Thread 24477701

Anyone who hates Kant only hates him because they got filtered by him. This is a fundamental principle of reality.

>>24477701 (OP)
>if you just accept all my impossible presuppositions, my views totally make sense
Kant is a retard

>>24477720
Filtered I see.

>>24477720
How about you try to be specific for once in your shitty worthless maggot-like existence? What presuppositions? we have time nigger, go get your text and quote it.

>With Kantianism we have wasted years that… will never return. This immensely wise and profound thinker, this seer, [Hamann] we did not recognize and heed.
>t. Schlegel

>>24477774
What did he mean by this?

>>24477750
>>24477756
I got you, nigger
>synthetic a priori judgments
7+5=12 has inherent presuppositions in the basic definitions of arithmetics and the laws of logic. Arithmetic is only possible when you accept that 0 = 0, 1 = 1, and the sign definitions that follow. 7 is an unoriginal, derived concept from the above (7=1+1+1+1+1+1+1). Not only are the presuppositions hidden under a layer of dishonesty, the statement also is not synthetic by definition.
>noumenal world
If a thing cannot be known in any given fashion, how is it possible to assert that it exists? The very concept of acknowledging the existence of something which is defined as unknowable is paradoxical. See the millions of critiques leveled against the world of forms, since Kant is a derivative hack that can't even come up with his own shit.
>transcendental unity
The very presupposition that the world contains unity is fallacious. Any observed unity is the result of tenuous and fragile consensus. But you can't expect intellectual honesty from a Chr*stian.
>universal law
The very claim made in building the case for the noumenal world (experiences, sensory or otherwise, have a nature of distortion, which makes true knowledge impossible) speaks for relativism. The notion of a relativist world is antithetical to the idea of universal law. But again, can't expect intellectual consistency from a Chr*stian.

I'm not gonna go dig up Critique of Pure Reason with my notes. This will have to do

Ist die Welt jetzt bereits für Weishaupt?

>>24477791
Die Illuminatenorden hat niemals gegangen.

>>24477790
filtered

>>24477817
>why dont you explain your arguments faggot
>explain arguments
>h-h-haha filtered

>>24477836
Yes

I don't have a problem with Kant. I gave a problem with CUNTS like OP who think the meaning of life and the conclusion of philosophy is to be found in sucking Kant's cock.

>>24477858
Ok then you are not filtered then.

>>24477858
I'm about to just start hiding Kant threads on sight

>no schopenhauer replies
Sad!

>>24477701 (OP)
I agree with 75% of the critique of pure reason but I still hate Kant

>>24477790
You dumb jew, "in all theoretical sciences of reason synthetic a priori judgments are contained as principles", Kant states he's treating with one theoretical science, the object of which is determined by the basic definitions of arithmetic and logic. This is no presupposition, but a simple exposition of a synthetic a priori judgment on an object defined by what you call "presuppositions". Not only that, this exposition does show how, even if one could -at first- think the statement is not synthetic, the concept of the sum: "contains nothing beyond the union of the two numbers into one, whereby nothing is being thought as to what this single number may be which combines both", and thus needing of something necessarily adhered to itself, intuition. Without the means of intuition we can't arrive at anything but an union that is resolved by means of our access to intuition expressed in various forms (in this case Kant refers to our fingers or points on a page I'd assume): the making of a synthetic a priori judgment. This reaching beyond itself, characteristic of a synthetic judgment, is a necessary part of the a priori judgments that form the topic Kant called pure mathematics in virtue of the lack of resolve found on the concept sum -without intuition-: "We are told that we ought to add in thought a certain predicate to a given concept, and this necessity adheres to the very concepts. But the question is not what we ought to add to the "five" concept, but what we actually think in it, even if only confusedly; and then it becomes clear that the predicate does indeed necessarily adhere to those concepts, not, however, as something thought in the concept itself, but by means of an intuition that must be added to the concept". In the same way you can't extract anything beyond the union of 7 and 5, you can't extract anything beyond the union of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1, unless you arrive there by help of intuition.
I'll go over the other points later, as I said before, we have time nigger.

