/lit/ - Literature

>>6553928

Don't get disillusioned with math.

We live in a supremely ignorant and vicious age.

There is nothing to fear. The end draws closer with each passing day.

>>6439212

In my personal opinion, Kant might have been clever, but he was an absolute villain.

His entire philosophy is an ad hoc attempt to reconcile religion with science, a project which no one should attempt to take seriously after the Darwinian revolution. Granted, Kant did not have the benefit of being alive to see this event, but it doesn't make his project any less worthless.

The CPR is about 700 pages of Kant explaining that we can't know the thing in itself over and over again, which he simply postulates as the basis for his "Copernican Revolution," he never gives us a solid argument.

He is championed as the philosopher of "freedom," but Kant only cares about the notion of metaphysical "freedom" so that we can be free to choose to obey, and that when we don't obey, the state can be justified in punishing us.

Kant is necessary to read if you want to understand the history of philosophy, but I would never rank him in my list of favorite thinkers of all time by any means and I would never recommend him to anybody except for a theologian.

A ridiculous little man from a small town in Prussia who had ridiculous little man ideas. No wonder he died a virgin.

>>6378953

You said a not very smart thing.

Propositions have meaning independently of language. That's how it's possible to translate statements between different languages.

ITT Underage b& tier philosophy.

Good luck OP you're not going to get any help from any of these faggots.

Oh, tell her that snow is white if and only if snow is white.

Then she'll have to fuck you.

P.S. you're fucking a really stupid bitch. You two probably deserve each other though since you started this stupid ass thread.

Can you people define what you mean by "universal"?

I might be able to help if you do that. The way I understand the term, I can't imagine why anyone would hold the view that there are no universal truths.

>>6260781

Great bait m8

>>6252968

a proposition is analytic if the predicate is predicated of the subject by definition. Dialectic is a method of philosophical inquiry.

>>6252965

>Isn't every concept a totality in our minds?

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

>How can there be a noumenal part of a concept?

For Kant, there isn't. We have access to our concepts.

>But isn't all of that empirical, and therefore not a priori?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we gain concepts from experience, therefore it is invalid to speak of a priori understanding or knowledge. This is wrong. For Kant, it's a priori if the justification does not rely upon experience. I know that elephants are animals without having to verify this, whereas I don't know if my shoes are tied without checking to see if they are tied or not.

>>6252936

>So would you say dialectic means working the logic out in a synthetic manner? So you add knowledge that wasn't contained in the concept?

No, quite the opposite. You're trying to find out what is contained in the concept.

>>6252895
>2015
>ambition

You should just go to Fed Ex Kinkos. They have lots of good self help books there that are probably more your speed.

>>6252901

Question, you don't go to graduate school in southern california by any chance do you?

Anyways, Dialectic for the Greeks was a method of philosophical investigation that basically used Socratic questioning in order to inquire about the essence of some given kind of thing. In the passage you're talking about, Kant uses dialectic to refer to any philosophy that attempts to deduce knowledge about the thing itself. In the Transcendental Dialectic, he shows why this it is in principle impossible to have synthetic a priori truths about propositions which don't relate to sensibility with the paralogisms.

Hegel invented what he called dialectical logic, which is supposed to be some kind of explanation of why there is becoming instead of just pure being, and how change happens. The details are maddeningly complicated, so I won't go into them on 4chan. I'm also by no means a Hegel scholar so I probably couldn't even explain it if I tried. Hegel is an absolute madman.

>>6252884

Ignore >>6252888

Kant wasn't as philosophically illiterate as someone like Rorty or most Analytics/Empiricists, but there was a lot of stuff he didn't know about because he spent most of his life being a dogmatic Wolffian and he was only responding directly to newton and Leibniz because they were what he was familiar with due to their popularity at the time.

>>6249234

Figure it out yourself.

>>6124254

No.

You are clearly doing something wrong.

>>6108342

I want to believe but all I've seen from him has just led me to believe he is watered down Nietzsche.

>>6083599

This book isn't about rationalism as such, it compares and contrasts Spinoza and Leibniz. I think the comparison of the two is interesting and worth pursuing. I haven't read it myself but it receives lots of favorable reviews so it's probably worth a look.

>>6083512

>According to google

Okay I'll take the bait.

Google is referring to "rationalism" which is basically used as a buzzword for new atheism or secular humanism.

What this thread is actually about (as per OP's pic) is the philosophical movement of rationalism which started with Descartes in the 17th century and which was dominant on the continent until it got BTFO by Immanuel Kant.

Some prominent rationalist philosophers were Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Wolff.

>>6083454

Rationalism was a desperate attempt to provide a philosophical basis for theology after medieval scholasticism had become marginalized in the broader culture of the renaissance and enlightenment.

I'm not a big fan of Kant but one thing I will give him credit for is destroying this diseased wretch of a philosophical school.

I don't think there was ever a philosophical school in the history of philosophy that got more of it wrong besides maybe the analytics.

>>6082918

Do whatever you want I don't give a fuck.

>>6082980

I'm talking about essentialism concerning formal objects.

I hate to do this but since I've come to learn this is how /lit/ operates here is the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

> 2014+1
>being an anti-essentialist

What's up with this? Can someone explain why people do this? I'm genuinely confused.

>>6070557

That's because you're doing it wrong.

>>6070133

Yeah but if they do assert that statements about morality are either true or false they run into the problem that you pointed out.

I don't believe I've ever met any relativists who were not also non-realists but maybe such confused people do exist.

>>6070092

I think you're attacking a strawman. Any consistent relativist position would state that there just simply aren't true or false statements about morality.

>>6069992
Abstract objects: Platonism
Aesthetic value: other
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes
External world: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism
God: atheism, theism
Knowledge: other
Mind: physicalism
Normative ethics: virtue ethics
Politics: other