/lit/ - Literature

>>20357218
They don't write clearly because they don't understand what they are trying to say clearly. This leads to bad philosophy and simulated argumentation.

>>20357315
Based 15 year old

>>20357315
This is kind of true generally but Kant only suffered from his autism. He had genuine insights and was clearly actually making intelligent statements instead of just LARPing like he was.

>>20357315
No, it was about showing off. The French in particular scoff at simplistic argumentation.

>>20357435
Is that why the Bourbaki fags ruined mathematics? Just to look more complicated?

>>20357435
Is that why the Bourbaki fags ruined mathematics? Just so their arguments looked more complex?

>>20357435
Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement.

>>20357325
Imagine being so presumptuous and arrogant that you scoff at clarity. I would genuinely kill myself if I was such a pseudointellectual.
Of course you are doing it out of a misunderstanding of depth with obscurity, when even a vague knowledge of mathematics would immediately correct you, so there is always time to change your ways.
>>20357414
I never said the argumentation or philosophy was intentionally bad, but Kant certainly was a victim of his autism (which wasn't philosophical autism, that is, the attempt to clarity).
>>20357435
This is an important motivator, too. But it isn't the French who scoff at simplistic argument, it is the pseudointellectual French. Someone like Pascal or Descartes is not scoffing at a simple argument, nor are, for instance, the "Bourbaki fags" using >>20357454

>>20357631
>The most influential philosophers in history were pseuds and bad philosophers
>People who don't think so are presumptuous and arrogant
Yeah, totally

>>20357651
>Strawmans why opponent thinks he's retarded
>Confuses having a bad philosophy with being a bad philosopher
>Uses a plural when we are only talking about a single case
>Thinks x being influential has any bearing on x being correct
This is pretty much the type of shitty argumentation I would expect from someone who scoffs at clarity.

>>20357507
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.

>>20357315
What makes you say that?

>>20357454
The Protocols of (((ZF)))

>>20357795
The first proposition is based on the supposition that those who have a clear idea on what they want to say would not go out of their way to make it less intelligible, which I believe is reasonable. The second proposition follows since those who don't have a clear idea on what they want to say don't have a clear philosophy, and thus the corresponding argumentation is not clear, and thus inadequate.

>>20357631
Your standard of proof is not PLATONIC

>>20357454
Odd how theyre mentioned. Hmm have you been reading The New Calculus?

>>20358108
>meaningless schizo nonsense reply

>>20358142
>Retarded bait for bumps and (You) farming
Ahem sir
Bump

>>20358092
You are a retarded bitch who clearly hasn't read either person in op pic.

>>20357218
German autism is based. We need more of it.

>it's a thing-in-itself bro
>we'll never be able to grasp it
>just forget it bro

> it's a thing-in-itself

>>20358304
You will never describe pi, euler's number, the square root of 2, the square root of -1, you will only ever describe approximations of it. There will always be n many numbers between your definition as far as it is taken and the irrational magnitude truly in and of itself.

>>20358235
I really envy you erudite blue whale gigabrained Anons who are the most silent people relative to what you have to say on the internet and perhaps IRL.

>>20358342
How can you assume the existence of the thing-in-itself if you can't know it?

>>20358352
Because assuming so enrages the ACLU Muslim Abortion Doctor Jewish professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVRCvYFVLyQ

>>20358342
>You will never describe pi, euler's number, the square root of 2, the square root of -1
Because they're not numbers, they are ratios, or something similarly irreducible to a single "thing" without two terms. If I say that pi is the circumference divided by the diameter I've just given you an exact understanding of pi, even though it can't be given numerically.

>>20358361
>evil is the absence of god's love
mind = blown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om4nihQZmUE

>>20358235
Spengler was right about GERMAN mathematics and GERMAN physics.

(((Set Theory))) is a reflection of the cognition of the cognizers who birthed it.

>>20358371
I listen to this will reading Deleuze

>>20358375
Baste. I'm more of a drainer personally.

>>20358363
A logical positivist Wittgenstein reading homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Set Theory, known subversion of Euclid's Elements.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and proclaim NATURAL NUMBER SETS as the supreme primitive sets and accept that Noumena do not exist and that Ludwig Wittgenstein was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Bertrand Russell!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life GREEK speaking champion who had served 150 credits of Geometry and understood the necessity of learning LATIN and fully supported all academic decision made by the Ancient Greeks stood up and held up a square sticky note.

