Deduces God and the immortality of the soul

*Prime mover or God sorry guys

>Aristotelian ethics solves

He said you cannot prove or disprove either of those you filthy fucking Jacobiposter.

seething

he was also a 4'2" manlet, couldn't reach the things in themselves

If you faggots would actually consider the words that you were reading you would understand that Kant believed beyond a shadow of a doubt in the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul.

Thats cool and all but it has nothing to do with his philosophy

His whole morality is contingent upon the existence of a supreme being.

>morality is contingent on a spook

Color me surprised

It has everything to with his philosophy you impudent troll. His whole philosophy rests on the basis of it.

Not at all, it seems you haven't read the critique

You fool. If truth is to have any meaning it cannot be so except by having the supreme being as its condition.

Proposterous, that's not only not Kantian its not even Post-Cartesian

>thinks it's grug worthy
>lives in post-Enlightenment thought bubble

how the hell did this mixup even happen, they look nothing alike

Does shitposting on Veeky Forums bring you closer to the prime mover?

Brilliant discussion

Unironically believing that Aristotle had everything figured out is the most brainlet thing imaginable.

Yes, hence the relevance to practical reason, rather than pure reason. The idea of God is, in his words, a "supremely useful idea," in the sense that it gives a moral structure to society, and allows a place for reason to "rest." But he nevertheless recognizes that it is absolutely impossible to prove from a purely speculative standpoint the existence of this being. However, given that it is impossible to prove the existence of this being due to the inability of reason to transgress its sphere, it is equally impossible to disprove this being using the same method.

When you search "Kant" in google images pictures of Jacobi come up. When you search "Stirner" you get some pictures of Rudolph Steiner, which I suppose is a more forgivable error. Just people using the internet thoughtlessly. I myself have done it

Nah, it's the basis though

Only when it came his organon, poetics and to a lesser extent politics. When it comes to practically every other domain Aristotle was stumbling around in the dark, barely more dignified than today's youtube intellectuals

Ok then nigga? Einstein has mental retardation when it came to philosophy and politics, but that doesn't say a damn about the legitimacy of relativity theory.

That wasnt a good point lol, more of a red herring really

DAYUM! Kant looked like THAT!?

My point is in the domain of ethics he had very little to say of substance if anything

he was a hot piece of ass

kant was also very well-liked by his peers and students, and was locally famous for his dinner parties.

>tfw an anthropoid monkey was the smartest philosopher ever

GET OFF MY BOARD YOU FUCKING CHRISTFAGGOT

this is a catholic board, there's no need to be upset

I'd rather think Germans couldn't draw. Whoever looked like that would be post-birth aborted.

It really is, but man I see a lot of spiritual pride here. Perhaps that's the nature of being a vibrant but young and brash believer. I know I had a problem with pridefulness in my faith. And I still catch myself doing it. And by "spiritual pride," I refer to how St. John of the Cross defined it.

Perhaps I'm overshooting, but what do you think?

>Immanuel Kunt

>spiritual pride
What a fancy way to say identity politics posers. Christfags look at their churches the same way Farrakhan looks at Black Panther.

Thank fuck someone here gets it. Kant rightly realized that God isn't provable but is a superlative basis for morality.

bruv, what?
The term is referring to a man who gets furious over the little faults of others or that he is supreme over others in regard to his faith and practice, often belittling his brothers and sisters in Christ

Kant realised that God is not provable from his own very questionable premises that have a lot of other necessary conclusions which unfortunately people do not realise when they cherrypick his agnosticism.

Yeah and I don't believe in it, every zealot I've saw was a disgusting sinner. Not even Christian but I can't stand people who don't even respect their own moral code.

Nice anecdote chap

That's anecdotal and okay?

I'm not affirming bad/sinful behavior, but you do realize that a person is not perfect? Christian != perfect, or religious person != perfect

I don't see how you would deny Peter because of Judas, so to speak.

>disgusting sinner
>don't even respect their own moral code

Geez man, don't you want to help them? make them good? It's easy to point a finger, but harder to lend a hand.

Did Kant or someone else ever address the following criticism of his categorical imperative?
>You can't become a carpenter because you wouldn't want 'become a carpenter' to be a universal law - a carpenter only world would probably be very shitty.

Obviously this may be a gross over-simplification in which case I'd be happy to be educated.

I swear I feel everyone romanticizes their personal experience to paint a whole mural to describe a collective of people when in reality that paintbrush of an experience can only handle a small canvas the the individual involved in the experience.

