[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 49 KB, 587x522, images - 2023-03-26T161839.096.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21835689 No.21835689 [Reply] [Original]

>btfos all religitards and sciencetards who were ever born and will ever live
>still claims that believing is God is necessary for people to feel that they can be rewarded for doing the right thing
>gets misinterpreted as some kind of Protestant religitard who thinks that God is certainly real and that we need God in order for people to do the right thing

Should people too dumb to understand philosophy be allowed to discuss it?

>> No.21835702

>>21835689
>>btfos all religitards and sciencetards who were ever born and will ever live
except he didn't because his entire philosophy is based on a false assumption and is therefore totally worthless.

>> No.21835707

>>21835702
>false assumption
There are no false assumptions in his main works, only unfalsifiable axioms.

>> No.21835715

>>21835689
>you should follow the categorical imperative because uh.. you just should OK?!
>NO there is no practical reason to follow it, but you just have to! Isn’t it obvious??

>> No.21835721

>>21835707
>unfalsifiable axioms
the entire idea of the ding an sich is a contradiction, it's a priori refutable so it doesn't have to be empirically falsified.

>> No.21835804

>>21835721
>the entire idea of the ding an sich is a contradiction
A contradiction of what?

>> No.21835820

>>21835689
He’s ugly though

>> No.21835855

>>21835804
non-contradiction

>> No.21835871

>>21835855
The non-contradiction of what and what else?

>> No.21835886

>>21835871
>he cannot logically align despite provided identifiable implications as to how
get off this board

>> No.21835912

>>21835871
it contradicts itself. That's what it means to say "the idea is a contradiction." e.g. "round square" is a contradiction.

>> No.21835921

>>21835886
I do not see a contradiction inherent in the thing-in-itself. A thing-in-itself is a thing as it is indepedently of any observations or thinking about it. A thing-in-itself being what a thing factually is seems logically consistent to me, since there is no reason to accept that a thing-in-itself could be something other than what the thing is. That it might not be known to humans exactly in its true form does not, by itself, bring about a contradiction between the thing and itself.

In fact, entertaining the very notion that things are known to humans in their true form and that there is no distinction between observations and stuff being observed would raise the possibility that the existence of things is dependent on the mind, and that all judgements arising from observation are equally true, but also determining the object's own essence.
This form of thinking is the type of primitive "magical" thinking that would normally only be excused of pre-civilized tribes and literal infants.

>> No.21835924

>>21835912
Utterly ridiculous notion. Do you believe that straws actually bend whenever you dip them in a sugary drink because they appear to be bent?

>> No.21835942
File: 44 KB, 568x557, shegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21835942

>>21835689
>blocks your path

>> No.21835944

>>21835924
>durr there is a thing to which logic, causality, knowledge, truth, reason, and mathematics doesn't apply because straws appear to bend in water
smartest Kuntian

>> No.21835952

>>21835942
>reaches for zipper

>> No.21835968

>>21835921
>things are known to humans in their true form
No.
>there is no distinction between observations and stuff being observed
Yes.
>existence of things is dependent on the mind
No.
>all judgements arising from observation are equally true
No.

>> No.21835983

>>21835689
>>btfos all religitards
he supports their main argument

>> No.21835990

>>21835944
What Kant proposes in the Critique of Pure Reason is not that the thing-in-itself is exempt from all categories of logic and reasoning, but rather that reasoning itself is a reflexion of the mind's innate set of categories that are used to tell things apart and form statements about them.

Kant does not claim that causality is not part of the universe, but rather that the mind seeks for causes and effects.
If humans didn't exist, then everything else would still exist, but there would be no people to think about what "there is", "why" things are the way they are, "when" events take place, etc.
The entire narrative of the universe is one that needs human minds in order to be told and be understood, but the universe itself does not need humans in order to exist. The universe is, but humans "are".

If you don't understand this, then I suppose you don't understand that something being and something being thought of are not one and the same.

>> No.21835997

>>21835968
Therefore there is a thing-in-itself

>> No.21835998

>>21835990
>the mind seeks for causes and effects.
More strongly: we can not have experience at al, any knowledge of objects at all without causality (and substance, and the interaction of all objects of experience)

>> No.21836016

>>21835997
No, because there is no essence that separates me from my world or an imagined objective world, because everything is nothing in itself.

>> No.21836033

>>21836016
Non-sequitur. The fact that there is an observing, thinking thing that exists does not even hint at the possibility that what is being observed by it is apprehended in its true content and with awareness of its entire self-standing, proper essence.

>> No.21836070

>>21836033
>self-standing, proper essence
This is what I’m denying. There is no essence at all, including the thing-in-itself.

>> No.21836084

>>21836070
Therefore everything must be as the mind perceives it. Blind people exist, therefore color is not real. Deaf people exist, therefore sound is not real.

>> No.21836109

>>21836084
>everything must be as the mind perceives it
No, because this creates another essence, the mind, that exists independently from the world. I’m saying that everything is nothing and only has content in relation to me and I in relation to it.

>> No.21836130

>>21836109
>everything is nothing
If everything is nothing, then nothing is nothing and nothing eventuates nothingness. There is no "me", "you", or anything else. All statements are false and nothing is true.
But if nothing is true, then nothing is false in comparison to what is true, which means everything is equally true.
Therefore all is true and all is false. "Xsxsdrieoeotfwsopa" is a real mattersfuffthing just like "wyeywiwloaa".

>> No.21836146
File: 33 KB, 680x763, 69A47166-3E75-4ADA-B39A-701BC7A3C331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21836146

>>21836130
>There is no "me", "you", or anything else. All statements are false and nothing is true.
Yes, but nothing is either true or false, because everything is nothing.

>> No.21836246

>>21835689
>conveniently comes to the exact same conclusions as christianity on practically everything he believes
>but he did it through Reason so it's different
This shit is just Christianity for autistic retards

>> No.21836273

Oh good it’s another philosophical circle jerk thread. Worthless tits the lot