/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22151600]

Why is this hige liberal respected in this illiberal board? All other liberal/neoliberal are hated here.

[Anonymous No.22151611]

>>22151600
Kant wasn’t that liberal and he’d despise modern times

[Anonymous No.22151628]

>>22151611
What do you mean? The cathegoric imperative is pure liberalism.
He proposed the league of nations and "a right of hospitality" for foreigners

[Bugbane No.22151629]

>>22151600
He's was a bugman for his time.

[Anonymous No.22151635]

>>22151628
What civilizations do you look up to? Just curious.

[Anonymous No.22151644]

>>22151628
>hospitium is bugman liberalism
would you be happy if we devolved into stone age unga bunga tribalism?

[Anonymous No.22151650]

>>22151628
>and "a right of hospitality" for foreigners
Hospitality has been considered a supreme virtue in ancient cultures from all over the globe to the point that Dante makes breaking the bond of hospitality to be the worst form of treachery. It is precent in the pashtun wali of the Afghans, the Kanun of the Albanians, and so on, and the concept of a (divine) "right of hospitality" goes back to Homer and was omnipresent in Greco-Roman civilization. Refer to hospitium.

[Anonymous No.22151668]

>>22151635
You cant attack liberalism while defending kant without contradicting yourself.
>>22151644
Hospitium included a defense of international trade aka globalization

[Anonymous No.22151692]

>>22151628
The categorical imperative is fundamentally anti-utilitarian. Kant repeats over and over that you’re not supposed to derive any benefit from doing your duty, and in fact your duty could very well harm you and others.
Liberalism is utilitarian to the core.

[Anonymous No.22151785]

>>22151692
The catherorical imperative is based on the respect for other people's freedom. It is connected to his conviction that people ahouldnt be used as means to an end. And is gives up on the attempt to stablish a material principle (happiness, pleasure) for ethics, leaving that up to each person. This is core liberalism. It enables all religions, atheism, unorthodox sexual orientations (even if kant himself thought homossexuality is wrong)

[Anonymous No.22151802]

>>22151628
>Liberalism is when you aren't an antisocial piece of shit
Anon...

[Anonymous No.22151810]

>>22151600
>Why is this hige liberal respected in this illiberal board? All other liberal/neoliberal are hated here.
a broken clock etc.

[Anonymous No.22151818]

>>22151600
because he is a huge autist

[Anonymous No.22151861]

>>22151785
It's liberalism, sure, but not the kind of liberalism we are afflicted with right now. I mean, you kind of hinted at it yourself. It's an immaterial, anti-utilitarian philosophy, which means that it is largely out of place in today's world.

[Anonymous No.22151914]

>>22151635
Assyrian

[Anonymous No.22152176]

>>22151629
Bro, please define a bugman. As succintly and accurately as you can. Please.

[Anonymous No.22152188]

>>22151785
>It is connected to his conviction that people ahouldnt be used as means to an end.
This is what bugs me about Kant. Literally all of society is based on understanding each other as objects, that's how consciousness came to be. But no, using people as means is le bad so let's just get ride of our soldiers, our doctors, our teachers, etc since we are using them as means to an end... Does Kant address this? Because if he doesn't, his ethics are worthless.
>inb4 muh consent
Don't even bother

[Anonymous No.22152201]

>>22152188
Interesting that you mentioned soldiers. He was against standing armies but because of his goal of perpetual peace

[Anonymous No.22152219]

>>22151628
There’s a big difference between classical liberalism, and modern “liberalism” (which has become almost as if a guise for some demonic antihuman force to hide behind).

[Anonymous No.22152241]

>>22152201
>Interesting that you mentioned soldiers.
It was subconsciously, because I conceive society's emergence as a means to war against other tribes as well as to conquer and subdue them. Of course we are not a that stage anymore, but that's my reading from History.
>>22152219
You retards make modern society sound cool by trying to downgrade it, kys faggot

[Anonymous No.22152246]

>>22151600
Kant's work was a failure. I don't get why people like him on this board. Modern day idealists such as Bernardo Kastrup are far better.

[Anonymous No.22152265]

>But he's a Liberal!
There is no point in reading philosophy just to see your own political/religious sentiments parroted back at you. Fuck off back to /pol/ if that's all you want.
>All other liberal/neoliberal are hated here.
Fucking newfag election tourists telling me what 'we' think again.