>>24477875
I do.

>>24477790
>Filtered before reaching the transcendental logic

>>24477756
>>24477943
NTA but youre posting tranime on 4chan so whatever Kant says cant be that valuable

>>24478119
filtered

>>24477756
>>24477943
can you start tripping so i can filter your posts?

>>24478137
You people are quite literally getting filtered.

>>24477756
>>24477943
>>24478141
Way to invalidate your opinion by posting tranime and outing yourself as a sophist loser

>>24478141
if you just dont inject your weird agp fetish into every post you make, i'd tolerate you way more.

>>24478147
>>24478152
Engage with Kant, you massive faggots, oh, you can't because some anime scawes you? oh poor you, maybe fiction would be more up to your speed. Faggots.

>>24478159
we are not engaging with your posts because you are signalling that you are an unpleasant person with your gay interest in pedo cartoons for children and effeminate aggression style.

>>24478147
>>24478119
>go to anime website
>"wtf why is there anime"

>>24477701 (OP)
I present to you the most wrong thing Kant ever said.

>>24478159
Everyone knows what you are, what you look like, do, and think. Because you're another soulless mentally ill man in his 20s in the bottom of society.

>>24478168
>Nooo I just like vtubers please take me seriously when im talking about kanttt its an anime siteee

>>24478166
Sure buddy, unpleasantry stops one from understanding basic Kant.

>>24478174
Dawg you haven't even tried responding to the actual comment anon made. Either do so or shut the fuck up.

>>24478168
agptroon, why samefag? 4chan is not an anime website anymore and hasnt been for a long time. there is a whole section of the site dedicated for """""""""""people""""""""""" like you. why dont you go there?

>>24478176
agptroon why did you stop posting your heckin vtuberinos?

>>24478177
You dumb jew, "in all theoretical sciences of reason synthetic a priori judgments are contained as principles", Kant states he's treating with one theoretical science, the object of which is determined by the basic definitions of arithmetic and logic. This is no presupposition, but a simple exposition of a synthetic a priori judgment on an object defined by what you call "presuppositions". Not only that, this exposition does show how, even if one could -at first- think the statement is not synthetic, the concept of the sum: "contains nothing beyond the union of the two numbers into one, whereby nothing is being thought as to what this single number may be which combines both", and thus needing of something necessarily adhered to itself, intuition. Without the means of intuition we can't arrive at anything but an union that is resolved by means of our access to intuition expressed in various forms (in this case Kant refers to our fingers or points on a page I'd assume): the making of a synthetic a priori judgment. This reaching beyond itself, characteristic of a synthetic judgment, is a necessary part of the a priori judgments that form the topic Kant called pure mathematics in virtue of the lack of resolve found on the concept sum -without intuition-: "We are told that we ought to add in thought a certain predicate to a given concept, and this necessity adheres to the very concepts. But the question is not what we ought to add to the "five" concept, but what we actually think in it, even if only confusedly; and then it becomes clear that the predicate does indeed necessarily adhere to those concepts, not, however, as something thought in the concept itself, but by means of an intuition that must be added to the concept". In the same way you can't extract anything beyond the union of 7 and 5, you can't extract anything beyond the union of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1, unless you arrive there by help of intuition.
I'll go over the other points later, as I said before, we have time nigger.

WHOAZERS! HE POSTED AGAIN WITHOUT A DRAWN GIRL ANIME IMAGE! THE MEANING! IT HAS CHANGED! ZOMG! OOOOOHHHHHHHHH HE CAN NOW POST HERE!!!!

>>24478184
I, sadly, only have few pictures of Mococo-chan

>>24478185
>He already outed himself as a mentally disturbed agp tranny so it doesn't work anymore
Maybe post it without the agp fetish next time and I'll care

>>24478195
>get BTFO'd in an argument
>piss and shit yourself over the image accompanying the argument instead of even attempting to respond
This is pathetic, man. A retarded year 1 undergrad would have performed better.

>>24478195
You're >>24477790?

