Where were you when this man destroyed metaphysics?
Where were you when this man destroyed metaphysics?
Other urls found in this thread:
I was not around
those were better days
He did what? When? How? I was under the impression this fraud was a fool who got BTFO by Kant
Is he based and redpilled?
yes because he basically proves Zen is correct
>Zen
that's not based and redpilled friend. EVROPA > REST OF GAY WORLD
Kant loved Hume though
Yes. Kant basically accepts 99% of Hume's position and asks 'da fuck we go from here?'
He failed to destroy metaphysics just like many others after him.
Also, friendly reminder that the Greeks had already made a clear distinction between what men can sense and imagine and what they can understand, but this idiot anglo had to reveal his ignorance of this distinction between images and ideas, even though it had been so well established by the work of earlier philosophers.
Isn't that where religion picks up?
Religion is schizophrenia. We can do better than make up solutions. Complete the German Idealism.
>Religion is schizophrenia.
explain or citation
>We can do better than make up solutions.
explain
>Complete the German Idealism.
look around; how
where were you when this man destroyed philosophy
Is this you youtu.be
He only addressed the distinction between images and ideas in response to the rationalists who imagined them to be one and the same in order to justify the existence of a divine creator.
>H-eh-gul
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
WHERE IS THE FROM
IM FUCKING DYING
beautiful
first day on lit or what
Deleuze destroyed Hume
he turned empricism into a grotesque parody of itself, much like based whitehead did to logical positivism
made me laugh so hard
I believe you used to wrong picture my friend
upboat le xDD wow good maymay fellow 4channeler
What did they mean by this
>I freely admit that it was the remembrance of David Hume which, many years ago, first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a completely different direction.
He basically read Hume and said, oh shit good point
Where were you when this man destroyed Hume?
Big if true
>destroyed metaphysics
>yeah ok you dont perceive causality so lemme just skeptically blow your mind there kiddo. but you perceive uniformity i aint gotta explain shit
>nature just kinda plants a tendency to ascribe causes to things and like effects to like causes but that nature's unknowable so just trust me on this
Hume 'destroyed' the highly redundant aspects of metaphysics, but the real questions, those of identity and nature—as started in Plato—weren't seriously asked until came along.
This is like saying Wittgenstein destroyed metaphysics:
>haha all these philosophical substantiations are just bumps on your head from running into the boundaries of language
>haha im just trying to say something that sounds like pragmatism
>Mir kommt hier eine Art Weltanschauung in die Quere.
>fuark
>wittgenstein seyning out
If you want to take philosophy seriously you have to ask whether 'metaphysics' is something that can be the object of your destruction, or whether the categories presupposed in that claim are already informing you to speak in such a manner.