Kant ruined pic related for me. I got to Kant (and through German idealism) in a reverse chronology, started with Nietzsche and worked my way up there backward. What's the point of a Hegel when there's Kant? What more did Hegel really say that Kant already didn't?

File: 181 KB, 452x572, 8C469B5B-171A-4A01-9490-531D2B111C96.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:00:19 2022 No.20740879 [Reply] [Original]

Kant ruined pic related for me. I got to Kant (and through German idealism) in a reverse chronology, started with Nietzsche and worked my way up there backward.

What's the point of a Hegel when there's Kant? What more did Hegel really say that Kant already didn't?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:35:53 2022 No.20741281

hegel ontologized and organicized kant’s turn and in doing so rids us of kant’s lingering dualisms between phenomena and noumena, and the understanding and sensibility. moreover hegel socializes kant, showing how the subjectivity is a social phenomenon

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:37:01 2022 No.20741285 >>20740879 >>20741281 Peirce completes the system of German idealism. you didn't skip Peirce while Peirce-severing through the German idealists, right anon?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:42:48 2022 No.20741305

>>20741281
yes, but in the end, Hegel is basically a footnote to Kant. it was Kant who truly classified everything, not Hegel, Hegel merely expanded Kant's framework (which from the outset was supposed to be expandable as it captured the entirety of the human essence and could be specified ad infinitum)

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 00:49:23 2022 No.20741330

>>20740879
He gets rid of the dualism that is arguably hiding out in Kant and unaddressed.

He also takes the ontology in a radically different direction. He follows the mystical insights of Boehme and earlier thinkers/mystics about the contradiction of some things existing in the absence of others. The being/nothing contradiction which generates becoming is genius, even if Schelling sort of did it first. Hegel's analysis of it is better. Same for the need for constraints to create choices in order for there to be freedom to choose.

This sort of thinking seems downright prescient if you're into early universe cosmology and models of how the Big Bang arise, particularly information theoretic papers focusing on "It From Bit." They either cite Hegel directly or are obviously playing off him. The unfolding it difference from contradiction you see in Hegel is picked up on by some of the great physicists, like Bohm.

Pierce was inspired by Hegel and his semiotics has had a huge influence on biology since the information theory revolution.

Hegel also has a theory of history. It's a theory Kant hinted at in an essay but never had time to generate. This theory has had huge influence too, from Marxism to conservatives like Fukuyama.

Hegel also pulls the subject into his logic. Logic before and since Hegel often ends up sitting in its own cut off world with its own partial languages. It can never be used to describe the whole world. Just think of Quine's, I think valid, argument that indiscerniblity is identity in first order languages. That's a big flaw. Hegel wanted to bring the subject into logic but arguably lacked the tools to do this completely.

And for all the bad writing, the Phenomenology is absolutely beautiful, which can be said of very few works of philosophy.

He also has, IMO, a much more engaging view point for theology. The role of man in God's coming into being is beautiful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:12:22 2022 No.20741400 >>20741285 bad meme >>20741281 this. it's all speculative, if anon meant that. also hegel does make some better points on life.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:14:32 2022 No.20741411
File: 2.65 MB, 1500x1462, 1658025536872.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20741305
Aside from Aristotle during scholasticism, no one dominated philosophy as much as Hegel, even if it was for a shorter period. Even the analytical autism that is popular today is specifically a reaction to Hegel.

When the Great Books did their canon only four philosophers got their own volumes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel.

Politically Hegel's influence outdoes any other thinkers, as the godfather of liberalism, communism, and fascism.

Popularity wise the existentialists do better with the general public, where Nietzsche is probably the most read philosopher after Plato, but in philosophy proper and world history Hegel is anything but a footnote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:16:32 2022 No.20741418 File: 11 KB, 188x268, images (15).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20741411 Hegel deserves to be shit on though exactly because he is responsible for analytical autism though... He took things too far.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:18:27 2022 No.20741426 >>20741411 I would like to BELIEVE like you would in Elohim that this picture didn't portray... absolute truth, and it doesn't, but it's certainly practical truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:32:45 2022 No.20741474 >>20741400 fuck you, I meant what I said about Peirce. stupid ignorant bitch, if only you fully appreciated the genius of Peirce's architectonic system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:37:23 2022 No.20741493 >>20740879 Did you read Schelling and Fichte?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:43:01 2022 No.20741520 >>20741411 glad we're in agreement— Hegel to Kant is the same as Aristotle to Plato, i.e. a lesser philosopher

