AMA

[Anonymous No.17923860]

hello i am kant ama

[Anonymous No.17923865]

why did you do it bro

philosophy was so nice and easy then you had to come along and fuck everything up

[Anonymous No.17923876]

>>17923860
Have you ever had sex?

[Anonymous No.17923881]

>>17923860
Is it true that you used to pitch a tent for all your servants to see?

[Anonymous No.17923923]

I would, but I kant.

[Anonymous No.17923929]

>>17923860
Dear Kant, can you please explain the difference between "Vernunft" and "Verstand"?

[Anonymous No.17923941]

>>17923876
nu

>>17923881
i can neither confirm nor deny

>>17923929
"vernunft" has "ernunft" while "verstand" has "stand"

[Anonymous No.17923978]

>>17923860
Is the circus gonna arrive tomorrow?

[Anonymous No.17923984]

>>17923860
I just oredefe fiest crigiaue im vedt drunk sorry typi

[Anonymous No.17924007]

>>17923860
Nominalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Retvrn to Platonism.

[Anonymous No.17924032]

>>17924007
how so

[Anonymous No.17924040]

Is Jordan Peterson the modern Immanuel Kant?

[Anonymous No.17924046]

>>17923860
why didn't you touch your peepee?

[Anonymous No.17924054]

>>17923860
hello kant why are you such a CUNT ahahaha lmao gottem

[Anonymous No.17924055]

>>17924032
W*lliam of Cuntham undid thousands of years of philosophical progress in the church. First, the church father Augustine attempted to Christianize Platonism (likely inspired by Plotinus in fact, so Neoplatonism). His philosophy was remarkably influential among those who came after him, like Aquinas for instance. After the West had its Platonist period, it then came into Aristotelianism (which would later be revived), though one should note Aristotle's divergence from Plato isn't as significance as the textbooks make it out to be. Read The Platonic Tradition by Professor Peter Kreeft. Anyways Nominalism opened the door to Materialism, Positivism, Nihilism, and Deconstructionism. Read the book I recommended he makes a brilliant case.

[Anonymous No.17924058]

>>17924040
no, that would be Rice Cock Waldun

[Anonymous No.17924077]

>>17923984
Based schizo

[Anonymous No.17924231]

If we can't know anything about the noumenal world, then why do you think the noumenal world exists at all?

[Anonymous No.17924259]

>>17924231
>if you can't know anything about consciousness, why do you think it exists at all?
The answer is it exists as a problematic concept, this is what Kant said and a lot of people don't really get it. They try to classify Kant's "metaphysics" into some sort of dualism, when Kant specifically said anything like this is going beyond the limits of what is possible to properly theorize.

[Anonymous No.17924272]

When Kant said "Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A as something that is (covertly) contained in this concept A; or B lies entirely outside the concept A, though to be sure it stands in connection with it." I was like yo dawg my mouf hella drop. Had to take a hit of my blunt and brain on that for a bit.

[Anonymous No.17924293]

>>17924259
I'll be honest, I'm trying to grasp your post but I'm still not understanding no matter how hard I try. Does Kant say that it is impossible to know if the noumenal world exist as well?

[Anonymous No.17924323]

>>17924293
You have to read the Critique. First of all, he divides the idea of a "noumenal world" into two types: positive and negative. The only one he maintains existence of is the negative type, which is the type which only exists as necessary gaps in our knowledge. It is like a placeholder which always remains empty so as to give as motivation to always continue our enquiries. The positive noumenon is things like God, a pure free will, an unconditioned, a pure substance, and so forth, which he does not even entertain the existence of in purely speculative terms. If you jump to the Second Critique, you'll notice that Kant needs to presuppose God and an afterlife in order to justify his moral law, but this is not done in the realm of pure speculative reason (ie the noumenon we are discussing).

[Anonymous No.17924326]

>>17924293
you can think it but you cant know it

[Anonymous No.17925159]

Hey there Kant.
You said that the list of categories must be complete for your first critique to be truly systematic. You said that to every form of judgement a category must correspond. The problem is: you never proved that the list of forms of judgements you provided was complete! In fact you have not explained at all how you derived those forms in the first place! And yes, I have checked your Logic lectures and you did not do it there either!

My question is: what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.17925218]

>>17923929
Vernunft orders concepts of Verstand. Verstand creates concepts for given sensual perceptions

[Anonymous No.17925663]

>>17925218
Low effort explanation, which means you can't be Kant.

[Anonymous No.17925673]

Kant died a virgin and avoided masturbation his entire life.

Many people believe this made him some sort of awkward loser, the kind you might imagine meeting today, you know, wearing a outdated hat or posting on this very site. However, it is in fact entirely the opposite; that is, him being an awkward loser: for while he was a virgin -and avoided masturbation- he was actually quite funny and confident and even made others slightly uncomfortable with his joking mannerisms around sex.

For example: the story of how Kant demanded to be tucked in tight at night is often heard of as his way of staving off the urge to masturbate. What is not told is just how awkward Kant would make this for his servants.

Being virtually perpetually horny, and actually monstrously hung, Kant would get into get into his jammies and get under the covers and call on of his servants.
"Oh Jaaaaamers" Kant might say (assuming the servants name is James in this case)
"a-ah yes Mr. Kant"
"Call me Emmanuel! I've told you a hundred times"
Kant could tell his servants to call him Kant one time, then Emmanuel the next, and he did this for well over 2 decades that some of them worked for him and he laughed every time.

"a-ah yes sir, Emmanuel"
"oh and tuck me in, i don't want to visit the circus if it comes to town!"
"y-yes sir"
"you know what i mean by circus right?"
"yes sir"
Kant would joke about the "circus" coming to town; and this was in reference to a powerful erection that he would get under the covers, which could lift the fabric and "pitch a tent" as its said.

"y-yes sir, Emmanuel sir" the servant would say, his eyes already dropping to the floor because he knew what came next
"oh-oh noo tuck me in! The circus is coming! QUICK!"
James would be made to tuck Kant into bed while a massive erection formed (supposedly 10inches plus) And Kand would stare at James the entire time and breath really heavy muttering inaudible sometimes punctuated by "circus" with a big pleasant smile on his face.
The tuck in duties were supposedly rotated weekly by Kant's staff, but all of them have given similar accounts

[Anonymous No.17925677]

why write things so hard
why not simple

[Anonymous No.17925782]

>>17923860
I also Kant

Kant be arsed to read your shit lmao

[Anonymous No.17925804]

>>17925673
what the fuck is the original version of this copypasta and why is it so fucking funny?

[Anonymous No.17925813]

>math is synthetic

Kant, how the fuck are you such a goddamn brainlet?

[Anonymous No.17925912]

How does it feel to be absolutely BTFO by Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.17925932]

>>17925912
Hey Schops, how does it feel to be BTFO by life?

[Anonymous No.17925940]

>>17925932
Hey life, how does it feel to be BTFO by massive anime milkers?