/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7257083]

thoughts in kant?

[Anonymous No.7257090]

>>7257083
Greatest philsopher to have ever lived.

[Anonymous No.7257093]

He's correct.

[Anonymous No.7257095]

>>7257083
Pretty based/10 tbh

[Anonymous No.7257158]

Didn't this bastard's crack-pipe ideas to make world peace end up causing the first world war?

[Anonymous No.7257168]

>>7257158
You mean the "Perpetual Peace"?

How is that so?

[Anonymous No.7257210]

>>7257158
Yes, and he caused the Holocaust too.

[Anonymous No.7257243]

>>7257210
and he destroyed morality as well

[Anonymous No.7257262]

>>7257083
>>7257095
I'm cracking up
I've seen both these memes before but they're so goddamn good

[Anonymous No.7257396]

>>7257158
I'd say it's more that the French Revolution wasn't able to go as far as it needed to and so Europe ended up with stunted and misshaped versions of his ideas driving it which led to problems.

[Anonymous No.7257411]

>>7257396
>stunted and misshaped
Are you talking shit about post-Kantian German idealism?
CUCK

[Anonymous No.7257419]

>>7257083
One of the smartest philosophers, up there with Aristotle and Leibniz

[Anonymous No.7257455]

>>7257083
>>7257095

Someone needs to pay to put this on porn sites

[Anonymous No.7257467]

>This Swabian alchemist wrote a book containing ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE and YOU aren't even attending his LECTURES!
>Click HERE to LEARN ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE!

[Anonymous No.7257473]

[Anonymous No.7257477]

Schoppy says that reading Kant is like turning the light on in a dark room

[Anonymous No.7257485]

>>7257473
This is my favorite one, and I think the best. Sartre's googly eyes elevate it to a 10/10.

[Anonymous No.7257525]

>>7257083
>thoughts in kant?

No! They're in themselves

[Anonymous No.7257572]

>>7257485
My favorite

[Anonymous No.7257641]

/lit/ has the funniest memes

[Anonymous No.7257722]

Tbh, I think kant is a great thinker and philosopher, but i disagree with many of his views such as deontology and rationality as a priori

[Anonymous No.7257765]

Can I get some freaking reactionaries in the house tonight?

[Anonymous No.7257857]

>>7257765

reactionary views are for plebs who are scared of change

[Anonymous No.7257868]

>>7257857
Or people who aren't afraid of leftypols and have less idealistic views of human nature.

[Anonymous No.7258458]

>>7257168
Not him, but it is an interesting idea, albeit a ridiculous one. "Towards perpetual peace" or whatever it was called was against a world government and for coalitions as far as I recall. My historical knowledge is far from perfect, but as Blackadder explains it, coalitions were considered the solution to the prevention of a world war. So, in order to discourage war, two very strong sides had to be formed. Except it didn't work. Obviously, you don't have to be a kantian to see that equal sides make war unprofitable and thus discouraged.

I suppose there is a connection to be made, although saying that Kant caused World War I sounds more like a dank meme than a serious argument.

[Anonymous No.7258476]

>>7257419
>One of the smartest philosophers, up there with Aristotle and Leibniz

Aristotle and Leibniz are repugnant spook-dwelling shits

[Anonymous No.7258484]

>>7258458
>saying that Kant caused World War I sounds more like a dank meme than a serious argument.
>implying dank memes aren't vastly superior to serious arguments

[Anonymous No.7258490]

>>7257083
His writings are quite precise

[Anonymous No.7258513]

>>7257083


My philosophical education starts in philosophy of science, and so it lies closer to this century, and only incorporates older traditions to the degree they reached here (with the exception of Aquinas, because I was raised Catholic, but the existence of Roman Catholic Catechism and Apologetics means he sort of reached here...) So I have little to say on Kant's direct opponents.

Sorry, I will have to start from the middle:

2: Whitehead departs from a historical study of the sciences, but in his philosophy, he builds upon Kant and Leibniz quite directly. The rationale he gives for starting from transcendental idealism is that there is no logical relationship between the way things are, and the way we intuitively believe them to be that explains why our intuitions are useful guides to interpreting how things are.

The idea that the physical sciences exist depends upon a notion of reliability that seems to bear out in reality, but cannot find its cause in the actual physical science itself. No degree of predictive power can explain the existence of predictive power. We can take it as observed, but then what suggests it should continue to be as we have observed it? We are given to thoroughly baseless assumptions of a kind of stability that we find absolutely necessary but cannot justify.

Putting aside a directly designed universe, the next most logical reason for this perceived good fit between our logic and our experience is that our world is anchored to some other set of relations that are more readily accessed by us directly than they are through the world itself. We have an organic model of reality that prompts us to accept the regularity of observed reality as a matter of course, ignoring the incredible complexity implicit that would be necessary to keep the two in correlation if such correlation were not somehow automatic.

The scientific fallback position is a generalization of evolution -- the world is correlated with our perceptions because our perceptions are created by the world through adapting to it continually. We imagine the evolution of species, of geographies, of galaxies, and even of universes through natural selection and the weak anthropic principle. We ended up here because here is a convenient place to be, and all the versions of us that went to less convenient places just ceased to exist. (Or they are right over there on the other side of that veil between worlds -- either way, they did not end up as 'here' as we did.) In short, we are audacious, cunning and lucky entrepreneurs -- we found success because it was there to be found.

[Anonymous No.7258516]

>>7258513

But even that mechanism of 'finding success' requires that the notion of success does not simply break down. As the Boltzmann Brain argument and the argument on Pervasive Simulation point out, in this paradigm of evolutions, it is more likely, in some sense, for us to only seem to exist and matter, than to actually do so. But even if we only seem to exist, there is a matrix in which that existence is embedded, and the whole notion of evolution devolves recursively into an infinite regress.

We can find lower and lower levels of reality necessary to explain our sheer contingency. But those layers build up to the point that they simply should not be reliable. There is no excuse for writing off the underlying structure as a mere accident.

3: If that underlying structure is real, it is what is there to be genuinely understood. Connection to the ideal, then, is the essence of intelligence. He theorizes that there are various other forms of intelligence that are different from ours. But our form of intelligence surely has autonomy as its ultimate expression.

He did not have computers, but many of us, now, a computer is the obvious test case for what should and should not be considered genuine intelligence. Although a computer might outperform its human creators in terms of logic, it cannot select its own direction. To the degree that it would need an algorithm with which to contrast directions in order to choose one, that algorithm would, in fact, depend entirely upon another being's choices. So using it cannot ultimately be intelligent, only efficient. The decision does not derive from the background of ideals, but only from their interpretation by another thing.

Only that aspect of the underlying ideal world that is not put into reality by concerns external to the person can really be considered to contain real intelligence beyond mere computational power. And a large part of that is the aspect of thought that takes the form of a will to autonomy. If we remove the autonomy of a temporal being, it becomes a computer (or a mere animal) and ceases to have true intelligence. If a deeper connection to the ideal is to be had, some of it might come through sheer computation, but the more direct access is through all of the aspects of thought that are not computational. Therefore, although we should use everything we know to our best advantage, we cannot allow logic to rob individuals of the ability to express what is not already known or we are cutting ourselves off from the spring of true intelligence. Ergo: ethics is the wisest deployment of all our logic that still respects autonomy.

[Anonymous No.7258540]

>>7258484
>Implying serious argumentation is more than the transmission of dank memes between the best memers