/lit/ - Literature

>>17437396
Why do you care about what normies think?

>>17437396
>normie
go back to r*ddit

>>17437396
how does it destroy science-ism? any take away points I can use? if not I'll read the bloody thing

>>17437409
I don't, that's why I enjoy dunking on them unapologetically

>>17437429
The biggest way it does so is just that understanding him requires more brainpower than they're capable of.
Like how the focus of science-ism is all "what does the evidence/statistics say" and Kant's theory of A Priori knowledge makes it so that knowledge before evidence is necessary for evidence-based knowledge to mean anything

>>17437396
Don't forget.

>>17437529
Good point. If you explain Plato's cave in unfamiliar terms you look very intelligent

>>17437441
I meant why do you bother with shit like this?

If you couldn't figure out in the first 5 pages of CoPR that Kant was a charlatan pseud and mentally ill, then you got trolled hard.

>studying in a Phil class, real Conty hours

>Some greasy kid puts up his hand

>"But didn't Hegel sublate Kant? Didn't he prove that we can know the Noumenal World?"

>Teacher asks him "how did you come to that conclusion?"

>"I, uh, I dunno, I just heard other Hegelians like Zizek talk about how Hegel sublates Kant, I was hoping you could elaborate on that"

Ive had enough /lit/, next HEGELIAN I see is gonna get a free Limit-Experience.

>>17437565
To dunk on normies ( not op)

>>17437586

>>17437586
seethe harder.

>>17437396
>>17437529
All of philosophy dunks on normies, by definition.

>>17437586
Wait. I've got a better one.

>>17437601
Yes, but why? Are you even getting anything out of it?

>>17437614
Pride in my mental superiority.

>>17437618
Mental superiority over the uneducated? This is like feeling good about your physique while spanking some crippled person with a stick.

>>17437610
My personal favorite is marx. They never see it coming

>>17437626
You should read Nietzsche's thoughts on the joys of inflicting pain upon others. We all get a thrill out of sadism.

>>17437640
Dunno, doesn't seem like the thing that will get me to Valhalla.

>>17437626
My primary use for it is a conversation ender when the group of people I'm in veers into NPC politics. That's not say left-leaning politics necessarily, but they are the most common offenders. Someone brings up abortion as a "human right" so I ask how they claim something as a right that they have no access to without extensive technological and political intervention without saying "Hobbes" or "natural law".

>>17437658
Yes, that is the point, anon. Conversation enders.

>>17437655
You want to go to a place via dying in combat while killing people in a blaze of violence. Sounds like inflicting pain is the only way to get to Valhalla.

>>17437668
And what any of this has to do with it?

>>17437664
Why do you care about what people are talking about?

>>17437658
>so I ask how they claim something as a right
what is the proper answer? If I had to pull something out of my ass it'd probably be like "something which fosters life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

>>17437658
so I have no human right to clean drinking water and electricity because it requires extensive technological and political intervention?

>>17437498
>Kant's theory of A Priori knowledge makes it so that knowledge before evidence is necessary for evidence-based knowledge to mean anything
That really doesn't in any way impact the legitimacy of evidence and statistics for a huge number of subjects.

>>17437498
>The biggest way it does so is just that understanding him requires more brainpower than they're capable of.
You are definitely not as smart as you think you are and also come across as a cunt. Who cares that you understand philosophy? Most people could if they gave a shit, and it certainly doesn't give you magical rhetorical skills, specifically (you) I mean. Because you talk like an idiot

>>17437697
you actually don't.

>>17437658
>how they claim something as a right that they have no access to without extensive technological and political intervention
The greeks had an herbal remedy that induced miscarriage. Your argument is a fucking shambles

>>17437711
most people are gonna reject that social contract

>>17437697
Electricity no. If you had a right to it, why are you paying for it.
You have access to drinking water, just go out to a river and filter it. But you're too lazy/busy (like all of us), so you and the government struck a deal that you pay them (and sacrifice a small amount of your right to the fruits of your labor), and they procure the water for you

>>17437714
Then use the herbal remedy and stop whining

>>17437498
I actually agree with what you posted in the OP, but that's not actually how Kant dunks on reddit-types (which he does, but only when they try to go BEYOND the reach of empirical evidence and reason). Empirical evidence and modern science is still perfectly valid as it is. Kant does nothing to refute its validity, in fact he expressly approves of it when considering how the only way science and empirical knowledge could be relevant is by us containing a priori principles of sensibility and understanding.

>>17437727
Why would I use the remedy when plan-b pills literally cost $5 and don't involve foraging. Stop being captious, faggot

>>17437699
No the point isn't to discredit empirical knowledge wholesale, but to state that there is an entire wealth of knowledge that exists workout evidence, and all empirical knowledge is predicated upon and synthesized with it.
Again, I know Kant's not the final answer to epistemology, but science-ism being a gross, mainstreamed perversion of Hume needs to be checked as quickly as possible.

