The GOAT

O

E

S

E

S

A

R

Q

actually he's a cancer on philosophy

N

I

Good

Why not write in a more easily understandable way?

G

How much to live there?

Kant specifically is talking about the possibility of logic, reason going beyond the the sensible world to understand itself thus establishing concepts that are inherently super sensible, that is, concepts that help us understand what understanding is and how it comes about. What you don’t understand is that what you are asking him to do is to speak within the bounds of your own ignorance, and he seeks to go beyond that. Kant is literally attempting to describe how things become understandable at all. In a way, Kant endeavored to go through this exercise specifically because he doesn’t think you even know what you mean by that word

What a load of bullshit.
Life is all about survival and nothing else.

Based and checked

Attached: D71A53CE-11A1-4D42-8E7C-D31B851D1B96.jpg (720x612, 86K)

There is a reason some of us obsess over philosophy, while others think they are fulfilling their lives by just surviving. I wonder what that is.

>judgments of taste are governed by a “subjectively necessary” transcendental principle to the effect that the existence of legitimate judgments of taste about the beautiful in nature presupposes that we must believe that the formal structures of empirical nature are well-adjusted to (even if not precisely designed for) the innate structures of our cognitive faculties

Woah

Attached: 20A2D2A6-F885-4A45-AEB3-6BA808F6143D.jpg (788x599, 97K)

..that's not a goat. that's immanuel kant, a german philosopher
this is what a goat looks like

Attached: goat.jpg (572x640, 223K)

The only way you can call yourself high IQ yet got tripped up while reading it is to have started laughing at the run-on.

One of its more clear and plainly-written segments comes in a Note to a section entitled: ‘The Transcendental Ideal’. In this, Kant writes:

>“The investigations and calculations of astronomers have taught us much that is wonderful; but the most important lesson we have received from them is the discovery of the abyss of our ignorance in relation to the universe – an ignorance, the magnitude of which reason, without the information thus derived, could never have conceived. This discovery of our deficiencies must produce a great change in the determination of the aims of human reason.”

There is a crucial point here for all of us, that the deficiencies in our claims to knowledge are as much if not more important than all our achievements.

Too often we assume that our knowledge is all-pervading or at least at some point in the future will be all-pervading. But there is no reason to assume this. Kant said (in 1781) that our ignorance of the whole nature of the universe constituted an “abyss”, and this is still true today, despite all the advances in science and technology. Any belief that we do, or can, understand reality in in its totality, is an act of faith on a par with a belief in God. We may believe it, but there is no reason to believe it.

This calls for a certain humility which is not easy to retain in our ‘fast-moving’ world of growing markets, moving peoples and the progressive colonisation of the natural world.

By trying to get on, just to get by, we can’t help but be a cog in the wheel of a system whose advocates claim ultimate right on their side, but with no ultimate justification – just self-justifying ideology. We have no reason to trust them just as we have no reason to trust the Marxists and Islamists and other ideologues who claim self-righteousness and moral superiority from spurious claims to ultimate knowledge.

Attached: 1C2F2DB4-672B-4E52-9E64-9365916D2383.jpg (736x1308, 102K)

I unironically agree

Attached: 1560472572298.jpg (554x554, 30K)

>any rand

Attached: Download.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Got any more images like this?

Attached: 1556884987330.png (434x327, 32K)

First three critiques and his work on aesthetics are very good.

His writings on politics make me vomit though, he couldn't have been more of an npc when tackling the issue, even Hegel has more nuance and he was the arch-liberal modernizer of the German idealist bunch.

Which in particular don’t you like? I just read about how JC was ordered to warn him against writing on religion and he complied until after the death of the King, to which he published the foundations

Simply surviving is a pretty low bar dont you think?

It's all an exercise in the possibility of that not being the case.

>I'm gonna temper whether this thing is an apple rather than an orange.
>Bullshit! It's an orange!

Yeah great man, cheers.