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:44:31 2022 No.20741531 >>20741520 Peirce BTFOs Kant and Hegel with facts and logic

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:47:54 2022 No.20741547

>>20741330
OP here. My point is that there would be no Hegel if there was no Kant to provide the crucial framework. I'm not even saying that Kant was flawless, just that the framework he provided was itself of flawless value and led to Hegel, but then, who is Hegel? Just a guy who took Kant's framework and elaborated and refined it. But it's Kant's, ultimately

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:55:41 2022 No.20741597

>>20741520
Aristotle did more for the advancement of the West and development of science than Plato by a factor of 20.

Kant's biggest influence on the world is through Hegel. If you think the systems are pretty much the same you didn't understand what you were reading.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 01:56:57 2022 No.20741606

>>20741531
Lol. Kant was fully retroactively refuted by Bakker.

For example, while Quine fatally weakened the synthetic/analytic distinction, it was Bakker who provided the proof that calcified dogma is not observably different from analytic fact using a combination of the philosophy of information and semiotics of abstraction, joining the logical systems of Floridi to the physics of messaging via Landauer's Principal and computational entropy. Incomputability, Krylov Complexity, Yao Entropy, have disasterous consequences for proving analytics that are not tautologies, and nowhere is this more apparent then in the Dunyain-Logos Paradigm, as viewed from the Absolute Judging Eye Vector, Whale Rape Gang Bang Hypothesis laid out in The Great Ordeal. Bakker brings philosophy from Kant to Quine full circle, unsublating both, so both can be resublated as an organic whole into the dynamics of whale-mother-cave-rape-as-logos, which provides proof of the incompleteness of Logos due to the incomputability problem. Turing would have been proud!

Note that Kant is also more seriously retroactively refuted vis-á-vis the transcendental aesthetic via the proof of Meat Fueled Murder Rape Orgy (where the inefficiency of the alien space nuke, and resultant high level of radiation released, reminiscent of primitive, WWII era nuclear weapons, results in the Scalded as a boipussy dynamical system, which, shows that even a simple system represented by a differential equation can, and will necissarily produce chaos if it reaches a phase of three in any cycle.) The result is that the faculties cannot be an anchor of anything, as strong variance driven by "initial" conditions invariably leads to chaos. Bakker symbolizes this using the stochastic forces of nuclear radiation, as from those quantum activity we still see the larger classical objects of emergence in the rape orgy.

This shows the teleology of rape, the Inchori Theory and defeats appeals to classical ethics as such.

Again, even more than retroactive refutation, which others have done, Bakker RETROACTIVELY SUBLATES Kant.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:01:33 2022 No.20741638

>>20741597
>Kant's biggest influence on the world is through Hegel.
Really my question is about Hegel's legitimacy as a philosopher. Hegel was basically like Zizek, he didn't create his own framework, he used someone else's framework and expanded it. I don't like that. Even if refined in various ways, adapted to make it look original, ultimately it's not original, it's inauthentic, only Kant's realizations are authentic in their originality (and Plato's)

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:05:09 2022 No.20741659

>>20741606
>proof of the incompleteness of Logos
Logos is complete because Logos is the Universe and the Universe is complete insofar as its practical existence stretches between 2 discrete points in time: the Big Bang and Heat Death.

But I don't want to write too much in an off-handed post because I don't want to spoil the beans on my original doctrine (cybernetic Śankara)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:05:31 2022 No.20741660 >>20741638 >T. Didn't understand Hegel

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:05:38 2022 No.20741662 >>20741606 you made all of that retarded meme shit up for a laugh. but Peirce is the real deal. you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking this was an appropriate response

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:13:09 2022 No.20741700 >>20741638 >original >authentic go read heidegger, chud

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:13:26 2022 No.20741704 >>20741660 i understood him very well, all i'm saying is that there would be no hegel without Kant, hegel is just a logical progression from Kant, not original in and of itself

