Explain to me what this faggot is all about. What does he say and why is he important for the history of philosophy?

>drop his ethics
literally the only reason to read him or any philosopher. epistemology is nonsense.

His ethics in the Critique of Practical Knowledge are a direct expansion of, and depend heavily upon his epistemology/metaphysics in the first Critique.

>his brief interlude into ethics in this epistemology book
made me think

t. brainlet

The Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals might be a mere 'interlude', but the second Critique that I was referencing is a fairly comprehensive outline of his morality. And as I said it answers a major concern that the first critique brings up; the isue of freedom and morality under Kantian metaphysics.
I'm really not sure why you keep attacking his epistemology either. Kant is difficult yes, but is not often attacked for being a pseud. Hegel or Heidegger I can understand (I disagree, but can understand) you charging with bad philosophy, but Kant really isn't all that mysterious.

it's called transcendeltanmis
it's what happens when you cross a categorical imperative with a prolegomena
you ahve to really check out the groundwork of your metaphsicics of morals if you want to get it
gah;jlkih

i think hegel put it best when he said that you can't learn how to swim without entering the water...... which means his transcendental categories were derived empirically (in the world, or water)

further phenomenologists tried to discredit hegel and empiricists by arguing that data builds over time in a strange undifferenciated movement dating back to our first moments on earth and that the arrival at a structured world must be comprehended from the untuitive historical perspective of a developing human. This also fails to understand the previous analogy and further tries to de-logicize knowledge which simply results in poetical curmudgeonry and nonsense.

This is all you need to understand.

Reminder that Ayn Rand btfo this faggot in "Philosophy: Who Needs It"

Hegel said "The real is rational", not empirical

It's an important tool for critical thinking. Indeed, you would have no use for it.

I giggled.
Honestly, there's not a single philosopher my dear girl Alisa managed to understand, not a single one; she didn't even get what Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" meant. I really don't know what she did during her studies; maybe St. Petersburg wasn't the best place to study philosophy.

Or my theory is correct and Jews are reptilian vampires, with no access to consciousness and self-reflection.

What would this logical conclusion be?

He scientifically proved that God exists for one

>but this is necessary for its advancement.
You goons never say "where" the advancement goes.

Into not dying long enough to breed. Not relevant to yourself.

I've read Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley, and Leibniz, and with each of these retards I just find myself missing Plato and Aristotle more and more. I feel like I would get more out of rereading any Greek than spending time on more recent philosophers. Is Kant any better?

Kant makes the most notable critique of skeptical and dogmatic (arch-dogmatist being Leibniz) idealism, and he really does tear them apart in their knowledge claims.

Metaphysics overtakes epistemology once again when Schelling and Hegel roll around.

Also, if you like Aristotle, I would heavily recommend you look into Hegel.

Nigga wut? Did you plagiarize my ideas? A week or two ago I made a thread on here about how Jews are agents if the demiurge and they lack qualia and the capacity for subjective experience.

I may have plagiarized Christ. I hope he doesn't mind.

deontology

It's kool famalam. Actually, it's nice to see someone building and expanding on my work. I must say, I find your thesis to be extremely intriguing, and from what I've seen both logically and empirically convincing. While we differ on some minor points (e.g. whether Jews are agents of the demiurge or reptilians), it seems to me that something along these lines must be the correct answer (and, in fact, I think the discrepancies in our positions may be reconcilable).

Kant is arguably the single most important philosopher of the modern period because he synthesises the epistemological crisis of foundationalism, begun by Descartes, into more or less its final form. All attempts to "escape" Kantianism have more or less been nu-Kantianism. The last two hundred years has been one long process of grappling with the transcendental, and as of the 1920s, we're still basically yearning to escape from it.

