/lit/ - Literature

>>14586019
Kant was destroyed by Guenon (pbuh)

>>14586019
Plato twice?

>>14586019
sorry bucko, guenon retroactively btfoKant

>>14586019
I see that the epic H Man is missing. Was that intentional, anon? I hope it was, don't be a disappointment to me, anon.

He was above the next level. I am dumbfounded by his philosophy. Where each page could take weeks to understand, I often struggle with but one phrase. I can't Kant.

>>14586032
lmao, i meant to say plotinus, whatever

>>14586049
What don't you understand? If you post an excerpt from the first critique, I can try to explain it for you

>>14586019
he btfoed himself

>>14586106
Yes, and since then noone has btfo'd him.

Spengler literally fucked him over.

>>14586123
see >>14586114

>>14586123
What a lad. The last important thinker.

>>14586132
see >>14586126 and >>14586114

>>14586133
stfu

>>14586019
how did he BTFO Zizek?

>>14586140
He btfo'd lacan

>>14586145
how? I don't know much about Kant, only what I've read in Copplestones History of Philosophy and he seems to me like the last non-pseud Western thinker, the man devoted his entire life to his thought. contemporary philosophers and even the dead supposedly great ones like Camus, Sartre or Foucault literally cannot even compete with him because to them philosophy was just a hobby and an auxiliary to politics

>>14586123
How? I haven't gotten around to reading Spengler.

>>14586019
>and specially Plato!

>>14586167
I'm not sure I understand. You're saying Kant didn't btfo Lacan because Kant was much much better than Lacan?

>Also, this is irrelevant, but Camus, Sartre and Foucault are definitely not great modern philosophers. If you think of great post-kant philosophers, I think most people would think of wittgenstein, nietzsche or heidegger.

>>14586204
I don't think this response was intended to me lol. I didn't say that Kant btfo Lacan, I asked you what parts of Kant refute Lacan because I don't know a lot neither about Kant nor about Lacan. and yes, I think that Kant was the last non-pseud philosopher of the West.
>Also, this is irrelevant, but Camus, Sartre and Foucault are definitely not great modern philosophers.
didn't say they were, what I meant was that Kant lived by his philosophy whereas the existentialists and postmodernists are at best coomers who make good aphorisms from time to time.

>>14586225
>Kant = Based, Lacan = Not based
>"What do you mean, Kant was the last Based philosopher, Lacan/postmodernists were cringe coomers"

You say you don't think Kant btfo'd Lacan, then presumably to back up your assertion, you go on to praise Kant and deride postmodernists like Lacan. Thats what sounds strange to me. I agree that existentialists are morons. Some postmodernists are based though. Zizek and Lacan are based, but Rorty, baudrillard, deleuze, lyotard are also pretty based tbqh. They were definitely coomers and very degenerate, deleuze and focault at least, but still, i think its more the fact that the psychology that gives rise to the theories you see in postmodernism also gives rise to bad social behavior, not that their philosophy made them degenerate.

>>14586270
>not that their philosophy made them degenerate

Didn't help though did it?

>>14586270
there is some serious miscommunication here. I think that Kant is based and Lacan is cringe, but I'm asking you to direct me to parts of Kant's ouvre where he retroactively refutes Lacan for reference.
>You say you don't think Kant btfo'd Lacan
not what I said, I said I'm not familiar enough with either of them to pinpoint where exactly one refuted the other and asked you to give me examples.

>>14586177
Spengler's general argument against people such as Kant is that Europeans, since they gave priority to science and rationality over the gheist and traditionalism ever since the Renaissance, are basically commiting cultural and spiritual (and thus also racial) suicide.
Ever since Europeans began viewing their history as a linear collection of random events, (i.e. result of liberalism and rationalism) the general perception of each and every past European civilization was deprived of its own unique spirit and mythology, reducing them to ancient savages who couldn't get at the level of 'rationalism and science' 21st century Europe did.
Basically Rationalism in the long term is a path to suicide.

>>14586019

>lying BAD

>>14586347
>t. hasn't read Kant

>>14586310
Well thats a very very complicated question actually. To sum it up quickly: the Kantian conception of synthesis is not something the kantian system can explain its more superficial interpretation, because it is fundamentally a psychological one, but when Kant actually does explain it, which he tries to do in the transcendental deduction of the categories, the account of imagination and the self in itself is completely opposed to the one psychalaysis presupposes. If you want to know more, I suggest reading the critique along with good secondary literature, like Guyer or allison. After that reading about German idealism, starting with fichte, then reading Hegel.

>>14586029
Guenon was destroyed by Kant

>>14586344
Thats somewhat existentialist though rigth? It doesn't really prove Kant wrong

>>14586019
btfo by Johanposter

>>14586019
Nagarjuna completed Kant's system though. Kant lacked a soteriology and therefore stopped at the thing-in-itself because reason couldn't overcome it. Based Nagarjuna took on the exact same project but because of being in the ancient Tradition he transcended it through non-cognitive thinking and therefore found rest in non-duality.

>>14586019
>plato, chomsky, jesus, plato
Rip my man Plato

Fichte is basically kant if kant wasn't a dry faggot

>>14586949
>wanting anything but a dry faggot
Sorry kid /toy/ is this way, maybe it will help you keep your ADHD in check. >>>/toy/catalog

>did I mention plato?

