A reminder to (You) animals

[Anonymous No.18127399]

[Anonymous No.18127401]

>>18127399

[Anonymous No.18127405]

>>18127399

[Anonymous No.18127471]

>>18127399
i love how subhuman atheists really believe in that humans have dignity

[Anonymous No.18127504]

>>18127399
Just a platitude. Without non-rational impulses (animal drives) we wouldn't reason about anything either. All thought/action begins with those base impulses.

If you want to distinguish between more and less cerebral pursuits that's fine, but linking that discrimnation to a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument.

[Anonymous No.18127541]

If you get a tattoo that is on the same moral offense as cutting off one's own limbs. We cannot dip our moral systems into the rapid white waters of contingency. This is to say that we cannot declare the WHERE, but rather can only concern ourselves with the WHAT.
Where do we draw the line. We simply don't.
Things must be objectively necessary in themselves.

And so it clearly becomes that one should only act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will it should become universal law.

Immanuel Kant blessed be his based autism

[Anonymous No.18127552]

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO IM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!! IM DIFFERENT AND SPECIAL I CANT ACT LIKE THAT!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL IM NOT AN ANIMAL


lol get new material.

[Anonymous No.18127588]

How about a bit of both. It's called doing a bit of both.

[Anonymous No.18127668]

>>18127399
So everyone gives up his or her personality when he eats, defecates etc.? These are necessary things. I can see someone being against fapping, but anything more than that is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.18127685]

>>18127668
beings of pure energy need not to shit

[Anonymous No.18127691]

>>18127471
Good thing Kant wasn't an atheist or a subhuman retard like you but a reverent Christian and an intellectual of the highest order, so much the better that he definitely realized that faggots like you have no sense of dignity whatsoever, bitch.

[Anonymous No.18127692]

>>18127668
Since when do you see yourself merely as a means to shitting and eating???? When do you give up your principles for these things, gonna take a shit on the bus?

[Anonymous No.18127695]

>>18127504
Quintessential hylic take.

[Anonymous No.18127712]

>>18127471
its the religious retards who think humans are separate from animals you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.18127716]

>>18127552
Your evolutionary kinship with beast is not an excuse to live like them faggot.

[Anonymous No.18127717]

>>18127692
humans exist because we eat, shit and fuck.
all animals exist because they eat, shit and fuck.
That is what animals do.

[Anonymous No.18127723]

>>18127716
Human civilization is just an overly complex mating ritual.

[Anonymous No.18127728]

>>18127717
>Kant was against eating, shitting and having sex
Are you literally retarded? How do you not understand not putting the pleasures of eating, shitting and sex above everything else in life?

[Anonymous No.18127729]

>>18127717
If it were possible to exist without having to eat or shit I believe it would be preferable to do so.

[Anonymous No.18127734]

Well, that's true!

[Anonymous No.18127733]

>>18127729
then become a being of pure energy.
or a monk. They starve themselves to death while meditating and pretend that they will live forever.

[Anonymous No.18127735]

>>18127723
Wow imagine being an atheist.

[Anonymous No.18127737]

>>18127735
Imagine believing in the invisible man

[Anonymous No.18127753]

>>18127723
Life's only "mission" might be greater and greater complexity with greater and greater numbers and greater and greater spread overtime but we as "thinking things" must make better use of our existence than the simple fulfillment of our biological obligations.

[Anonymous No.18127785]

>>18127541
For some reason, whenever I see Kants distinct, frigid prose and his shrewd employment of reason I can a massive erection

[Anonymous No.18127787]

Why does so much of philosophy consist of people desperately trying to convince themselves and others of the idea that humans are somehow bad or sinful for being animals?

[Anonymous No.18127791]

>>18127552
this

[Anonymous No.18127803]

>>18127737
Invisible is a stupefied and lazy attempt at using the word "omnipotent" negatively. People who use that word are retards who chase buzzwords in place of arguments.

