[ 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: 75 KB, 552x553, 1350161529816.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4344445 No.4344445[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Since Kant was the smartest human who ever lived, what was his explanation for origin of the universe, consciousness, God?

Was he christian?

>> No.4344458

>>4344445
>what was his explanation for origin of the universe, consciousness, God?
HAHAHAHA

read critique of pure reason

>> No.4344475

>>4344458
>read critique of pure reason

I have.
Now what?

>> No.4346792

why exactly do you consider kant to be the smartest human to ever live?

>> No.4346813

>>4344445
That is incorrect, since I'm the smartest human that ever lived.

>> No.4346825

The smartest human who ever lived wouldn't consider Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Mechanics to be immune to the paradigms that followed.

>> No.4346828

>>4346813

So answer OP's question already.

>> No.4346829

>>4346813
his logic checks out; it's infallible

>> No.4346832

>>4346792

Its a hyperbole. But he did a Copernican revolution for the mind...which is a sign of superintellignce

>> No.4347276

>>4344475
no you haven't, or you wouldn't have asked the question in the OP

>> No.4347284

Kant says God cannot be proven rationally, so he proves God as moral destiny

Yes, he was a Christian

>> No.4347318

>>4346832
Wat

>> No.4347356

>since Kant was the smartest person who ever lived,
[citation needed]
This title would probably go to the great polymaths, such as Leibniz, Newton, J.S. Mill, Goethe, or Aristotle, at least when it comes to the west: not those who excelled in only one field. Also, if you had read anything about Kant, you would know how he addresses these issues. Why not just read him?

>> No.4347361

>>4347356

And I forgot, Wittgenstein might also qualify, but he was so fucked up it's kind of hard to tell. All of the early figures in Analytic philosophy, such as Frege, Russell, Whitehead, and so on, were pretty fucking impressive, though.

>> No.4347436

>>4346813
Impossible, since I'm way smarter.

>> No.4347787

>>4347356
Realistically, it's probably some fucker who never did anything notable (like that bouncer guy with the highest IQ of anyone alive right now).

If we're talking about APPLIED intelligence, that's different. Kant is really smart, but I'd say Wittgenstein's smarter - he's the person whose philosophical work strikes me as the most indicative of his intelligence (as opposed to, say, Leibniz, who was clearly intelligent as hell but applied it over a range of fields).

Also, since we're mentioning pure philosophers and some philosopher-mathematicians, we may as well counterbalance it with pure math. Grothendieck's smart as fuck. He's also crazy, of course. I like to think of him as the math version of Wittgenstein, actually.

>> No.4347790
File: 2.28 MB, 187x155, 1383570530265.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4347790

>>4347787
>Kant is really smart, but I'd say Wittgenstein's smarter

Wittgenstein would disagree with this

>> No.4347792

>>4347787
>Grothendieck's smart as fuck

Why? What wise ideas did he develop?

>> No.4347802

>Since Kant was the smartest human who ever lived
Jesus Christ, Leonardo Da Vinci, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe...three people off the top of my head who were definitely smarter than Kant

>> No.4347808

>>4347802

by what measure is Jesus be smarter? He's an ant compared to Kant

>> No.4347811

>>4347802
>calling him Jesus Christ
>not Joshua of Nazareth

>> No.4347814

>>4347802
>>4347356
Why is Goethe considered so smart? I only know his literary works, and some of his early natural-philosophical ideas that resembled Darwin.

>> No.4347816

>>4346813

Charles Sanders Peirce pls go.

>> No.4347817

>>4347808
I'd ask you the same question, name one profound thing Kant has ever said, which is quoted on a regular basis.

>> No.4347820

>>4347792

Algebraic geometry is one according to the Wiki.

>> No.4347822

>>4347802

>Goethe

Enjoy your hilariously wrong colour theory lol.

>> No.4347824

>>4347811
>not Joshua of Nazareth
I think you mean Yeshua, if you are going to grasp at straws make sure to reach for the one with the deepest roots.

>> No.4347826

>>4347817

Being quoted by plebs isn't really a measure of intelligence man.

Jesus was a really brave guy but it isn't like he ever transcendentally critiqued the categories of consciousness or the limits of human knowledge.

>> No.4347825

>>4347817
"Try thinking for yourself every once in a while, you fucking retard!"

Something like that, I think.

>> No.4347827

>>4347814
I only know he had the highest recorded IQ of all time

>> No.4347828

>>4347824
Don't be silly, being like that is totally impracticle. :^)

>> No.4347830

>>4347825

What I love about Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is that they constantly say pretty much this throughout their works.

>> No.4347831

>>4347826
>consciousness
a meaningless word for people with no grasp of the truth

>> No.4347833

>>4347831
>truth
a meaningless word for people with no grasp of consciousness

Herp.

>> No.4347835

>>4347827

That's a misleading notion though because tests of IQ in his time didn't really looked anything like those used in later periods.

>> No.4347837

>>4347825
>Something like that, I think.
You are a parrot as are we all. Everything you use to argue with or argue against was written, read or heard by you. There are no original thoughts. There is nothing new under the sun.