Modern epistemology begins with the resurrection of ancient scepticism in the Renaissance and Reformation, and the attempt of Descartes to overcome it, by beginning with doubt and finding certainty within doubt (the critical method). Locke and Hume both follow from Descartes, and they wed sensationalism to this scepticism and Cartesian foundationalism - the problem of sensationalism is that all of our knowledge of the world must rise from sensations given from that world. Any knowledge of that kind will necessarily and inherently be probabilistic, not certain. We are trapped within minds that can only ever imperfectly know the outside world, and human culture as well. A craze for probabilistic natural sciences of regularities, proto-positivistic, results/

This crisis of scepticism, foundationalism, and sensationalism was spread across the entire domain of knowledge (and society/culture/politics as well), and it also lead to Newton's pronouncement that he is not seeking to "explain," rationalistically and metaphysically, the essences of the bodies in which he notes regularities - he only wants to note the regularities. Rigorous mathematical science contents itself with what it has access to, with data, with data sets compiled from sensory reports about the world (say, the position of planets at various intervals). Science does not venture guesses about the essences metaphysically "behind" those regularities. Many thinkers are inspired by Newton, across many domains, and call themselves the "Newton of natural law" e.g.

Kant inherits both of these traditions, and in particular he writes in response to Hume and is a big fan of Newton. He takes the sensationalist paradigm and sets it up as the realm of empirical knowledge, of knowledge derived from things encountered in our experience of the world "outside" our minds. He also takes up the rejection of pre-scientific essence-guessing, of traditional metaphysics, and instead says that what we can know "metaphysically" (rationally, deductively) are the conditions of the possibility of receiving and thinking about sensory input in the first place.

Kant ends with three things:
1) Innate knowledge-structuring rules, that determine how incoming sensory information (everything we see, hear, or learn about the world) is put before us
2) The incoming sensory information itself, or the "thing in itself," which we can never access "directly," because it must conform to rules of structuring for it to be thought of at all
3) The thinking we can do "a priori" by reflecting on the conditions of our experiencing at all.

We cannot talk about essences really existing out there in the world. What we can talk about is the fact that we experience a "world," in which certain regularities obtain for us. If we intuit a three-dimensional physical cube, made of material, we can say that it is a cube for us, and we can reflect on the necessity of its being given to us in the form of solid matter existing within space and time, and we can think about how our mind is able to know and think of the object in general (that it must have certain causal relationships with other objects etc.).

#3 is also important because Kant bases his moral ("practical") philosophy on it, working entirely from the a priori principles of cognition, and producing purely rational laws of ethical behaviour in accordance with the necessary conditions of thought.

Many of Kant's ideas are very important historically, in all kinds of particular ways. He attempts to set up an ironclad system, his life's mission being to clarify what knowledge can and can't do - it can proceed scientifically and rigorously, a la Newton, in describing the world as we experience it. But it must restrict itself from describing the world as it is "in itself." His practical philosophy spurs responses, his philosophy of aesthetics and taste (judgment) partly encourages Hegel to break with him, etc.

But the biggest reason that Kant is important is that he is the first philosopher to truly locate ALL the conditions of thought inside the human subject. In doing so, he dislocates all grounds of intelligibility from the "external" world. For Kant, and for basically every post-Kantian philosopher, human beings are locked in their minds with certain conditions for experiencing reality. The world itself doesn't contain meaning, it simply provides stimulus which the thinking subject shapes into meaning. So, the problem of scepticism is "solved" for the modern era by Kant, by locking us inside our minds. There have been many responses to this dualism, generations of "anti-subjective" philosophy, "embodied cognition," attempts to talk of essences in nature, to derange Kant's transcendental reason into "alternative" forms of reason, or to accept that we don't even have critical access to reason but rather swim in a flux of meaning. But the Kantian way of thinking is so deeply embedded that it's arguable whether any of these manage to break away from it. The subject-structuring-an-object-by-intuiting-it paradigm is really hard to escape.

>locking us inside our minds
I don't like this sort of attitude. Because of it many people start thinking that Kant said many things he didn't say.