>>14586526
Kant's whole philosophy, as well as that most other rationalists is in the end suicidal. That's kinda the point. Sure it is rational but if everyone obeyed strictly that type of thinking then what would make us different from computers/machines? (We kinda are though but thats not the point)

>>14586019
Yoooo you forgot Hume and Spinoza homeboy. Also remove Jesus since Kant was in full agreement with Christs words.

>>14586270
Deleuze was pure

>>14587019
the anxiety over "being too similar to a machine" is an ideological spook and the premise (that strict reason is machine-like) is nonsensical from the start

>>14586167
>Camus, Sartre or Foucault
Those people aren't even philosophers.

>>14586344
What a load of horseshit.

>>14587019
Rational inquiry is one of the only good things Europeans have brought to the world.

>>14586019
>Affirms, refutes, and corrects Kant at the same time

>>14587204
Based

>>14587204
True.

>>14587170
This.
>>14587019
Disagree. There are definitely up tight rigorous types, but rationalists can also be perfectly happy with the limits of reason and the nuance implied by such.

He still gets retroactively refuted by Parmenides though.

Everything does.

>>14587228
Parmenides lived more than 2000 years before Kant, dumbass.

another cringe tripfaggot to filter. based !

>>14586114
do you even philosophy?

>Kant
More like can’t amirite XD

>>14586344
what a brainlet

>>14587170
>spook
not an argument.

>>14586019
>Jesus
Wrong

>>14586123
Spergler is a barely conscious toddler compared to Kant. They're on completely different levels. Weber was right when he called Spergler 'a well read and ingenious dilettante', and it seems all his little gremlin sycophants here match that description sans being 'well read and ingenious'.

>we never got a chemical picture of Kant
why live....

Reminder that Kant was 5 ft tall

>>14586029
What an adorably infantile thing to think.

>>14587973
Same height as Jesus.

>>14588022
>relative time instead of timestamp
Wow not obnoxious at all.
>>14586029
>pbuh
عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ?

>>14586019
>>sadler
lmao why do you guys bully him so much he's literally just some professor

>>14588107
>saddle
lmao

>>14586019
>YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE IMPERATIVE AND BE NICE TO EVERYONE!
>why?
>WE- WELL YOU JUST HAVE TO! OKAY?

>>14588107
Because he's a fan of the despicable Hegel. Cringe.

>>14588186
Only fags who use "cringe" and "yikes" are cringe and yikes, and I don't even like Hegel.

>>14588291
I like you, anon, because we both dislike Hegel and according to you, we are both cringe and yikes.

>>14586347
Correct

>>14588175
>>why?
>Because it’s the right thing to do and if you want to be moral you should follow it

>>14587019
Utilitarians are closer to machines than kantians

>BTFOing Thomas "behold: a kike"-enas
>an achievement

>>14588362
>Why is it moral?
>I arbitrarily called it so.

>>14587236
How do you even remember to breathe?

Hobbes preemptively btfod Kant. Contractarianism Is grounded in reality whilst Kant’s hypothetical moralising is so ungrounded he had to employ obscurantism to write about it without being laughed at.

>>14586019
>try to read kant
>a priori a priori a priori
>do not question my a priori
>ITS A PRIORI EVERYONE AGREES ITS A PRIORI
>drop Kant
>read more Nietzsche
>shits on Kant
>don't need to read Kant

>>14588383
That’s not an accurate depiction of Kant’s categorical imperatives. Something is only moral when it can be applied to everyone equally without contradiction. Being nice is ‘moral’ because of an agent chose not to be, he is saying everyone else has the right to do so as well. Therefore everyone is horrible and society breaks down.

>>14588403
Look up the meaning of "retroactive", dumbass.

>>14588429
But it was a priori

>>14588429
Filtered.

>>14588464
Why yes, I did filter Kant. How could you tell?

>>14588429
Schopenhauer's thesis dissects Kant's structure on the Human consciousness pretty well and Negarestani actually has a graphic illustrating Kant's structure, which, although not 100% thorough its a good and honest companion while reading Schopenhauer dissect Kant's stuff. Still a lot of bullshit with a priori but well done nonetheless. I notice the Schopenhauer also loves the word the 'cognizant'.
>the world is cognizance of cognizants
>cognizant of cognizant cognizance
First half of The World as Will and Presentation is very tough to pull through.

>>14588482
Bravo’s not a chad

>>14588430
>Something is only moral when it can be applied to everyone equally without contradiction
why though

>>14587627
he’s right though

>>14588513
>cognizant
To be fair that's a compromise made in translation. They decided to translate erkennen as coginizing so a normal word in German like erkennend has to be translated "cognizant".

>>14588729
Read Kant

>>14588729
Can we at least separate Kant's morals from his metaphysics ITT? They are two entirely separate subjects.

>>14589192
>can't defend his ridiculous position
figures

>>14589314
Kant can explain it better than I; if this were not true there would be no need for philosophers.

>>14586029
>>14586034
Fuck off guenonians, you better read Hegel

>>14588729
Because, as I explained, it needs to pass the contradiction ‘test’ to become universal. So, stealing cannot be moral because it’s isnt logical. You can’t think it is okay for you to steal without thinking it’s okay for everyone to do so. At that point you’ll steal and then someone will steal that thing from you ad infinitum. That’s the contradiction.