>>24478208
>>24478209
Not me, jew.
>You lose again

>>24478215
No, that's good. I was hoping >>24477790 wouldn't give such a pathetic response.

>>24478169
Anime tranny gonna ignore this massive dunking on Kant just like he tries to ignore mirrors

>>24478225
>>No, that's good. I was hoping >>24477790 wouldn't give such a pathetic response.

>>24478227
I don't even like Kant, I just showed how 7+5, by way of Kant, is a synthetic a priori judgment.

>>24478232
>how 7+5, by way of Kant, is a synthetic a priori judgment.
Nice non sequitur that has nothing to do with the post tranny.

>>24478232
>>24478244
Holy shit this tranny is still dilating theres like 5 anons making fun of him

>>24478250
hes in several threads seething about the same shit lmao probably a humiliation fetish freak too

>>24478267
It's actually insane how many nutcases you encounter on the internet, I've already seen how these people usually look irl...

>>24478232
lol @ this thread vtuberfag gets BTFO forever

>>24477701 (OP)
The categorical imperative is actually the greatest mistake in the history of ethics (in modern history, anyway) precisely because it is so compelling, so near to the truth that as it fails it brings with it all manner of otherwise well-intentioned people.

>>24477904
i thought the exact same when i ctrl f'd

>>24477780
Wise is he that learns from those that don't elaborate

>>24478341
its just a worse version of the golden rule

>>24477701 (OP)
small little goblin man, I spit on you.

>>24478185
>in all theoretical sciences of reason synthetic a priori judgments are contained as principles
This is the claim, not the evidence.
>Kant states he's treating with one theoretical science, the object of which is determined by the basic definitions of arithmetic and logic
Which contain an assload of presuppositions onto themselves. You can't sneak in the baggage of presuppositions of a method while using that same method to make an argument. You need to acknowledge the presuppositions that the method brings with it. In this case, 0 = 0 and 1 = 1 defines ALL NUMBERS within the very definition of arithmetic. You can sit there and think up new numbers for the rest of your life, they will be purely analytical. Any new synthetic knowledge can only be acquired through sensory experience.

"I'll get right back to you on those other arguments" famous last words from a trannime faggot that tried to word salad his way through one of the most dishonest philosophical arguments then disappeared. Jump off a bridge.

>>24478879
Meant for this troon >>24477943

>>24477701 (OP)
A challenger appears.

>>24477790
>7+5=12 has inherent presuppositions in the basic definitions of arithmetics and the laws of logic. Arithmetic is only possible when you accept that 0 = 0, 1 = 1, and the sign definitions that follow. 7 is an unoriginal, derived concept from the above (7=1+1+1+1+1+1+1). Not only are the presuppositions hidden under a layer of dishonesty, the statement also is not synthetic by definition.
Not the OP but I got filtered by this as well when I first read Kant. Of course 7+5=12 can be derived from concepts - 7 is something; 5 is something; addition is a function; the result is twelve, and it all follows by the nature of the terms involved. The only truly 'synthetic' judgments would be a posteriori ones.

What Kant is trying to say is something like: "Arithmetic depends on an actual reality; the numbers are merely abstract signs for actual units which are being counted. So they're not really something that we think up from thought alone, they depend on something outside of thought." His ultimate point of course is that philosophy can't proceed simply by concepts - all you can do with a concept, taken by itself, is say what it means. To say x is b requires more than thinking, unless 'b' is part of the definition of x (in which case you're not saying anything, really). Rationalists liked to pretend their philosophy was just like math and Kant is saying 'no, it isn't, math is grounded in something real and not in thinking alone.'
>If a thing cannot be known in any given fashion, how is it possible to assert that it exists? The very concept of acknowledging the existence of something which is defined as unknowable is paradoxical. See the millions of critiques leveled against the world of forms, since Kant is a derivative hack that can't even come up with his own shit.
The 'noumenal world' and the thing in itself are the most misunderstood/controversial aspects of Kant's thought. Any time I try to talk about it I get some septic pseud trying to jump down my throat. A noumenon is something that is merely thought, not intuited. So the 'thing in itself' (the real 'thing' that I can't see but that grounds the thing, its objectivity) is a noumenon (something I think). My free will is also a noumenon. Just because something is a noumenon doesn't mean it isn't real (thing in itself, the objectivity of experience), or at any rate that it isn't worth believing in (moral law). It is not some mysterious world beyond the world we can experience, although Kant's shit writing absolutely suggests this in many passages. What Kant says about the noumena/"things in general" is contradictory throughout his works, the solution is to read some passages as metaphors, or taken from the standpoint of empirical realism. (cont'd)

