separating the men from the boys since 1781

separating the men from the boys since 1781

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Instead of being a hermit whose study was his cell, and whose sole companions were his books and his thoughts, we find that his interests, like his reading, were extensive and varied, that he was very sociable, was frequently in company, and exerted a powerful social influence.
    He changed philosophy forever and had an active social life on the side, what a chad

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Ergonomic correspondence won’t be anyone’s future, which is consistent with the bias

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Give me a qrd on why I need to read this book

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      lots of sex scenes

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Sex is icky, give me literally any other reason

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Transcendental argumentation

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Kant is actually much easier to read than you think, especially if you don't force yourself to rush through it. 10 pages a day and you're done in 3 months.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      10 pages of Kant a day is formidable for the average goon troon

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      10 pages is still too fast tbh, there's every reason to take Kant slow, though I agree that mentioning his writing in the same breath as Hegel's is unfair.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I read the First Critique in about a week and understood it perfectly

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Any unique insights you'd like to share?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It's a load of bollocks

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Another person who doesn't read making tedious jokes.
            *sigh*

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Is this actually doable? I thought you had to read it through at least once not caring that much about the details to get the bigger picture and then read it again like every word contained the ultimate wisdom

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Just read Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism
        >read twice
        Helps w most philosophy. But ultimately if you're looking for gospel truth you won't find it in the words of any philosopher (except perhaps the words of the Christ...)

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Once you read enough modern philosophy you'll see it's all a dead end. We need to return to medievals and ancients. Renaissance perhaps a lil too. And ur history. Pre history. The transcendent is returning through the immanent. Maybe it's space weather. Or some joachimisr nonsense. Regardless Heidi is right that Being has been forgotten. The internet intensifies and multiplies falsity of simulacra. But the true and beautiful and real remain.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the frick up Leo Strauss. Kant is a god.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Criticising pure reason
    So what does he suggest instead? Tainted reason? Intuition?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Pure reason's self critique.

      Shut the frick up Leo Strauss. Kant is a god.

      Kant would certainly deny the possibility of theosis and intellectual intuitions. Certainly you do not believe be came up with some sort of transhistorical understanding? Truly as laughable as the Hegelian orthodoxy.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Not sure if I agree with your previous post, but yeah, people have no idea how much of a product of his time Kant was, Critique, judge, tribunal, words Kant use all the time, is blatant, but people are still clueless.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Kant would certainly deny the possibility of theosis and intellectual intuitions
        >t. doesn't know

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          A fellow esotericist. The mysteries can only be preserved through constant revelation as the quote goes. And constant occultation I must say. Indeed. One should read as much philosophy as possible. But always remain true to the truth of self.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically, the Catholic philosopher DC Schindler has a book poking fun at this reading the title

      Okay, but where's the book to separate the women from the transwomen, the men from the transmen, and the gender fluid and their fluids from the rest of us?

      Pic related

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      "critique" in this context means systematic analysis, not an attack.

      To be fair, Kant does define limits around human reasoning. To him, logical laws are limited to the "phenomenal world", which is ultimately grounded in subjective experience. Space, Time, Noncontradiction, and all other such fundamental concepts are not objective realities, but have their source in the thinking and perceiving mind. Beyond this world of phenomena, nothing can coherently be said.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, but where's the book to separate the women from the transwomen, the men from the transmen, and the gender fluid and their fluids from the rest of us?

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Do you take anything seriously besides your own self?

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Based
    >Kant’s teaching produces a fundamental change in every mind that has grasped it. The change is so great that it may be regarded as an intellectual rebirth. It alone is capable of really removing the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect. Neither Berkeley nor Malebranche is competent to do this, for these men remain too much in the universal, whereas Kant goes into the particular. And this he does in a way which is unexpected either before or after him, and one which has quite a peculiar, one might say immediate, effect on the mind. In consequence of this, the mind undergoes a fundamental undeceiving, and thereafter looks at all things in another light. But only in this way does man become susceptible to the more positive explanations that I am going to give. On the other hand, the man who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may studied, is, so to speak, in a state of innocence; in other words, he has remained in the grasp of that natural and childlike realism in which we are all born, and which qualifies one for every possible thing except philosophy.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What did this book actually accomplish? I started reading it but it seemed to be going nowhere, into endless abstractions.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >What did this book actually accomplish
      Solves metaphysics

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Oh my word! Prithee good sir, do these metaphysics have any inductions?!?! If the king were to see me in this state he would wish himself another prostate problem. Are these metaphysics devoid of all inductions?!

