Kant was such a top lad...

Yes, that is exactly the content of my post.

Reading Kant is like following the adventures of a fox who breaks into the hen house, then leaves hungry, unable to bring himself to bring the act to its ultimate logical conclusion.

Elaborate

I think he's saying that Kant shrinks from the logical conclusions to his own philosophic investigations.

Nah, he meant Kant opened up a can of worms that couldn't be closed again.

>5'0"

No thanks

>dude what if we like, cant know anything and space + time are just in our head?? *rips bong*
>dude categorical imperative is totally a formal way to test morality and totally doesn't presuppose morals

What a fucking heck.

i know this is bait but

the categorical imperative is based completely on reason - it's not about whether you think lying is wrong and if everybody did it that would be completely awful and that's why you should do it. rather, lying (as in breaking a promise) is rationally inconsistent - the mere act of making a promise with the intent of breaking it is an inherent contradiction, which is the reason that if you universalize said maxim you have untenable results and should therefore not lie.

if you give up the categorical imperative, you give up rationality. if you give up rationality, you give up consistency. if you give up consistency, you lose any attempt at some sort of cohesive ethical system. fortunately for you, kant's his well formulated, explained, practical, intuitive, and so on, so you don't need to worry about shouting something about spooks and nihilism in every philosophy thread!

Morality isn't rational.

The fact that individual people have vastly different moral axioms by definition should make you understand this.

Kant is good, but the Erlangen School realist interpretation of his thought is even better.

>actually caring about ethics

LOL

The amount of ontological relativists and american pragmatists on this board proves the majority of this board is no older than 20 years old.

>b-b-but muh epistemological anarchy and shiet

the fact that, as you claim, morality isn't "rational" (I'm assuming you mean based on rationality, as morality itself cannot strictly be described as rational") is a completely different claim than that it ought to be ideally. utilizing my previous example, i never claimed that it's impossible for people to break promises; i just explained kant's reasoning for labelling such an act as immoral, which for him is upon the grounds of rationality.

it's not about individual people's "personal moral axioms" (which is an incoherent phrase to bring up considering we're talking about supposedly universal ethical systems). it doesn't matter if people have different personal axioms, although i think that you know there isn't very much truth to this. the point is that you can analyze the actions of individuals by using reason - that's the rationale behind basing an ethical system on rationality. it's not that one's actions ought to be based on reason - they routinely aren't. rather, reason comes into play when we're attempting to decide whether or not an action is moral.

>actually caring about the most practical, relevant, and interesting branch of philosophy

eat my ass dawg

But in what sense do you mean 'contradiction'? It is not a logical contradiction to lie and break a promise you have made, because the idea that someone might do so is perfectly conceivable.

It may be contradictory in the sense that there can be no good reason for doing it, that the reasons for making a promise in the first place are undermined by the decision to break the promise, but this is clearly a matter for conjecture.

>(which is an incoherent phrase to bring up considering we're talking about supposedly universal ethical systems).

Yeah but that's the point moron. There's no such thing as an "universal ethical system", since what people do and do not consider moral, is completely up to them subjectively.

I can choose at this moment to consider murder moral, and start killing people, and there's literally no argument that exists, that can prove it immoral, because, as I said, morality is not based on reason.

>not analyzing how one should react to phenomena

lel

Straight from high school reasoning.

No it isn't, but your answer was indeed.

>>actually caring about the most practical, relevant

you forgot boring

>and interesting branch of philosophy

metaphysics?

To be fair you could say the same about most significant post-classical philosophers

I want to ask if you were serious when you were typing this message. It looks so affected and milquetoast. Were you?

Kant's dates were 1724-1804. The earliest photographs, or photographic technological results began to be produced from circa 1825-1840, and so it would not have been possible to have photographed Kant during his life. A painting or other sort of image, but not a photograph.

You can believe that and be consistent with your reasoning, I think he is saying your morals can't be considered reasonable and thus useful if you have inconsistencies

fedora-tier babble that abuses philosophical terms. get to reading

That is by definition what he did in the 2nd Edition, which is why Schopenhauer/etc preferred the first.

He actually writes something to the effect of "I had to limit knowledge to make room for faith."

Actually, Kant posits that space/time are constructs of our mind AND that they exist independently of the mind. Think of omnipresence - they exist within, and without.

Kant's philosophy is the philosophy of civil servants.

Keep doing your duty because it is your duty, kek.

Why does he look like a nigga?

>That is by definition what he did in the 2nd Edition, which is why Schopenhauer/etc preferred the first.

Some philosophers (such as, indeed, Schopenhauer) find the second edition to be worse than the first because of Kants attempts to make his philosophy appear less idealistic, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

>Kant posits that space/time are constructs of our mind AND that they exist independently of the mind.

No. Where'd you get that from?

CPR.

You might want to consider a second reading then, lad.

Kant is worthwhile in that he formulated certain problems, but his solutions are totally inadequate. Schopenhauer rightly laughs at Kant's autism in his critique.

He might be thinking of Kant's asserting that space and time are 'empirically real' *and* 'transcendentally ideal'. This doesn't mean quite what it seems he thinks it means, but is suggestive, and Kant might be leaning a bit on the equivocal quality of the terms.

>He might be thinking of Kant's asserting that space and time are 'empirically real' *and* 'transcendentally ideal'.

Ah, yes, that's a conceivable source of confusion.

>This doesn't mean quite what it seems he thinks it means, but is suggestive, and Kant might be leaning a bit on the equivocal quality of the terms

Fair point.

He's right, though.

What a shit thread, you call this philosophy; I call this garbage. del

Having fun affirming your own false interpretation, lad?

>reason
That's a presupposition mate.

kek

Kant's major insight is that both science and ethics are founded upon presuppositions necessary to these enterprises that are nevertheless only circularly demonstrable.

This is not to say that the practice of science or moral philosophy is pointless or empty or meaningless, but only that their claims have a prescribed domain.