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:14:54 2022 No.20741714

>>20741700
authenticity is a subject of the marxist Frankfurt School, CT, before that Nietzsche and countless others. there couldn't be anything less chud than authenticity, fascism for example is a rejection of authenticity in a dash to might is right conscious irrationalism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:14:59 2022 No.20741715 >>20741704 Kant would not exist without Hume. Does that mean Hume is more authentic than Kant?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:15:55 2022 No.20741727 >>20741714 >fascism for example is a rejection of authenticity in a dash to might is right conscious irrationalism cont.: curiously enough, Hegel ended up advocating for Prussia to take over the world kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:16:56 2022 No.20741737 >>20741715 there's a leap between Hume and Kant that doesn't exist between Kant and Hegel. it's like the leap between Socrates and Plato

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:20:18 2022 No.20741770 >>20741737 This conversation is useless unless you characterize the difference of both which would require an entire dissertation. Go read Hegel's Ladder by Harris if you want to see the extent of thought that went into Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:22:18 2022 No.20741788 >>20741770 more like the extent of thought that went into Kant that Hegel coopted and merely improved upon, and then demonstrated real life applications much more than Kant did

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:23:14 2022 No.20741793 >>20741788 Are you interested in knowledge or making stupid quips about philosophers? Go read the book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:29:31 2022 No.20741834 >>20740879 Did you read Schelling and Fichte?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:30:08 2022 No.20741839 >>20741638 I get the impression that you've read neither Kant nor Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:31:05 2022 No.20741843 >>20741839 you're just projecting perhaps

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 02:32:06 2022 No.20741850

>>20741793
>Are you interested in knowledge or making stupid quips about philosophers?
depends on the kind of thread i make on any given day my dude. this thread is the latter. i have other threads that deal with the doctrine more specifically. work life balance, dude

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 03:17:51 2022 No.20742083

>>20741788
Hegel is not that similar to Kant. Kant was largely coherent (even if wrong in many respects) and at least trying to do genuine philosophy, Hegel was just a fraud and charlatan. His system is not even derivative of Kant's, it's simply trash, ie the same in the same way that trash is derivative of a new, well-polished product. If he had really expanded on Kant's system as you're claiming he did, rather than just make sullen acknowledgements that Kant's "critical philosophy" must be built upon, then maybe he would be worth something.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:02:33 2022 No.20743279

>>20741520
Aristotle isn't called The Philosopher for nothing. He's one of the most influential men in the entire history of mankind. It's just that he was wrong about pretty much everything he said.

>>20741330
>The role of man in God's coming into being is beautiful
I would love to hear more.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:05:52 2022 No.20743288

>>20741638
You've never read neither Kant nor Hegel.
Kant's system wasn't born from his own dreams, isolated for the entire world and the history of philosophy.
Hegel refutes many points of Kant. Calling both systems idealism would be a stretch, let alone calling them the same kind of idealism. Hegel's system is the most alive and visceral.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:21:03 2022 No.20743336

>>20743288
Kant laid out the analytic framework, logic, ethics that Hegel merely built upon. He had his own way of going about a similar thing and wasn't truly original is my point. Hegel simply wasn't that genius, he just thought very long about Kant's philosophy and tried to find its flaws and improve upon it. Now think about the intellectual effort that went into Kant. Of course he was inspired by earlier philosophers, but earlier philosophers, the ones he was inspired by (except plato, aristotle, leibniz) were like puppies compared to him.

Hegel merely perfected Kant's analysis of reality, imo he shouldn't be singled out as a genius and is talked about too much and Kant should be talked about more

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:27:51 2022 No.20743356

>>20740879
Expanded on kant's idea of contradiction, not seeing it as a dead end of logic but rather seeing it as a chance for logic to level up and take the next step. Kantar sees contradiction as something to be repressed, but for hegel it is the foundation of any and all natural developments

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:29:28 2022 No.20743360

>>20743336
>Kant laid out the analytic framework, logic, ethics that Hegel merely built upon.
Hegel didn't merely build upon anything. By that logic, Plato merely built upon Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and the Eleatics. But no, Plato did something completely revolutionary, despite his comprehensive intellectual heritage. Likewise, Hegel took Kant's constraints on metaphysics and turned them on his head to build an anti-skeptical project.