>>24477790
>The very presupposition that the world contains unity is fallacious. Any observed unity is the result of tenuous and fragile consensus. But you can't expect intellectual honesty from a Chr*stian.
This one is hardly worth responding to. Not because of the slur on Christians (though that's pretty rude) but because you don't know what Kant means by unity. Do you experience things as caused by necessary laws, or not? Do you experience sensations as determinable by degree, or not? Do you perceive things in space, or not?
>The very claim made in building the case for the noumenal world (experiences, sensory or otherwise, have a nature of distortion, which makes true knowledge impossible)
This is wrong too. Kant speaks of 'appearance' but this is not illusion, it's just the reciprocity of the I and the not-I, basically. He distinguishes appearance from illusion more than once; he also says that whatever might exist beyond appearance is nothing to us (except in the context of beliefs grounded in practical reason ofc) about 45 times. Kant is not saying 'who knows what's really there, it's just my brain distorting reality', he's saying 'experience can only be understood in relation to an experiencer.' Likely you won't understand this distinction and will viciously attack me, pulling quotes from the CPR out of context, and so on.
>I'm not gonna go dig up Critique of Pure Reason with my notes. This will have to do
It's depressing that someone read the CPR and took notes on it and still misunderstood it so badly. Another day, another arrogant cocksucking midwit on /lit/.

>>24479530
>His ultimate point of course is that philosophy can't proceed simply by concepts
This needs to be qualified though - he thought that once the critique was done what would be left for philosophy would be the analysis of a priori concepts, like in his Metaphysics of Natural Science. So, from his point of view, the Rationalists are schizo, and Critical idealism = "discover the structure of experience (the three critiques), which leads to fundamental principles of theoretical and practical reason (categories, categorical imperative etc), which can then be analyzed systematically" (metaphysics of natural science, metaphysics of morals).

>>24479530
>s a noumenon doesn't mean it isn't real (thing in itself, the objectivity of experience
And to clarify this - the noumenal thing in itself is not real in the sense that it is something existing in space and time. But it is a real thought, i.e. the objectivity of the appearance is "real" even if it's something we can only think. Again I am aware of the passages where Kant speaks of things in themselves affecting us as well as other passages where he says the opposite.

>>24477701 (OP)
I dont hate him, I just find him boring, and really don't get how you can't see it.
Kants basic error is axiom worship. Same as most philosophers, and every system builder. Kant has a few basic axioms, all of which are wrong, he then builds a big web off of. This isn't uniquely bad, it's pretty common.
Surprised you haven't picked up on this. Idealism was peak cope strategy from comfortable domestics.

>>24479577
>systematic thinking is bad
It's hard to argue with someone who rejects the value of understanding.

>>24479595
>system building is understanding
Oh boy.

>>24479602
I agree that systematic thinking is limited and that systematic thinkers can get so lost in the a priori that they say stupid things about the here and now. But to understand something scientifically is for your premises to be connected with one another in a system - this is exactly how the natural sciences work, you try to explain things and then explain your explanations seeking as much 'unity' as the facts actually allow. You can recognize the inherent limits of any system while still accepting that this is the only way to understand anything discursively.

Of course there are other sorts of "understanding", like intuition. But philosophy is essentially an activity of thinking about the principles of experience, and if you're actually thinking, you are building a system, because you refer one thing to another thing, and another to something else - this very process causes a 'system' to arise even if you don't call it a system or recognize it as such.

