/lit/ - Literature

>>11274417

>>11100991
I feel like you didn't read thoroughly, because he addresses this concern exactly. The specific (i.e. empirical) circumstances of an act cannot factor in a moral judgment, since the basis of the determination of the will (i.e. the basis upon which you are making the judgment about what you want) is subjective. The only way to have a completely moral judgment is to found this judgment in the form of the law itself, which is universality.

>>11102558
>Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.
Stop posting this shit. If Rand had read Kant she wouldn't have written such retarded nonsense. It only passes in America for philosophy because fewer than one in one hundred Americans have themselves bothered to read Kant.

>>10834109
Kant died a virgin. Don't listen to the normie revisionists.
Nietzsche died a virgin.
Schopenhauer likely didn't have sex for the last thirty five years of his life.

Men such as these did not give more than a solitary tinker's fuck about "the game." Spend your time experiencing the really beautiful parts of life. Don't waste it pining over the lucky fact that you're not doggedly tailing intoxicated demireps.