>>24722932 (OP)
He's literally just like me frfr >>24722955
He prefaces Future Metaphysics by saying how shit of a writer he is, nigga. Kant is famous for his philosophy, not for his prose
>>24722932 (OP)
Nah, you probably look to imitate a good writer like Dickens >had 10 children >massive social life >participated in lots of sports >tireless walker/hiker >travelled a lot
>>24723177 >>24723257
Critique or Pure Reason was dumber down to be more approachable.
This blud didn’t give two fucks about clapping cheeks, he was imbued with Divine Intellect.
I remember prolegomena was decently written. i wouldnt call it “literature” but it is fine in terms of prose. Still wouldn’t call him a dedicated literary though.
in fact, Only CoPR and the like are fucky because its literally a dissertation full of technical jargon, not meant to be conversational in the least.
>>24723308
I would do it Tolstoy style, supreme strategy for writing >Live my best life until I'm in my 40s >Marry a woman 16 years younger than me >Make the wife your secretary, editor, and manager >Pump out 14 kids >Make the wife raise them without my help
>>24723509
On the contrary, per the humanity principle humans are to be treated as ends in themselves and never as means.
It is impossible to have a child for their own good. Natalism inherently positions children as means to others ends.
Ergo it is morally preferable to not have sex. If everyone stopped having sex, or at least stopped having babies, the world would be a better place.
>>24723566
The end in itself is not the individual personality, but the universal intelligence behind every individual personality. This is the true humanity principle.
>>24723425
I am not denying that I am an animal, I accept this fact, but the desire of humans for sex above all other things is a delusion. It's a form of madness that destroys lives, livelihoods, families, and even the fate of nations. Nothing good has ever come out of the chasing of pussy. I long to be free of such delusions.
>>24723496
That's reason enough not to chase pussy lol
>>24723587
You presuppose only what benefits the individual flesh forms is what benefits the person, but first you'd have to prove there is nothing more to the person than the individual flesh form.
>>24723595
Even accepting that without evidence if there’s more to a person than the flesh that’s born and dies then it’s no matter if they’re born at all. Probably for the best really.
>>24723619 >if there’s more to a person than the flesh that’s born and dies then it’s no matter if they’re born at all.
You don't know that, and now you're talking out of your ass.
>>24723641
No brainlet I'm telling you, you don't it's know matter if they're born at all, because that assumes you know more than you do. Check yourself.
>>24723644
So people should be born because there might be something more than the actual material people that demonstrably exist, and for some reason this means it’s important to be born.
Are you going to actually justify any of these premises at any point?
>>24723647
Retard no, the point is that due to the present limitations of human knowledge, and consequently the necessary agnosticism regarding the total constitution of the human nature and reality, you cannot make any value assertions regarding bringing birth to human beings, neither that it is good or bad, and therefore we must defer to practical reasons for childbirthing, but since bringing humans into the world continues the human species and potentiates the actualization of the highest good, i.e., human perfection in conjuction with human happiness, which is also so for the individual, this absolutely btfo the antinatalist position which, by ultimately destroying the human race, instead inhibits the realization the highest good, i.e., the approximation of human perfection in conjuction with human happiness.
>>24723671 > but since bringing humans into the world continues the human species and potentiates the actualization of the highest good
Ergo it is not really about the actual human being born as an end in themselves, it is about using them as a means for a greater good. Ergo it’s antithetical to the human principle.
If you want to argue for natalism you’d be better off with utilitarianism, though not by much, still there’s more grey to work with there.
>>24723684 >Ergo it is not really about the actual human being born as an end in themselves
You are dense retard. The end of the individual IS the highest good: the human perfection in conjuction with human happiness.
>>24723692
But human perfection and human happiness are not attained by being born, in fact quite the opposite, to be born is to be condemned to human imperfection and human unhappiness.
>>24723725
Something even better can be attained without being born, the everlasting perfection of non-existence that would otherwise be so rudely interrupted.
>>24723729 >Something even better can be attained without being born, the everlasting perfection of non-existence
Again, you don't know that. That is a metaphysical claim, which as I said cannot be proved or disproved. But practically, it has a negative value in relation to human happiness, since nothing can be predicated of what is not, and therefore happiness cannot be attributed to it.
>>24723745
But it can, as for both you and I there was a time before existence and therefore we can be reasonably certain this meant a time before qualia, interrupted by birth. >But practically, it has a negative value in relation to human happiness, since nothing can be predicated of what is not, and therefore happiness cannot be attributed to it.
At this point you’re not talking about Kant, you’re talking about utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill might be more the avatar you’re looking for.
>>24723754 >But it can, as for both you and I there was a time before existence and therefore we can be reasonably certain this meant a time before qualia, interrupted by birth.
Again, whether there is qualia or not before human incarnation, is a METAPHYSICAL claim, which cannot just be asserted as you are doing, but proved, which you cannot do, therefore it is a groundless assertion, a mere opinion. We do not know what lies on the otherside of human life, and therefore you cannot rightfully attribute happiness to a state which is itself problematic. You don't understand Kant. Benatar is a gae retard.
