Why was he so fucking retarded?

Right about aesthetics.
Right about ethics.
Right about epistemology.
Right about metaphysics.
Lays the groundwork for both the continental tradition and the analytic tradition.

What is wrong here?

>unity, time, space, etc. are just processes of the mind made to organize reality, and aren't actually existent

>he thinks this is what Kant believes

He just heard a few superficial versions of his conclusions and he arbitrarily decided he must be wrong without engaging with his actual theoretical structures which produced them

>proceeding to apply an ontological commitment to Kant's epistemological project
>Kant literally talks about this in the preface of his text, and literally reiterates his point throughout the chapter on space and time.

Kek.

It's really sad when a philosophers tries to be a scientist and gets blown the fuck out by actual scientists. One of those things that makes me question the need for this shit

I think op is just afraid because everything he has ever experienced has minimal relation to reality.

like forget about the dream theory because you are further from reality than that.

like your sensational experiences aren't even sensational experiences, really, but mechanical interpretations of sensations which in turn also have no connection with reality.

>you have no connection to your senses and your senses have no connection with reality.

>Descartes, Spinoza and (especially) Leibniz were on the right track and Kant gutted philosophy (in my opinion).
Explain further.

>the question of God is beyond our possible knowledge - it is a matter of faith.

I think that's what the post you're responding to is saying... Because Kant made God unknowable, the only way to think about God is "muh unreasonable feelings, breh". This is the basis of the fundamentalist kooks we have today, who use faith as an argument for literally everything.

If you think that Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz were on the right track, you should try Solomon Maimon if you haven't already. I agree that Kant gutted Philosophy.

For Kant, what's real isn't meaningful, and what's meaningful isn't real.

t. David Hume

Not the poster you're asking, but in the case of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, thought still has a relation to reality. For Kant, thought is merely subjective and has no way of reaching its object.

Who cares about thought or philosophy if it has nothing to do with reality? Just opens the door for scientism... These brilliant scientists who can figure out what's REALLY REAL because all those lazy philosophers are just mentally masturbating.

>Because Kant made God unknowable, the only way to think about God is "muh unreasonable feelings, breh". This is the basis of the fundamentalist kooks we have today, who use faith as an argument for literally everything.

This makes you seem misled about what Kant meant by faith and how he incorporated it into his system

> you should try Solomon Maimon

but this makes you seem more informed than many

> For Kant, what's real isn't meaningful, and what's meaningful isn't real.

and this makes you seem misled again.

So I'm curious about what specific sources have led to these opinions of yours.

I have a broad knowledge of Philosophy which is, embarrassingly, not particularly deep at many points. I'm pretty decent with Hegel and Bergson. Okay with Plato. I'm more interested in mysticism than Philosophy itself as a general rule.

Please, if I'm mistaken, let me know how, or at least what to read in order to correct my views.

The categorical imperative is a load of shite. Read modern moral philosophy (the essay) by Anscombe, and the Foot essay on hypothetical imperatives.

I appreciate the maturity and courtesy of your response!

"Faith" in Kant's system isn't something like a belief that's arbitrarily assumed, or a doctrine accepted by the supposed authority of a tradition or a preacher, or a vaguely defined feeling that is separate from (or even contrary to) rationality.

Instead, faith is the belief in the specific supernatural things that would be required if our moral earthly living is to be maximally rationally consistent. Human reason is self-sufficient for generating and recognizing morality without needing to presuppose such supernatural things (like the immortal soul and the existence of God), but if a person reflects and seeks to be fully rational, such a person will conclude that morality points to things beyond the natural universe of space and time. The faithful thinker acknowledges that such things cannot be objects of knowledge proper, since knowledge is strictly limited to natural experience and its a priori forms, but though faith is insufficient to yield such spatiotemporal cognition, it is nonetheless a rationally justified belief that is sufficient to help guide our moral conduct.

Kant would consider such objects of faith to be among those things that are both "meaningful" (as in "important if human life is to be worthwhile") and "real" (as in "existing in-themselves, and not as mere appearances in the mind of human subjects"). There is an ambiguity, though, in your use of the word "real" which I've found in a lot of writings about Kant and transcendental idealism, especially in writings that are hostile to his system: the ambiguity that results from not distinguishing between empirical reality and reality-in-itself. Kant himself didn't always do the best job of being explicit about this distinction, though.

For this and indescribably more, I can personally recommend the Cambridge editions of Kant's critiques, Howard Caygill's Kant Dictionary, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's articles on Kant.

Finally, I think it's pretty safe to say that fundamentalist kooks in our day don't tend to employ the epistemological principles of transcendental idealism, or the painstaking systematicity of Kantian rationality, in arguing/lobbying/murdering for their favored fictions (though, given the polemicists who adore Kant as a scapegoat, you could easily be led to believe otherwise). I think, rather, that our generation's zealots rely on basically the same kind of uncritical, hypnotic arrogance that fueled fundamentalism long before Kant's philosophy and even Kant himself were conceived.

>Analytics

lol no thanks

...

>The categorical imperative is a load of shite.

The categorical imperative may include an update function.

wtf is going on in this thread?

death throes of philosophy?

>it is a matter of faith.
that's an illogical and unfalsifiable statement

Kant is a nigger

>that's an illogical and unfalsifiable statement

Duh if ya say so