The most refuted man in history

Refuted by scientists
Refuted by philosophers
Refuted by theologians
Refuted by himself
Entire school of german idealism born out of desire to refute this utter moron some more
Refuted by kantians and anti-kantians
Instead of using IQ tests we should just give people a copy of Critique and see how quickly they refute it

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >broooo only do what you want to be law
    Genius, simply genius, truly a mind of the ages

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Struck a nerve huh?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I just realized.. he has no neck and is surely suffering from that mental moronation disorder associated with no neck.

      OHHH KANT IS A TOKEN

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    op here, wrong pic, meant to post plato

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it never ends with you guys

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neurosciences proved him right.
    Another name for German Idealism is post-kantianism, not anti-kantianism. They expanded his transcendental philosophy and/or altered his methods. Hegel eliminates the concept of Vorstellung so the process of experience + emergence of consciousness becomes more organic.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Neurosciences proved him right.
      How and when?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How
        carefully
        >when?
        in the past

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I thought so..

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're just coping because you couldn't stop yourself from touching your weewee

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How does he make the case that time is a feature of our mind and not something "out there"? I struggle with this.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He claims literally everything is a feature of your mind. He even says that when you think about yourself, you arent thinking about your self in itself but merely an appearance of yourself constructed by your mind

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's a necessary framework for human understanding. He asserts that space and time are not concepts derived from experience but are conditions for the possibility of experience itself. They are the lenses through which we perceive the external world. It is impossible to make sense of an experience without a time and a place, that's his whole point about apriori knowledge which exists independent of experience and is a a prerequisite for it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >He asserts that space and time are not concepts derived from experience but are conditions for the possibility of experience itself.
        Not gonna lie, that sounds pretty dumb. Space and time are literally measurable things that can be observed. They've been around for... however long the universe has existed.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Im not that anin
          >Not gonna lie, that sounds pretty dumb. Space and time are literally measurable things that can be observed.
          Yes, determinate space and determined time can be measured. Kant never argued against that. But to have a representation of a determined time/space you must already have a representation of space and time in general. This representation comes before every possible representation of determined space/time, since the former is a condition of possibility of the latter. As such, this representation (which, since it is not discursive, must be called an intuition) is given a priori, since every possible a posteriori intuition (e.g. the determined space and time you perceive) must depend on it, which is to say: all possible a posteriori experience depends on those a priori intuitions (which, for this reason, are called by Kant "forms of intuition").
          >They've been around for... however long the universe has existed.
          For the aforementioned reasons Kant would argue that the universe, as it is conceived in its spatiotemporal character, is too dependant on those pure intuitions, which means that it is too constructed by the mind.
          Notice that this is not a form of solipsism. Kant is not saying that the thing in itself is what is constructed by our mind, quite contrary. Rather he is just making a distinction between a) the thing in itself, which does not depends on our receptive and intellectual faculties, and b) our representation of it (the way in which we cognize it, which is mediated by our pure intuitions and the 12 categories of the understanding).

          Dunno if I made anything clearer, this post is basically summarizing hundreds of pages from the first critiques.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But to have a representation of a determined time/space you must already have a representation of space and time in general.

            This is my problem with Kant. He never says why is it so. He just says it. He makes absoloutely no effort to show why is that correct and when he does he gives arguments that support both apriority and aposterioriti of intuitive forms.
            >Posteriori depends on apriori intuition
            Again, why? He shows now good argument. He disects form from matter without any explanation why he does that.

            I am rereading TE again and again and omly thing i can see is him asserting divisions and priority without any concrete ground to do so.

            I love his work honestly but without ontological and epistemological implications that ha draws along the content.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is my problem with Kant. He never says why is it so. He just says it. He makes absoloutely no effort to show why is that correct and when he does he gives arguments that support both apriority and aposterioriti of intuitive forms.
            He actually offers 10 distinct arguments for this claim in the Transcendental Aesthetics. If you want we could try going through them one by one. I would only ask you to take screenshots of them if you want, and post them if you want them to discuss them (I would do it myself, but I'm not at home, I have no pdf of the first critique on my phone and libgen is blocked in my country).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That would be lovely
            Since i have Croatian translation, pic rel is taken from pdf online.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like i said, i get what he is saing. The problem is, what he is asserting (that pre-existing form must exist so the raw matter can be filtered trough it) holds for me the same ammount of sense as if one would told me that space is abstracted from those raw data.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like i said, i get what he is saing. The problem is, what he is asserting (that pre-existing form must exist so the raw matter can be filtered trough it) holds for me the same ammount of sense as if one would told me that space is abstracted from those raw data.