>>24723767
If you’re going to argue there was experience before existence then you better have some proof of this. There was a time when I didn’t existence, and I have no experience of it, so I’m automatically skeptical of such a claim.
>>24723804 >If you’re going to argue there was experience before existence then you better have some proof of this.
Absolute retard. Read my post again. I'm not arguing that. Go read Kant.
>>24723808 >I’m not arguing that there is experience before existence >I’m just denying there is no experience before existence.
Real ESL hours.
There was a time when you didn’t exist, did you experience it?
>>24723813 >I’m just denying there is no experience before existence.
Learn to read tardlet. I'm not denying it, I am refraining from passing judgment on the truth or falsity of that claim due, unlike you who dogmatically asserts it.
>>24723821
Except your entire argument hinges on a contingency that you will not even bother to defend as possible, let alone plausible.
It would be more respectable if you actually did just own it and made some religiously loaded argument for an immaterial existence rather than hiding behind this cowardly pretence.
>>24723835 >Except your entire argument hinges on a contingency that you will not even bother to defend as possible, let alone plausible.
What contingency?
>>24723855
It's possible, we don't know it's actual. Likewise, its opposite is possible, that there is no experience prior to existence, but again, we don't know that. You are just dogmatically asserting there is. You entire worldview rests on an assumption you are incapable of proving. Prove it first.
“It is the absolute vocation of every individual of both sexes to enter into marriage. The physical human being is neither a man nor a woman, but is both; and the same is true of a moral human being. The original striving of the human being is egotistic…. An unmarried person is only HALF A HUMAN BEING. A clearly conceived intention never to marry is absolutely CONTRARY to DUTY. It is a GREAT MISFORTUNE to remain unmarried through no fault of one’s own; to remain unmarried through one’s own fault is a GREAT FAULT.” - Fichte, System of Ethics. Kantians destroyed lmao
>>24723879
I’m going to have to demand some proof that it’s possible. >Prove it first.
Easily done. There was a time before you or I existed, this is a time neither you nor I had experience of. This is more than sufficient reason to evidence that experience is posterior to existence.
>>24723890 >There was a time before you or I existed, this is a time neither you nor I had experience of.
OK prove it tho, without presupposing the ego is limited to the embodied individual, since otherwise you'd need to prove that too.
>>24723890 >I’m going to have to demand some proof that it’s possible.
Easy. Anything conceivable is possible. I can concieve of consciousness prior to human incarnation, therefore it is possible.
>>24723923
If something cannot be experienced even indirectly then that’s reason enough to cast doubt on if it is real. We’re confident in declaring dragons as unreal precisely because no one has experienced them. >>24723920
Then clearly whatever passes for logic here has rendered the word “possible” meaningless. If the possibility to he imagined equates to the possibility to he real then the word “possible” means nothing.
>>24723949
If you trust the imagination as a barometer for possibility beware the imaginations ability to juggle contradictions. Lest you find yourself believing paradoxes are possible. Have fun in philosophy 102 next semester
Metaphysics is gay
He was probably a faggot but couldn't find anyone to fuck him in the arse.
If he lived in London -- where all the homos were in those days -- it would've been a different story (conjecture)
>>24724025
The statement 2+2=5 is psychologically conceivable
Is it possible? No. It’s not logically possible, in fact logical conceivability is posterior to possibility in the first place. Far from being a barometer of it, it’s a dependency of it.
>>24724038
But then you’re not actually talking about the same concept, you’re redefining terms so the same statement is applicable to a different concept. The relevant concept remains impossible.
>>24723967
Kant was notoriously racist. Given that and just his entire philosophy as a whole, with regard to moral duty, I can’t imagine he had super warm feelings towards gay people.
>>24724778
One thing doesn’t relate to the other.
The earliest antiracists were all hardcore Christians that would have had no tolerance for fags
In the 21st century you had straight up Nazi fascists that were as queer as a nine bob note.
It’s only in the minds of intersectionalist kool-aid drinkers that one of these has importance to the other.
>>24723418 >Why would anyone ever want pussy? It's a delusion of the animal mind.
Are philosophycels just more likely to be virgins? As in the subject attracts brainiacs who ignore there bodies?
Women have thrown themselves pussy first at me, it falls from trees all around me, and I attribute that to my childhood reading fantasy adventure novels.
>>24725030 >Not just authors or famous people basically any example. >Fucking me,
if you can "entertain" a woman, keep her mentally engaged and even challenged or slightly insulted, she will think you will be interesting in bed. Women hate being bored more than anything else. >be me >meet random art girl at party >tells me she's learning Portuguese >tell her that's stupid, she should learn French >tell her 30 reasons why >follows me around trying to convince me >fucks me
>>24725110 >irrelevant and time-consuming distractions
How can I trust their arrival at truth if they discount a fundamental part of the human experience ?