>> No.4347839

>>4347831
>>4347833
Hue. I'm gonna steal this.

>> No.4347842

Is there consciousness after death?

>> No.4347844

>>4347837
I was making a joke. Calm your autits.

>> No.4347843

>>4347837

For you maybe.

>> No.4347845

>>4347833
You can't even define consciousness. I can define truth in one word. Jesus

>> No.4347850

>>4347842

I've always viewed questions of that sort as fundamentally mistaken. If you are still conscious, you haven't really 'died', and if you've truly died you won't be conscious.

Unless you have some mysterious other definition of death and consciousness I don't see how this is a problem.

>>4347845
>You can't even define consciousness.

I don't need to. Back to philosophy of mind 102 with you.

>> No.4347854

>>4347843
No, it holds true for you as well. This is simple. Tell me one idea of yours that contains something truly original. No letters. No words. Nothing by Kant. Nothing your parents told you when you were young. It has to be purely of your own fruition. Not using the brain cells given to you by God or the "consciousness" false labelled so. It is rather the soul you mean.

>> No.4347855

>>4344475
You apparently didn't understand it at all.

>> No.4347856

>>4347839
Only further reinforcing the idea that nothing is original

>> No.4347858

>>4347854
Not that guy, but I kant do that with this limited amount of letters. I need new ones.

>> No.4347860

>>4347850
>I don't need to.
You can't. The definition does not exist because it is a word without merit and credibility. It is used to lull to sleep those biting inquiries you have of yourself into the true nature of your soul. You can't come to grasp with a simple concept of the soul, so you use "consciousness" instead. Like a stupid politician
repeating buzz words for effect.

>> No.4347861

>>4347856
So what?

>> No.4347862

>>4347858
>I need new ones.
Why, your original right? Come up with your own. Misguided one, everything you argue with and use against pure reason is borrowed from those less favorable than the alternative.

>> No.4347868

>>4347861
Kant wasn't brilliant, he couldn't even figure out how to live forever. Shouldn't all philosophers first figure out humanities biggest ailment: death? Then they have all the time in the world to figure out the meaning of life.

>> No.4347867

>>4347862
But I can't type these new ones.

>> No.4347870

>>4347868
>death
>ailment
Pick one

>> No.4347874

Consciousness doesn't matter in the same way the sensation of hot doesn't matter. Heat doesn't disappear with the sensation of "hot" and reality doesn't disappear with the sensation of "conscious".

>> No.4347888

>>4347874
>Heat doesn't disappear with the sensation of "hot"

the difference between heat and hot and temperature is vast...

> reality doesn't disappear with the sensation of "conscious".

for who does it remain? for other conscious beings.

reality is relative to a perspective, just like north and south, without a reference frame there is no north, there is no south.

>> No.4347914

>Kant
>smartest person alive
>his ideas about space and time crushed by Einstein
>the rest of his ideas are obscure and meaningless and only stuff for posturing philosophers who want to feel smart

nope.7z

>> No.4347923

>>4347914
>>his ideas about space and time crushed by Einstein

Einstein loved Kant, so did Schrodinger and Oppenheimer...

if anything Einstein built upon Kant's ideas

>> No.4347926

>>4347914
someday Einstein's ideas will be crushed too, that's hardly a good measure of someone's intelligence

>> No.4347932

>>4347923

Einstein loved Kant, it's true, but only because he was a big influence on him. But... "Russell is clear that it is misleading to believe that Einstein's space-time in any way resembles Kant's space and time."

Liking someone's philosophy or just liking a philosopher doesn't naturally mean that you agree with sadi philosophy or philosopher.

>> No.4347933

>>4347923
>Schrödinger.

You mean the guy who wrote that natural laws are statistical throughout?

>> No.4347938

>>4347926

yet it is a good measure for Kant?

And it's not very likely that Einstein's ideas will be 'crushed'. They may be altered slightly to fit some quantum phenomena or it will be integrated into quantum mechanics and a unified theory but Einstein's theories will never be "crushed."

>> No.4347942

>>4347932

I would say he was influenced by Kant's formulation. it was kant who first broke the newtonian/aristotlean idea of space and time...

einstein was inspired most likely. But Einstein's project was very different than Kant's.

Einstein was trying to explain physical shit in the context of physics and making predictions while Kant was trying to explain causality and how the mind operates....

both versions are metaphors that are useful for their own fields

>> No.4347946

>>4347933
>Schrodinger, you mean the genius who invented the fundamentals in the field of quantum theory and wave mechanics?

yes, that Schrodinger

>> No.4347954

I've always thought that Schrodinger cat was pretty stupid.

>> No.4347957

>>4347955
I didn't call it dumb, though it is.

>he can exist in every possible way
No it's either dead or not dead

>> No.4347955

>>4347954

he can exist in every possible way

can you?

didn't think so faggot so don't call it dumb

>> No.4347967

>>4347957
>No it's either dead or not dead
yeah. that's what i said. it is exists in all possible states, i.e dead and alive. it's not dead OR not dead, it's both at the same time.