By the way, all of you keep forgetting that it was the American BVLL, Charles Sanders Peirce, who perfected both Kant and Hegel by applying modern logic to their categories of being. Smfh you faggots still don't get it. Peirce completed the system of German idealism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:33:24 2022 No.20743372

>>20743356
>Kantar sees contradiction as something to be repressed, but for hegel it is the foundation of any and all natural developments
depends on the contradiction. Hegel found a way to explain away certain contradictions to his theory, but he doesn't accept all contradictions outright. in short, he basically actualized Kant and made him more complete. also the difference between philosophers before Plato and Plato is similarly stark, unlike the difference between Plato and Aristotle who was of course Plato's student. these aren't quips, just basic relations of feedback

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:47:47 2022 No.20743408

if atheists like Kant are right , then we're just a chunk of meat controlled by electrical signals, then there's no right from wrong and existence is meaningless so if you go Adam Lanza on people it doesn't even matter because you're just killing biomass, no different from swatting a mosquito that bites you. like, I could burn your grandma's face off with a blowtorch and any discomfort she happens to feel can just be written off as nerve signals registering pain through chemicals. and that's pretty fucking scary tbqh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:50:19 2022 No.20743415 >>20743408 read Kant, then Hegel, then Nietzsche; or go in the opposite order

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:14:46 2022 No.20743645 >>20740879 >end with the greeks

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:22:15 2022 No.20743681

>>20743645
i kinda did that lol, that's when i realized the value of the Greeks and the start (and end) with the greeks meme. though i feel like people should unironically end with the greeks, not start. if you don't know much about latest philosophies, and the philosophies behind these, and behind those, you won't appreciate the timelessness and the Truth in the Greeks (more specifically Plato)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:27:34 2022 No.20743705 >>20740879 That's what happens when you don't start with the Greeks

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:28:59 2022 No.20743717 >>20743356 >not seeing it as a dead end of logic but rather seeing it as a chance for logic to level up and take the next step. Video game zoomer tier intellectual vomit

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:47:29 2022 No.20743789

>>20743717
>t. doesn't know what the word "level" means

>>20743336
Even if he did 'just' perfect Kant's system that still puts him leagues above.
Did Bohr merely perfect Thomson's atomic model and should be ignored because Thomson came up with it first even though it's completely incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:57:45 2022 No.20743831 >>20743408 Why are you saying Kant was an atheist?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:06:25 2022 No.20743870

>>20741839
Yeah. There is a very large gulf between Hegel and Kant. There is a huge influence of Kant on part of Hegel's thinking, but he's not any more influential that Boehme on Hegel, and less so than the relationship with Schelling.

OP has not understood Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:08:03 2022 No.20743878 >>20741400 >points on life. lmao

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:15:54 2022 No.20743906

>>20743789
I guess we just subjectively disagree on matters of relational scale. That's why a specific technical discussion that you ask for is useless if the disagreement stems from subjective notions of big and small. I believe that Kant was Poincare/Lorentz and Hegel Einstein, if you catch my drift

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:19:36 2022 No.20743920

>>20741547
I think the great thing about Hegel is that if you read any philosopher carefully enough, itll end up feeling like Hegel did nothing more than refine that philosopher.
If you havent, try reading Plato's dialogue Parmenides, and you'll get the sense that Hegel did nothing more than refine that. Read Spinoza carefully and Hegel is nothing but refining his implicit conclusions.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:25:42 2022 No.20743953

>>20743920
OP here, yes that's precisely my feeling with Hegel and also my feeling with my own philosophy. it makes sense, if you want to make a theory of history, you got to first analyze AND THEN synthesize the entirety of the human experience, and immediately the best philosophers become even better and the lesser philosophers' flaws get even more highlighted

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:28:58 2022 No.20743971 >>20743920 >>20743953 and Peirce carefully refined Hegel

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:36:07 2022 No.20744000

>>20743906
>I believe that Kant was Poincare/Lorentz and Hegel Einstein, if you catch my drift

Good take.