[Anonymous No.18127812]

>>18127787
intellectuals are desperate to be part of the ruling class, and historically this was hugely developed only in humanism, hence all the thinkers nowadays are humanistic. Humanism is based on the fantasy that humans are better than animals, because humans have ''''''''''''''''''''rationality'''''''''''''''''''.

For instance, when americans voted for trump, they were '''''''''''''''''''''''''rational''''''''''''''''''''''''''

[Anonymous No.18127867]

>>18127787
You utter troglodyte. It is not convincing humans that they are sinful but rather showing them that they have been blessed with the capacity to what what animals cannot. If you content yourself with being a salve to passion, genuinely kill yourself. To be given such a gift and live a life no principally different than a termite is insulting to both evolution and/or god. You atheists are just contrarian children revolting against every thing that reminds you of your parents.

Queer is the tiger that eats only leaves. Only you, an ape blessed with cognition, can do this >>18127541
Should you refuse, you're better off lobotomizing yourself and this is incontrovertible

I say this not out of hatred and mean no disrespect

[Anonymous No.18127878]

>>18127812
Have you read the works of John Gray? I love his stuff on humanism

[Anonymous No.18127912]

Christ, when did all these L*dditors get in here?
Have you retards even read Kant (let alone in German)? If by some off chance you have your words (and comprehension) seem to have betrayed you and it seems that you have ultimately wasted your time.

[Anonymous No.18127913]

>>18127867
>the word "blessed" is used when referring to naturally evolved traits
>distinction is made between "humans" and "animals", as if humans are not part of the animal kingdom
>poster is passionate about not being a slave to passion
>"such a gift"
another pseudo-religious appraisal of life
>poster needs to put himself above a termite in order to maintain his fragile ego
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18127920]

>>18127912
kant was a little racist bitch careerist for 60 years and then one day he decided to push for secular humanism because it was trendy. His little ''white lies are okay if people I talk to do not expect me to say the truth'' is a huge cope.
Literal r8ddit thru and thru.
Also his little rambling about the condition for knowledge is a pathetic cope after Hume, and he never ever lived like what he preached, like any intellectual since the renaissance.
Kant is quintessential humanistic, hence, garbage and r8ddit.

[Anonymous No.18128036]

>>18127504
No. As Kant have shown, without those impulses we would be saints.
>>18127552
I agree, we are not animals, since, unlike them, we can self-determine our own will with our own reason through a purely formal rational law.
>>18127668
Kant is talking about fapping in that passage. He thinks sex (even recreational sex) can be justified in a marriage. Also none of the activities you mentioned have a negative effect on our use of reason.
>>18127787
Because they have correctly noticed that humans are radically different from animals.
>>18127913
Are animals capable of the use of reason, which can be used to self-determine one's own will? If not, then our essence shares nothing with theirs, even though we all come from a common ancestor.
>>18127920
It wasn't trendy, his works were massively controversial, and his books on religion got even censored.

[Anonymous No.18128069]

>>18127399
Half beast's cope

>Erwin Strauss, in his brilliant monograph on obsession, similarly earlier showed how repulsed Swift was by the animality of the body, by its dirt and decay. Straus pronounced a more clinical judgment on Swift's disgust, seeing it as part of the typical obsessive's worldview: "For all obsessives sex is severed from unification and procreation....Through the...isolation of the genitals from the whole of the body, sexual functions are experienced as excretions and as decay." This degree of fragmentation is extreme, but we all see the world through obsessive eyes at least part of the time and to some degree; and as Freud said, not only neurotics take exception to the fact that "we are born between urine and feces." In t his horror of the incongruity of man Swift the poet gives more tormented voice to the dilemma that haunts us all, and it is worth summing it up one final time: Excreting is the curse that threatens madness because it shows man his abject finitude, his physicalness, the likely unreality of his hopes and dreams. But even more immediately, it represents man's utter bafflement at the sheer non-sense of creation: to fashion the sublime miracle of the human face, the mysterium tremendum of radiant female beauty, the veritable goddesses that beautiful women are; to bring this out of nothing, out of the void, and make it shine in noonday; to take such a miracle and put miracles again within it, deep in the mystery of eyes that peer out-the eye that gave even the dry Darwin a chill; to do all this, and to combine it with an anus that shits! It is too much. Nature mocks us, and poets live in torture.
Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

[Anonymous No.18128100]

>>18127695
So? And you're a self-deluding mystic.

