What the fuck is this dude's problem?

i thought 5' 11 was the king of manlets

>still writing on Kant still as a graduate, aka not having progressed beyond Kant

Attached: 1488143471715.png (320x320, 114K)

People often make the assumption that being a manlet is just about the height. Sure, they say, maybe they are not as popular with women, but that's about as far as it goes. And they could not be further from the truth. Manletism, as a disease, infects every single aspect of man. Not even race has as much of an impact on one's life. Kant is not just a philosopher, who happens to be a manlet, but rather he's first and foremost a manlet, who happens to do philosophy on the side. The subject of philosophical hermeneutics has made the fundamental mistake of disregarding this fact. As an illustration, consider a dog coming to you and barking at you. You do not stop to think why the dog is barking at you, have you done anything wrong, is there some moral flaw in you that the barking dog recognizes and tries to point out to you? Do you try to argue with the dog, or write dissertations to prove that he has indeed no reason to bark at you? No, you understand that it is merely a dog, and that's what a dog does - he barks at you. And you walk away. The same principle applies to Kant. Trying to understand what he meant in his books is a pointless endeavor. He was a manlet and his choice of expression of his condition was in the form of writing. Your best course of action is to put the books into trash and walk away, just like you would from a barking dog.

How do you think about his racist... thing

wrote my master's thesis on derrida and schelling. just happen to think that the job market is better for kant than it is for either of those thinkers. plus a more robust selection of scholarly literature to draw from.

stupid

it's thorny. i am neither of the position that kant held racist views merely because of his society nor that his racism invalidates all of his philosophy. i believe that kant's philosophy is definitely not as "blind" as it's often made out to be (i.e., all humans are rational actors regardless of race or creed), and that the margins of his moral philosophy can be exclusionary. the problem, therefore, is to whittle down how or if kant's more regrettable writings on race (by way of the anthropology) influenced aspects of his moral philosophy, and for us to make critical assessments of both, not just to purge one of the other. to be clear: i think deontology is one of the most compelling ethical systems to date, and have been significantly influenced by deontology. i am also a harsh critic of it as well.

You are in a dark room searching for a regular size man who isn't there. The manlet will grab you by your legs and slam you to the ground.

this joke isn't as funny as you think it is, you just don't get out much

Give me a general run-down of Kant’s main points when it comes to metaphysics please

are you interested in his practical philosophy? how is his theory of radical evil not a massive problem for his practical philosophy? at least in die religion innerhalb der grenzen der bloßen vernunft, i think it massively contradicts the demand for autonomy in his ethics

the religionsschrift made me dismiss kantian ethics

I don't understand why he decides that human autonomy is necessarily valuable and worthy of respect. I get the categorical imperative so far as it involves universalization of maxims and avoidance of contradiction, but it seems as though he just came up with the autonomy thing to cover his bases so that anything that the CI doesn't prevent people from doing can be reframed as "don't do that, it violates autonomy and that's bad for reasons."

Tell me what I misunderstand, because I have no doubt in my mind that Kant was smarter than I am.

Attached: 89ED1DF0-D365-47CF-9760-133FB334CE84.jpg (540x540, 33K)

kys

the problem of traditional metaphysics, in kant's eyes, is that traditional metaphysicians did not show how metaphysical concepts actually applied to experience; they failed to show the ground of their application. both the realists and idealists only demonstrated "inventories" of metaphysical concepts but merely pounded the table when it came time to showing that these concepts could be cashed out in knowledge or experience. whenever a realist talked about some pre-ordained isomorphism between the mind and reality, or an idealist talked about god implanting concepts into the mind, they failed to solve the hard problem of metaphysics.

in comes kant and transcendental idealism. space and time are neither concepts (leibniz) nor substances (newton) but the forms of intuition. metaphysical concepts (causality, substance, extension, etc) are not the given structures of the world, but instead the categories: structures of experience that the mind projects onto phenomena. the "B Deduction" shows why these are valid to experience, which is already a ground-breaking achievement compared to kant's predecessors.