>> No.4347972

>>4347946
Ah, so you do mean the guy who consistently argued against Kant's universe of logical necessity?

>> No.4347976

>>4347972

Yes the guy who adored Kant and read him carefully.
What are you confused about?

>> No.4347977

>>4347942
>Kant broke the Newtonian conception of space

No he did not, he reinforced it.

>> No.4347979

>>4347976
Confused about your conflation of love and subscription.

>> No.4347980
File: 1.17 MB, 200x118, 1384844366716.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4347980

>>4347977
>No he did not, he reinforced it.

lol, how do you figure?

>> No.4347983

>>4347967
No, if it's dead it's dead.
There are no 2 states, you just don't know what state the cat is in until you open the box.
Just because the states are equally probably doesn't mean they exist both at the same time.
We can picture a timeline were the cat might or might not be alive but in the end there's only 1 timeline for us

>> No.4347989

>>4347980
Hume. Causality. Two bouncy balls. Analytic apriori. Necessity. No stochasm allowed. ktnxbai.

>> No.4347991

>>4347983

dude

do you even know what a fucking superposition is?

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).

you're implying that it is in one certain state all the time, we just don't know before we collapse le wave function. get it together faggot.

>> No.4347993

>>4347991
not realizing the dude is taking the cat metaphor as stating something about cats, not elementary particles.

>> No.4347995

>>4347979
>Confused about your conflation of love and subscription.

Schrodinger agreed with kant and space and time, and consciousness. He thought Einstein's theory of space-time was going towards kant's, not away from it...

kant's being the more fundamental version, although less scientific

>> No.4347996

>>4347938
Noone ever said it was a good measure of kant's abilities that they hadn't been disproven.

>> No.4347999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

>if the many-worlds interpretation is true, a superposition of the live experimenter necessarily exists, regardless of how many iterations or how improbable the outcome. Barring life after death, it is not possible for the experimenter to experience having been killed, thus the only possible experience is one of having survived every iteration.
If Many-worlds interpretation is true it's literally impossible to ever die.

>> No.4348000

>>4347995
[citation needed]

>> No.4348003

>>4347993
the cat is as much a physical system as anything else, jesus christ.

btw the whole point of schrodingers cat is to show exactly how absurd it all is, you know? you're right to find it stupid because Schrodinger wanted it to be stupid.

>> No.4348004

>>4347995

>Schrodinger: “He [Kant] would show plainly that space was necessarily infinite and believed firmly that it was in the nature of the human mind to endow it with the geometrical properties summarized by Euclid.”

>Schrodinger: “Einstein has not – as you sometimes hear – given the lie to Kant’s deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a step towards its accomplishment.”

>> No.4348008

>>4348000

refer >>4348004

>> No.4348010
File: 123 KB, 390x600, anathem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4348010

>>4347999
This book rocked my world

>> No.4348011

>>4347999
Isn't that just Schrödinger cat except it's not called Quantum suicide immortality to make it sound cooler?

>> No.4348014

>>4344445
Can't (hehe) be that intelligent, because if he were he'd come to a quietist standpoint eventually.

>> No.4348018

>>4348004
the thing with citations is that you'll need to add in the reference.

reading this, however, I think there's been a miscommunication on my part. what I meant to say is that Kant reinforce Newton's ideas on causality, whereas Schrödinger (in particular in the opening and final pages to What is Life?) wrote something completely different.

>> No.4348026

>>4347999
>>4348010
Does this mean if I'm suicidal and there's no after-death consciousness or anything like that I will literally always fail to catch the bus?
Like if I want to swallow 20 grams of Nembutal I'll never do that because I continue to exist in an universe where I didn't swallow the pills.

I feel like that theory/schrodinger cat is mocking me

>> No.4348032

>>4348026
it is

>> No.4348034

>>4348003
so you put a dead cat in the box and now it's also alive. and nothing important of a live cat's observation.

>> No.4348055

>>4348032
I can always try, there are enough alternative universes where I'm happy and alive.
And I don't like being mocked

>> No.4348061

>>4348055
Either that or the Copenhagen interpretation is true

>> No.4348066

>>4348055
>And I don't like being mocked
then don't be so mochable.

>> No.4348082

>>4348066
Maybe somewhere there's an alternative universe where I'm not so mockable.

>> No.4348087

>>4348003
i thougth the cats paradox only intented to show how physical systems such as cats are different from electrons and protons and you cannot apply the same reasonings(like superposition of states) to both, so basically he is right

>> No.4348094

>>4348082
If the multiverse thing is true, then there almost certainly is such a universe. Just ass there is a one where you are covered in mocha.

>> No.4348101

>>4348094
And another one where I'm currently covered in mayonaisse
Shame it's also true for you.

There's probably an infinite amount of universes where you're sucking BBC you fucking faggot

>> No.4348105

>>4348101
Will there also be one where I'm whining over the internet about getting mocked by a science parabel?

>> No.4348112

>>4348105
Yes, and I'm telling you to not be so mochable

>> No.4348120

>>4348112
I love you, anon. I do. But do I love you there too?

>> No.4348122

>>4348120
Yes, you will be the love of my (many) live(s)