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I'm going to milk your prostate and you're going to like it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Well that's a confounded induction! So you mean to tell me that this great Immanuel can't had to stoop to an induction? I thought metaphysics was a serious for of inquiry! By George, that's an induction too!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If the point you're trying to make is that Kant didn't solve metaphysics, I agree. I was just making a tongue-in-cheek hyperbole in my original post.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            wtf even does solving metaphysics mean?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It's something I've heard Kantians say. I assume it means "come up with a system of metaphysics that is impossible to critique" i.e. an unflawed philosophy, as silly as that is

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            But anything can be critiqued. I can critique it purely for how long it is or how hard it is to understand.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >But anything can be critiqued.
            Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was a silly viewpoint.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            > as silly as that is
            not silly at all

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Prithee good sir, I cannot even trust my own senses at the moment due to induction issues, now I'm not looking for any nonsense that has no basis in the real world mind you, I want a straight forward no induction metaphysics, no funny business, I know this involves induction in and of itself but since the current climate is that we are going to target induction in each other's threads I just wanted to stop in and see how committed you were to proving metaphysics without induction. I need to know it is induction free.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Liber de Causis is the most based and pure deductive metaphysics.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Book of causes? Sounds like induction to me. Elaborate.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Induction is an inferior form of and known by the deductive. Deduction is king metaphysic.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Well that doesn't tell me anything about it. If it is deductive then surely you can convey it to me? But I also don't know what it contains, so does this mean it's inductive?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >muh copernican narcissism!
            You have Kantian brainworms. Begone.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like you still need induction. You should read Hume's argument about how we need it, but should keep our philosophical reflections about the inherent nature of it to ourselves.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Induction is applied deduction. The synthetic and analytic, a priori and a posteriori, are two ends of a spectrum, moreso polarity, dialextixal fluxx, than antinomies to be respected meekly. There are no laws. Only limitations. Deductively, solipsistic autohenotheism is all. Just don't forget metta w yr boddhicitta... and yes we need induction for everything. Language nor even perception and phenomenology is not given purely. Myth of given and such.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Living in the world yet not forming attachments to the dust of the world is the way of a true Zen student.

            >Poverty is your treasure. Never exchange it for an easy life.

            >Modesty is the foundation of all virtues. Let your neighbors discover you before you make yourself known to them.

            >Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe. Pass each day in peaceful contemplation.

            >Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said: 'the flag moves.' The other said: 'the wind moves.' Hui-Neng, the sixth Patriarch, said: 'Gentlemen! It is not the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves.' The two monks were awestruck.

            >When the many are reduced to one, to what is the one reduced?

            >As it was, Soc's style was constantly changing, unorthodox, humorous, and even bizarre. Once he ran screaming after a little white dog that had just peed on the station steps, right in the middle of a lecture he was giving on the 'Supreme Benefits of an Unshakably Serene Composure.'

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >he tries antinomianism before submitting to nomos and thereby avoids ataraxia and isonomia
            Many such cases! Sad.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You want to say that shit without induction? All I'm hearing is a b***h.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Puris omnia pura
            Sapientis omnia sapienta
            Iykyk
            Bro

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like induction. How do you know if you can only say if you know? You are by definition telling me this is not deductive are you not?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Ignorance is a false principle
            Brought about by worship of a nothingness
            That does not even exist

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Deductively tell me truth. Relieve me of my ignorance without using induction oh wise metaphysicist! Tell me what exists and what does not without induction.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            1+1=2

            The fabled synthetic a priori!