>>17437722
If you're saying that human rights don't exist truly like moral order doesn't exist truly then sure. But it's pretty important to have some standards and at least the illusion of order

>>17437429
It doesn't. It literally is scitism.

>>17437396
You just know that teenage hands typed this post

>>17437640
>Nietzsche's thoughts on the joys of inflicting pain upon others.
Postem

>>17437396
>Any other philosophers that provide such an efficient and thorough head-and-shoulders lead over midwits?
>>17437529
Aristotle,
Spinoza,
Schopenhauer

>>17437734
Then right there you sacrificed the right to the product of your labor for a more convenient alternative that others had to consent to research and produce.
I'm not trying to argue that abortion should be illegal or that women shouldn't have access to it, but to call the process we have in place today a human right isn't proper terminology.

>>17437396
Scientism isn't a normie position. Common sense is the jurisdiction of the normie, which dunks on philosophy every time. Common sense > philosophy > science

>>17437749
Human rights do exist, they're what you have if you're dropped in the wilderness by yourself. For example:
>your life
>the protection of your life at all costs
>food
>water
Admittedly it's not much but all the things after that are privileges of varying importance to you.

>>17437757
Haven't read Spinoza, I keep seeing that name.

>>17437770
>Common sense is the jurisdiction of the normie
If we take the average normie to be the midwit, then this is false. They rely more on appeals to authority than common sense. The other normies either don't have a position or they take the common sense view.

>>17437781
or if a village or society is like a macrocosm of the self in terms of needs, the human rights can be extended to what you have, not when you're dropped in the wilderness, but as you exist as a society

>>17437793
>If we take the average normie to be the midwit
This isn't the case though. "Midwit" doesn't literally mean "middle of the bell curve".

>>17437409
because retard, the conditions of society reflect what normies think so if you get normies thinking the right things you can steer society in the right direction

>>17437802
But that requires a representative of the village to decide how to balance the various needs and protect the organized efforts from chaos.
And any protection comes at a partial cost of freedom in order to be protectable

>>17437811
when has that ever happened in history

>>17437765
>proper terminology
What you're doing is playing semantics. When you say "medical abortion isn't [innately] a human right," you're using the terms wildly differently from the people whose conversation you just interrupted, and you're likely to attract hostility due to a blatant misunderstanding brought about by such terminology. For that, I give you the autism award.

>>17437810
>This isn't the case though.
ask them about philosophy and they turn into midwits

>>17437770
What? How? Common sense leads no where and produces no knowledge.

>>17437820
many times? when normies are mad enough they topple kings, destroy their enemies, reform society. the trick is getting them mad enough about the right things

>>17437741
Idk I am kind of in the middle on the 'scientism' question. On the one hand science is incapable of explaining consciousness, metaphysics, god, ethics, etc. and it is almost entirely inapplicable to politics, history, and other areas where experiments and getting data are hard or impossible. On the other hand the hard sciences, and the scientific process itself(independent reproduction of experimental results and control of variables at its core, with statistical correlation of observed conditions as a weaker form) are one of the all time success stories in human history. I'm not even saying the fruits of science are necessarily good(or bad), only that they have been unbelievably powerful. The empirical mindset is actually for many questions the most effective outlook, if you take it in its proper form, which spans from 'it is largely impossible to say with certainty anything about the subject', which is a very underutilized stance, all the way to the carefully controlled and repeated experiments that underlie the core of the hard sciences.

So there are areas where science simply doesn't apply, and there are areas where it does apply but due to practical constraints the results are so weak that it is misleading to group them with those of the harder sciences. These are the two big 'scientism' problems from what I can see.

>>17437824
>they turn into midwits
No. If you asked an actual normie you'd most likely receive an utterly based common sense answer like "What's real is real", or "The Bible says X".

>>17437817
yeah that's true. And it's a strange balance because freedom and rights mean similar things. And one man's freedom will be claimed to infringe upon another's rights

>>17437829
Philosophy emerged out of common sense/faith based discourse. It's the (impossible) attempt to find a foundation for it.

fpbp

>>17437822
>innately
It's not a human right. To have access to abortion requires several other layers of consent from other people. For a government to mandate access to abortion they would have to override those pathways of consent.
Access to abortion can be claimed to be a moral imperative given a community's surplus to afford it, but that doesn't make it a human right.
Although you do make a point with medical. In the event of the abortion being a lifesaving procedure it is entirely reasonable to call protection of your life a right.

>>17437498
>creating a body of knowledge through empiric research doesn't matter because you can't prove a priori that anything is meaningful

>>17437863
>you aren't allowed full control over your body because it's too much hassle to gain consent from parties interested in the process of abortion
this is your brain on (you)

>>17437842
It cannot, that's the definition of a right,l. until you're in a situation where there's only enough food and water for one of you, and neither of you can leave, your rights don't infringe on anyone else's, but others freedom gets to infringe on yours if they choose. They have no right to do so, but they still can until something stops them

>>17437863
>For a government to mandate access to abortion they would have to override those pathways of consent.
For the Taliban to mandate access to education for girls they would have to override those pathways of consent.