>>18128036
>self-determine our own will with our own reason
No, we can't. Kant's argument isn't demonstrative in the least either... At best it's pragmatic (i.e. behave as if this is true and things will work out better).

[Anonymous No.18128124]

>>18128100
>No, we can't. Kant's argument isn't demonstrative in the least either... At best it's pragmatic (i.e. behave as if this is true and things will work out better).
Are you saying that Kant's argument in Chapter 1 of the Ctitique of Practical Reason does not work, or are you saying that Kant himself thought that his argument wasn't demonstrative?

[Anonymous No.18128131]

>>18127723
This is actually a highly philosophical and mystic-pilled take, but pseuds here will seethe at it because muh civilisation.

[Anonymous No.18128139]

>>18127541
Kant's ethics are anything but universal.

[Anonymous No.18128156]

>>18128139
According to Kant they are 100% universal, to the point where the moral law would apply to aliens too, and even God

[Anonymous No.18128176]

>>18128156
...which is completely retarded. Imagine being that arrogant and deluded.

[Anonymous No.18128194]

>>18128176
Imagine being so blind to objective morality. There's nothing arrogant in recognizing the moral law (it is more arrogant not to, or even worse, to champion a notion of subjective morality).

[Anonymous No.18128197]

>>18128194
Imagine being so arrogant that you believe having personal opinions on morality is the same thing as discovering objective moral laws lmfao

[Anonymous No.18128203]

>>18128156
I know how far he claims the universality goes and that's exactly why I think he failed. Because he deduced them using (his) human reason, just assuming that other rational beings have the same reason as us humans. He went beyond the phenomenal world with this claim of the universality of what we call reason, and as such he contradicted his own claims in the first Critique.

[Anonymous No.18128207]

>>18127399
>animal drive is not part of personality
Retarded quote

[Anonymous No.18128212]

>>18128124
It doesn't work as an ontological argument. It rests upon big assumptions that are far from given... Such as our will being an uncaused cause (that may be reasonable to assume for existence itself, but there's no good reason to suppose that such status necessarily applies to our 'will'), and 'freedom' being an actual thing.

I don't know how Kant regarded his argument; he didn't declare it as only pragmatic, but in the Groundwork he admitted that 'freedom' is only known to be an idea, and that its ontological status is doubtful (which indicates to me that he consciously undertook an axiomatic approach, and perhaps was more concerned with the abstract consistency of his moral framework than its foundational reality).

[Anonymous No.18128215]

>>18127712
dude atheists are usually fanatic humanists and progressivists. they speak in religious terms and certainly believe humans have dignity and aren't mere animal drives. although the will assert both depending on the occasion, whichever sentiment is socially dominant and gives the best feeling of 'yes...i am better'.

[Anonymous No.18128250]

>>18128203
There's no such thing as "human reason", there's only pure reason.
>>18128212
You should check the second critique instead, the Groundwork does not contain his actual arguments for the CI (it only introduces the formula to the public). In the second critique (especially Chapter 1, which is very short - maybe check the Preface+Introduction too) he explains why our freedom is established a priori, and not as a mere Idea (like the ones of God and Immortality).
Regarding the compatibility between Nature's determinietic scheme and our freedom, check the Third Antinomy from the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.18128252]

>>18127717
we can reduce this even further if you wish and say human beings only exist to carry out the mechanical and chemical laws of nature. Or we can go even further, human beings only exist to take up space and time