>Kant: Everything you think is true is from your own fucking heads.
>So GOD gave us WISDOM?
>Kant: No, you're all circle jerking your ignorant prejudices and sometimes accidentally landing on scientific truth.

Did he? How?

why don't the noumena fall to occam's razor?

Why even posit them?

It seems so stupid to me, all we experience is phenomena, and yet this autist comes along and splits the world in two, with one half being literally inaccessible? like wtf?

what's the point of this? does it explain anything? doesn't the noumenal world need another world beyond that one to explain it? and then another one to explain that one?

why does phenomena need to be caused by something, with that something not itself needing a cause? why don't we just treat the phenomenal world like we do the noumenal and basically say it exists under it's own force or cause, and doens't need another world to explain it

when we just have the phenomena we can drop all this autism, regain direct access to the world, not be lost in our little solipsistic bubble worlds, and do phenomenology?

I've never read kant so maybe I'm misinterpreting what he said but this all seems highly retarded to me. why even posit noumena? it explains nothing, and cuts us off from reality

and even if we believe in noumena it makes no difference to our experience in everyday life. everyone lives like a direct realist, everyone thinks it's another person they are talking to or hugging and not some private sensory almagamation that may or may not be hooked up to some noumenal other person object out there in some inaccessible reality

and how does the noumenal even interact with the phenomena?

I feel like people just see a chair, posit a noumenal chair, intellectually say the noumenal chair is not sensory in any way but in their mind they're just imagining a black and white chair made of atoms, or some shit like that. you can't even talk about noumenal objects without using language which exists only within the phenomenal world

>and from what I've seen, both empirically and logically convincing

go home rorty

Is there a difference between the categorical imperative and the golden rule?

He conjured a wall of mystification between our perception of something and the thing itself that is perceived, and philosophy ever since has in one way or another had to address this stumbling block.

He was in short an autist, but a very special kind of autist -- a German one.

I see a glass of beer, I imbibe it, I transform the cold yellow liquid into warm yellow liquid. Thus I dispose of Kant's unfruitful and useless noumenon/phenomenon distinction into the drain, where it belongs.

>why don't the noumena fall to occam's razor?
The same reason why the theory of forms, and every other metaphysical system doesn't. Occam's razor undermines the purpose of metaphysics.
>It seems so stupid to me, all we experience is phenomena, and yet this autist comes along and splits the world in two, with one half being literally inaccessible? like wtf?
While we do exclusively experience phenomena, the point Kant tries to make is that we cannot experience a thing in itself. Also, read more in the context of philosphers in his time and the problem he faced.
>what's the point of this? does it explain anything? doesn't the noumenal world need another world beyond that one to explain it? and then another one to explain that one?
It explains that we can only gather knowledge of the outside world through our subjective mind. We cannot really say anything about any thing in the world without experiencing or reasoning using our subjectivity(the categories). Simply said, the world of noumena is the world which is not viewed through our inborn notions of causality, unity, necessity etc. We can't say it whether or not this world has a cause or not, we cannot know.
>why don't we just treat the phenomenal world like we do the noumenal and basically say it exists under it's own force or cause, and doens't need another world to explain it
I mean, it would be hard to act like the outside world isnt actual, but that's probably not your point. You're probably misunderstanding the noumenal world as a seperate dimension, but its literally the world without human notions of what is real.
>and even if we believe in noumena it makes no difference to our experience in everyday life. everyone lives like a direct realist, everyone thinks it's another person they are talking to or hugging and not some private sensory almagamation that may or may not be hooked up to some noumenal other person object out there in some inaccessible reality
Of course, of course, but if you think philosophy should have a direct benefit to your life, or that its invalid or useless when not, it's probably not for you.
>and how does the noumenal even interact with the phenomena?
We do not know and we cannot know.
>I feel like people just see a chair, posit a noumenal chair, intellectually say the noumenal chair is not sensory in any way but in their mind they're just imagining a black and white chair made of atoms, or some shit like that. you can't even talk about noumenal objects without using language which exists only within the phenomenal world
Visualizing the noumenal world is pretty fun, i've got to admit, but you just can't.
So yeah, you should probably read Kant, reading the original text can explain it way better than I can. Be warned though, it's quite abstract, and far from everyday life

>cogito ergo sum
>not "je pens, donc je suis"
how to spot a pseud 101

the meat of descartes' works (discourse and meditations) is like 100 pages, nigger. why wouldn't anyone read the birth of modern philosophy?