            Of course it is a posteriori to language and math and symbolism. And analytic to language and math and symbolism.

            nta but r u skitzk? U seem really hung up on deductive metaphysix..... I have no cattle in this beef!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you have already admonished it is inductive by nature of language. How does 1+1=2 tell me any metaphysical truths?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Read GE Moore

            >lt;dr: I have two hands and if I see you irl I will frick you up if you talk this mad shit, gay

            Peace n bless!

            It is what it is.
            Some ppl don't think it do be like it is but it do.
            Real eyes realize real lies.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you metaphysical truths are limited to telling me you have 2 hands I doubt I have much to worry about from a b***h like you.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You were doubting all and yet at scoff at two hands and promise?

            [...]

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Tell it to me without induction.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I deduce that you are a moron, Watson. Goodnight, God bless, and good luck!
            >inb4 what does that mean deductively???

            [...]

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So you need induction to even communicate with me? Is that what you are reduced to telling me oh wise metaphysician?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Physician heal thyself?

            Betta be metaphysician...

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So, am I to conclude that metaphysics is solely something that I create by myself, to heal myself, because a regular physician is not capable of this? In all seriousness this is actually quite possibly the best definition of metaphysics that I have ever heard, and I am being genuine in saying this.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            huh?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, you have nothing more to say, you might be the wisest metaphysician on here.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Whereof we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent *whacks w stick*

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Ignorance is a false principle; Brought about by worship of a nothingness; That does not even exist

            You do have deductive truth do you not? How is it taking you this long to speak it, deductive truth should be something you can elucidate with ease should it not? Surely you are not guided by the false principles of ignorance and worship nothing am I right oh wise metaphysician?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It is what it is.
            Some ppl don't think it do be like it is but it do.
            Real eyes realize real lies.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Trusting your eyes! You are a logical illusion, you profess to have truth but in fact you have nothing. Just inductive nonsense and whatnot about how high and mighty you are because you jerk off to metaphysics when in actuality you are forced to speak that you know nothing. This is the power of metaphysics.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >he says in a Kant thread

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It provides solution to thousands years long empiricists vs rationalist debate starting basically from Aristotle vs Plato. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is based in experience which seems fine but Rationalists then can ask what about physics/math/science? Basically you can prove things and they will be like that in reality whenever you measure, but you never experienced them beforehand. And there were no solution in sight for a very long time, a lot of philosophers wrote a lot of books but no one could convince the other side.
      Kant though decided to switch things up. He even compared it to a Copernican evolution. In short you can say the idea is that not we experience an object as it is but our mind constructs object that we later can experience. He claims there are certain a priori knowledge that is needed for this construction to happen. It includes space and time and twelve categories. You can't ever find out what's the real reality because you can only experience through these a priori lenses. And that could answer why math is possible - because it is related to rules of a priori. If your mind constructs everything in Euclidean space then you can not have a direct experience of something else.
      This is very very short summary though and the book is a very very long proof of these ideas. It's not an easy read too.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        incredibly amateur summary

        What did this book actually accomplish? I started reading it but it seemed to be going nowhere, into endless abstractions.

        modern philosophy before kant was dominated by a debate between the rationalists (e.g. descartes, spinoza, malebranche, leibniz) and the empiricists (e.g. bacon, berkeley, locke, hume). the rationalists believed that all truth could be derived from pure speculation alone, whereas the empiricists believed all knowledge was gained from sensory experience
        kant says both are right about different domains of knowledge. he makes a distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements: analytic judgements are those like "all bachelors are married" or "all triangles have three sides" that don't arrive at any new truth about the world but instead deliver necessary truths about a concept that are contained within that concept. synthetic judgements are those judgements that actually acquire, or synthesize, new information, like learning that purple flowers exist. he thinks that judgements can also be divided into a priori and a posteriori judgements: a priori judgements are those that are arrived at without any experience of the external world (rationalists), whereas a posteriori judgements are those that are arrived at only through experience of the external world (empiricists). kant says that all analytic judgements are a priori, but synthetic judgements can be both a priori and a posteriori. he says mathematics has the unique capability of being entirely a priori and also being capable of acquiring new infornation: there is nothing in the concepts of "2" or "+" that contain the concept of "4", and yet we can through pure reflection learn that 2 + 2 = 4
        furthermore, kant believes the mind necessarily "filters" empirical data it receives. first, your brain receives the raw sensory data. then it goes through the intuitions of space and time (he thinks these are purely mental and don't exist in the external world) to place the object being observed in a spatial position as well as a point in time. then it filters that spatially and temporally located object through the twelve "categories": https://iep.utm.edu/wp-content/media/Kant_logic_categories.jpg
        so after going through both space and time, and then the twelve categories, does your raw sensory data turn into a concept that your mind can understand. this is an entirely mental process: the famous "copernican revolution" quote refers ro the fact that kant is claiming all of this is mental, philosophers before him generally believed that our minds arrived at knowledge of the world outside us directly, like they believed space and time as well as the categories were features of the external world rather than of our minds