Education for girls ≠ human right

Be Kant
>absolute (1.57 m) manlet
>believed in a 'Categorical Imperative', no exceptions.
>liked to be swaddled like a babby, and preferred a man to do it, so no lass would clock his stiffened shaft.
>would've lost to Spinoza in a Spider death battle. (Spinoza pbuh, had a prized collection of fighting spiders. Kant had a shitty house spider that he hated)
>Died a "weak and feeble" old bastard
Kant BTFO'd

>>17437396
Aristotle, Spengler, Maistre

>>17437880
>full control over your body
The issue is that there is another body in them, and there is no objective way to declare when the body becomes a person and what sort of rights it should have. I personally don't care if women have abortions but I also don't really care if people decide to euthanize deformed babies or whatever that were actually born. I mean the thing is barely conscious, probably much less so than the animals we eat. If people wanted to outlaw abortion for various reasons I probably wouldn't care either tbqh.

In any case liberal paradigm of rights is completely incapable of dealing with the abortion issue. It is an organic, sort of continuous phenomenon that the autistic categories of liberalism can't contend with.

>>17437853
Wait what is your argument? Philosophy is the progeny of faith, philosophy is the reconciliation of knowledge and faith that is disputedly impossible, therefore common sense (doxa) is the way to knowledge. Is that your argument?

>>17437841
>"What's real is real", or "The Bible says X".
You live in a third world country, in a rural area, or have not gone outside in years.

>>17437880
That's a blatant misinterpretation of what I said. You already said you have full control of your body through an ancient herbal remedy. If you were pregnant without a government above you, and the person across the way knows how to safely perform abortions, they're not going to perform one just because you're pregnant and want one. You will either need:
>personal favor through a relationship with them
>money to pay for it
>a threat of force through either yourself or a governing body
All of these are methods of persuasion, which a human right does not require, because they are owned purely by individuals. They could do something more productive with their free time than give somebody an abortion just for asking. Human rights aren't moral, they're just what you have when you don't have anything else.

>>17437885
Public education in general isn't a human right because they have to organize people into consenting to educate people in the first place

>>17437913
>You live in a third world country, in a rural area, or have not gone outside in years.
Not him, but I live in a first world city and most people, if questioned adamantly enough, would respond with "what's real is real." That really is the common view (though not so much the Bible).

>>17437929
>Human rights aren't moral, they're just what you have when you don't have anything else.
Until two or more people decide that human rights means what any given person in their in-group is entitled to, and then outsiders that hold your view get killed or bred out of existence

>>17437913
No, anon, you probably just live in a bourgois bubble.

>>17437910
>and there is no objective way to declare when the body becomes a person and what sort of rights it should have
>but allow me to do so anyway
ok kid

>>17437929
i wasn't the person you were replying to, i was just point out how retarded your argument was

>>17437948
And all you need to get into the in-group is give up a small amount of your right to do whatever you want for the protection and "rights" the in-group has that those unwashed outsiders would never dream of.
Oh wait, that's a sacrifice for a supposed "right". Looks more like a negotiated privilege.
Fucking moron.

>>17437911
Philosophy has rotted you brain. Human discourse's chief concern is not the production of knowledge or truth (this is an artifact of philosophical discourse, of which human discourse in toto is not reducible to), but rather action within the world.

>>17437977
And you sure gave up quickly after I responded

>>17437972
I said I personally don't care, as in that's how I feel about. That's the furthest thing from objectivity. Other people obviously care a whole lot.

>>17437986
>Human discourse's chief concern is not the production of knowledge or truth (this is an artifact of philosophical discourse, of which human discourse in toto is not reducible to), but rather action within the world.
Based Nietzschean

>>17437981
Ok, everyone who uses the term human rights to mean more than your ability to breathe is obviously a moron. Good luck on your crusade to have all these dumb liberals start calling it negotiated privileges instead, that'll show them

>>17437820
Astroturfing is a product of MK ultra.
sounds super schitzo I know but here me out.
MK ulta was a program that tried to imprint behavior onto subjects using many forms of torture and drugs. They failed and also succeeded.
Failed at the short term goal but later realized that mimicking brain washing took roots.
They also noted that anyone could be affected by this.
>a. you see a movie you like or read about a character you like and maybe you subconsciously or consciously try and emulate aspects to make yourself a better person or more how you view them in the light that makes them better as to try and emulate aspects about them.
>b. Through carful astroturfing people will always want to be on the good side of things. If they see most people on a side generally it is assumed to be good. Make things confusing enough and people will not want to think about things more than they do want to.
>c. You dont need to me the majority but just seem as though you carry the majority opinion. i.e. views and likes and up votes. Its harder to do it here but it happens. More of an abstract way of doing it. Usually if you go against the grain of a shill thread you will be spam reported until banned.

