Reality isn't so black and white, it's all about nuance. He was correct to the same degree that he was a handsome and healthy Aryan man. If he worked out more and had more children he would have been more correct.
kant separates knowledge from ontology, causality being necessary doesnt mean its real >but we just have to... LE BELIEVE it is??
keep coping
neokantian philosophers were more based that kant anyways
Can someone please explain his hat a posteriori please, since it always comes across as a turban of some sort. Any a priori arguments will be discarded as pure folly
…except by his diet, and that bog that he fell into one time.
so it seems, so it seems
Reality isn't so black and white, it's all about nuance. He was correct to the same degree that he was a handsome and healthy Aryan man. If he worked out more and had more children he would have been more correct.
he was so right that he turned the german's schitzo
its crazy the amount of schizo-cope that the fact that causality isnt real produces in some minds
wtf are you midwits talking about? Kant absolutely demolished Hume. The ones calling Kant schizo are the ones that get filtered by him.
kant separates knowledge from ontology, causality being necessary doesnt mean its real
>but we just have to... LE BELIEVE it is??
keep coping
neokantian philosophers were more based that kant anyways
>causality being necessary doesnt mean its real
Kant proves it real empirically, which is what Hume couldn't prove QED Hume btfo. now you may seethe.
Dude Maimon literally uses Hume to pave the way to overcoming Kantian philosophy that ended up in Fichte, Schelling, Hegel.
Judea Pearl debunked Hume's views on causality
>Judea
>destroys Kant and Hume and turns them into dust
Too bad he's losing to Norwood
He remained undeflated.
He HIMSELF gives his own solution to skepticism. God why doesn't IQfy ever actually read Hume, not even the Enquiry but certainly not the Treatise.
But how do you know OP is not referring to his common sense, naive realism against the rational impractical skepticism?
Assuming OP is, the other anons don't appear to be.
his drip remains undefeated
Can someone please explain his hat a posteriori please, since it always comes across as a turban of some sort. Any a priori arguments will be discarded as pure folly