Refute this man's philosophy in one comment

Didn't refute his skepticism.

Kant really loved Pope Alexander's Essay on Man, by the way. I rred his book on cosmology for a paper in sophomore highschool and he quotes it incessantly.

>Kant really loved Pope Alexander's Essay on Man

Are there people who don't?

Wilde.
But he was a faggot.

There is no synthetic a priori.

Also general relativity.

Alexander Pope is one of the worst poets of all time

non euclidean geometry

I don't get how non-Euclidean geometry is... well, anything.
>what if space is curved
How's this any different from
>what if the line is curved
Either way the line follows the exact same path.

The basis of Kant's entire views on space and time depend on the synthetic a-priori status of euclidean geometry as a grounding for classical mechanics

So what, Nietzsche read Schopenhauer. He still got BTFO

Can you elaborate on this? Why is non-Euclidean geometry not synthetic a priori? Aren't space/time still independent conditions for experience under both classical mechanics and non-Euclidean?

poo poo pee pee

Yes, that's the view I'm responding to. How is non-Euclidean geometry even a thing?

How is Euclidean geometry a thing?

general relativity only exists because of Kant

In so far as Einstein read Kant and thought he was wrong.

This is a picture of Jacobi and not Immanuel Kant.

Sorry, that was insanely inane as a question.
What I mean is, Euclidean geometry describes the world as it is (or, in Kant's view, ~causes the world to appear as it is). If two lines are parallel, then they never will meet, nor will they fall away from each other.
Now perhaps in the obscure system of modern mathematics one can in notation represent a system in which a line described as parallel (by the definition of "parallel" given by the other abitrary elements of the terminology, not necessarily "parallel" as we understand and intend it) can have those properties. But these properties can never be envisioned in space. Rather, they can represent complex Euclidean objects with geater ease.
So, then, what is non-Euclidean geometry if not a shorthand for Euclidean geometry (or vice versa)?
Source? I don't find this implausible- he seems too handsome to be Kant.

Willard Van Orman Quine

Hegel

Euclidean geometry does not describe the world, in space time it is not necessary that the internal angles between three light rays add to 180 degrees.

...
Does Euclidean geometry just mean 2D geometry?

No

Then how is a property of a 2D triangle relevant unless all the rays are on the same plane?

The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidian. The curvature of spacetime caused by mass-energy is non-Euclidian.

Euclidian Geometry means that two parallel lines will always be the same distance from each other. Non-Euclidian means they will either get closer and intersect or get farther away from each other. For instance, lines of longitude on the earth are parallel, but they intersect.

Exactly my point. Neither of those are anything but inversions of terminology.
>The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidian.
No, the lines on the sphere are curved.
>The curvature of spacetime caused by mass-energy is non-Euclidian.
No, the objects in spacetime follow curved paths. "Space", in the sense that any normal person or Kant use, can't be "curved", whatever the fuck that means. It's just a shorthand y'all've come up for yourselves.

I know. I'm asking what that has to do with anything.

>the lines on the sphere are curved
That is to say, they aren't really lines, or at least not straight lines.

He´s Jacobi and not Kant.

No one has desu

What are you trying to convey here, he already said they weren't straight

iKant

is ought

I refute his philosophy

Kant saw Euclidean geometry as basically a priori, it really dampens your argument when it turns out you're wrong about geometry

>>What I mean is, Euclidean geometry describes the world as it is
this is what rationalists believe

White Male

He was short.

Why, Kant, can't you see, that you can't see what you can't see.

meme