>>17438021
You don't have to fucking call it a negotiated privilege, just stop thinking you're entitled to other people's labor and money without an intervening force.
Or else sooner or later you'll be slapped with a "human right" that you'll have to provide somebody else for free against your will because nobody ever policed the discourse behind public policy and everything became a "right".
For fuck's sake I even told you you could have an abortion and that abortions for survival are a human right, why do you have to pretend that humanity can't exist without giving you a personal capacity to prevent it from doing so? Why can't you enjoy a culture that values your freedom instead of pretending it's owed to you?

>>17437441
>I don't
>I do
please be consistent

>>17437551
imagine thinking the cave is deep or insightful. kek

>>17438060
>stop thinking you're entitled to other people's labor and money without an intervening force
There is an intervening force (government) and nobody implied otherwise

>>17438060
I never said there wasn't an intervening force. The government and its overwhelming violence is the intervening force. And if you don't view anything as a human right, sooner or later you'll be slapped with someone's overwhelming violence that isn't constrained by government or the concept of human rights and that'll be fine because 'personal freedom' apparently.

>>17438194
Exactly there's an intervening force which makes it not a right. Calling something a right is laying claim to it before any intervening force is involved.
Rights are things you have before the involvement of government, that you partially negotiate away to the government for some benefit. A couple examples:
>I'm gonna go pay for an abortion with my own money
>government says no you can't do that
That's removing somebody's right to use the product of their labor (money) as they see fit. It does not mean abortion is a human right, but it does mean making abortion illegal is limiting a human right.
>I want to be able to walk into an abortion clinic and get an abortion at my discretion, without paying for it
>ok, but taxes are going to go up for everybody so we can fund it
This is a government removing part of the public's right to the product of their labor to guarantee a privilege of abortion to anyone that asks for it

>>17437396
>>17437409
>>17437423
>>17437610
>>17437610
>>17437770
>>17437793
>>17437810
>>17437811
>>17437831
>>17437841
> Normie instead of Normalfag
Neck yourselves.

>>17438232
No, because i acknowledge that I'm negotiating away part of my rights and freedoms for the privilege of protection from others by the government.
If you need the government in order to get something it's not a right, and you're sacrificing part of your rights to get it. And if somebody's convinced you that it is a right, they are probably getting a piece of the actual right that you're sacrificing.

>>17438284
No, I don't care about what anons think that I should do either.

>>17438289
>they
jews anon?

>>17438284
it's shorter you autist

>>17438284
>thinking you're not a normal or a fag

>>17437396
If you want to body a redditor, all you need it to repeat what they say in quotations and post a wojak

>>17438321
What? No. I'm not from /pol/, although I admit i should've used an example to eliminate ambiguity. Like this:
>"getting an abortion is a human right"
Said by female activist groups funded by private interest groups like planned parenthood, who stand to make a lot of money from your raised taxes if there's price wall to people getting an abortion.

>>17438264
That doesn't make sense. The spirit of human rights is in agreement, generally under the pretext of remediation for failure to uphold agreement. The final remediation being violence. I don't think any human right is a natural right.

> No, because i acknowledge that I'm negotiating away part of my rights and freedoms for the privilege of protection from others by the government.
If you need the government in order to get something it's not a right, and you're sacrificing part of your rights to get it. And if somebody's convinced you that it is a right, they are probably getting a piece of the actual right that you're sacrificing.

>>17438348
I mean if I want to win grand theft auto San Andreas I just put in the unlimited ammo cheat code. You're right but there's definitely a better return on invested effort to be had.

>>17438350
isn't that kind of free market capitalism then? emphasis on the 'free'

>>17438366
You're free to convince someone to give up their rights, but you don't have a right to their rights.
And is basing your entire business model off of government funding free market? No it isn't, free market is loaning people money for abortions they can't afford because you're confident the extra money they'll be able to make without a child would cover the payments

>>17438359
Why are you making that face it's literally the foundation of your life in a civilized society. Unless you're uncle Ted you're an idiot hypocrite for criticizing that statement

>>17437396
The way you write makes you sound like a turbo-redditor. Guess it takes one to know one.

>>17437396
>Any other philosophers that provide such an efficient and thorough head-and-shoulders lead over midwits?
yes stirner is miles better than kant

>>17438264
>do people have the right to vote?
>this guy: "no, because democracy needs to exist in order to vote, and we need fair candidates, and polling stations and poll workers, and you sacrifice your tax dollars in order to fund elections and fund democratic government, in fact, since democracy is artificial, voting is not a natural right, it's more like a negotiated privilege extended to most people who live in western countries, and if you don't agree with the negotiations you can simply exit the system, etc etc. what I'm saying is no, voting is not a right, and any document that explicitly says otherwise is based on false premises and delusion"
>"basically, we don't have a "right" to anything that was invented or produced after our hunter-gatherer ancestors trekked out of Africa"

>>17437835 >>17437741

science is 100% statistics, ie rationalism, which is why there is no truth in science. Rationalism is not compatible with empriicism. It is rationalists who try hard to merge their rationalism with empiricism and the end result is what they call ''science'' but there is no empiricism in this.
It's like a redefinition of empiricism by scientists.
Scientists are not empiricists. An empiricist does not run an ''''''''''experiment'''''''''''''and even less a ''''''''''''''''thought experiment''''''''''''. Running an experiment already is part of rationalism.