metaphysical thinking is thus the analyses of the structures necessary for the possibility of experience. there are positive and negative ramifications. positively speaking: we can actually get purchase on "knowledge" through these analyses instead of a Humean "story." science is epistemologically guaranteed. negatively speaking: traditional metaphysical questions become virtually impossible to solve because knowledge is part and parcel with experience. what cannot be experienced cannot be known, properly speaking--contra Wolff and Leibniz. although Kant has compelling reasons for the system of reason, they are at most logical spaces of possibility and regulative ideas.

with kant, i'm more interested in his process of thinking than i am with much of his conclusions. i am foremost concerned with environmental philosophy, and i generally think that deontology is too restrictive for any thinking of the environment.

that being said, i'm not terribly studied up on the religion. i'm more familiar with schelling's reception of the problem of evil in the freiheitsschrift. wish i had a better understanding of it though.

I see, what do you think of Hegel? Do you see him as a metaphysician betraying Kant's project or, as the post-Kantians think, as just reformulating Kant's critical philosophy?

>I see, what do you think of Hegel? Do you see him as a metaphysician betraying Kant's project or, as the post-Kantians think, as just reformulating Kant's critical philosophy?

my approach to hegel is more from the side of how he criticizes kant. i'm always interested in looking at hegel, for sure, but for now let me just say that i think that hegel presents important challenges to kant's critical philosophy--particularly related to the categories and the moral philosophy. as far as hegel's own philosophy, i think that he represents the highest expression of phenomenology possible--but that means that he is still within the confines of kantian philosophy.

Kant is a kind of reverse Nietzsche. Turgid vs. spastic, hypocritically humble vs. hypocritically proud, blind Agnosticism vs. blind self-confidence, progressively dual vs. recursively dual, autistically apolitical vs. grossly partisan, etc. They both suck dicks.

Attached: this man IS kant 4.jpg (1491x1491, 571K)

noFap 4 life

Having read little of his writings, I engaged heavily with his imagination of the philosophers' stone.
"Nobody can or will ever comprehend, how the comprehending should have a motivating power; it can admittedly judge; but to give this judgement power, so that it becomes a motive able to impel the will to performance of an action - to understand this is the philosophers' stone."

The solution is pretty simple.

>as far as hegel's own philosophy, i think that he represents the highest expression of phenomenology possible--but that means that he is still within the confines of kantian philosophy.
And Husserl is not? Why is that?

>That feel when you realize that it is only through the unification of the will with the moral law within that you acheive autonomy,
>That feel when moral action is the expression of your own noumenal self
>That feel when you realize hedonism is merely heteronomy of the will.
>That feel when you realize that God and Immortality are necessary postulates of the practical reason.

Kant is unironically the most based person ever to live. Read Rawls for a good account of why.

Attached: Blessedness.png (1001x823, 806K)

Name 5 ideas of Kant that aren't self-evident to any modern man

>you just don't get out much

reddit tier post

first year who just read the critique of pure reason...
what's the deal with the categories man? it seems like kant kinda just pulls them out of his ass. Like, he's talking about how classical logic represents the form of thought abstracted from all content, then he posits some logical classifications which are alien to the classical systems, i'm fine with that, but from there we somehow jump to these categories, 'ancestral concepts' from whose synthesis all other concepts are ultimately derived.
I suppose i'm probably just missing some subtle argument, but this really bothered me, as the categories come up again and again as essentially the unifying link between sensible intuition and intelligible thought.

Another graduate student writing dissertation (partly) on Kant here

Go FUCK yourself

Not him, but Kant does pull them out of his ass. Read Schopenhauer's "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy." His categories are a Procrustean bed of philosophy.

They would only be self evident because Kant's thought has been so influential that his ideas are ingrained in western culture. Instead, you should imagine yourself as a medieval peasant being presented Kant's ideas and see if your proposition still holds.

First of it, fuck off. The idea of "cultural osmosis" is ridiculous and pathetic. Secondly, Calculus 1 would be dark magic to the mind of a medieval peasant, so Kant isn't winning any big boi awards there, if his insights were only valuable to brainlets, he's worthless.

>believing that all medieval peasants were universally brainlets
How myopic.

Yeah, and calculus was, do you think Liebniz and Newton were morons whom just thought like everyone else? Have you ever actually read anything hes ever written or do you just sit back and think that 'all philosophy is just obvious hurr hurr ive got it all figured out bro, everythings relative'