[Anonymous No.18128254]

>>18127691
lol your idol was bitch ass NPC >>18127920

[Anonymous No.18128257]

>>18128036
>Are animals capable of the use of reason, which can be used to self-determine one's own will
yes absolutely but to a limited degree. the difference is social belief. belief in concepts and using those concepts mentally. it's not a bad cause but it requires being mindful of what it actually is and not tricking yourself. there is no purity to be found in discarding what we actually are. only a presupposition that it is evil and must be overcome. to be left with... nothing. not even your precious self-evident ideas. 'purely formal rational law' is merely an invention and what reduced form we find hard to critique is only hard because we are limited animals who do not have formless minds or a formless sensory apparatus. there is nothing underlying having form, whether in our concepts or our minds. There's no higher or ultimate state we must sacrifice ourselves for. It is in fact crippling outside of an intellectual exercise that uses the simple to understand or refine the complex. Additionally, 'simple' is really highly abstract and distilled from the most complex. So it is more an inversion for use as a mental tool.

[Anonymous No.18128269]

>>18128250
His "pure reason" is deduced using his human reason. It worked in the first Critique to have them be the same things, since it was about it's limits in the first place. But it starts falling apart towards the end when he extends it to beings beyond and completely goes into self-irony with Groundwork when he machinates a universal a priori ethics system for the whole of creator and creation.

[Anonymous No.18128270]

>>18128215
Only in the West. For instance, China is possibly the most atheistic nation on Earth (certainly the largest) and they are decidedly less 'progressive' than any Western country. I'd suggest that runaway liberalism is the key factor there, and not secularism by itself (which is confirmed by Hong Kong imo: more economic freedom ---} increased social liberalism ---} stirrings of 'progressivism').

It's true that religious thinking is by no means confined to only explicit religion though, a point nu-atheists are often hilariously oblivious to.

[Anonymous No.18128276]

>>18127691
>bitch

[Anonymous No.18128375]

>>18128250
Yes, I'm familiar with his arguments the 2nd critique as well... He simply assumes that unconditioned thoughts are possible and never looks back.

[Anonymous No.18128514]

>>18128375
He does not, he painstakingly proves it with the 4 theorems. Since he gave an actual argument (and since he did not merely assume it) substantive arguments can be made against it. If you disagree with him you should be able to pinpoint the part in which his argument begins to fail.
>>18128269
The Groundworks should no be taken as a coherent presentation of his moral philosophy.
>>18128257
>yes absolutely but to a limited degree.
I would be extremely skeptical of it until someone can prove that animals are capable of abstract and logical thinking. If they're not, they cannot self-determine their own will (rather, they will only be able to follow instincts that are directly entailed by their physiological constitution).
>'purely formal rational law' is merely an invention
As above, Kant gave actual arguments for his claim, so it would be more productive to show where they fail. Since they are all included in the first 30 pages of the second Critique, it should not be too hard to do so.
The rest of your post seems to be mere posturing to me (especially the part about formless minds, which is refuted by Kant's notion of sainthood - it also seems to ignore that Kant denied only the hegemony of pleasure and happiness, while still claiming that they are still valid goals for a moral agent).

[Anonymous No.18128530]

>>18128514
>they cannot self-determine their own will (rather, they will only be able to follow instincts that are directly entailed by their physiological constitution).
Marxism and Rousseau proved that humans are determined by society and the material conditions they are forbidden to have.
The human will is just a spook by classical liberals.

[Anonymous No.18128544]

>>18128530
Again, you're free to tell me at which point Kant's theorems begin to fail. I am convinced by them, so I won't take mere unfounded assertions as evidence against them. I'm just asking for an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.18128551]

ITT: People who think they are smarter than Kant, yet cannot understand a simple quote.
Combine the OP with >>18127405

[Anonymous No.18128579]

>>18128514
>The Groundworks should no be taken as a coherent presentation of his moral philosophy.
You really refuse to respond to arguments.