The whole secular infatuation over empiricism started by the self proclaimed enlightened secular rationalists who hated the christian rationalists larping as greek philosophers.

The secular intellectuals hated the endless christian speculations that they saw as unverifiable about god and the use of logic from aristotle. So they said they could speculate on nature and with their verification meme, their rationalist system about the world would be the truth.
So in order to be separate from the christian clerics, the secular rationalists said they were empiricist. Their big idea was the ''''''''''''''''''''''''empirical proof'''''''''''''''''''''''' which is completely retarded oxymoron.
A proof is never empirical. A proof always on the side of speculations passed as ''rationality''.

Logic is just a field by autistic pedants about well formed formulas and valuations, ie a map sending a formula to 1 or 0 and asking what are those valuations which are stable under inference rules. Zero truth in this, especially truth in the casual sense. Tarski truth is moronic, meaningless. Peak atheist. Just like there is no truth in science, just some stats and a stat convention for saying ‘’if p value is XXX then the result is """"""""""""""’true"""""""""""


At best scientists can come up about some stats about some formal system (ie a model) like ''the spring'' or ''harmonic oscillator'' or ''the standard model''. Like ‘’your material has such and wear and tear, and our backlog of such conditions lead to 60% of breaking in the next year, therefore your material may break or not within a year’’ That’s the pinnacle of the scientific claim and all their claims remain phrased as uncertainty.

>>17438495
>do we have a right to choose our opressors?
>you know what? Yes you do. I'll do whatever you want in office, now give me money to fund my campaign so other people vote for me, unless you want to take the risk of some other guy winning
Ouch. That "right" got co-opted pretty quick.
How can you think you're entitled to voting when we existed for thousands of years without it?
Not to mention the threat of force behind having the largest number of people supporting your cause.
>do I have a right to be oppressed by people that disagree with me if there's enough of them?

>>17438501
If by "empiricism" you mean the (strong) view that only what can be directly observed through the senses constitutes knowledge then the view would be self-refuting since the doctrine of empiricism cannot observed through sense perception. This kind of strict positivism has been refuted since the 30's and barely any professional philosophers take it seriously anymore.
And if "rationalism" is the denial of the above doctrine, then any sound epistemology is rationalist in that sense.

>>17438550
ok, everyone stops using the word 'right's to mean anything besides what was available to monkey-brained cavemen. The world is now a better place.

>>17438550
Look, friend. You keep bringing up our past as tribespeople and unorganized farmers. The question I'm asking is not "Do rights exist in vacuo?" Rights, law, first principles, etc., these mean nothing devoid of real context. The question I was referring to is, "Do we have a right to vote," i.e. "Do lawful citizens of an organized 21st-century nation have a right to determine who governs them?" Voting obviously doesn't apply to literal cavemen. But it does apply here and now. And we do have a constitutional "right" to vote. Your whole conception of "rights" as eternal and unshifting is totally unpractical and even nonsensical. When we speak of rights in a contemporary sense we are speaking from within and about a legislative system into which we have already purchased and signed. Not some fucking abstract and immutable tablet that God personally inscribed for us upon the very code and sinew of our bodies.

>>17438501
Why does an empiricist not run an experiment? What about running an experiment contradicts empirical principles? And why are you conflating thought experiments with actual experiments. How is science rationalism when it starts from the empirical mindset of observation and experience, of actually going out in the world and trying to collect information on it through the senses?

I don't know why you even replied to my post.

>natural right
>things you tend to be able to do in a wilderness survival situation
ummmmm ok? Why should incidental capacities in nature inform our actions in civilization? Why shouldn't we have unnatural rights?

The "I fucking love science!" "Trust the experts!" types typically work with a very shallow epistemology. Kant was basically right that you can't have rationalism or empiricism without the other and made it his task to reconcile them rather than continuing the arbitrary nonsense debate where it was one versus the other which was true. The means by which Kant developed this synthesis was by responding with his own rationalism to Hume's empiricism.

These scientistic types as it happens usually have a poor understanding of scientific induction. They've never gone anywhere near Hume, to whom most of the assumptions of scientific reasoning owes itself.

To take a few examples.

Causality. Hume pointed out that causality, though it is assumed of empirical phenomena, is itself not observable as an independent phenomenon. In other words, we do not "see" causality, what we see is events that are contiguous in time, and learn to associate a connection between regularly occurring sequences of objects. After a number of such repetitions, we infer an if-then relationship between the before and the after events, affirming that the after event is conditioned on the before event.

Empirically, however, nothing is actually observed besides the series of contiguous events. Causality is never observed, it is inferred from the regular conjunction of events. This disproves the hard form of empiricism that all truths derive from the senses.

