure track, so his earning (up to his 70s, when he got a more stable position in the uni's senate, which was usually reserved for senior scholars) depended on how many people would decide to show up to his lectures, which is to say, it was unstable to say the least (Fichte and Hegel will too suffer tremendous financial strains for this very reason for their whole lives - institutions didnt give a shit about great scholars who were not indipendently wealthy).

[Anonymous No.17233065]

>>17231422
>in Kant's time there was no tenure track, so his earning (up to his 70s, when he got a more stable position in the uni's senate, which was usually reserved for senior scholars) depended on how many people would decide to show up to his lectures, which is to say, it was unstable to say the least (Fichte and Hegel will too suffer tremendous financial strains for this very reason for their whole lives - institutions didnt give a shit about great scholars who were not indipendently wealthy).
This is the way it should be. Look what became of the humanities in modern academia. Tenure corrupts.

[Anonymous No.17233227]

>>17226694
Uh ok

[Anonymous No.17233836]

>>17231422
Was Kant /fa/?

[Anonymous No.17233873]

>>17229166
No ones judging his genius and greatness based on his looks you nerd. It's just interesting to see what he looked like, because the human face and body is meaningful, and does indeed say something about a person.

Just for personal pleasure, it's nice to be able to imagine him you bugman.

[Anonymous No.17233901]

>>17226694
Steve Buscemi biopic when?

[Anonymous No.17233934]

>>17230929
Women cannot be philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17234280]

>>17233934
Diotima would disagree.