            Here is his conclusion

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look at b) for example:
            >Space is nothing more then merely a form of outer experiences...
            It would then make more sense to imply that space is outer experience it self since it is form of them and not a form that lays benethe (apriori) to those experiences.
            As i said, earlyer, separating form from matter, but why?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Going further into b)
            Since interaction with objects precede the intuition we can see why these forms are apriori.
            What? How does that make sense? This only makes it more evident that space is not apriori form of intuition since to know space you need to be in interaction with an object..

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Going further into b)
            Since interaction with objects precede the intuition we can see why these forms are apriori.
            What? How does that make sense? This only makes it more evident that space is not apriori form of intuition since to know space you need to be in interaction with an object..

            Not to mention (if i remember corectly) he threts noumena firstly as something that interacts with us (objects that affect us) as something external to us and later he takes upon a notion of it as something we are not even sure if it exists since the objects that apear to us are not external to us.

            Eaither i am failing to see his perspective or he got lost in the ocean of perspectives.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let's start with 1) then. Is there anything in it you disagree with?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Space and time is literally relative.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          well yes, like OP said kant has already been refuted and in fact all of modern philosophy is just people shitting on him but respecting him at the same time

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        What about math? Numbers and relations are pure abstracts, 2+2 = 4 doesn't exist spatially nor temporally

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK math for Kant is "synthetic apriori". It's synthetic because it requires a combination and relation of a number of concepts, and it's apriori because these concepts are independent of experience (spatiotemporality, logical concepts like the principle of identity, etc).

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          also
          >doesn't exist spatially nor temporally
          For Kant this would not be correct. You literally cannot imagine anything without a spatiotemporal context. Even abstractions are viewed through the lenses of spatiotemporality, you think of abstractions as things occurring [time] in your mind/experience [space]. This is an interesting observation though, because clearly you're making a statement about "physical" time and space, so there is further clarification that could be made but I ain't no expert metaphysician. I think it has to do with what

          Im not that anin
          >Not gonna lie, that sounds pretty dumb. Space and time are literally measurable things that can be observed.
          Yes, determinate space and determined time can be measured. Kant never argued against that. But to have a representation of a determined time/space you must already have a representation of space and time in general. This representation comes before every possible representation of determined space/time, since the former is a condition of possibility of the latter. As such, this representation (which, since it is not discursive, must be called an intuition) is given a priori, since every possible a posteriori intuition (e.g. the determined space and time you perceive) must depend on it, which is to say: all possible a posteriori experience depends on those a priori intuitions (which, for this reason, are called by Kant "forms of intuition").
          >They've been around for... however long the universe has existed.
          For the aforementioned reasons Kant would argue that the universe, as it is conceived in its spatiotemporal character, is too dependant on those pure intuitions, which means that it is too constructed by the mind.
          Notice that this is not a form of solipsism. Kant is not saying that the thing in itself is what is constructed by our mind, quite contrary. Rather he is just making a distinction between a) the thing in itself, which does not depends on our receptive and intellectual faculties, and b) our representation of it (the way in which we cognize it, which is mediated by our pure intuitions and the 12 categories of the understanding).

          Dunno if I made anything clearer, this post is basically summarizing hundreds of pages from the first critiques.

          mentioned about -determinate- time and space.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the practical benefit of learning Kantian metaphysics and what influence will it have on my life

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What is the practical benefit of learning Kantian metaphysics
      He's the cornerstone of enlightenment philosophy, so he can serve as a starting point to what came before and after him in the development of western philosophy.

      >what influence will it have on my life
      If you don't care about philosophy or the historical development of western thought? Probably nothing. You may be able to get pussy if you find the right arthoe.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        But isn't he supposed to be super influential? How does his philosophy relate to everyday life and liberalism the way that other Enlightenment philosophers do? I know they weren't metaphysicians but still, he is considered the center of the whole movement

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How does his philosophy relate to everyday life
          do you think lying is bad? do you think lying is still bad even when lying would bring about a better circumstance than telling the truth? kant gives the strongest argument for why. that's probably the simplest way his ideas relate to everyday life.
          >But isn't he supposed to be super influential?
          yes, to philosophers. kant wrote so much on so much and the gauntlets he threw down/the arguments he made for his positions are widely considered to be some of the strongest.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    i don't get the hype of even believing in that lil nugget of cartography

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Necessary universal validity claims another buck broken anti-Kanttard.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Entire school of german idealism
    I’m a newb when it comes to philosophy. What school are you referring to exactly?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He means school as in school of thought

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    That just means his observations revealed something worth considering deeply by a wide range of thinkers.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    he was refuted in the field of political theory by Ludwig Von Haller (pbuh)

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