i dont understand i read this book and its obvious kant preemtively btfo all this hegel marx netsche schnitzel heidegger existentialism and pretty much every meme philosophy there is right now
but the philosophies/phers in question only make snarky remarks or do some "hermeneutic" "reinterpretation" of him?
but the plebs is a existentialist, everything is absurd or jung-peterson psychonaut or or nihilist or egoist etc.?
why are things this way?
>but the plebs is a existentialist, everything is absurd or jung-peterson psychonaut or or nihilist or egoist etc.?
you think kant btfo meme philosophers, while in fact he was the memest of them all
>Kant
>not a meme
kant attacked pure rationalists and pure empiricists . phenomenologists and the analytic tradition (vienna circle) developed from the dust settling.
>kant attacked pure rationalists and pure empiricists . phenomenologists and the analytic tradition (vienna circle) developed from the dust settling.
and kant bttfo before existence, go on?
anyways its sad how philosophy has deteriorated intellectually like this wouldnt you agree?
>why are things this way?
>It's the entirety of the philosophic community that is wrong, not me, I swear!
>and kant bttfo before existence, go on?
No he didn't. How did he btfo the phenomenologists when they are clearly building upon him but in an area he never went in? How did he btfo the advances in logic made by the analytical philosophers? Did he solve logic?
>Nietzsche fundamentally disagrees with Kant's epistemology
>Gets described as merely making snarky remarks or do some "hermeneutic" "reinterpretation" of him
You really just don't know what you are talking about.
this is what happens when you understand a book just enough to not have a self-esteem crisis but not enough to understand any of the implications of anything in it. Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. are responding *directly to* Kant, especially the first critique. To say that Kant "btfo" them all is to disregard the context which is that they are giving counterarguments to his work.
Some of the problems with various statements from Kant in the CPR:
-What grounds do we have for asserting the existence of noumena if we cannot know anything concrete about them, and we can merely "think" them?
-If reason is so great then why does it constantly get itself into trouble by attempting to deduce some pole of an antinomy?
-If the transcendental subject is noumenal then how can it affect the phenomenal realm through action?
etc. These are issues that remain problematic for Kant and they're exactly the kind of things that post-Kantian thinkers are trying to deal with.
You're right OP. However some of the latter philosophers' systems are still compatible with Kant, so you can argue that they just lay the emphasis on something else. It's true that several are preemptively btfo'd though.
What works in philosophy is largely a matter of fashion. Kant has never been and will never be refuted, but he's out of fashion.
>What grounds do we have for asserting the existence of noumena if we cannot know anything concrete about them, and we can merely "think" them?
"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appear."
>If reason is so great then why does it constantly get itself into trouble by attempting to deduce some pole of an antinomy?
Is there a better way? A better tool for consciously making progress towards 'knowledge/understanding'? How ungreat is it?
>If the transcendental subject is noumenal then how can it affect the phenomenal realm through action?
the phenomenal realm is the result of noumenal action. Noumena is primary. Then bodies/eyes/brains exist, and they percieve 'phenomena', they dont see individual electrons and nucleus, and if they do conceive of these justifiably concepted concepts, they do not concieve of them purely and absolutely as the Objects they are in and of and as themself; they see the phenomenon of water splashing on the phenomenon of skin.
>le logic is good because le autistic categories man said so
Day of the rope... Damn Platonists.
>better way
Pragmatic fallacy.
This user knows what he's talking about.
Also reason only gets into trouble when going beyond its limits, that is, when trying to apply categories to things that exceed what can be given to us as phenomena. Antinomies are something quite clear that anyone can experience, actually. You can both prove that the world is limited and that it's not, and then you cannot not realize that something went wrong in your reasoning.
>>better way
>Pragmatic fallacy.
What is Reason?
How should/would/could you determine if it should be used or not (how much, when?)?
Should it be used at all?
>You can both prove that the world is limited and that it's not, and then you cannot not realize that something went wrong in your reasoning.
Paradox is only possible in language/sketch semantics/fallible mind. Paradox is not actually possible in/of/as reality. Reality is pure physical reason. Though that does make me consider something
Only if reality is 'fake', can paradox exist in it (as video game, as language is 'an attempt to accurately mimic reality, though falls short, where it falls short or is muddy, it is 'fake', which allows paradoxs of 'the reality of language'). So if the universe is Godless, then it is 'pure reason', it is pure a = a moving direction y at x velocity, and when it collides with b = b which was moving direction q at velocity z; 'action/event' w occurred, the 'pure reasons' it occurred, was due to the exact physical characteristics (and laws governing those characteristics) of exactly what everything is at all continual real time times.
of course this maybe gets back to the original cause and unmoved mover stuff.
So now, if God could have created multiple 'realities/universes', could he have made an unreasonable one... well this is getting toward 'is there any objective meaning, or reason of/to reason, is there ultimate reason; or is reason only ever 'the tautological facts of occurrence and possible occurrence'?
Even if making a 'video game universe', which to us would be unreasonable, we would take a step and coins would shoot up form the ground (physically unreasonably, in relation to our familiarity of what 'physical reason' is, in relation to matter/energy and its laws), and you can jump 20 feet higher than you were used to: this is 'reasonable',
Reason in essence is just whatever cause and effect is. (then there is, "these effects (and causes) xyz are most desirable for me", "these effects and causes xyz and not most desirable for me!", "I think A causes B", "I think I can show that your reasoning is wrong").
Anyway, physical reality/video game, where 'nothing makes sense', there are no physical laws? This idea of chaos I guess, Is true chaos possible? Fundamental material is fundamentally bound by law. Ultimately there must be fundamental material, no matter how many turtles down of virtual reality smoke and mirrors can be embedded in the original real one.
>Reality is pure physical reason.
Take this back from Kant's thread, son.
...
>we would take a step and coins would shoot up form the ground (physically unreasonably, in relation to our familiarity of what 'physical reason' is, in relation to matter/energy and its laws), and you can jump 20 feet higher than you were used to: this is 'reasonable',
Your daily reminder to NEVER take advice regarding philosophy from deluded, ill-informed litizens.
>>Reality is pure physical reason.
>Take this back from Kant's thread, son
Please, I beg of you, provide not not an argument as to why such is wrong
What we would refer to as reasonable: Apple falls from tree.
Reasons: Gravity, stems eventually lose strength and snap from branch (etc.)
In a video game, or 'simulation universe' (God could potentially make a reality 'with laws of physics different than Gods reality... as we can create a reality (video games) with laws of physics different than ours):
And in such, an apple could break off a stem and float up into the air (because that is written in the program law code) and if you were in this reality you would say:
That is unreasonable! (because you are used to the physical reasons, cause and effect, of things you are used to)
But in that reality, it would precisely be what is reasonable: as the laws, the reasons of that realm, would = what occurs.
More of my woandering thoughts about if there is some Eternal Absolute (maybe... metaphysical) Reason (like the good, better or worse, desire this or that, justice, etc. or even 'natural laws and style of materials and physics). Or if Reason is only ever; the laws of cause and effect according to the particular material realm in question.
In this reality, it is reasonable to and to want to stick your we-we in a pu-pu, but if we did not need sexual reproduction, there might be no reason to even think of (furthermore desiring to) 'sticking a body part into another'.
Furthermore, (I have, I believe, successfully, theorized, I, know, lmao) that humans (and higher animals) ability to 'be unreasonable' may precisely be the necessary ingredient for them to have consciousness/free will at all;
That there exists at a moment, potentially in each moment, a bevy of possible choices, multiple of which might be 'equally' 'reasonable' choices, so 'the perfect most highest reason' is not 'forcing you' to choose one or the other, though I guess it then would not be unreasonable to choose one or the other, but you may not be able to provide a reason as to why you choose one over the other, if you could have been equally satisfied with any, besides maybe 'well I had to choose one...', .. I guess that is reasonable.
I want that diamond necklace. "why? whats your reasoning?"... "because... I want it... because I said so...", "what is the reason you want it?" "just because, I want it, thats the reason"... ok I guess thats reasonable.
>appearance without anything that appear.
And so to repeat the original question another way, why then is appearance not reality?
I have literally never seen a coherent Veeky Forums thread on kant.
You must not have been here very long then
>And so to repeat the original question another way, why then is appearance not reality?
If a perfectly straight stick falls into a pond in a forrest without altering its perfect straightness, and appears bent due to refraction, but noone is there to see it, is it bent?
>Reality is pure physical reason.
>Take this back from Kant's thread, son
To be clear, I meant (reality outside of human mind/perception)
>And so to repeat the original question another way, why then is appearance not reality?
>If a perfectly straight stick falls into a pond in a forrest without altering its perfect straightness, and appears bent due to refraction, but noone is there to see it, is it bent?
And so to repeat my answer in another way:
appearance is 'partly of reality', just not fully. How do we know how close to fully the way reality appears to us = the way reality 'actually is, in and of itself'
The way reality appears to a modern scientist is how different than how reality appeared to a caveman?
>reason
That's also falls under the pragmatic fallacy. Perhaps you should go think about what it implies, Mr. Lawwwwwjik & Raisun.
This falls under the: it appears as if I am proposing an argument or saying something but in fact I am not saying anything near substantial fallacy you faggoty scum fucker.
What do you use besides reason you fucking retarded fuck muncher, the language you are using, each word strung together to make meaning, is reason, you fucking stench monger
Reason is essentially, cause and effect (comparison and contrast)... let me guess.... you are going to try to reason to me why/how cause and effect does not/cannot exist?
no
kant was a sophist, everything in his system is wrong down to the barest axioms.
the only reasons people still take him seriously are a) his importance in the history of thought and b) his architectonic system appeals to autists
how does it make you feel that Kant solved morality?
kant is juggernaut
but the other two critiques are ideological af
so there is plenty of room for philosophers to btfo him
like nietzsche and deleuze
he started something he was too much of a cunt to finish
but critique of pure reason is fucking great
>justifiably concepted concepts,
you cannot be more of a moron than this, bravo
explain further. Surely the non moron can say a few words to justifiablly conceptually prove the concept of their implying they are not a moron, that they know the moron said something wrong, why was what the moron said wrong?
First I will ask; is it possible for a concept to be justifiably conceived?