[ 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: 218 KB, 710x735, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569413 No.8569413 [Reply] [Original]

Nietzsche's an edgy literary figure.

Kant is a true emphatic philosopher's philosopher.

>> No.8569452

>>8569413
kant is the kind of philosopher aristotle would support

absolutely disgusting

>> No.8570656

>>8569452
I unironically like both aristotle and kant. Maybe because I like reason rather than muh feels

>> No.8570927

>>8569413
kant is also 5' 0"

>> No.8570933

Dude, like what if nothing is real?!?!: The Philosopher

>> No.8571717

>>8569452

>aristotle would support
>support

Was Aristotle really a power bottom?

>> No.8571758

>>8570656
>Kant
>reason rather than muh feels
Ha ha.

>> No.8571786
File: 76 KB, 1024x768, Jokenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8571786

>>8570656

>Maybe because I like reason rather than muh feels

In the preface to the 2nd edition of CPR, Kant unironically says that he had to give up a bit of reason to make room for faith (or something to that effect, it's been a while).

There's a reason ol' Schopenhauer preferred the 1st edition.

>> No.8571789

>metaphysicists
>reason

DUR THERES A SYSTEM GUYS

>> No.8571813

>>8571786
>In the preface to the 2nd edition of CPR, Kant unironically says that he had to give up a bit of reason to make room for faith (or something to that effect, it's been a while).

He says he had to set LIMITS to reason to make room for faith.

You know, the whole project of the critique of pure reason? To show the limits of pure reason? Showing that classical Wolffian metaphysics don't have their place in reason?

That the postulations of reason, soul, god, immortality are just that, postulations?

You know, the thing that had a whole large chapter dedicated to it in the first edition just as much?

Also in the Prolegomena by the way, Schopenhauer's favorite Kant-work, as it's the most shallow one.

>> No.8571828

>>8571813

>Showing limits is the same as setting limits

You actually made my point all the stronger. If I have a country and SET a limit there, that doesn't mean there isn't anything beyond it.

Kant, however, does something sillier. He sets a 'limit'/border on reason and postulates that God/etc lies beyond it, WITHOUT even having the sense to go beyond it. Worse, actually, he went beyond and then took a few steps back.

Mein Gott, Kant was such a backdoor Christian.

>> No.8571849

>>8571828
What do you mean? Is this all based on the semantics of the phrase "Grenzen setzen"? How does Kant not put forth clear arguments for the transcendental ideas being postulates of reason? What steps did he take and then take back?

Explain to me what you mean

>> No.8572269

>>8570656

>Maybe because I like reason rather than muh feels

It's kind of funny, because the fact that you bought into the reason/feels dichotomy proves that you don't really possess reason at all.