/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22880569]

No no one has actually defeated Kant.

Yes Hegel was actually a spiritist and spooky wizard

everything else is cope

[Anonymous No.22880665]

>>22880569
I find it hard to dismiss Russell and it pains me to say it

[Anonymous No.22880668]

>>22880569
Kant defeated himself and Hegel is an idiot

[Anonymous No.22880679]

>>22880665
why?

[Anonymous No.22880684]

I have no idea who’s the better of the two as I haven’t read anything of them outside of their respective wiki entries

however, both seem highly autistic and couldn’t express their ideas properly to their selected audiences, which has caused us ten of Millions of deaths as a result (communism evolving out of hegelianism, etc)

[Anonymous No.22880687]

>>22880569
>he never read Hegel
Kant's noumena-phenomena divide was forcefully destroyed by Hegel and that in turn destroys most of Kant's subsequent thought.

[Anonymous No.22880688]

>>22880684
hegel was a monarchist and would hate marxism

[Anonymous No.22880692]

>>22880684
>couldn’t express their ideas properly to their selected audiences, which has caused us ten of Millions of deaths as a result
it's not their fault retards got filtered

[Anonymous No.22880694]

>>22880684
>as I haven’t read anything of them
No need to say this, your braindead take makes it obvious.

[Anonymous No.22880703]

>>22880687
>Kant's noumena-phenomena divide was forcefully destroyed by Hegel
unequivocally false
seethe mehr Hegeloid

[Anonymous No.22880714]

>>22880569
Defeat is a strong word to use for a comparison of the 2. Kant created a door for absolutism and decided not to walk through it, Hegel had no problems with this.

[Anonymous No.22880717]

>>22880688
it’s too bad his pussy ass couldn’t spell that out properly in his 400 page book lmao

[Anonymous No.22880721]

>>22880692
philosophy isn’t mysticism, shouldn’t be hard to understand/decoded if it’s supposed to be understood by the common logical minded folk

[Anonymous No.22880725]

>>22880694
try explaining a single page of Hegel for me. Go ahead, try

[Anonymous No.22880739]

>>22880688
Damn near every side and subsequent thinker has blasted him for his ideas on monarchy. Marx was Hegel's student, and also blasted him on the monarchy.

[Anonymous No.22880744]

>>22880721
lmao try teaching quantum physics to common logical folk

[Anonymous No.22880748]

>>22880725
no

[Anonymous No.22880756]

>>22880744
you’ve just proven my point

[Anonymous No.22880758]

>>22880748
that’s what i thought fag

[Anonymous No.22880764]

Why no one acknowledge the spooky wizard parts about Hegel? Why they just ignore that part? That I think is the best part.

>In modern times especially the phenomena of animal magnetism have given, even in experience, a lively and visible confirmation of the underlying unity of soul, and of the power of its ‘ideality’. Before these facts, the rigid distinctions of practical common sense are struck with confusion; and the necessity of a ‘speculative’ examination with a view to the removal of difficulties is more directly forced upon the student.

[Anonymous No.22880773]

>>22880756
no I haven't

[Anonymous No.22880776]

>>22880758
you're incapable of though retard

[Anonymous No.22880780]

>>22880721
>philosophy isn’t mysticism
>t. doesn't know

>Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism.

[Anonymous No.22880822]

>>22880773
>>22880776
>>22880780
No need to seethe, plebs. I’m far ahead of you in life and understanding

[Anonymous No.22880843]

>>22880764
It's a wizard thing, if you get it then you are likely wizard level.

[Anonymous No.22880858]

>“Kant in his early life was primarily a physicist. He was keenly interested in mathematics, physics, and astronomy, as well as in philosophy. He was a student of Newton, and was well versed in all the latest scientific developments of his day. His early published work were mainly scientific. While still a student he published a work on Force. He wrote on such subject as the retardation of the Earth’s rotation on its axis, the age of the Earth, the relativity of motion, and the nature of the Atom. He published in 1755 a General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens in which he propounded the nebular hypothesis for the origin of the solar system, an hypothesis which was later to be put forward independently by Laplace and is usually associated with the name of the latter. Kant’s early period then was one of considerable scientific activity. But it was not the activity of the pure scientist as such. It was rather that of a critical and well informed mind reflecting on the scientific activity of his times.”

