I wonder how many people on Veeky Forums have actually read this

Me da tol peresote loko

Read parts of it for school. Fuck Kant.

Kant irreparably damaged philosophy.

Progressivism is neo-Calvinist and can be traced as far back as Calvin all the way through Kant's malignant attempt at creating a secular Christianity (thus tainting philosophy forever), up through the Puritans and it now manifests itself in modern day progressives. The Enlightenment was the opening of Pandora's Box.

Leftism goes through what is called "holiness spirals", it is a Foucaultian function of any organization or power structure.

bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/leftism-is-just-an-easy-excuse/

>has never read Kant
>stumbles across some bullshit article posted on a conservative blog
>"Kant is shit lol"
You're not convincing anyone you fucking moron

Stop projecting.

The Categorical Imperative is literally "Do unto others" reformulated into secular fedora ideology.

Also

>conservative blog

Lmao

Stop using buzzwords you don't understand

Stop projecting your ignorance of the definition of "projection" onto other people.

>it is a Foucaultian function
Kill yourself.

sounds like you've actually never read kant m8

there isn't such thing as "projecting" stop reading freud and other shits of the likes

Kant is butt. Never read him, but Nietzdche/Heidegger in Being and Time/loads of other philosophers have debunked him, so I dont feel the need to.

Then again, I really enjoyed Descartes even though his ideas were really outdated/debunked as well, so maybe his books are alright *shrugs*

Never post again.

Growing up in a Christian family/active Christian church makes me feel a sick boredom whenever I read philosophers proofs about "god." Anyone else feel this way? Everything else about Descartes is good stuff familial.

muh Kant-san

Descartes and Locke were shit there, but Kant had a point and Aquinas was right.

>
>Kant had a point and Aquinas was right

How deluded can one be?

>Kant
>lucid
>pick one

Ive only read the Groundwork. I want to read the Republic, A's Metaphysics, Nicho. Ethics, and De Anima before I return to him. And probably the Rationalists and atleast some Hume.

Im super bad at finishing long works though. Its gonna be a rough ride.

I have. Its good, if autistic.

What the fuck? You CLEARLY havent read Kant, he specifically shows the the CI is nothing like the Golden rule. The CI is the result of searching for something necessary, universal, and apodectic. It exists necessarily.

I tried reading it but German is Greek to me.

>the result of searching for something necessary, universal, and apodectic. It exists necessarily.

Wow, almost just like Christian apologetics! In fact, it's almost like Kant just took Universalist Christfag slave morality and reformulated it into facile and rationalist secular-Christian terms, and it's almost like neither fedoric progressives nor Christfags are willing to acknowledge their very obvious shared history! It's almost like you would think a board who fetishizes Hegel so much would understand the implications of his philosophy! But they don't!

>DUDE DO UNTO OTHERS BECAUSE IF THEY DID MEAN THINGS TO YOU, YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT VERY MUCH NOW WOULD YOU LMAO

You show no understanding of the categorical imperative - and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw the recent thread in which I explained the difference.

I've read the whole thing. Ask me anything

What's the argument of the B-deduction? A quick sketch will do.

First year of uni. Phil 101

Yeah desu the metaphysical deduction went a little over my head. Is the gist that the 12 categories are a priori and inform experience? They're necessary for experience? I don't know the specifics

I think user was asking about the B version of the transcendental deduction.

You linked to the OP. At least link to your first post in the thread so I can discern your thought process.

I'm not going to sift through that thread to find out whether or not you've actually read Kant. Explain why that post was wrong or don't, your choice.

If you cared enough to know how you might be wrong, you'd skim that short thread, or search for key terms, and find the post much more quickly than it took you to type your response. If my post didn't stand out there, I would have been more specific here.

No, but I'm curious to know what the argument is.

I assume it's something like - Language is an extremely unreliable medium wherein you can only illustrate, not quantify. Therefore reason and logic, as institutions of language, are automatically suspect.

I translated it.

Hell of a project. Not sure I'd ever do another one of his books.

This. I really enjoyed it. There's a lot of repetition that makes some sections a bit tedious, but also ensures that you aren't left with any doubts about your understanding of his argument. I read it through once without notes and I came away feeling genuinely enlightened. Moving on to Schopenhauer and knowing what he was talking about was a lot of fun too. I'll happily read it again if I ever start studying philosophy properly.

What are you so upset about, the fact that there is no spontaneous creation of ideas and every human being and their thoughts is shaped by their experiences in this world?

You are putting Kant about 120 years ahead of himself.
The book is simply about how we know stuff exists. You won't find anything as fluffy as a discussion about illustrations or institutions.

Complete waste of time. Have to dissect every sentence. Believed nothing was wrong if you could just logic it out. Total asshat.

Idk, obviously a lot since most people aren't thomists.

