The easiest way to refute Kant is just to go through his arguments page by page. Then you find out that every single one of his supposedly "apodictic" arguments are not only contingent but have quite a low certainty, and half of them are downright incoherent.

>>24526210 (OP)
>How to refute Kant
>Just refute him bro
Thanks retard

>>24526235
broad already did the work for you in the pic, but of course the retarded kantfag on this board will never read even one critical analysis of kant, although I recommended this book to him already a year or so ago and then again recently

Refutation of Kant: you are never actually putting a judgment to a category you are merely externalizing the structure of conceptual judgments which functions syllogistically

people are automatically refuted when they die

>>24526210 (OP)
ok prove it tho

>>24526210 (OP)
> every single one of his supposedly "apodictic" arguments are not only contingent but have quite a low certainty, and half of them are downright incoherent.
example?

>>24527547
>We can now sum up the general features of all transcendental argu- ments. They all start with the premiss that a certain proposition is known to be true in some sense or other and within some range of application. They then try to determine what conditions must be fulfilled if such knowledge is to.be possible. They then use these conditions as the basis of an argument, either to determine the precise meaning and limitations ofthe original proposition, or to prove that a certain other proposition must be true and to determine its precise meaning and range o f application. It will be noticed that the first step ofa transcendental argument is regressive; it argues from a fact to its conditions. Now such an argument can hardly be completely conclusive. We cannot be su're that the conditions which we have thought ofare the only ones that could possibly explain the facts. So the conclusion of a transcendental argument cannot be more than very highly probable. A fallacy to which all such arguments are liable is the following. When we think that a certain bit of knowledge would be possible only under certain conditions this may be because we are making some tacit assumption about the way in which the mind works. This assumption might not be plausible if we explicitly recognised it. And, even if it be plausible, it may not be true. If we gave up this assumption, we might find that the facts could be explained in several alternative ways. Now Kant does apparently make two general assumptions, one explicit and the other implicit, about the mind; and both are open to question. The explicit assumption is that the ultimate data of sense must be simple isolated atoms. The mind cannot know any complex whole unless it has synthesised or built up this complex whole out of originally simple and isolated elements. This is a very large assumption, and it should not be accepted without discussion. The second and tacit assumption is that the ultimate data of sense are mind-dependent, and indeed are states of the mind which senses them. For Kant there is no distinction between sen- sations and sensa. This again is open to question. There is one other criticism to be made. What Kant claims to prove by his transcendental arguments is that certain propositions, such as the law ofcausation and the persistence of substance, are true with the interpretation and within the range of application which he gives them. But it is doubtful whether his arguments could prove more than that all human beings must believe them to be true, or must act as if they believed them to be true. And, if this is all that he has really proved, he has not answered Hume, though he has no doubt gone a good deal beyond Hume.

>>24527573
>We cannot be su're that the conditions which we have thought ofare the only ones that could possibly explain the facts.
Unless, of course, we can.

>>24527573
> The explicit assumption is that the ultimate data of sense must be simple isolated atoms.
> The second and tacit assumption is that the ultimate data of sense are mind-dependent, and indeed are states of the mind which senses them.
I still don't see what's wrong with these assumptions and how his system fails without them.

>>24526210 (OP)
Just ignore the smoke screen of complex terminology and translate what he is saying into common English and suddenly you can see why Aquinas considered his exact idea and went: "nah, that would be fuckin dumb."

>>24527618
All criticisms of Kant are against strawmen

>>24527611
read the rest of the book if you want more details, this is just a preliminary sketch of the form of transcendental arguments.
also as for the first assumption, this was William James entire rebuttal against Kant, which was to argue that conjunctive relations are inseparable from pure experience itself.
The point is that the "proofs" in the critique rely on contingent premises. Even the fact that space and time are our only intuitions is itself a contingent premise, for Kant himself grant that there could be beings that don't have these two intuitions only. So there is no way to deduce necessarily that these are the only intuitions we have, you have to abstract that fact from your experiences. and furthermore, even the premise that we know something to be true is itself contingent. so nothing Kant says can be apodictic. If you want more details as to the flaws in Kants individual arguments, read the book.

>>24527547
>you should follow the categorical imperative for no reason because… you just have to, OK?!
what a dumb fucking goblin

>>24527681
filtered

>>24526210 (OP)
more like Kunt lmao

>>24526210 (OP)
>The easiest way to refute Kant
Why would I want to do that?
>>24526235
Just draw the rest of the owl.

Gotta save this thread to read later indepth