It feels more poetic to vow to never be a Christian.
>Because I have been oh so wronged by a man that bares little jurisdiction on my life, I shant be Christian ever! Woe is me, I could never come to truth for this evil that clearly is universal, for there is no conceivable doubt! Damn, you God! You have given me the hyperbolic scapegoat of a single bad man against the vast entirety that is good!

you need to explain how becoming a carpenter is a moral dilemma first
you don't use the categorical imperative to determine whether calculating the tangent of a triangle is moral, because sure, a society where everyone calculates the tangents of all triangles sounds impossible and undesirable, but it's not a moral action unless you add more context that could possibly make it so.

yes and one needn’t accept Aristotelean ethics to be an atheist

>also
the (non-)universalisability of a maxim has nothing to do with the (un-)desirability of the world in which the maxim is universalised :)

I don't know why people wanna criticise things (not U but the person you're responding to) without having even tried to read it

>I don't know why people wanna criticise things (not U but the person you're responding to) without having even tried to read it
I did not pretend to have read Kant. I just know of this argument and wanted some insight/debunking.
>the (non-)universalisability of a maxim has nothing to do with the (un-)desirability of the world in which the maxim is universalised :)
Can you elaborate on that? How does that relate to what I said?
Is my original example un-universalizable? Is the tangent-triangle world?
Can a un-universalizable maxim still be desirable - and vice versa?

j-man?

Jordan Beep Eaterson?

Who's this
>j-man
?

are u jesus?

psych, I wish though

I strive to emulate Jesus

...

>the prime moover = God

See
I said Prime mover or God.
(PvG), not (PG)

We just gonna ignore how Kant and Heidegger messed up Aquinas' distinction between existence and essence? Yeah? Okay.
Okay listen retards, in Aquinas the notion of Being that runs through creatures fails to carry over to God, as Heidegger seems to have thought. Aquinas variously expresses the notion of being common to creatures as ens commune and as ens inquantum ens. Aquinas related God to ens commune not as an instance thereof but as the transcending cause of ens commune. God is not under ens commune but above it. It is of course true that Aquinas sees esse as analogically common to God and creatures. But one must be careful to conceive this position correctly. The analogon of esse is not even intelligibly prior to God. Rather, the divine analogate instantiates the analogon. God is ipsum esse subsistens. All other esse is esse accidentale.
So Kant's and Heidegger's criticisms of the NeoAristotelianism of Aquinas are completely misguided. They would be valid if Aquinas did not think God to transcend ens commune, but he did. Aquinas did not fall into onto-theology like Heidegger claimed.
Also
>thinking Kant's metaphysics are good

Also, expanding upon this Hegel fucking annihilated Kant and his famous
>existence is not a predicate

>ignores Gilson, Maritain, Anscombe, Geach, Haldane, MacIntyre, de Lubac, Charles Taylor, Jean Porter, and Alice M. Ramos

you’re going to have to cite where heidegger says this specifically and argue from there otherwise im inclined to disbelieve you as you’re a christfag and that means a liar

Explain this without the jargon. Are you saying that God is substantial essence, or essential substance?

Also, cite this Hegel, because Kant never said "existence is not a predicate," he said, "existence is not a real predicate," his meaning being, that existence is a logical predicate, not that it is not at all a predicate.

>Aquinas
Why do anglos butchered his name in such a horrible manner? He's fucking San Tommaso.

religitards fuck off

literally read Being and Time, where he accuses all previous metaphysics as falling into onto-theology

...

read Hegel's Phenomenology and SoL.

God is the subsistent act of existence itself. God's very essence is existence.

Me understanding Aquinas' arguments for what they really are does not necessitate that I be Christian. I'm actually a panendeist, a synthesis of NeoSpinozism and Hegel

William Blake was well-liked and famous for singing his poetry at dinner parties, but it doesn't negate the fact that he was a hardcore autist.

Ok, but what's the criticism?

That is the very problem Kant had with this idea of God. How can you say he didn't understand it?

Idk did Kant not see that God isn't contingent?

From the definition of God, he admits this, but his issue is with arguing from a definition in this case.

So the point I'm making is, the idea that by definition God's essence includes existence has a section devoted to it in CoPR entitled "Of the Impossibility an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God." He explains quite clearly why this argument does not hold water. It is because the idea of existence is a logical predicate, not a real one, i.e., the idea of existence adds nothing to a concept, this is why it is called the "copula." To judge that something exists in the phenomenal world requires an experience of it, and this is the very thing the argument seeks to circumvent.

