Kant is the definitive philosopher

I'm not surprised that this thread exists, only disappointed.

>is affected by causality
>"real nature"
among other things, unfalsifiable statements. they aren't grounded in observable reality.

>The famous falsifiability test for scientific hypothesis rests on Kantian foundations.
no, you're thinking Hume. Kant's writing is riddled with non-sequitor. he wasted a lot of time trying to objectify ethics.

>Prove me wrong
but you are not wrong
he is the last philosopher that progressed philosophy

>implying Schopenhauer didn't improve on Kant at every level

Consider me ignorant but I've never really found philosophy all that important anyway.

Tell me. Why are the words of men who died long ago who waxed on and on until they reached obvious conclusions wrapped in pretty, unnecessarily verbose words important? Not even trolling, it just seems like philosophy is completely unnecessary to both study and think about.

Its apparent truths to those who study it don't even apply to everyone, universally.

Truth the layman is parroting what a philosopher said without accrediting them. It's a hell of a lot easier to understand something explained to you than to come up with the idea yourself. For example, most Westerners are non-heliocentric and would say it's an inarguable truth. Because it's seen as truth today doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult concept to understand or prove or that Gallileo's work was pointless.

You stand on the shoulders of giants but you find what you rest on so solid, stable, and rational you mistake it for ground.

That's a rather respectable viewpoint you have there. I guess I'd forgotten that all of the conclusions I've come to know as truth had to go through many years upon years of testing, theorizing, proving and overall work.

Truth is hard to prove when you've no means of proving it at first outset. Thank you user.

>The famous falsifiability test for scientific hypothesis rests on Kantian foundations.
Karl Poppers
But I do get your point.

I was like you a long time ago, but read some or get a summary and you'll get it. It's not about living it's about the conception of life, the method we should use to grasp it and how to fulfill our primary desires.
You don't see it because you can't understand it but philosophy is all around you and thinking about it is better than just go with the flow. When Pascal, Spinoza, Descartes and every other modern rationalist write, they wash away centuries of beliefs and suppositions about life, they conceptualize a method that helps us understand the outside of ourselves and our psyché. Spinoza reminds us that our will isn't that free, by using rationalism and geometry he destroys a conception about God. Descartes denies casual thinking and non-rational beliefs to seek truth in its universal form and create a cartesian way of resolving a matter. And you will find more, my point is that no matter how bored you are about thinking the world, in the end you will act on it so why don't you plan it ? Should we only believe what we see ? Can we conceptualize a superior being ? Can we find truths that won't ever break to subjectivity ?

You don't need to cogitate like these people do, it's just about having a small safe coherence that holds to your own understanding of the world.

I'd advice you to get some sum up books about philosophy, just to get their points. You don't seem eager to read 500 pages to only find the sample of an answer and half a truth.

Just this, that we can't know the phenomena of nature as they are in themselves (naive realism) without the observing subject contributing something to the picture and thus distorting it. This is an experimental confirmation of what Western philosophy had already known since Kant.

Ah yes, Kant was brilliant but not perfect. I think Stirner or Nietzche would like to have a word with him about his bloody universal and dogmatic ethic code, which is oblivious to any concept of relativity or context. There can't be objective truth as there can't be a moral code universal to ALL individuals, disregarding socio-economic and historical context.

>To have read Herodotus is, from a philosophical point of view, to have studied enough history.

I too am partial to Schoppy's synthesis of Kant with Plato and Indian philosophy.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Just off the top of my head:

I don't think Kant says we distort the nature of the thing in itself by observing it.

It also seems unlikely that there should be any kind of empirical verification of Kant's philosophy.

I also doubt any empirical facts could help us to distinguish truth from falsity in comparing Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Early or Late Nietzsche on the Noumena. That is to say, no experiment will tell us if Kant or anybody else was right about this or that matter of german metaphysics.

DESU, the idea of empirical facts proving something about transcendental philosophy sounds like a completely incoherent take on transcendental philosophy

From little I've read about and from him, his epistemology is absolutely dead on accurate and tidy as fuck; but his search for an ethic system so hard as the former betrays itself.

>Kantian epistemology is confirmed by the double-slit experiment.

yeah no...

Just because they counter the same perspective does not mean they represent the same concept.

well put