/lit/ - Literature

>>20948542
More or less, yes

>>20920426

>>20502829

>>20492033

What can I know?
What may I hope?
What should I do?
What is a man?

If you can't yet, then why are you bothering to pretend any of your philosophizing is scientific?

Anyone else the psyops itt which don't want us to digest the content of the manifesto, but instead write him off as an incel? "he's incel, he's incel blah blah blah." He might be schizo, but he's no incel.

>>19775957
High IQ.

>>19181565
All the best philosophers were short. Kant, Heidegger, Hegel were all shorties. Can't think of any who were tall, though.

This exact question is the subject of the first antimony of pure reason, but you’ll have to read the entire section from A406/B433-A522/B550 if you want to get it. Here’s what he does in short: first he proves the thesis that there must be a beginning in time/edge of the universe. Then he proves the antithesis that there are no beginnings or boundaries, but that both time and space are infinite. He goes on to say that in fact both of these propositions are wrong because we can have no empirical knowledge of either the boundary of the universe/time or of the infinite expanse of the universe/time among other things. He concludes that there is no beginning in time, and neither is time infinite, but it is instead indefinite. Most of this has to do with the idea that you are trying to figure out the magnitude of something you can by [his] definition[s] have no experience of.

Let's assume I've never had a perception of a vagina. Is my knowledge of the vagina's holeness an impure synthetic a priori, if I deduce it from the stickness of my pp and the feeling of my sexual drive? You could argue that I came through my mother's, but what if you turn it around and ask about the stickness of pp as a girl? You wouldn't know how it looks, but you can be pretty sure how it's supposed to function.

why is it that people always ask about phenomenon, but never ask about noumenon?

nope.

Cosmological and teleological arguments for God are alright. The ontological argument is fine too. But have you heard of Kant's argument for God as the ground of all the possibilia that structure our conceptual content to provide intelligibility? Yeah nothing would be intelligible without God. Call this the intelligibility argument for God.

Can you make money out of submitting critical articles to local newspapers?

>Kant's revolution was basically nihilism with a christian veil over-top. His takeaway is "you really can't know things" and then in the vacuum he creates he slips in his prejudices to keep you from panicking: "treat people like an end in themselves!"
>Schopenhauer's philosophy is literally about denying the will to live, because there is nothing worth living for, the first manifestation of Kantian nihilism
>Hegel's philosophy is literally mystical hypnosis meant to trap the world in confusion and stagnation. Once you become "conscious" of history, it no longer "just happens" - you have to make it. Yet, making history is a literal oxymoron, history is only what is past. In essence his magick spell forces us to put effect before cause and thus freezes time and prevents action.
>Marx and the Young Hegelians attempt to break out of the Hegelian spell by substituting idealism for materialism, denying god, and creating social sciences, but it was really just falling into old Hegel's trap, and the proletarian revolution failed to materialize.
>Nietzsche is the first to really recognize the nihilism in Schopenhauer's pessimism, Hegelian negation (if you negate everything, what is left but nothing, nihilism), and atheistic materialism, but all he can do is go insane and predict the emergence of the overman if we manage to survive it all
>Heidegger, in his infinite autism and naivety is blind to this and just creates a jargon to justify the suicidal idea of Nazism

how did they get away with this?

>>15164083
shoop Anti-Oedipus into this* The Phenomenology, Fanged Noumena, or something reactionary would be funny too

Sometimes, yes, I feel a bit sad that I don't have him around for comfort, and that I'm "on my own," but honestly, was he ever really there in the first place? Was he just a specific historical contingency of culture invention? Maybe even a delusion explainable by material science? What it means is that the things that were left to god, were really just left to us. And what happened? What was the 20th century but a horrible hellfire? The death of god means we are going to learn harsh lessons.

Prove to me that i exist

>you cannot

>>14816408
Read Kant

>>14799905
Read Kant

>>14681387
Terrible post.

>>14598936
Video games approach writing very differently from books. They are usually just lore dumps or melodramatic anime screen plays. He'd be better off playing something cerebral like the old Goldbox games, where at least some mental discipline is necessary and thoroughly reading a manual is required.

Honestly though, OP should probably just start with something like The Hobbit, Don Quixote, or some short stories/essays. And then the Greeks.

I think im gonna start with left then and if I dont like the translation I'll return it and get some other