>4' manlet
>can't even reach things in themselves
basically

youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

nu-uh u r.

people who dominate don't investigate truth or knowledge. They fabricate it whole cloth and shove down your cuck throat.

Lmao you fucking white people are so God damn crazy. Keep it up guys.

>what this faggot is all about
Sapere aude.

The trouble with the golden rule is not the rule itself, but it is our own points of view and interpretations of what our actions and the actions of others are. The golden rule depends largely on how you would feel about what was done to you.

People often misinterpret each other and misjudge each other's actions (for any number of reasons). Given this, it becomes very difficult to follow the golden rule accurately.

Suppose of a culture where it is customary for a guest who stays the night to sleep in the masters bed and enjoy the company of his wife. Suppose the guest is strongly against adultery. How are these two supposed to follow the golden rule when they are so incompatible?

It is in each persons point of view and interpretation where it becomes difficult to follow the golden rule. It's not impossible, but as you can imagine, there are many examples where two people who have different views can disagree on how the golden rule applies.

For Kant, what's lacking is a truly universal perspective. This is where the categorical imperative differs, the matter is whether the rule can be universalized for all rational agents.

>what's the point of this? does it explain anything?
It explains the perceived distinction between the transcendental and material without rejecting either of them by defining a strict interface between them.
>why don't we just treat the phenomenal world like we do the noumenal and basically say it exists under it's own force or cause
Because we don't say that the noumenal world exist under it's own force or cause.
>not be lost in our little solipsistic bubble worlds
We are not anyways.

tl;dr:
golden rule - a posteriori,
categorical imperative - a priori

>lol why do things

>yet this autist comes along and splits the world in two
does not being able to always see an apple on all sides at the same time require another world
>everyone thinks it's another person they are talking to or hugging
i see skin and clothes but hug something a bit less thin and two-dimensional i mean what if i had a mind to put things together eh
>why even posit noumena?
there's the little fact that scientific progress in order to happen presupposes the unknown
in case you didn't notice when we advance we end up knowing some of what used to be unknown to add it to our knowledge
the novelty being phenomena being peeled away from something from whence the phenomena came from
that something being the noumenon
that noumenon being that unknown asshole thing that prevents us from being already omniscient about your object
the mind is always trying to go past these limitations hence microorganisms being postulated long before the invention or the microscope could show them to us
>intellectually say the noumenal chair is not sensory in any way
because you sense colors and masses not chairs you need a mind to say behold a chair
>do phenomenology
i do phenomenology too but without forgetting the brain's job of interpreting integrating searching and intentionality mostly because this function happens in reality but looking at your post i guess some brains don't
i mean it's bad enough when phenomenologies bully the body as a source of knowledge, the least thing i want is a phenomenology that would bully the mind
>I've never read kant
it shows

>does not being able to always see an apple on all sides at the same time require another world

no, the 'backside' of the apple can be entirely analzyed in terms of our experience. we are not inhabiting a world of mere surfaces facing us, we experience objects as being whole, with us merely incidentally only seeing a particular side of it (all of this is experiential, it doens't mean there's a backside to a material object out there in some 'void')

>i do phenomenology too but without forgetting the brain's job of interpreting integrating searching and intentionality mostly because this function happens in reality but looking at your post i guess some brains don't

so you do phenomenology but assume materialist/realist metaphyscs while doing it, which defeats the purpose?