[Anonymous No.22880861]

>>22880822
>I’m far ahead of you in life and understanding
sure you are little buddy. enjoy your pure cope.

[Anonymous No.22880871]

>>22880858
based. Kant is #1

[Anonymous No.22880930]

>>22880861
Oh I’m enjoying it

[Anonymous No.22880939]

>>22880930
>>22880861
So who wins? If we apply Kantian moral framework it is clear neither is moral, that's certain

[Anonymous No.22880980]

>>22880665
Russell wasn’t a philosopher, he was an empiricist.

[Anonymous No.22881108]

>>22880939
Look, Hegel basically says criminals self-refute themselves and the punishment involved is more about punishing them for their own self-refutation than anything else, and Kant's categorical imperative if it is to take into account humanity at an a priori level will never be more than the golden rule since there is too much variability in human experience to get too far beyond this at an a priori level. I'm not sure you could say either had a comprehensively better moral system on objective grounds.

[Anonymous No.22881131]

>>22880665
>I find it hard to dismiss Russell
don't

[Anonymous No.22881278]

>>22881131
This is a fair characterization to an extent. Criticism of either is a healthy function of producing a high pedigree of thought, if you are trying to outright dismantle one of these 2 at the expense of the other you will likely find yourself in a position where you also rob yourself of a method to praise the other. Perhaps when these guys were alive there may have been more of a head 2 head aspect involved and history has now removed some of this from our collective understanding, to me it is hard to see Hegel as a legitimate competitor to Kant. Kant is likely the apex of German thinking in terms of comphensive philosophy, Hegel seems to possess a different intent and ended up becoming considerably more influential in the political realm. Could Hegel have simplified his philosophy? No, at least not in a way that would have enabled him to accomplish his system in such a way as to make it an organically growing system capable of making higher and lower ordered adaptations to preserve the logic sequence. If someone were to read Kant and enjoy Kant and say that Hegel is some sort of obfuscationist this may be appropriate for that person, if someone were to read Hegel and say that Kant is incapable of painting an accurate picture of reality this may also be appropriate for that person, you can take the position both are wrong and that may be appropriate for that person, but I have not seen much in the way of legitimate claims one is objectively better than the other that don't end up taking away their individual contributions to philosophy in tandem.

[Anonymous No.22881995]

>>22880569
No one defeated Kierkegaard either. The modern world often tries to forget that which cannot be defeated when the implied knowledge is inconvenient.

[Anonymous No.22882667]

>>22880569
Kant is the perfect example of “it’s true because I wish it so”

[Anonymous No.22882669]

>>22882667
absolute retard take

[Anonymous No.22882672]

>>22882669
>you should follow the categorical imperative because… you just should OK?!

[Anonymous No.22883834]

>>22880569
The critique of pure reason is based but all his writing on morality is stupid

[Anonymous No.22883844]

>>22880569
The weird thing is you don’t need to defeat kant if you don’t want to, people who hate kant are just irritated he proved they can’t describe themselves with the positive words they grew up to value like moral

[Anonymous No.22883853]

>>22882672
That’s the point, you should follow categorical imperatives if you want to be moral, otherwise you are amoral

[Anonymous No.22883862]

Kant is a moron addicted to his brainfarts and contradicted by literally everybody who ever lived

[Anonymous No.22883870]

>>22883853
Morality has nothing to do with the mental gesticulation of a racist bourgeois turned humanist overnight.

[Anonymous No.22883888]

>>22883870
Morality certainly has nothing to do with anyone who deems it necessary to identify bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.22884178]

>>22882667
He was never able to escape hume's is-ought was he?

[Anonymous No.22884200]

>>22884178
No, Hume was a genius. That’s why Nietzsche said next to nothing about him

[Anonymous No.22884202]

>>22880717
Marx starts off by saying that his dialectical materialism is literally the inversion of Hegelian philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22884207]

>>22880569
Did Trump ever finish German idealism?

[Anonymous No.22884208]

I have always been confused about the difference btn plato's forms and kant's noumena. Did kant clarify this?

[Anonymous No.22884212]

>>22884200
Kant was also a genius and although he said too much unnecessary shit because of his german autism, some of his ideas are still relevant.