I'd say Plato was Bohr, great insights, a giant, but also created an incoherent system that poisoned the discipline for years (Copenhagen is incoherent logical positivist drivel that set the field back decades, Plato's mysticism got inflated and ended up shitting up philosophy). And so in this example I'm not sure who Aristotle is. Maybe Einstein because his work was actually more useful long term. Maybe Mandelbrot in that he is less fun to read than Plato but actually contributes more.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:20:01 2022 No.20744210

>>20744000
>but also created an incoherent system
I disagree with that. I think Plato's analytical framework and Plato's general attitude about Truth, epistemology, ontology is almost perfect, he only somewhat failed in his proscriptions but that's because he lived 2,400 years ago
>Copenhagen is incoherent logical positivist drivel that set the field back decades
the Copenhagen interpretation is purely functional, it's just that we can't know whether it's true randomness or not due to uncertainty. computationally it's safer to assume it's truly random, we can't know anyway and wouldn't know if we tried. it dominates because it works, any other interpretation is purely speculative and while interesting, not really effective
>And so in this example I'm not sure who Aristotle is.
when elaborating on my philosophical doctrine, historiosophy, i also touched upon literature and cultural studies, and basically worked out this sort of chronological scheme/relation of feedback/influence:

>1. The Thinker
>2. The Poet
>3. The Novelist

take this metaphorically. I consider Socrates to be the Thinker, Plato to be the Poet and Aristotle to be the Novelist. likewise, in German idealism, Kant is the Thinker, Hegel is the Poet and Nietzsche is the Novelist

and of course I said i touched upon LITERARY, among other, studies, because it also applies to literary theory (through the social lens, less so the aesthetic lens) of continental European canons of national literature, for example Germany:
>1. The Thinker (Kant)
>2. The Poet (Goethe)
>3. The Novelist (Mann, Heinrich, not Thomas)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:22:54 2022 No.20744222 >>20744210 Peirce completed the system of German idealism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:23:31 2022 No.20744228 >>20744222 that was Nietzsche, you goof

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:24:29 2022 No.20744233 >>20744228 Nietzsche tore down German idealism retard, he's not compatible whatsoever.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:44:43 2022 No.20744318

>>20744233
>Nietzsche tore down German idealism
just from its nationalist and other residual shackles. Nietzsche truly liberated German idealism and that I consider, therefore, to be the pinnacle of it. programmatically, German idealism peaked with Nietzsche, there's not much to debate here

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:48:27 2022 No.20744336

>>20744318
>Nietzsche
>liberalism
dude why do you like to talk so much about things you are so fucking clueless about?
>there's not much to debate here
there's not much to debate because you're either a schizo or a pseud. might as well say Rudolf Steiner completed the system of German idealism. actually, it'd be more correct, even if it's wrong, than the abortion of the claim you just made.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:02:24 2022 No.20744392

>>20744336
trying to ascribe politics to Nietzsche's philosophy is the mark of YOUR cluelessness lol. Nietzsche's philosophy is a life-affirming empty canvas, and that's what I consider to be the peak of German idealism and Nietzsche's function as "the Novelist," its banal and profound at the same time

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:03:53 2022 No.20744397

>>20744392
you have no idea what you're talking about, again. you have terminal freshman brain and are incapable of either grasping onto the crux of a philosopher's ideas nor understanding the nuances.
>whoaaa everybody is so deep but talking about the same thing
please, stop embarrassing yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:00:47 2022 No.20744645 >>20743336 Are you genuinely some kind of mental midget, how can you fail to understand this badly holy shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 19:29:13 2022 No.20745622 File: 46 KB, 344x517, 1642054551641.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20744336 >might as well say Rudolf Steiner completed the system of German idealism. actually, it'd be more correct, even if it's wrong, Go on...

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 23:01:36 2022 No.20746545
File: 249 KB, 388x472, 1653172966534.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is not worth its own thread so I'll do it here, but reading through Kant's works at several points I got the impression that his mental gymnastics on the basis of morality and theology can often be contradicted or at least severely challenged by simple empirical observations, some of which Kant himself acknowledges but never actually addresses for what they are. I think I always can get the gist of what he's saying, though I'll openly admit it can get a bit too word salad-y for me sometimes, specially when he tries to address things that might contradict his views. Am I just too retarded for this shit or is Kant supposed to have a pretty solid grasp on matters of morality and God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 23:02:57 2022 No.20746554 >>20746545 >or is Kant not* supposed to have a pretty solid grasp on matters of morality and God?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 03:44:56 2022 No.20747634 >>20743408 /lit/ everyone

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 03:47:44 2022 No.20747647 >>20744645 >>20744397 embarrassing slave mentality

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 06:34:54 2022 No.20748153 >>20746545 kant is never word salad. he's usually very precise. >simple empirical observations example?