A lot of people don't even know what it means for philosophy to be systematic. They think it means that you proceed 'more geometrico' etc. (which Kant does not do). It also seems like it's based on emotions more often than not - people think of systems and they think of arrogance, crude reductions, even political totalitarianism. But systematic thinking is scientific thinking, thinking that leads to understanding. Even practically you engage in "systematic thinking", like if you try to fix your car.

There's no point though because you hear 'premises', you think 'more geometrico'. You will interpret whatever I say in the most retarded way possible. You might insist that philosophy is not about thinking, that it's actually a mystick adventure. Who knows what tack you will take? Non-systematic 'thinking' is not thinking at all, it's just vague musing.

>>24479577
you caught my interest. Can you name some axioms that Kant starts with? And how does he justify starting with any of these? Is there a first and single axiom that he claims one must start with? Is this like Euclid where he endeavors to start with a minimum number of axioms and from their build on some postulates? I'm not aware of how to do this without being arbitrary. What book do I read to answer these questions?

>>24479789
That the faculties exist, that categorization is a realist, justified method for uncovering truth instead of imposing structures
Thats probably the most basic and pervasive

>>24479642
>Non-systematic 'thinking' is not thinking at all, it's just vague musing.
Thats what systematic thinking is too, just with delusion on top of it

>>24479795
Kant's actual method is a posteriori and inductive, this was a common complaint amongst the post-Kantians, whether idealists or anti-idealists. Kant looked around, said 'hey, Hume is skeptical about causality and knowledge, but I see that the world does make sense', and then worked his way *up* from there. This is why, for example, the metaphysical deduction of the categories is so silly - he was fumbling in the dark. He had a hunch that a priori structures could be related to logic, played around for a few weeks with it on paper, and voila. He didn't proceed *from* axioms at all. There is nothing wrong with induction - actual science (philsophical or otherwise) is a combination of induction and deduction. But Kant was too inductive.
>That the faculties exist
Again he arrived at his various faculties inductively. 'There must something that synthesizes the appearances... we'll call that imagination... then we gotta have an ultimate source of unity... the 'I think' will do nicely there...' Also his faculties aren't "things" that "exist" anyway, they're nothing that a psychologist would discover or have need for. They're completely transcendental.
>, that categorization is a realist, justified method for uncovering truth instead of imposing structures
The categories do not 'uncover truth', they're grounds for the possibility of experience (='the world making sense and being investigable and understandable'). Depending on your reading of Kant they don't 'impose structures' either, but while you say "...instead of imposing structures", imposing structure is exactly what a literalist reading of Kant would lead you to think he was saying.
>Thats probably the most basic and pervasive
So the guy with vague criticisms of systematicity doesn't actually understand Kant. He might have read him one time but he didn't understand a word, he's mixed up about basic aspects of idealism. What a surprise. But hey why study philosophy when you can discount any thinker you don't "jive with" with a few easy one-liners? "Systematic thinking sounds dumb, you can't understand experience scientifically, the world is just so complicated! That does it for Kant."

>>24480038
>'hey, Hume is skeptical about causality and knowledge, but I see that the world does make sense

That's an axiom

>>24480044
Axioms are a priori, "the world makes sense" is a posteriori. You think any principle of reasoning is an axiom - OK let's go along with that. It follows that you can't think anything without being axiomatic and systematic. Your own post contains the (retarded) axiom "any proposition from which other things are proved is an axiom".

>>24480057
No. Axioms are unfounded starting positions for belief. There is no justification for the idea that the world makes sense, or that "makes sense" even makes sense to invoke here.

>>24480057
For example, the statement "everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth," is not an axiom.
Unwanted resistance is the death knell of all axioms.

a gentleman in the sheets
a surgeon in the logical weeds

>>24477701 (OP)
Yes.

>>24477790
I actually agree on 7+5=12 being a poor example of a synthetic a priori judgment.
A better example would be "The straight line is the shortest distance between two points".
The concept of a straight line can be thought of without ever needing the concept of distance. But one can reach the conclusion that it is the shortest distance between two points (synthesis) without the need of resorting to experiment or the tangible world (a priori). This is because space is a priori of experience, therefore it can be explored without resorting to experience.