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >incredibly amateur summary
          You summary says exactly the same with different words.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            that doesn't contradict your greentext, you can tell someone is amateur if they explain something poorly

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            How is it poor? Is it unclear?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            it's too brief and throws jargon at the anon without explaining what it means, also it kind of randomly pulls things to mention instead of being presented more organizedly

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            OK fair enough. I tried not to use jargon though.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            sorry i feel bad now that i see you were well-meaning, on here i'm used to people posing as intellectuals especially for books like this that are known for being hard to read so i was being dismissive/kurt. don't let this dissuade you from your studies and helping out anons, it seems your understanding of CoPR is fair

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            sorry i feel bad now that i see you were well-meaning, on here i'm used to people posing as intellectuals especially for books like this that are known for being hard to read so i was being dismissive/kurt. don't let this dissuade you from your studies and helping out anons, it seems your understanding of CoPR is fair

            Now kiss :3

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      incredibly amateur summary
      [...]
      modern philosophy before kant was dominated by a debate between the rationalists (e.g. descartes, spinoza, malebranche, leibniz) and the empiricists (e.g. bacon, berkeley, locke, hume). the rationalists believed that all truth could be derived from pure speculation alone, whereas the empiricists believed all knowledge was gained from sensory experience
      kant says both are right about different domains of knowledge. he makes a distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements: analytic judgements are those like "all bachelors are married" or "all triangles have three sides" that don't arrive at any new truth about the world but instead deliver necessary truths about a concept that are contained within that concept. synthetic judgements are those judgements that actually acquire, or synthesize, new information, like learning that purple flowers exist. he thinks that judgements can also be divided into a priori and a posteriori judgements: a priori judgements are those that are arrived at without any experience of the external world (rationalists), whereas a posteriori judgements are those that are arrived at only through experience of the external world (empiricists). kant says that all analytic judgements are a priori, but synthetic judgements can be both a priori and a posteriori. he says mathematics has the unique capability of being entirely a priori and also being capable of acquiring new infornation: there is nothing in the concepts of "2" or "+" that contain the concept of "4", and yet we can through pure reflection learn that 2 + 2 = 4
      furthermore, kant believes the mind necessarily "filters" empirical data it receives. first, your brain receives the raw sensory data. then it goes through the intuitions of space and time (he thinks these are purely mental and don't exist in the external world) to place the object being observed in a spatial position as well as a point in time. then it filters that spatially and temporally located object through the twelve "categories": https://iep.utm.edu/wp-content/media/Kant_logic_categories.jpg
      so after going through both space and time, and then the twelve categories, does your raw sensory data turn into a concept that your mind can understand. this is an entirely mental process: the famous "copernican revolution" quote refers ro the fact that kant is claiming all of this is mental, philosophers before him generally believed that our minds arrived at knowledge of the world outside us directly, like they believed space and time as well as the categories were features of the external world rather than of our minds