I am an empiricist, I do not need to read this fantasy from a rationalist too butthurt by an empiricist beforehand.

Then you'll never understand how essential empiricism was to Kant's account of knowledge.

no one on lit reads

Cover to cover. Pure shit.

>Kant irreparably damaged philosophy.
This.

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

read it in college where it's mandated. don't remember much. something about politeness.

What's the best English translation of the Critique of Pure Reason? I've heard bad things about the Penguin Classics edition.

What does it mean then? Context wise
1) Kant put a sense on the general ideas that were roaming?
2) Kant ideas had been already completely absorbed by that point....either because a) They were common around the Enlightment b) He had a great reasonance.

3) ?
I pick them the same way I would religion or a buffet, in this case of ideas, trying to savor what each mean but having only what I like in the plate without necessarily hating the rest.

Considering the wide spectrum of ideas that one's philosophy can cover and the benefict of seeing things from an outside perspective, it can be easier discern their own contradictions and/or what we may not like.

I liked Descartes from the little I saw but I shortly found that he contradicted himself, Kant seemed more honest about doing so, treating them as light and necessary compromises, like saying that yes, the "metaphysical" has no place as science but we cannot outright deny it for the mind is inevitably drawn to it.

Nietzsche is probably one of the greatest Kantian interpreters since he takes Kant's synthetic apriori to it's logical conclusion against any form of metaphysics, may it be historical (Hegel/Marx) or even ideological (Schopenhauer)

Nietzsche's will to power admits Kant's argument against anything beyond reason and admits it to be a simple transcendental projection by the subject.

So yeah, no

That is the rationalists view, which leads to a dogma where the mind does not question its methods nor uses experience, at least don't pretend you have not read it.

>"When Galilei let balls of a particular weight, which he had determined himself, roll down an inclined plain, or Torricelli made the air carry a weight, which he had previously determined to be equal to that of a definite volume of water; or when, in later times, Stahl1 changed metal into lime, and lime again into metals, by withdrawing and restoring something, a new [xiii] light flashed on all students of nature. They comprehended that reason has insight into that only, which she herself produces on her own plan, and that she must move forward with the principles of her judgments, according to fixed law, and compel nature to answer her questions, but not let herself be led by nature, as it were in leading strings, because otherwise accidental observations, made on no previously fixed plan, will never converge towards a necessary law, which is the only thing that reason seeks and requires. Reason, holding in one hand its principles, according to which concordant phenomena alone can be admitted as laws of nature, and in the other hand the experiment, which it has devised according to those principles, must approach nature, in order to be taught by it: but not in the character of a pupil, who agrees to everything the master likes, but as an appointed judge, who compels the witnesses to answer the questions which he himself proposes."

A rare example of Kant writing an example. nice

Get the Cambridge edition - translated by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood.

How many read the bible? Much more important text.

But reading him would show Eckermann the things he takes for granted.

>They comprehended that reason has insight into that only
nice projecting here.
Rationalist always cling to their dream that their speculations are less speculative than they admit.
The bastardization of empiricism by the rationalist is the most obvious attempt to legitimize the fantasies of those rationalist, who always despise empiricism: to them, there must always be something else behind what is felt and they terrorize people who are not embracing their deliriums.

>debunked

Die.

That is simply not true. You are not shaped by your experiences.
why do I say this? Based on what? Well, do some actual philosophy instead of parroting well known ideas.

You're a Kant

Statistics gives a framework to create models and validate them. It won't create a valid model from nothing for you.

look out user, that is not a nietzsche to say, he might come bach

>it's like this, so it is this
yeah ok bud

are you ever afraid that people even those that might be dissed as stupid, have the potential to interpret anything for anything?

I'll read this, and will be pleased if any of these Objectivists understand Kant rather than mischaracterize him shallowly.

Such an Objectivist would be the first one I've come across.

This is correct.
Also think about getting a copy of the Prolegomena, which is pretty helpful if you're trying to read the first Critique. The Hatfield translation for Cambridge is the standard, but the Oxford Philosophical Texts one by Zoeller is probably also fine.

What actual philosophy argues against the influence of personal experience on personal beliefs? Pre socratics?

ITT: Christians think their religion invented the idea of being nice to people

It's actually true

You do know most people who consider themselves progressives are not Christian, and vise-versa, right? Most, if not all Christians, are "conservatives." You seem to keep lumping them together, even though most liberals are not particularly religious, in less mainstream religions then Christianity, or are even atheist.

Except ofc that Kant personally apologizes for how diffuse the writing is in the very same book.

But i'm not leaning either way, I find it acceptable.

Rationalists spend their energy trying to convince you that their abstractions are valid and matters.

He apologized for the first edition
I really doubt that person is talking about the first edition Kant wrote

t. Scharlatan

>missing the point this badly

>debunked
>*shrugs*

Max...?

kant