”How large is this square, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 inches squared, you stupid Greco-centric Traditionalist”

"Oh shit it actually is." said the student behind.

Can someone explain the second analogy of deduction? Kant's proof that "objective change requires causal laws" seems really bad to me. Why is it a priori fact that the world is not totally random for example? And even if it has correlations, why should we interpret those as "causal laws" instead of just correlations?

>>20358429
Second analogy of experience*

>>20358342
>you will only ever describe approximations of it
Yeah, and we'll still be the only ones doing all the fucking work while you useless philosophy majors sit on your ass coloring academic journals

Great contribution man

>>20358429
>Why is it a priori fact that the world is not totally random for example?
Is the same question as "why do we experience time linearly", the answer is if we didn't we would not be conscious of it because the moments in time would be scattered everywhere without coherency. It's a scenario that is literally impossible to imagine because we could not experience it. A condition of our empirical experience is perceiving time linearly, "the arrow of time."
>And even if it has correlations, why should we interpret those as "causal laws" instead of just correlations?
If there are correlations, then things are linked together in some way because they follow each other according to a law. The point is we don't actually know what causes what (exactly), because cause-and-effect is transcendental and not empirical, just that things are causally related to each other in our experience.

>>20358520
>It's a scenario that is literally impossible to imagine
Just turn on some random noise on your speakers and watch static on TV, you'll be capable to experience that. Doesn't that qualify as law-less experience? Why couldn't nature be like that?

>linked together in some way because they follow each other according to a law
For Kant, is "being linked together" the same thing as "following each other according to a law"?

>cause-and-effect is transcendental and not empirical
Ok, so cause-and-effect is not observable, not measurable, impossible to assess, just some faculty of our reasoning?

>just that things are causally related to each other in our experience
What does the word "causally" add to that phrase?

>>20357315
guy who's never read kant

>>20358476
It is a good prompt. I got the answer right here
>>20358363
This guy knows his stuff.
And this guy knows too much about Zoomer grandiose schizonigger bullshit
>>20358371
Memes and meme magic will die. This board is no longer the Hasbro ouija tree house it once was. Dubs are not inspired by shared self aware delight anymore.

>>20358398
"Wrong. Measure by numbered units requires a base of radix and a consistent use of unit based on a magnitude derived from required, NOT POSTULATED, required principles one can derive from nothing. Inches are based off of a forgotten English King's appendages no one remembers and thus cannot magnify with their own verified anatomical reference, much less truly standardize outside degree and rough belief. "
At this point a Peruvian Eagle flew into the classroom carrying the painstakingly web netted knots of primordial number.
Quipu! Quipu! Quipu!
The student laid his packaged box of sticky notes labeled by the manufacturer onto the Ancient knots.
"This isn't a class on measure" said the professor.
At this point the student burst out of the room crying.

>>20357507
Ce qui ce con? Soit. Bien. C'est non. Ce clairement.

>>20359158
The students all registered Democrat and Obama and Michio Kaku himself showed up to school the next day for diversity gay sex day. The Peruvian Eagle was roasted for Thanksgiving and the professor cried a tear for faith in fiat and a progressive IRS direct account access policy was enacted across all digitally operating banks.

>>20359044
no Kierkegaard says the same thing

I've never read Kant but somebody I know who's read a lot of western philosophy told me Kant didn't understand Hume, and wrote a riposte to a system Hume didn't create, any truth to that?

>>20359589
Its more like he willfully ignored him. Humes point was not difficult. >>20358520 is a good example, "if this wasn't the case we would not be able to have experiences at all" is acknowledged by Hume, but he doesn't think this holds under his most rigorous form of skepticism. Likewise, he also thinks we are compelled to receive cause and effect as such, but doesn't think we can apply these to objects at that same level of skepticism.

>>20359044
I have read Kant's transcendental aesthetic, and his prolegomena. The arguments contained in the former are sophistic, and history has proven me right. Kant's system is pseudoscience nowadays.

>>20358219
Resorting to namecalling is even more proof of my correctness.

>>20358182
No bait was posted. If people choose to get offended at the truth, so be it.

>>20357218
It's a productive thing to do when you awaken from a dogmatic slumber which is also classically German

>>20358352
By assuming that our minds operate with external data which was proposed by Hume iirc and was the common opinion of those days. Read the transcendental deduction.

>>20358429
Why should we think natire is random (whatever that means)