      kant calls that which we observe through our mind's spatiotemporal and categorical filter "phenomena", and the objects before they're filtered ("the thing-in-itself") "noumena". we can't know anything about noumena, since they lie outside space and time or our categories, so we're epistemically limited to only talking about that which our mind constructs
      kant calls his system "transcendetal idealism", the "transcendent" aspect being the fact that he's overcoming both the rationalist and empiricist worldview, and the "idealist" aspect referring to the fact that his doctrine believes that the world as we observe it is mental (in philosophy, "idealism" refers to the view that the world is made of our ideas, i.e. it's mental, it's the inverse of materalism). the title of the book refers to the fact that he's criticizing pure reason; pure reason is reason that doesn't take into account empirical knowledge. it's a critique of the rationalists, since they tried to use pure speculative thought (i.e. pure reason) to arrive at truth. this is why kant says in the preface that metaphysics has made no progress in contrast to the sciences, because metaphysics has been up to that point been done by rationalists who relied on pure reason. there's a section called the transcendental dialectic where he shows that pure reason can lead to opposite conclusions, e.g. one can argue both for and against free will. his solution to these dilemmas is to postulate their solution based on practical considerations ("practical reason"), e.g. we must assume free will exists because otherwise everyday morality has no foundation. but he doesn't claim that that proves free will. this ties into his attempt to give a rational foundation for religious faith, since the other two dialectics are the existence of god and the existence of the afterlife
      that's the gist of the book as far as i know, hope it helps. you should really be reading scholarly secondary sources instead of relying on the pseuds on here, it's not going to be everyday that someone like me who actually has formal training shows up

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fixes your philosophy in you're path

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    this homie needs to critique his barber look at his hairline lmao

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >blocks your path

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Kant btfo Locke lmao even

      >The celebrated Locke, for want of due reflection on these points, and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in experience, sought also to deduce them from experience, and yet proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt, with their aid, to arrive it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience. David Hume perceived that, to render this possible, it was necessary that the conceptions should have an a priori origin. But as he could not explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as necessarily connected in the object,—and it never occurred to him that the understanding itself might, perhaps, by means of these conceptions, be the author of the experience in which its objects were presented to it,—he was forced to drive these conceptions from experience, that is, from a subjective necessity arising from repeated association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective,—in one word, from "habit." But he proceeded with perfect consequence and declared it to be impossible with such conceptions and the principles arising from them, to overstep the limits of experience. The empirical derivation, however, which both of these philosophers attributed to these conceptions, cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we do possess scientific a priori cognitions, namely, those of pure mathematics and general physics.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Not a Locke fanboy but that quote perfectly demonstrates Kant's unaccountable gibberings about 'scientific a priori'. Mathematics is not a priori true in a mind external manner because the general ideas which are used to construct the mathematical question exist only in the mind, and hence cannot even be said to be true or false (let alone a priori). Physics is obviously a posteriori.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Mathematics is not a priori true in a mind external manner because the general ideas which are used to construct the mathematical question exist only in the mind, and hence cannot even be said to be true or false (let alone a priori). Physics is obviously a posteriori.
          Somebody obviously didn't read the critique

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Kant was clearly autistic and his philosophy reflects that.

    His metaphysics assume that it is the subjective intellect which forms reality, rather than the subjective intellect being formed by reality; which is autistic solipsism.

    His ethics again posits the subjective intellect itself as the ground of ethical justification, or says, my way is the best way and any deviation from that in any case is wrong; which is autistic.

    I say this as an autist himself.

    Augustine was right about everything. Aquinas was right about almost everything.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Kant was the opposite of autistic.

      of being a hermit whose study was his cell, and whose sole companions were his books and his thoughts, we find that his interests, like his reading, were extensive and varied, that he was very sociable, was frequently in company, and exerted a powerful social influence.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Kant was not autistic. He was extremely good at socializing which you would know if you had read anything in your life

        sameposter
        the dude was obviously autistic, he never in his life leven once eft his hometown, he punctually took walks so regularly that people would adjust their clocks based on when he walked by, and that "socialization" you mentioned consisted of things like organizing his dinner parties into segments that he would formulaically follow e.g. the first topic of conversation is always the weather, the last topic is always jokes so that nobody leaves in a bad mood
        take your own advice and read a book

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Kant was not autistic. He was extremely good at socializing which you would know if you had read anything in your life

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Autists can socialize well, within their own circles, they're not inept in that faculty. That's a caricature of autism.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Naive realist detected

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yes

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Women need to understand Kant more than men do. Men inherently understand Kant through interacting with other men.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *