/lit/ - Literature

>>11784056
yikes your pseud is showing

>>11784090
I already know Object != Objectivity which is entire Critique of Pure Reason, I read summary of Judgement and it was some retarded moralfaggotry, and I read the intro to Practical Reason and it seems to be the same.

So, what did you learn from the 3 books?

>>11784056
>pre-evolution theory for example
you're really pathetic and obviously don't know shit about anything

>>11784056
If you don't have an interest in the problems discussed in the book then there is no point to reading them. If you have an interest in the problems discussed in the book then you should read them. Are you that fucking stupid?

>>11784097
I know you're baiting but it's a shame people share your views unironically

>>11784099
It's pretty fucking cringe to read Kant try to explain nature without evolution theory dude.
WHy waste time reading that in 2018

>>11784107
>>11784109
I'm not baiting and I don't see you two writing about what you learned from the books in '18

>>11784114
How does evolution refute Kant?

>>11784123
Everything he wrote about reasoning on hereditary similarities simply got btfo by natural selection my dude

no more gay seed inserted by God

>>11784097
and Judgment is Art! = Taste

There's always reasons to read a book, anon
even no reason at all

>>11784140
I already got that from the translators summary to Judgement, he pretty much spelled it out for me too.
>even no reason at all
Yeah but I'd rather read cutting edge stuff on the edge of the horizon you know.

>>11784129
How does evolution refute Kant's system as a whole? Are you sure you're interpreting the passage correctly?

>>11784151
Are you that convinced the cult of evolution is the "cutting edge"?

>>11784153
I didn't say 'as a whole', I said it refutes what he wrote about with regards to science and nature. It felt very backwards nature to read it.

>>11784161
when the A.I. becomes and out-selects us I will be vindicated!

>>11784056
Do ya gotta read Hegel n' shit fore Kant?

>>11784163
Why would you assume it's not the other way around, given that evolution purports to describe the thing-in-itself outside the purview of subjectivity?

>>11784169

Other way round.
Kant before Hegel

>>11784169
You should read Kant before Hegel, since Hegel radicalizes Kant's breakthrough

>>11784114
You don't read philosophy to learn something new. If you want to learn something new you read a science or music book etc. Reading philosophy is about taking something that you already know, comparing it with what you;re reading, and hopefully coming to a better understanding of that thing you already knew. In the case of Kant, reading the critique of pure reason really helped me to understand about the process of thinking and the nature of the mind, how it is possible and the conditions of human experience, the limits and successes of science, the evolution of Enlightenment, and the importance of language in epistemology. I'm not Kant expert so I can't give you some technical description of everything he does, but those are some things that became clearer to me while I was reading him.

>>11784183
>>You don't read philosophy to learn something new
But that's precisely the reason.

I don't know how Pure can convince you of limits of science when science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience, it takes time, but it just keeps kind of happening.

But thanks for writing what you learned, that is what I wanted to know.

> and the importance of language in epistemology
The trap of mind and language is real.

>>11784179
>>11784180
I see, thanks guys. It will be a long time before I get to either of them anyway; I'm still working my way through Plato's complete works.

>>11784194
>I don't know how Pure can convince you of limits of science when science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience

>let me tell you neuroscience refuted these philosophers I haven't even read

Where do they find you goobers?

>>11784194
>science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience
I haven't read the latter two but how can you say that when pure reason is about reason, something that lies outside the jurisdiction of science?

>>11784056
>reading these three books in 2018

Be careful

>>11784210
The book is not of science, only sections of it, and it contains faulty, 18th Century science that has since been refuted; besides its the entire history of science to take space away from philosophy..
>>11784208
When neurolads debunk the entire redness meme where will you move your goalpost?

>>11784221
>When neurolads debunk the entire redness meme where will you move your goalpost?

A description of red-ness will never be red-ness.

>>11784221
>besides its the entire history of science to take space away from philosophy..
What a fucking brainlet, please educate yourself before spouting your nonsense or fuck off and don't come back.

>>11784237
>this mad
Mean while science marches on, narrowing the platform of philosophy retroactively and actively.

Do you wanna be left behind?

>>11784251
What's your model number?

>>11784266
> posting your social security number to internet

>>11784272
Nice

>>11784251
>Do you wanna be left behind?
I study physics, I'm not getting left behind. You're just a retarded cunt.

>>11784194
>science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience, it takes time, but it just keeps kind of happening.
Remember that Greek philosophers anticipated the existence of atoms millennia before science was able to prove their existence.

>>11784290


Post a good physics book

>>11784300
They did not, some cunt just stole the word from Greeks, besides that is already outdated with idea of protons, Neutrons, Electrons, quarks, and anti-quarks which are smaller than "Greek Atoms" so thanks for showing us how science refutes, and narrows down the platform of philosophy.