[Anonymous No.22152285]

>>22152265
I created a thread on habermas and people only shat on him. I have seen the same patrern with popper and pinker. Maybe others ai cant remember. Many liberals arent even mentioned. But kant is always on focus and with mostly positive impressions

[Anonymous No.22152287]

>>22152285
*positive opinions

[Anonymous No.22152477]

>>22152285
Popper and Pinker aren't shit because they're liberals. They're shit because they're incredibly bad philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22152479]

>>22151628
>>22151650
>hospitality
This. Besides, hospitality isn't incompatible with group identity. In order to be "hospitable", you have to have a sense of strangers, meaning that you also have to have a sense of one's own. That's what made hospitality a virtue.

[Anonymous No.22152491]

>>22151600
Because the "illiberals" (they are just /pol/niggers, the good right-wing posters left years ago) are illiterates who have never read Kant, and the ones who have don't engage with the retards unless it is to fuck with them.

>>22151611
The entire core of liberalism viz. universalism and rights-based constitutions stems from Kant. He is the primary source of inspiration for every constitution of every liberal democracy in the entire world.

>>22151628
Your effort is admirable but profoundly wasted, you might as well try to teach a dog trigonometry, none of these faggots read.

[Anonymous No.22152503]

>>22152246
lmfao, imagine thinking this unironically. Idealism never escaped Kant. And Kastrup is a literal Kantian. He has the same ethical, political and epistemological view on reality. He's also an utter retard when it comes to all of those, especially his understanding of geopolitics is close to that of a buffoon. Kant looks like a napoelonic strategy mastermind in comparison. Kastrup assumes he differs on metaphysical grounds from Kant only to stick his dick to Schopenhauer and Jung, both of whom are Kantians through and through. Replacing Noumena with some unfathomable thing called Will or switching the categories with archetypes doesn't make it any different on semantic grounds (Schopenhauer exceeds elsewhere, particularly in his aesthetics, where he is truly original). Kastrup is one of those modern muh scientistic thinkers that replaces "matter" monism with "idea" monism proudly licking his balls thinking he's done some big leap in the history of philosophy as if that's not the most ancient ontological position known to man.

[Anonymous No.22152533]

>>22151914
Too liberal

[Anonymous No.22152549]

>>22152219
Nope, read pic related. Both Classical Liberalism and Progressive Liberalism move in lockstep

[Anonymous No.22152686]

reasonfags are the biggest fucking nerds omg

[Anonymous No.22152739]

>>22152503
Good post

[Anonymous No.22152745]

>>22151600
>the chinaman of königsberg
>respected
lmao

[Anonymous No.22152937]

>>22152176
>bugman
I know this term has been around for a while but for some reason I've suddenly seen it a hundred times in the last 48 hours.

[Anonymous No.22153295]

>>22151600
Kant gets made fun of and called incel all the time on this board

[Anonymous No.22153355]

>The secret of the critique of practical reason is that man is alone in the world, in tremendous eternal isolation.

>He has no object outside himself ; lives for nothing else; he is far removed from being the slave of his wishes, of his abilities, of his necessities; he stands far above social ethics; he is alone.

>Thus he becomes one and all; he has the law in him, and so he himself is the law, and no mere changing caprice. The desire is in him to be only the law, to be the law that is himself, without afterthought or forethought. This is the awful conclusion, he has no longer the sense that there can be duty for him. Nothing is superior to him, to the isolated absolute unity. But there are no alternatives for him; he must respond to his own categorical imperatives, absolutely, impartially. " Freedom," he cries (for instance, Wagner, or Schopenhauer), " rest, peace from the enemy; peace, not this endless striving " ; and he is terrified. Even in this wish for freedom there is cowardice; in the ignominious lament there is desertion as if he were too small for the fight. What is the use of it all, he cries to the universe ; and is at once ashamed, for he is demanding happiness, and that his own burden should rest on other shoulders. Kant's lonely man does not dance or laugh; he neither brawls nor makes merry; he feels no need to make a noise, because the universe is so silent around him. To acquiesce in his loneliness is the splendid supremacy of the Kantian

This is what a real man is. This is the only type of man a real Kantian can respect. And that's what Kantianism really is, a code of respect and self respect. Kantians step on worms. This is what sublime vanity looks like. The impossible glory of man revealed. No true man could be in a uniform marching with others. Follower or leader. Father, brother or son. He is responsible only to himself; he must follow none other; he must not forget himself even in his work ; he is alone ; he is free ; he is lord of himself