You here it from these reddit types, "the study says..., research shows that..." Implicit to their thinking is that an experiment is a kind of proof, the material embodiment of an essential truth. Really however what an experiment tells you empirically is only that when you put things together in an exact way in a lab you tend to get certain statistical frequencies of outcomes. It doesn't prove anything.

Then you have stuff like mathematics, which is deductive rather than inductive and therefore not dependent on the senses for its truth conditions.

Kant noticed all these holes in empiricism and filled them in with rationalism. Our perception of causality is not an inference about the necessary connections between external objects, it's a cognitive schema that imposes an pre-defined order on the manifold of objects, etc.

Certainly when quantum physics came around and BTFO'd the intuitive concepts of causality Kant was vindicated in the end. Once you include phenomena we weren't biologically intended to think about --black hole physics, photonics, cosmic inflation--sensory ideas collapse into a puddle of mush and simple empiricism falls short.

>>17437396
No joke, I was a full on materialist before a (very) good friend gave me the old Kant switchero. I will forever be grateful to him for taking the time to change my mind.

>>17438729
did kant say anything on hume's economics or anything that is construed as social science today ?

>>17438619
>When we speak of rights in a contemporary sense we are speaking from within and about a legislative system into which we have already purchased and signed.
Not him but no, we don't, when people talk about natural rights they're more often than not talking about some sort of metaphysical law that mustn't be infringed upon. The other anon already said in >>17438060 that his issue wasn't with valuing these things, it's with people convincing themselves that they are owed something, and that the refusal to grant a privilege is somehow an imposition upon them. Desiring these things is fine, valuing the things we value in a free society is fine, but acting like everything we value is somehow part of the nature of humanity rather than something we have made for ourselves is just obnoxious.

>>17438804
Refusal to grant a privilege is absolutely an imposition, particularly when the refusal is ---imposed--- by a third party, such as a law banning abortions despite the existence of clinics willing and able to provide abortions.
>acting like everything we value is somehow part of the nature of humanity rather than something we have made for ourselves is just obnoxious
No, what's obnoxious is you presuming foreknowledge of this mystical "human nature" that somehow excludes anything at all technologically complicated. If medical abortions are not part of human nature, then what about electricity? What about plumbing? What about farms? What about hammers? What about fire? At some point, there were humanoids who could not harness fire. Are those the true humans endowed with this so called "human nature?" Enlighten me, presumptuous one.

>>17437498
All that goes without saying you stupid pseud. Uhhh uhhhh uh solipsism. Retard.

>>17438857
>what's obnoxious is you presuming foreknowledge of this mystical "human nature"
But I don't, I don't know shit about human nature, and as far as I can tell, nobody else does either. And that's the whole point, human nature is mystical, it's sacred, it's god, and like every other god it's a totally worthless justification to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. If you want to get an abortion then go for it. If you find that freedom to be valuable to you that's fine by me, but if you're trying to convince someone who takes issue with it that they should change their mind, you're going to have to do something other than point to some sacred right because if they're not already on board then they clearly don't find it sacred like you do. If you can't do that, then you've no reason to expect anyone to listen to you, because to someone outside the religion, all your sacred things are just things.

>>17438729
Good writeup, fellow anon.

>>17437396
"Understands a critique of pure reason" - is this even possible without decades of toil and research? How old are you guys?

>>17439064
>is this even possible without decades of toil and research?
If you're not a midwit, yes. Although I wouldn't say, "understands every nook and cranny", but comprehends the major points and the reasoning behind all of them. The implicit assumption as well is that one is already familiar with the philosophical context of Kant's writing.

>>17439064
It's really not possible on a dilettante level. My professor, who has published many articles of Kant criticism, in addition to a book, said it this way: "Once you get to about 13 or 15 readings of the Critique, you'll start to think, yeah, I finally get it!..... And then you'll read it for the 16th time and throw up your hands in utter despair."

>>17437594
Should've read schopenhauer... Kants most important distinction is subject and object, Schopenhauer shows why hegel's synthesis of the phenomenal and noumenal is nonsense

>>17438576
Yes it is because special interest groups can't beat you over the head with your own "rights"

>>17438619
>rights as eternal and insisting is totally impractical
No it isn't. If rights become whatever is "hip" than you can be psy-opped into thinking you have entitlement to something you don't, and hand over more than what its actually worth to people in power because "it's a right, we must provide it to the citizens at all costs".
For the life of me I can't comprehend how setting a solid definition for rights without statimg that modern values aren't important short-circuits people this hard and has to be seen as disagreeable, instead of at worst a competing definition

>>17438723
Because you have no pre-existing claim to it. Calling it a right is pretending that you do, and creates a dangerous discourse for policy-making.
Again, all the things we enjoy in modern society are not bad, morally wrong, or even unimportant. They just arent rights because you have no entitlement to it.

>>17437396
Heidegger is the absolute anti-matter to most forms of normie philosophy/worldviews and especially to anyone who hasn't seriously considered the role of science before from a critical perspective.

