Where did Kant go wrong?

>(which is why all negroes stink)
A literal Kant quote.
isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic97823.files/I_/Sept_27/KANT.pdf

He believed darker skin was a clear sign of stupidity.
>universialization
This is like when people think the "all men are born equal" thing refers to anyone who isn't a traditional white (preferably Germanic) auto-didactic man with typical sexual proclivities.
The intellectual titans of the 18th century, or of any time really would be rendered incredulous by the current zeitgeist so I don't think its fair to act as though they are the seeds of contemporary liberalism - in my mind, few things are further from the truth.

>This is like when people think the "all men are born equal" thing refers to anyone who isn't a traditional white (preferably Germanic) auto-didactic man with typical sexual proclivities.

You literally understand nothing. "All men are created equal" is an invocation of natural law which means that rationalism informs us that all of mankind possesses equal natural rights and that no man is sovereign over another man. This was a challenge of the idea of the "divine rights of kings".

Also, Benjamin Franklin and the other founders were Anglo-supremacists. Franklin wrote that the Germans weren't white (other than the Saxons) and that they were of swarthy complexion.

Thinking human actions follow something like a natural law

he thought indians had a sense of humour. he's alright man, you just trolled.

He tried to disprove Hume, and instead of being intellectually honest and admitting he was wrong, did a bunch of handwaving and goal post moving to make it look like he pushed Hume's shit in.

>someone got taken in by Hume's prose
>thinks Kant intentionally calling that out and not doing that was handwaving
>when Hume blew himself the fuck out of being right or wrong with induction anyways
man, it's fucking over just walk away

The Anglo supremacy is unquestionable,
>On July 6, 1776, the first committee for the production of the Great Seal of the United States convened. One of three members of the committee, Thomas Jefferson, proposed that one side of the seal feature Hengist and Horsa, "the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we assumed".

Though I do think the prevailing attitudes of the revolutionaries changed, perhaps out of necessity, to a state were other European men could be assumed as potentially equal (socially, economically etc.) I said preferably Germanic, because the preference for the English is maintained despite a war with England, and dutch seems less other than Spanish or Russian.

>all of mankind possesses equal natural rights
>perpetuate chattel slavery and the confiscation of land from a race with a greater claim to indemnity

You say invocation of natural law, I think it was more a refutation of the feudal class structure and vestigial old world dogmas that legitimized them.

>This was a challenge of the idea of the "divine rights of kings".

You say I understand nothing, they rebelled against George III, a largely emasculated Hanoverian whose great grandfather's mother was specifically chosen to inherit the throne by parliament despite being 50th? in line. The idea of the "divine rights of kings" had been sufficiently challenged when the Levellers decapitated the King who espoused that meme over a century before the American revolution. There was also a Glorious revolution you might want to wikipedia or something user, your history is missing some pretty significant events to be honest.

This is besides the point, I was simply reminding everyone that these intellectuals were not striving to legalize gay marriage or promote equality among the races - as the narrative insists.

Thing-in-itself.

>that rationalism informs us that all of mankind possesses equal natural rights and that no man is sovereign over another man.

user's point is not everyone was capable of such intellect and reasoning, in a Kantian sense, according to the progenitors of the Enlightenment through the Founding Fathers.

Fucking Hegelians REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Why did Kant think there was an underlying reality?

The day when you were born.

He didn't define his terms well. The analytic/synthetic distinction and the categorical imperative both encompass broad ranges of ideas which Kant apparently did not distinguish between.

non euclidean geometry

shit sux if you act like there isn't one.

lol maybe if ur a puss

walk off one of those non existent cliffs

id much rather fuck ur non existent gf

I guess you could say, he KANT do philosophy.

i would have thought you'd want to fuck my existent girl friend, but maybe that is just me