Separating the men from the boys since 1781

[Anonymous No.22840464]

>he who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy. Such a man then stands to the man who knows the Kantian philosophy as a minor to a man of full age.
-Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.22840469]

>>22840464
you're basically an eternal teenager who refuses to move past Kant though

[Anonymous No.22840478]

>>22840469
I've read other philosophers. I just think Kant is better than the other ones I've read, except for Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22840502]

>>22840478
>except for Hegel
then why are you quoting Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.22840507]

>>22840478
Kantian terminology is the only thing you're capable of understanding though, every time someone uses a philosophical term you are incapable of understanding how they could have a different understanding of what that term means than Kant, case in point, >>22839631 and all of my interactions with you. Most likely you are simply an eternal midwit who spent four years autism maxxing for Kant and that tricked you into thinking you understand philosophy when in reality you have complete domain dependence.

[Anonymous No.22840513]

>>22840502
Why can't I quote Schopenhauer? Schopenhauer also thought Kant was good.

[Anonymous No.22840534]

>>22840507
>you are incapable of understanding how they could have a different understanding of what that term means than Kant
except Kripke didn't. He used the terms the same way, without the context of trancendental idealism, and ended up in the same contradictions Kant had already warned about when taking appearance for things in themselves.

>the attempt to make the slightest alteration [in the system], in any part, leads inevitably to contradictions

[Anonymous No.22840544]

>>22840534
Kripke's definition of necessity is not the same as Kant's

[Anonymous No.22840566]

>>22840544
are you referring to Kripke disconnecting necessity as being associated with 'a priori'?

[Anonymous No.22840586]

>>22840507
>you understand philosophy
Kant was a systematic thinker. He didn't attack problems piecemeal like analytictards do. He addressed all the problems of philosophy, if not in detail, at least in principle. If you understand Kants system, you do understand philosophy.

>My chief aim in this work has been thoroughness; and I make bold to say that there is not a single metaphysical problem that does not find its solution, or at least the key to its solution, here.

[Anonymous No.22840652]

bump

[Anonymous No.22840664]

>>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, IT CONSTITUTES THE BASE and THE STARTING POINT of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT.

[Anonymous No.22842284]

>>22840464
The vast majority of humanity will live and die and never have a brain quite like Kant's, even if you don't agree with everything he says it is impossible to deny his impact on virtually all subsequent thinkers. For this reason alone reading Kant is at some point an inevitability in the study of philosophy if you truly wish to reach new levels of thinking. Impressive for someone who's writing does show some age.

[Anonymous No.22842491]

I don't agree with Kant about some knowledge becoming unknowable. How can such a statement be justified as knowledge? It becomes meaningless since the truth value is indeterminate. I could keep asking how you can know you know you know that in an infinite regress of nested statements with no discernible meaning. Talking about the supposedly unobservable in an absolute ontological sense becomes problematic.

[Anonymous No.22842553]

>>22842491
Perhaps the more astute question to ask is can you remove anschauungen and know the thing in itself?

[Anonymous No.22842556]

me licking op's asshole. you've never read a book btw

[Anonymous No.22842597]

>>22842553
This is what i am talking about. Making idealistic categories then proceeding with absolute statements of knowing/not knowing of them. This is what every philosopher has been doing since plato's forms first appeared. Its a genuine contradiction that philosophy arises out of such questions.

[Anonymous No.22842648]

What should I read after Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals? What are some important books that wouldn't exist without it?

[Anonymous No.22842727]

>>22842597
Anon, I will preface my statement by saying that as I get older I tend to find myself agreeing with Hume more and more about what could be termed philosophical laziness. This is in no way, shape, or form intended to be a pejorative or insulting statement, just that if humanity had taken all of the logical work that has been done on questions like these and applied it to other fields the world would likely be a completely different place. With that aside, Kant does have a hierarchy in regards to how you are using knowledge, your question is seemingly pertaining to Kant, so my response was in regards to Kant, idealism/materialism conflict is unresolved and is likely to stay that way. For Kant, due to the way the human mind works, and the limits imposed upon us by our senses, we are always in a state of applying our mental "trickery" for lack of a better word atm to how we understand, it is completely unavoidable, we can know certain things in ways that for Kant conform to his hierarchy but it is worth noting that also for Kant, to truly know the thing in itself we would have to be able to know it outside of what he called our anschauungen, since this isn't something humans can do we cannot truly know the thing in itself according to Kant. To say that this is nonsense and rebut by saying that you can completely quantify the existence of an inanimate object is perfectly normal, and I personally am want to agree with you, but Kant could in theory also come back and say that you and I are still comprehending said inanimate object through our agreed upon and inherent mental lenses, and he could be justified in saying this as well. Kant does distinguish himself from other previous idealist thinkers in his notion of what transcends, and that is one of the remarkable reasons he was able to influence so many subsequent thinkers. Philosophically speaking, I could rebut to your last statement by saying that the abstractions you are referring to are understood by other people even though they don't exist, does this mean they don't have some conversational merit? Philosophy to me is an inevitable byproduct, whether born of conformity or contradiction is no longer relevant, it is something that is instinctual to humans.

[Anonymous No.22842759]

>>22842727
Yes i understand knowledge by consensus. But what i find difficult is the endless idealization rabbit hole that we find ourselves in. The more we idealize the more lost we become in endless semantic jargon. Even if we were to agree that we 'know', how can we agree on whether something is unknowable? I think what he meant was that as long something remains unobservable then it is unknowable, but that's just another invented category that we can't evaluate by definition, its an endless chain of questions that have no resolution.

[Anonymous No.22842839]

>>22842759
Well, in fairness to Kant, he didn't say things were unobservable. He makes reference to our innate ability to observe things frequently. The German language has some nuance with some of the words he does use though. Specifically in regards to Kant, to truly know the thing in itself we would somehow have to be able to actualize it in some way without having to rely on observation even, I am being as literal as my linguistic faculties are allowing by saying that Kant is of the opinion the thing in itself cannot be known. You can read his works if you so desire and see what he has to say on these matters for yourself, the CPR does address what we have been talking about. If you are referring to observation in more of a scientific sense then you may be more interested in some of his pre-CPR works. That aside I agree with you that yes, anytime one wishes to examine these sorts of things there is a very real possibility of winding up down the rabbit hole, especially with regards to how Kant addresses time.

[Anonymous No.22843156]

>>22842597
Reread Parmenides until the "contradiction" is no longer such.

[Anonymous No.22844163]

bump