>>17438857
>refusing to grant a privilege is an imposition
No, pretending youre owed a privilege is an imposition. Example:
>give me an abortion
>what do I get for it
>nothing. You dont deserve anything, because its a human right that I get one
That is not imposing a lack of an abortion, that is imposing access to something you have no right to without the consent of intervening parties
>particularly when the refusal is imposed by a third party
Already agreed with you that that denies you the right to use the product of your labor (money, as abstracted a product as it is) as you see fit
>electricity
Not a right. If you dont pay for it you dont get it
>farms
You have a right to a farm? I mean you have a right to procure your own food but not to somebody elses property and the product of that property
>hammers
What? You have a right to a hammer? To have a right to be able to own hammers or anything else, but how can you lay claim to a hammer?
>fire
These are all technological advancements as a result of human nature and advancement, but you dont have a right to them specifically. You can't say
>the government said I cant light a fire in my back yard, theyre infringing on my right to fire
What you can say is
>the government said I camt light a fire in my back yard, theyre infringing on my right to do what I want with my time wothout affecting other people

>>17440245
Ive seen the take that its a tool for power, and funded as such, is that similar to his take?

>>17439064
Kant isn't that hard. His difficulty is a meme. Hegel is someone actually hard to understand.

>>17437997
Socrates said the same thing.

>>17440331
That sounds like Foucault more than Heidegger. Heidegger's view on science is close to Kuhn's, that we have no way to justify one particular entry point into the scientific process over any other, and that the results we get will necessarily reflect the types of questions we have the background context to even ask. This might seem trivial, but what this amounts to is skepticism over the fact that any science can give objectively "true" results in any meaningful way. We get "correct" results, but how could we ever justify the method itself without appealing to something outside the method? What makes assessing light through a spectrometer more "true" than any other way? Does describing a tree as a series of biochemical processes give a more "true" account of a tree than the woodsman or craftsman, or do we get those results because we asked those questions?

Point is, our results are always shaded by our starting terms, and we have no way to justify the starting point using the same rigorous standards that apply to the methodology once the question is posed. It becomes either arbitrary or instrumental and theres no reason to suppose a correspondence relation between the results and some external truth.

Science and technology certainly can be used for power, but its rarely a conscious act when that does happen, and hard to find room to ascribe malice. Its the technological condition generally.

>>17440479
That's an interesting take and I like it. Although I would argue against the claim that science is rarely consciously used for power.
Just the weapons industry is science dictated by power. Not to mention all the researchers that get their funding from the government, which allows the government to push scientific knowledge along the course it finds to be must useful for power acquisition and maintenance

>>17437835
>On the one hand science is incapable of explaining consciousness, metaphysics, god, ethics, etc. and it is almost entirely inapplicable to politics, history, and other areas where experiments and getting data are hard or impossible
this is completely wrong and retarded.

arent a lot of neo kantians reddit materialists though?

>>17437498
that's not what he means by a priori lmao. You need empirical evidence for anything that doesn't involve pure reason. He is literally arguing against your position in the first critique. You can use the 2. and 3. one though if you want to argue against the pure all-encompassing scientism and you can argue against the naive materialism that comes with scientism by using the first critique. With Kant you are still describing nature whenever you do science, but that nature is a compositum constructed out of your own subjectivity, so you are doing objective science under the precondition that this knowledge is primarily true for humans.

>>17437594
Start ranting in grumpy German about sophistry and Hegelei next time. Don't forget to throw in some Greek and Latin words too.

>>17438729
>You here it from these reddit types, "the study says..., research shows that..." Implicit to their thinking is that an experiment is a kind of proof
yes they're using the word "proof" in the sense of the word "extremely strong evidence" not in the sense of "mathematical proof". extremely significant and important. sure showed these science types the power of german philosophy!
fucking faggot pseud.

hume would have disagreed with you anyway, he was against meta-physics AKA german philosophy. you fucking pseuds keep using hume to try to cope with being too unintelligent for physics, not being respected for pulling things out of your ass and worshipping old philosophers etc but you using it that way is completely faulty. this is all just fucking cope and it's absolutely pathetic.

>>17437396
Anything on psychoanalysis. You can twist and evade all questions and statements. You can even turn those statements on them.

>>17438329
it also conveniently removes the normalfag filter on the word, thus making it usable by said normalfags.

>dunk
>normie
>midwits
go back you triple nigger

>>17440848
No it is entirely right, explain what you think is wrong about it.

>>17437396
If you read philosophy in order to debate morons you are also a moron.

>>17437396
Marx.

>>17437594
This is your average pop phil follower.
I like Zizek myself, but I also am not a fucking retard who thinks Hegel was the end all be all because Zizek considers himself hegelian (even though he also calls himself a dialectical materialist).
Zizek even says that through Hegel can we escape the deadlock philosophy has been in ever since Kant, and that Kant was such a succesful philosopher that he is an inescapable figure that must be overcome if you want to do anything philosophically. All philosophy after Kant has either been to prove or move beyond his deadlock, which is why Kant is perhaps the single most important philosopher to read after Plato.