I would like to know what Hegel's criticism was, if someone has actually read PoS (I haven't yet), instead of just having someone say "muh PoS muh Science of Logic read Hegel"

Kant described his solution to the problems of dogmatism, on the one hand, and Hume's skepticism about causality, on the other, as a Copernican turn in philosophy. It is not our minds that conform to the world, in the manner that Descartes, Locke, and Hume would have it, but the other way around: it is the conceptual activity of our minds on what is given to us in sensation that creates the world as it appears to us.
Kant pays a price for this move: since the world as it appears to us is necessarily a product of what is intuited in sensation as structured by the activity of the transcendental subject, he must give up the possibility of perceiving or conceiving anything about the world as it is in itself, independently of our mental activities. Kant has given up on metaphysics in order to explain the possibility of knowledge. In that move we arrive at the famous distinction between phenomena, that which appears to us as it must appear to us, and noumena, or the things in themselves.
Hegel's critique of Kant centers on this distinction. Following on the ground laid by Fichte and Schelling in the post-Kantian elaboration of the critical philosophy, Hegel holds that we do in fact have the noumena in thought -- for Kant has the thing itself in mind when he conceives of it as that about which we can know nothing!
What Hegel is saying, then, is that by positing the limit to thought, Kant has inadvertently brought what is beyond thought back into thought. What is by definition unthinkable is nevertheless being thought in the very process of making the point. This has two central consequences for Hegel's project:
1. The identity of subject and object. Since the noumenal is revealed as another manifestation of phenomena, what is unthinkable is also thinkable. Since what is thinkable depends on the necessary conceptual activity of rational beings, the consequence is that the noumenal world beyond thought is also dependent upon thought. The Kantian subject is identical with its own object.

2. The priority of flux or change over what is fixed and given. There is a contradiction in point (1): what is posited as unthinkable is, at the same time, thinkable. Ordinarily, we could not say that "p" and "not-p" are simultaneously true. One of Hegel's innovations (or mistakes, depending on who you ask) is the acceptance of true contradictions in the form of the determinate negation. Hegel's project in the Phenomenology of Mind is a working-through of the unfolding of consciousness and Reason as it begins with immediate sense-certainties. What Hegel argues is that what seems to us as given in immediate sensation is anything but; to focus on a "bit" of sensation, say a patch of color or a flavor, is not to grasp an object-like thing, but to actually experience an underlying process. Colors and tastes change in intensity; so do all of our sensory perceptions and concepts in thought. What seems to us as a fixed and orderly Being is unmasked as a deeper process of historically-unfolding becoming.
The upshot of these two points is that the Kantian subject, understood as the transcendental and universal synthetic a priori knowledge that necessarily structures our perceptions and conceptions, loses its "given" status. For Hegel, even that subject is a historically-contingent outcome of a process of nature struggling with itself in light of the dialectical contradiction. Thus what Kant posits as the timeless and universal structure of thought is, in actuality, conditioned by its own process of development. What Kant saw in us was not given, but itself a part of history's unfolding towards the Absolute.

the reason I say read Hegel is because the differences are so great that it would take an entire fucking book to find the differences between them.

how do you survive here, jesus?

I try my best to be nice and not go on /soc/

I aint Jesus man. But if you were just invoking the Lord's name, then I shall say: What a beautiful name

>for Kant has the thing itself in mind when he conceives of it as that about which we can know nothing!
I guess I will have to read Hegel to see how he explains this, because this seems like a glaring misunderstanding of the noumenal.

Its simplistic but its not entirely a misunderstanding

Becoming a carpenter doesn't fall under the purview of the categorical imperative, but under the hypothetical imperative

i'm oversimplifying Hegel's argument, he's far too verbose to really summarize without turning it into a strawman. That's why i think reading hegel directly is important.

if jesus were real he'd come to this board and try to get us of the right path. you may not be jesus (not totally convinced), but you certainly seem to know the path to him. Can I follow (y)our path to him?

Yeah I always thought the same about that argument. His philosophy of history is too cool to ignore though so idgaf.

Well, God makes certain men instruments of peace, as Saint Francis would put it. I'm only an instrument to Christ and I know the path as much I can, though I trail off many times. But, user, please follow me on this path towards the Lord our God.

I'm not Jesus. If I were and you refer to me as Jesus, under the impression that I am the Godman, the true Son of God, I would reply to you as such:

"You are the one who has said it."

But I did not say anything along those lines. Ergo, I'm not Jesus.

Okay, jesus

>the most important question of philosophy has nothing to do with philosophy

pwease stop ;-(

How do homosexuality and suicide fall under the categorical imperative?

Whether he personally believed that or not notwithstanding, it is not reflected as a necessary element of his philosophy.

de Lubac wasn't a thomist and he took most of his inspiration from condemned figures of Mirandola, Origen and Chardin.

in later writings he became more of a thomist

Based norm

I'm saying there is little in his philosophy that suggested one to believe in God

Maybe if you're a brainlet