[Anonymous No.18128589]

>>18128551
kek his mental circus to have the moral hi ground is pathetic

[Anonymous No.18128592]

>>18128579
What argument have you made? I can't parse it, you seem to simply assert that there is a "human reason" (which is a contradiction in terms: if reason is human, then it is not reason), and then you've mentioned as your only source a text which contains none of Kant's relevant arguments.

[Anonymous No.18128595]

>>18128589
>mental circus
>moral hi ground
You are very immature.

[Anonymous No.18128607]

Kant does a lot of posturing, which impresses the most gullible atheists. According to those people, the bulkier a good, the more wisdom it contains.

[Anonymous No.18128614]

The difference between people and animals is slight indeed. Most people blur the line, nobles preserve it.

[Anonymous No.18128651]

>>18127399
How can I stop masturbating, bros? I cannot go one week without doing it.

[Anonymous No.18128653]

>>18127728
Because its an animal

[Anonymous No.18128656]

>>18128651
Do it with Vicks Vaporub.

[Anonymous No.18128711]

>>18128592
You seem to both don't understand how claiming reason to be universal to all beings goes beyond his first Critique and also argue in bad faith since I clealry stated that his work goes to shit starting with the Groundwork, not that it's the only work I reference. The second Critique suffers from the exact same problem.

[Anonymous No.18128938]

>>18128711
>claiming reason to be universal to all beings goes beyond his first Critique
How? The first critique establish the completeness of the system of reason (through the 12 categories and the ideal regulative principles). This apodictically prove that no category nor any idea can be added or removed: the transcendental structure delineated there must be valid for any subject (only our form of intuitions can vary). I think your interpretation is based on a very idiosyncratic reading of the Critique of Practical Reason.
>The second Critique suffers from the exact same problem.
Again, how?

[Anonymous No.18128994]

>kant thread
>loads of underage moralfags larping as kant's connoisseurs
kek

[Anonymous No.18129024]

>>18128100
wdym? people are compelled by ideology all the time.

[Anonymous No.18129045]

>>18128994
>tfw you're so uncultured that you can't even conceive of someone actually being familiar with Kant's philosophy
Read a book

[Anonymous No.18129153]

>>18128530
Of course they are determined by institutions which are the factor of determination FOR ANYTHING AT ALL, including destructive movements like marxism, enlightenment, all of which presupposes the stability and order these institutions gave us (whence we left being literal animals to having a stable awareness and not just passive prey to an impetuous flux of will).
So answering your retardations here:
>>18127913
>>18128257
Human awareness and reason, morality, institutions are all derived from the sacred and because of that they are divine gifts LITERALLY.

[Anonymous No.18129161]

>>18128514
He proves no such thing. You show me where he specifically proves that unconditioned thought is possible. His ontological argument fails at its inception, because it rests upon that axiom.

[Anonymous No.18129172]

>>18129024
And what compels them to become acquainted with a given ideology in the first place? You aren't following the chain back far enough.

[Anonymous No.18129234]

>>18128100
You are conflating irrational will with rational one. Try masturbating thinking abou the metaphysical implications of the platonic ideal numbers.

[Anonymous No.18129252]

>>18127668
Fapping in front of your wife for her pleasure is fine though

[Anonymous No.18129260]

>>18129161
What is unconditional thought, and why do you keep mentioning the ontological argument?