>entirely analzyed in terms of our experience
which comes from the intellect
>we experience objects as being whole
because the intellect puts them together
>you do phenomenology but assume materialist/realist metaphyscs
name the phenomenologists you read that are anti-realists and/or that did not read kant and/or are anti-intentionality

>the 'backside' of the apple can be entirely analyzed in terms of our experience.
If we take phenomena to be the only reality then each individual perspective would be a different thing in itself. The only way you can think of different perspectives being one and the same is by imagining that there is a single object they are all representations of.

My brainlet mind didn't understand everything in his meditations, though.
I remember thinking that the guy's prose was really hard to follow, too, what with those drawn out sentences.

Forgot the first part of my post where I say that I read Descartes as my introduction to philosophy.

Different intellects mean different phenomena even of the same noumena

True but it leaves the door open for intersubjectivity, understanding and SCIENCE!

And? What are you getting at?

>You just watch yourself. We're elitists. I have library cards on twelve systems.

He created Rick and Morty I thibk

What is your favorite season of Rick and Morty?

checked those satanic trips.

in all honesty, i found his prose very flowing—his self-effacing made him relatable, but there was a subtle wink, i suspected, to the audience. a dash of socratic irony. shame he hated the greeks so much.

i imagine it would be difficult to study him in a course, since his texts are much more suitable to read when you're in the mood. they aren't strong arguments, but they can be powerful. that strength might be missed if you have a professor snorting down your neck, urging you to find the meaning.

i always long for a chance to use this image.

basically this, but replace Hume specifically for empiricism.

You don't need to bother with him. He is wrong. His whole philosophy stems from misunderstanding the meaning of 'reason' in Greek philosophy.
I blame the neoplatonists and their mystical bullshit.

> Is Kant any better?
Only slightly. Just stick to the Greeks.

That's a bad example, because in that case, "treating your neighbour as you would like to be treated" would include avoiding personal violations such as sleeping with another man's wife. It's not ambiguous on either part since one person is positively acting upon another person - the solution is to not act. It doesn't matter if one person feels bad because of an unfulfilled cultural norm - if they don't want to be socially violated then they will not violate others. The golden rule is true regardless of our ability to know what the truth is. The golden rule works in spite of our limitations because we know when we're violating it.
>I want X and I want to give my neighbour X
>My neighbour does not want X
>I would not want to get what I do not want
>Therefore I will not give my neighbour X

But things arent in themselves.

So different perspectives aren't necessarily one and the same, even for the same noumena

Not to us

>"treating your neighbour as you would like to be treated" would include avoiding personal violations such as sleeping with another man's wife
And the other guy would like to be treated the other way around, duh.

>My neighbour does not want X
>I would not want to get what I do not want
You are no longer "treating your neighbour as YOU would like to be treated" but shifting to "treating your neighbour as HE would like to be treated."

You have rewritten the golen rule. You have altered the deal.

>And the other guy would like to be treated the other way around, duh.
Each person wants to do different things. One person wants to do something to the other person and the other person doesn't want to do anything. The solution is not doing anything.
You're only acknowledging 2 needs - the need for monogamy and the need for polygamy. You're not acknowledging the need for respect, i.e. allowing others to have their own needs. That's why this situation violates the golden rule, because each neighbour wants the other to respect them and acknowledge their self-ownership. Both neighbours want to fulfil their cultural needs, but only one can be fulfilled since monogamy and polygamy are incompatible, so the solution is to not act.
>You are no longer "treating your neighbour as YOU would like to be treated" but shifting to "treating your neighbour as HE would like to be treated."
My argument includes that.
>I want X and I want to give my neighbour X
>My neighbour does not want X
>I would not want to get what I do not want
>Therefore I will not give my neighbour X
I do not want something that I do not want. That's how I want to be treated. Therefore when I treat others, I do not give them something that they don't want.
I'm not shifting from ME to MY NEIGHBOUR, I'm simply applying how I want to be treated to my neighbour. Hence "I would not want to get what I do not want".