>>17441182
>god
god in religion is a hypothesis about how the world works. we can test if strangers prayers work for healing for example. you say we can't test it because you know the outcome wouldn't gain you. your insistence that science is inapplicable to god is based on nothing but this.
>we live in a universe ruled by an infinitely powerful entity that cares about human affairs
all evidence points to this being false. it's an irrational belief.
>politics
science tells us what the likely effect different choices will have. any politics concerning the environment obviously needs to be informed by biological and climate science. any politics concerning medical threatment needs to be informed by the science of medicine etc.
and so on.
you fucking dumb idiot.

>>17437498
holy shit nigger what atre you doing

>>17441440
>science tells us what the likely effect different choices will have.
yeah, no shit. It has nothing to do with politics/practical reason, but with discovering the means. If science tells me that I'm going to die if I jump off a bridge at that and that height, I still don't know whether to do it or not.

>>17440921
>yes they're using the word "proof" in the sense of the word "extremely strong evidence"
that's wrong as well, as Hume showed, the fact that the sun has risen everyday until now is not evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, we consider it such out of habit, which is a purely psychological phenomenon.

>>17441573
*shewed

>>17441573
have you read Kant's 2nd analogy?

>>17437396
Fuck Kant, this overly rational autism is reddit. All my homies read Hegel instead.

>>17441573
now you're using the words wrong. the fact that you have to assume SOMETHING even if that something is extremely reasonable, to make science work isn't really a serious problem. and it's certainly not a justification of french and german philosophy, which again hume was opposed to. and the very same principle does destroy french and german philosophy.
you don't apply it to that though, because you've already decided to hate science because scientists make you feel intellectually inferior.

>>17437594
>tinder whore tries to talk to me about philosophy
>knownothing zizek twitter thot
>mentions fichte like she's laying out a royal flush, like no philosophical knowledge could ever be higher than knowing vaguely that fichte has something to do with hegel
>chokeslam her into the pavement

Don't EVER dirty Fichte with your WHORE MOUTH like that EVER AGAIN!

>>17441947
eww, she probably pronounced him like Fick-tee too. based anon

>>17437781
Confirmed midwit. There is a difference between a right and a need/desire.

You desire to stay alive/protect your life
You need food and water to exist.

Fucking retards in this thread

>>17437396
Max Weber, "Objectivity in the social sciences"

>>17441947

For women, even a passing wikipedia-tier interest in something is quite remarkable. You should have pressured her into trying to deepthroat your cock instead

>>17437423
damn summer already?

>>17442739
Science as a vocation
Politics as a vocation

>>17441440
You don't have the first clue what God is, no he is not a hypothesis you can test for in the world, the issue is ontologically prior to any sort of evidence you can gather in the world empirically.

>science tells us what the likely effect different choices will have. any politics concerning the environment obviously needs to be informed by biological and climate science. any politics concerning medical threatment needs to be informed by the science of medicine etc.
you aren't even aware apparently of the divide behind ethics and empirical claims, you arent aware that politics involve ethical choices, and you have way, way too much trust in the ability of science to gather sound evidence for political and historical issues, when you can in most cases not run any experiments nor gather enough data nor control the variables.

You are a complete fucking idiot who has no idea what you're talking about even vaguely.

>>17440292
Fucking autist. Learn to read instead of wrapping everything around your stupid issues

>>17438747
hmmm, what did he say that changed your mind?

>>17437820
We see it playing out right before our eyes, retard

>>17441947
>Fichte
Nothing of value was lost

>>17443406
Pure cope.

Kant destroyed Christcucks.
He showed (or tried to show) that you can reason your way neither to God nor away from God.
A whole lot of atheists and agnostics are perfectly fine with that conclusion, but it doesn't sit well with many Christcucks, who generally aren't comfortable with epistemic impasses.

>>17437586
reading is hard anon we know

>>17441731
seethe more

>>17448500
Granting for the moment that your reading of Kant is correct, nothing you just said is inherently incompatible with Christianity. Fideist theology asserts exactly that. Weird conclusion to walk away from Kant with, who, by the way, was utterly devout as a theist.

i kant read

>>17448728
All it does is force Christianity into the position of Ockham. Your entire system is now based on faith theology rather than natural theology. No one's saying you can't have faith, but all attempts at theological metaphysics are out the window with Kant

>>17449033
This is itself a very different statement from your initial claim that Kant "destroyed Christcucks". None of this is the knockout blow you seem to think it is. Also, please remind me, what is the epistemic state of metaphysics more generally, and scientific realism more specifically? Non-theist position haven't been left untouched, only in that case, there isn't the same framework for coping with epistemic murkiness.

Implying peeople who aren't into philosophy care.

>dunkin on normies
What an admirable goal. Pseuds ruining the board

Kantians Kant get pussy

>>17450032
hegelians do though