>>11784300
And that Plato located the rational soul in the head millennia before neuroscience """confirmed""" consciousness the result of brain activity. As if head injuries never happened before the first brain scan

>>11784220
damn, i just let my 10 year old read the critiques by himself.

>>11784310
Neuroscience in the 21st. Century has not confirmed consciousness, you are reading low quality trash journals if that is your knowledge.

>>11784314
It's already too late! Now he'll become *gasp* a die hard Trump supporter!

>>11784314
>i just let my 10 year old read the critiques by himself

I hope you have more than one kid because this one is ruined.

>>11784323
That's why I put confirmed in quotes bud

Look guys, my aim was not to bait. I was genuinely curious what an old scientific philosophy like this can teach 235 years later.

>>11784450
i really don't know

>>11784056
You don't understand anon. You read these kind of books for the pseud cred.

>>11784473
nah this is what pseuds with no thirst for real knowledge try to convince themselves everyone else is doing, enjoy conspicuously reading gravity's rainbow across a girl you'll never have the balls to approach during your morning commute faggot

>>11784485
op HERE, I read Heidegger's German Existentialism in public and people came to ask me am I a nazi lmao

>>11784450
you don't seem to understand that these books aren't about science

>>11784498
Where do you live that people are that fucking gay?

>>11784485
>nah this is what pseuds with no thirst for real knowledge try to convince themselves everyone else is doing
pretty sure kant is required reading in any philosophy program worth its salt
you don't have to agree with him, but you do have to read him if you want to actually have an informed discussion that involves any relevant ethicist from the last two-hundred years

>>11784056
>>11784450
Read some Scottish enlightenment lads (Hume, Adam Smith, etc.). Then come back to Kant. You're putting the cart before the horse.

To answer your question, I learned that there are some questions science just can't answer.

Also,
>unironically saying "moralfaggotry" in 2018
Your edge is showing.

>>11784056

You don't seem like the type of reader who would get much out of them.

>>11784097

>Object != Objectivity which is entire Critique of Pure Reason

Believe it or not, these 800 pages of arguments and examples and qualifications can't just reduce to a single slogan.

> I read summary of Judgement and it was some retarded moralfaggotry

Sounds like an incomplete summary, but again I doubt you'd be willing to read the full book in a fruitful way.

> and I read the intro to Practical Reason and it seems to be the same

Congrats on the introduction at least. Not sure you'll be able to interpret much of it though, or what comes after it, without understanding the first critique to any depth.

>>11784114

>It's pretty fucking cringe to read Kant try to explain nature without evolution theory

What's cringe is that if you had read the third critique - which you're trying to shit on, though you can only muster up hot wind - you would have read the section where he argues in favor of biological evolution. Kant's hypothesis is pre-Darwinian and theistic, but it's made in support of evolutionary speciation and applies to homo sapiens.

>>11784129

> Everything he wrote about reasoning on hereditary similarities

What writings are you referring to? And how does that undermine his fundamental arguments and systematic coherence? And how can you make these evaluations with such confidence before reading his works for yourself?

>>11784163

> I didn't say 'as a whole', I said it refutes what he wrote about with regards to science and nature

Even this isn't right. He wrote volumes about science and nature, and their transcendental preconditions and relations to the human mind - great deals of this aren't threatened by the obsolescence or limitedness of the facts he had access to.

He actually contributed to the development of the physical sciences, to take a specific example, by proposing the nebular hypothesis for the formation of solar systems - separate from Laplace - which cosmologists acknowledge was largely correct.

> I don't know how Pure can convince you of limits of science

Because you haven't read it, and it's extremely doubtful you even understand what Kant technically meant by a cognitive and/or empirical "limit."

> when science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience

New discoveries about the nervous system, or genetics, or the universe, or anything empirical, are going to have an extremely difficult time threatening Kant's system, because all of those discoveries are within the natural world, whereas Kant's fame is primarily due to his arguments about the preconditions underlying the natural world itself. They are different levels of inquiry.

>>11784450

> I was genuinely curious what an old scientific philosophy like this can teach 235 years later.

You just fail to grasp that these books are not Kant's scientific philosophy, though they make references to science.

>>11784314
It's bad for his health, just introduce him to video games and social media so he can blend in with the other kids.

>>11784056
https://twitter.com/KANTBOT20K/status/1040834948469587968

>>11784194
>I don't know how Pure can convince you of limits of science when science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience, it takes time, but it just keeps kind of happening.

Like what exactly? What can we prove they were wrong about with neuroscience?