Example:
>I should treat my neighbour as I would like to be treated
>I would like to be treated to sex
>Therefore I should treat my neighbour to sex
The flaw here is that while I do want to be treated to sex, I do not want to be treated to sex against my will. Therefore I apply that to my neighbour:
>I should treat my neighbour as I would like to be treated
>I would like the freedom to choose my sexual partners
>Therefore I should give my neighbour the freedom to choose their sexual partners

he basically is saying that religion has good ideas, and you don't need religion to express those philosophical perspectives

that's why some people saw him as something of a corrupting voice

he has some good thoughts, but I don't care for the apostasy myself

Bitch, you're fucking retarded.
Here's a simple base case: introverted individuals vs. extroverted individuals. Extroverts would take introverts treating them as they would like to be treated as painfully awkward and annoying, while for introverts, being treated by extroverts as they in turn would like to be treated would be stressful.

Individual A enjoys loud music.
Individual B likes to read in silence.
Wrecked nerves on both sides is the immediate outcome from applying >muh golden rule.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post.

We already deal with this in real life. Shy people get left alone and outgoing people get attention.
Also, extroverts don't want to be talked to all the time. They want their neighbours to leave them alone WHEN they want to be left alone (during sleep, when they're studying, when they don't feel like talking etc.) Therefore they treat their neighbours that way. The extrovert leaves the neighbour alone if the neighbour wants to be left alone - since the extrovert also wouldn't want to be bothered in situations where they wouldn't want to be bothered. It's really a self-evident rule because it prevents you from doing what you do not want. Don't do what you don't want to be done (which is the silver rule, but is contained within the golden rule).
>Individual A enjoys loud music.
>Individual B likes to read in silence.
This isn't a problem with the golden rule, this is again an issue of exclusivity (like polygamy and monogamy being mutually exclusive). You can only have either loud music or silence. The world is a scarce place and people have to make compromises with each other. The golden rule isn't responsible for giving us infinite resources.

What a load of bullshit. have you lived in a bubble your entire life? A simple sojourn on a college campus will easily disprove all those claims.

But college campuses are extremely scarce in resources (space) and full of people who disregard the golden rule (and even the silver rule). When students did live by the golden rule, campuses were much better.

They aren't identical and I never claimed they were.
I said they are one and the same in the sense that we think of them of representing one and the same thing.
If we think of someone else as perceiving the same thing as we do then our representations are of the same thing even if they differ.
The apple that I see is the same apple that you see even if we see it in a different way. If only phenomena existed then the apple that I saw would be a different apple than the one you saw etc.

I mean, he had a BIG forehead, like REALLY BIG forehead, I mean like a REALLY REALLY BIG forehead which made like REALLY logical n shieet. Like he had IQ bigger than Jordan Petersons IQ

>je pens, donc je suis
>pens
back to your french 101, kiddo'

>implying the meat of Descartes' work is not in his letters
user, I....

>*je penis, donc je suis

Pardon me.

...

>Lmao you fucking white people are so God damn crazy. Keep it up guys.

t. soulless Jewish shill

Nice try, kikeboiii, but we're on to """you're""" shit - it's called the Turing test, and like all Jews, you've failed.

...

Then you shouldn't say the perspectives are one and the same because that's the opposite of what you mean. You should say the noumena behind the perspectives are one and the same, though desu we can't even know that

>You should say the noumena behind the perspectives are one and the same
I already did.
>though desu we can't even know that
But we do.

You didn't in your original one and the same post.

>but we do
Literally how?

>Literally how?
On the basis of our a priori knowledge of the unity of space and time.

How do you have that knowledge?

A priori.

>a type of knowledge is the same as how specifically you get that knowledge

Yes, when the purpose of the classification is to distinguish the between the ways knowledge is obtained.

Obvious when I say specifically I mean more in depth than simply a priori or a posteriori you obtuse twat

Define "in depth".

At a more explanatory level

Based on the physiological constitution of my mind. Better?