/lit/ - Literature

>"The formal condition under which alone nature can attain this its final aim is that constitution in the relations of human beings with one another in which the abuse of reciprocally conflicting freedom is opposed by lawful power in a whole, which is called civil society for only in this can the greatest development of the natural predispositions occur. For this, however, even if humans were clever enough to discover it and wise enough to subject themselves willingly to its coercion, a cosmopolitan whole i.e., a system of all states that are at risk of detrimentally affecting each other, is required. In its absence, and given the obstacles that ambition, love of power, and greed, especially on the part of those who are in power, oppose to even the possibility of such a design, war (partly of the kind in which states split apart and divide themselves into smaller ones, partly of the kind in which smaller ones unite with each other and strive to form a larger whole) is inevitable, which, even though it is an unintentional effort of humans (aroused by unbridled passions), is a deeply hidden but perhaps intentional effort of supreme wisdom if not to establish then at least to prepare the way for the lawfulness together with the freedom of the states and by means of that the unity of a morally grounded system of them, and which, in spite of the most horrible tribulations which it inflicts upon the human race, is nevertheless one more incentive (while the hope for a peaceful state of happiness among nations recedes ever further) for developing to their highest degree all the talents that serve for culture."

How can a single philosopher be so based and foresee the development of human race with such exactness? Amongst this whole postmodern madness, we truly need his wisdom ever more.

Would he take the vaccine?

>Transcendental deduction
what THE fuck was that?

>>16123393

Advaita Between Kant and Hegel

Mukerji’s The Nature of Self (henceforth, NS) is a careful and systematic exploration of certain philosophical positions in British idealisms regarding the self. He sketches three broad patterns of British philosophical responses to Kant. First, though Kant had critiqued the basic assumption of Hume’s empiricism, namely, that the epistemic subject first begins with a bundle of atomic sensations and then proceeds to unite them through psychological bonds of association, his transcendental idealism has not been properly appreciated in some strands of British philosophy. Various forms of contemporary realisms, pragmatisms, and pluralisms operate with the pre-Kantian view that things are self-existing distinct entities before they enter into relations with one another. While some philosophers have indeed rejected the basic thesis of British empiricists such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume—that the world is composed of self-existing, metaphysically independent and isolated entities which are only subsequently related to one another through conceptual abstractions—they have arrived at two somewhat divergent conclusions. First, some have moved towards Kant’s agnosticism regarding the noumenon, and view the self as a bare that which remains completely unknowable. Second, others have elaborated Hegelian understandings of self-consciousness in terms of the self’s developing awareness of itself through its awareness of objects, thereby reducing the self, according to Mukerji, to the status of an empirical entity.

At this critical stage of the argument, Mukerji presents Śaṁkara’s Advaita as a via media between these extremes in post-Kantian idealisms: on the other hand, the Absolute of Advaita (unlike the Kantian noumenon) is not utterly unknowable, for it is the self-revealing consciousness which is the ever-present background illumination in all empirical knowledge, but, on the other hand, the Absolute of Advaita (unlike the Hegelian organic whole) is a pure undifferentiated unity and not the self-consciousness structured by identity-in-difference of various British ‘neo-Hegelian’ idealisms. Mukerji’s philosophical project, then, is not a nativist-styled return to Śaṁkara, but a creative intervention, from modernized Advaita perspectives, in post-Kantian metaphysical and epistemological debates about the nature of consciousness.

>tfw cant see the noumenon

>Not reading kant

Hi lit. I've recently taken an interest in reading pic related, but figured it would be best to have some kind of supplementary reading for the best understanding. If anyone could point me in the right direction, any help would be appreciated.

What do you guys think of Kant's idea that the only good thing that is good without qualification is good will, and non-consequentialism in general?

>>4272083
>obvious one
ol' droopy face himself

The formulation of universality within Kant's categorical imperative states that one should only act on a maxim that they will to become a universal law. If one should only act on a maxim that they will that everyone else act on it (i.e. it would be in their self-interest if the maxim was universalized), doesn't the categorical imperative become hypothetical itself. Is this the fatal flaw within Kant's theory?

Kant made rationality erotic.

You have ten seconds to refute the greatest German philosopher ever.
OH WAIT, YOU KANT

>you have ten seconds to defend rationalism

My little strudel
Kant I get in your pants
On this Hallowed Eve

sorry, that was the best I could come up with

not the last time I had sex but whatev

I don't understand "the good will" is the essential and ultimate property of morality. I don't understand how it can even be distinguished, what it is. No, really, I actually don't understand a great deal of what this guy says.

hey /lit/,

so i'm taking a class on Kant starting this september, any good recommendations for introductory books on him?

So, /lit/, who was your favorite philosopher?
Kant is my favorite.
His categorical imperative is amazing.

Pic related, it's Immanuel Kant.

more like Immanuel CUNT, amirite?