[Anonymous No.18129417]

Our superior mind is clearly a gift of god and it is that gift which sets us apart from all other living creature on earth. engagement in science, mathematics, logic, philosophy, theology, art, music, literature, &c., are the best uses of the mind because they sharpen our uniquely "human" qualities and raise us our spirit. sex is a good thing, and a lot of fun but it is not the same as the aforementioned activities such as mathematics or theology, it is an inferior use of one's time in that it does not raise one's humanity but rather lowers one to the level of a beast; further more, when not for the purposes of procreation it is a useless act and a degenerate and sinful activity outside of holy matrimony (self-pollution, which Kant talks about here, is altogether out of the question and is absolutely sinful; the same for the sinful acts of onanism and sodomy.). celibacy is therefor a virtue in people who spend their time producing with their mental faculties, those who are fruitless in sons and daughters but who have enriched man with his mental fruits are to be revered (like so many priest, scientists, and artists); so much the better if you are fruitful in both (as Bach) but it is preferable that you are fruitful in at least one as opposed to neither. i pray that every man-beast in this thread soon realise enlightenment as they have not shewn themselves to be truly human.

[Anonymous No.18129425]

>>18129417
how do you reconcile this view with evolution? or do you deny evolution?

[Anonymous No.18129484]

>>18129425
Not him but I agree with each word typed in his post. My point of view: there is only human evolution in the sense of entelechy, the realization of our spirit in temporal, successive potential realm. Material/biological evolution understanding our own supra-physical/supra-animal faculties as a literal qualitative transformation by random natural processes? Babaric fantasy.

[Anonymous No.18129515]

>>18129425
Why would evolution be problematic for his claim? Genealogical arguments do not refute anything, they only make the argument more implausible (and this is relevant only in empirical arguments)

[Anonymous No.18130020]

>>18129425
No, why?

[Anonymous No.18130042]

>>18129484
>Babaric fantasy
why?

>>18129515
>Why would evolution be problematic for his claim?
because judging by it, it appears that we are nothing more than evolved animals which had the luck to have more complex brains
>they only make the argument more implausible (and this is relevant only in empirical arguments)
care to elaborate?

>>18130020
isn't it obvious?

[Anonymous No.18130151]

>>18129515
>empirical arguments
that's 100% rationalism

empiricists don't use arguments at all.

[Anonymous No.18130213]

>>18127399
I disagree
We are just animals and acknowledging that makes you humble. Carrying yourself as some special being is selfish

[Anonymous No.18130293]

>>18127399
can anyone advise me on where to start with guys like Kant and Locke? and any others in that vein? I am sort of intimidated and don't know where to start

[Anonymous No.18130420]

>>18130042
>because judging by it, it appears that we are nothing more than evolved animals which had the luck to have more complex brains
Sure, but this does not entail that the product of this evolutionary process is not something that truly separates us from the animal kingdom (see below for a justification for this claim).
>care to elaborate?
I don't think genealogical arguments, like evolutionist ones, rule out for humans the possibility of possessing truly rational and objective faculties and items of knowledge (which is what that other anon describes as divine gifts).
This argument is often made in relation to morality. Our moral sense/notions seems to be describable as products of evolutionary processes, and this is usually used as an argument against their pretenses. I would agree with this argument, if it were not for math. Mathematical knowledge is a priori, is necessary, none of it can ever change or become obsolete, and that knowledge is derived from faculties that evolved just as much as the ones concerning moral beliefs. This seems to indicate that this kind of knowledge can be obtained without contradicting evolution in the slightest. I don't see then why genealogical proofs should work on metaphysics or morality too, without a strong proof of the contrary. Just saying "we're just evolved animals" does not cut it.

[Anonymous No.18130438]

>>18127399
> muh personality
you guys need to spend more time on /pol/

[Anonymous No.18130476]

>>18127399
Kant behaved more like a Chinese man than German in his personal life. I really don't give a shit about what he thinks regarding having a personality.

[Anonymous No.18130593]

>>18130420
>(which is what that other anon describes as divine gifts).
you disagree with him and aren't religious?

[Anonymous No.18130832]

>>18129234
No, I'm not. What is it that starts us down a process of reasoning? It isn't reason... It's feeling—some basic impulse. We must first feel some way about thing(s) to reason about them or take any actions at all.

>>18129260
It's Kant's term... Don't you know? I mention ontology because it's important in philosophy to understand whether we're arguing that something is real or only a pragmatic abstraction. Duh.