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 06:40:03 2022 No.20748164

>>20741638
You have been poisoned by the cultural narrative of disdain for those who have not earned what they have on their own merit alone. This is a mentality for the wretches and crabs. Nothing would exist if men had not built upon the works of others. If a forager has realized that a plant can be broken down into string, is it not his obligation to make a weapon for the hunter? If a hunter realized animal fur is far superior as string, is it not his obligation to let all future foragers know? Are we to say the Hunter isn't original, as string already existed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 09:53:14 2022 No.20748654 >>20741281 fpbp

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 12:14:48 2022 No.20749076
File: 273 KB, 695x427, 1653247009678.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20748153
Well, I'm reading the guy in neither German nor English, so the technical terms can get a bit lost in translation, but for example his teleological argument for the existence of God at the end of Critique of Judgement is based on the supposed hierarchy of uses things in existence have amongst each other, culminating in Man, whom (according to his arguments) is something that is not a means for any other thing to exist, being an end unto itself, therefore Man, and his natural goal in happiness through adherence to moral law as he explains it in Critique of Pure Reason, can be taken as the singular "why" of existence and the reason all other things are they way they are, and such arrangement that culminates on the necessity of morality demands the existence of something outside creation that first defines moral law and sets things in motion so that it may be realized.

My problem with that is that, even when taking into account only the observations Kant and his contemporaries could have feasibly made, to me there's very little reason to take his assumptions of things existing to serve each other on a hierarchy that culminates on Man, and even he, to a certain extent, acknowledges it's shaky ground by bringing up the examp that, to simplify it
>vegetation exists to enable the existence of herbivores
>herbivores exist to enable the existence of their predators
>Man makes use of things predators provide him
>Therefore all things in the chain that led to said predators exists to enable human life
>bit actually we can also notice predators also serve herbivores by keeping their population in check and preventing them from eating their habitat to extinction
>similarly herbivores will keep vegetation in check and prevent it from completely draining its soil and dying off.
Even he recognizes the relationship of "needs" and "serves" between things in existence is more like an interwoven web than a pyramid, however still maintains that Man is somehow divorced and above said web of relations, to which there is basically no evidence towards. If mankind is just as reliant on things provided to it as it is important to provide for others to maintain equilibrium its special place on the hierarchy Kant proposes isn't so special, except that (to the author's and our knowledge) it is the only one capable of rationally understanding that. However it still undermines the premise of his arguments, is somewhat acknowledged but never addressed, at least so far on his works I've read.

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 18:06:51 2022 No.20750588

>>20749076
That's a pretty fair point. Man is presumably unique in understanding himself in relation to the world, but you'd need an additional argument to show that in itself makes him an end, and not just another cog in the whole of nature, i.e. all existent reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 18:51:51 2022 No.20750778 >>20740879 hegel is something for your oven if you want a nice warm room

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 19:48:56 2022 No.20751117 Why hasn't someone made a "Retard's guide to Hegel" yet?

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 20:01:51 2022 No.20751188

>>20744210
Copenhagen today is "just shut out an calculate," but for a long time it put a cold stop on any work in quantum foundations. Von Neumann's proof said Copenhagen was the only interpretation. It turned out the proof was flawed.

But it's still incoherent. It presupposes a hard line between quantum and classical that doesn't exist. Since the 90s when its grip began to loosen we've seen macroscopic drumheads entangled, trillions of atoms at a time entangled, living bacteria entangled, discovered that life takes advantage of quantum phenomena (which should have been a no brained since chemistry is ultimately due to quantum phenomena), and seen quantum phenomena in photosynthesis and now at work in animal life.

But people weren't even looking because Copenhagen said there was an arbitrary cut off and quantum phenomena didn't occur in noisey places.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 20:33:22 2022 No.20751353 >>20741700 Go find your pronoun faggot.

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 20:35:53 2022 No.20751365

>>20751117
probably because we still wouldn't understand it.
I kind of want to try, though. I read decent chunks of it in seminar senior year in college, but that was ages ago. I've got Kojeve and Kalkavage's guides to it, so maybe I'll work through the Phenomenology closely with those two faggots as instructors. Maybe I'll find something interesting. At the very least it will probably help me understand the ideology of the current era a little better.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 20:38:29 2022 No.20751380 >>20743360 >Peirce What should I read from him?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature