/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19557335]

How can you be a serious theologian after Kant? It seems that people like Lane Craig and other debatelord theists (jay dyer) have never read Kant or just don't care about what he had to say about metaphysics. Why don't people read Kant?

[Anonymous No.19557341]

Easy.

Now go read a book instead of globbing philosophers you only care about for the meme points.

[Anonymous No.19557357]

I feel sorry for you. You’re so childish, you just don’t understand. I don’t mean that as an insult

[Anonymous No.19557390]

>>19557357
stop being arrogant

[Anonymous No.19557404]

>>19557341
im religious.

[Anonymous No.19557486]

>>19557335
Kant ruined his philosophy with abstract category autism, but he is a German so it is to be expected.

[Anonymous No.19557604]

>>19557341
How does it reestablish the foundations for metaphysical enquiries?

[Anonymous No.19557611]

>>19557604
I second this motion

[Anonymous No.19557626]

Kant banished rational/natural theology. But there are other ways to gain knowledge of God. Also Hegel happened.

[Anonymous No.19557649]

>>19557626
Yeah, there's no reason to be so dogmatic about Kant. He was right on a lot of things but not everything

[Anonymous No.19557661]

>>19557604
It does to Kant what Kant did to metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19557686]

>Lane Craig and other debatelord theists (jay dyer)
The sort of people they debate can't pull out Kant without undermining most of their own positions

[Anonymous No.19557690]

>>19557335
Because the non-autistic parts of his philosophy can be replicated simply in English by combining Hume and Berkeley.

[Anonymous No.19557885]

>>19557661
Care to explain how?

[Anonymous No.19558070]

>>19557335
>how
By addressing Kant.

[Anonymous No.19558128]

>>19558070
>>19557626
if we reject Kant's claim that perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation, and rather that its an awareness of the object itself, could we not avoid his idea that concepts are rules for structuring objects of awareness, which is what he uses to set the boundary of reason? We could just say that concepts are not confined to intuitions (Concepts without intuitions are empty according to Kant), and so we could have a valid, yet albeit unempirical awareness of God, as a presupposition from common sense, which was Thomas Reid's point.

[Anonymous No.19558181]

>>19558128
>perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation

I don't see how you refute this. But drop a refutation if you've got one.

[Anonymous No.19558757]

>>19558181
You could perhaps say that this
>perception of objects is only an awareness of its mental representation
is a metaphysical assumption. This was a point I read in some article comparing Reid and Kant's thought: that Kant's claims about the nature of objects of perception are metaphysical claims, so contrary to his own belief, that epistemology preceded metaphysics, metaphysics precedes epistemology. I haven't read Kant indepth, so I'm not sure if this is a valid assessment of his claims on perception.

[Anonymous No.19558859]

>>19557335
>How can you be a serious theologian after Kant?

How can any theologian take Kant seriously?

The starting point of Kant's theory is that we *can't* trust the senses. Kant reasons from this assumption to his idea of the noumena, or the "noumenal realm." But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.

Thomas Aquinas stands in opposition because, as an initial matter, he trusts in the evidence of the human senses.

If you trust in the senses, Thomas's moderate realism makes sense. If not, you will end up lost in space in the noumena.

[Anonymous No.19558873]

>>19557335
By paying bills, fucking pussy, and having beers with friends and a mug that says world's best Dad.
Deception and Theatricality, Master Wayne!

[Anonymous No.19558888]

>>19558859
>wanting to use sensory empiricism to prove the existence of noumena

Doesn't make sense. Noumena are inaccessible by definition

[Anonymous No.19558896]

>>19557486
Abstract category autism isnt even his final form, Euler. Do you even Set Theory my Aural Fields?

[Anonymous No.19558930]

>>19558859
most uneducated post of the year

[Anonymous No.19558933]

Doesn’t dyer put forth a ‘transcendental argument’, like kant ?

[Anonymous No.19558950]

>>19558930
I don't believe he's read Kant mate

[Anonymous No.19558959]

>>19558859
Bro. Did you just read about Kant secondhand or something? It's ok we all gotta start somewhere.

[Anonymous No.19558962]

>>19558859
No Kantian takes Kant seriously. I think this is all like pre career math homework. Everyone I've read so far seems to have developed some kind of new rigorous interpretation to trust their senses and only distrusts the senses out of some Academic proof rigor. I'm convinced Kant didn't always doubt like this and like Descartes's demon of doubt just winged it most of his life but was capable at any time of discarding habituated notions just as capable as he was to cling to them.
Guenon found Mystic intuition, Nietzsche found visceral instinct, Schopenhauer found the Will, and translators of the Buddha found ways to translate the Buddha's ethnic cryptic exclusive message with Kantian jargon like the Noumena. We're wasting our time if we don't go tie this back to the Pythagoreans.

[Anonymous No.19558975]

>>19558888
>Doesn't make sense.
But you agree with me that Kant's nonsense-on-stilts inference of the noumena cannot be proven empirically.

[Anonymous No.19559048]

>>19558975
The noumena are mere ideas of reason. They exist in experience as pure ideas. There a priori existence is itself an idea having no empirical reality apart from its being an object of the mind. But for the human being, they are a necessary idea or object of the mind. We are always stuck within our mind and therefore within our mind, and therefore within our mental reality the Noumena exist but merely as Noumena. Just read Fichte.

[Anonymous No.19559113]

>>19558859
>But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.
This is not a controversial idea for neo-kantians. and Kant did not say we couldn't trust the senses lol have you read him? and even if you do trust the human senses, and believe they lead to valid empirical proofs, I do not understand how this provides grounds for speculative theology. you have to go beyond the senses to simply affirm God's existence, which kant showed was impossible, and which Aristotle himself refuted thousands of years prior in his posterior analytics. I myself am a theist who considering all this is not convinced that theology could ever be made a proper science and that "analytic" theology is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[Anonymous No.19559114]

OP doesn't make sense. Neither does Kant.
OP, stop reading Kant.
Simple as.

[Anonymous No.19559123]

>>19557335
Kant was wrong about one thing; that a noetic intuition is impossible.

[Anonymous No.19559126]

>>19557626
How does theurgy not refute Kants limitations on Metaphysics? If I can literally communicate directly with the supersensible realm then we're back at divine revelation as the starting point of Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19559127]

The premise of OP is completely bizarre and suggests that we should bring rock 'n' roll hero worship and slave victim thinking to theology.
OP is literally shilling for Satanic theology. Totally weird.
OP, do you have a fetish or something?

[Anonymous No.19559132]

>>19559123
I like this judgement and now I like you to brother. Gott mit uns.

[Anonymous No.19559141]

>>19559126
>sense of what is above sense
sounds like Sefirot grammatical-semantic trick
So is this thread just Satanic yo-yo tricks, Solomon?

[Anonymous No.19559145]

>>19559141
More like math is real because we feel it is real and we get rekt if we dont

[Anonymous No.19559180]

>>19558859
>But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.
Ah I see but of course God can..... delusional

[Anonymous No.19559182]

>>19559126
>representing experience as apart from experience

[Anonymous No.19559193]

>>19559126
Even if we take theurgical experience as absolute anything you draw from it becomes subdued to your own non-absolute consciousness and therefore any system that may be built up upon it becomes but your own reductive interpretation which cannot lay any claim of resembling the original absolution. Ergo any attempts to articulate theurgy become meaningless and subjective.

[Anonymous No.19559764]

Check out Kierkegaard, OP.

[Anonymous No.19559854]

>>19559193
absolutely BTFO

[Anonymous No.19560946]

>>19559193
What do you mean by theurgical experience being absolute?