/lit/ - Literature

No, he's pretty good. He's basically a combination of Kant and Pyrrho with the playful spirit of a William James.

>>22963421
>Kant
Literally the same syndrome. Fucker's morality doesn't work, his ideas of politics were beyond stupid and everything in the critique of pure reason is either stupid or wrong. You've fallen for the trick. Thankfully, you don't need to use that drivel for practical purposes, it's only benefit is flexing in front of normies who never heard of noumenon/phenomenon or analytic synthetic. If you are a kantian, your scientific understanding of the world is probably that of a toddler but it doesn't matter because you can still get the benefits of real advancements made by non-kantians while basking in your own greatness. God I hate you.

>>22963419
Just gonna drop this here

>>22963419
>>22963433
OK, professor, I believe you. You're right and everyone else is dumb. Looking forward to seeing your name in philosophy textbooks soon.

>>22963473
Even if you did, you couldn't infer anything or truly trust object permanence as it may just be brain tricks. Aha aren't us kantian smart!

>>22963478
>aren't we

>>22963478
I think that's a bit of a superficial mischaracterisation of the Kantian position. You can trust the permanence of matter within the phenomenal world, you just cannot know the noumenal existence of matter. I don't know quite what you mean by not being able to "infer anything", you can surely infer knowledge from a priori synthetic propositions of mathematics and infer knowledge from a posteriori synthetic propositions of the natural sciences.
Perhaps there is a common theme in your attacks on Kant and Wittgenstein. Are you finding it quite difficult to cope with the notion of the limitations of human knowledge and language, that there are certain things in life which are fundamentally uncertain and cannot be known?

>>22963529
I cannot know plenty of things. I'm okay with that. It's impossible for me to know what 600 km below the earth's surface looks like. Or what does a faraway celestial body taste like. Or even the exact atomic makeup of the water I'm drinking. Does it mean the same thing though? Kantians call ignorance wisdom and are contented with that statement. I don't know many things but I can endeavour to lessen my ignorance of things. It's a difference stance from simply wisely asserting all day "we just kant know anything" while also claiming free-will is real (hint : you don't believe in causality therefore humans are not logical and cannot be undestood) or other utterly inane opinions on various groups of people. No, it's really worthless. There are mathematical theorems that are unprovable but it's a far stretch to really think that's what kantianism hints at. By your logic, you can trust reality as you perceive it but only treat it as some kind of hallucination where suspension of disbelief is only necessary for practical life. I don't really think the question "is reality truly real" has any point beyond a boring Ph.D thesis that has no practical nor theoretical bearing to it. It's simply an idle game for idle people.
Kantians think they're not determined, but in truth, they don't know it and don't want to know it. One could easily analyze every single opinion of Kant and show how they sprout from his social and historical position in the world, much like any philosopher, however neither kant nor kantians are interested in things like that.

>>22963419
he's the only philosopher worth hid salt because he alone understood that using words to engage in philosophy is like trying to square a circle

>>22963560
Maybe we should dance about philosophy then.

>>22963560
Ah yes everything is subjective, there is no shared meaning, gender doesn't exist. Don't you have synogogue to attend or something?

>>22963559
I think you're making Kantianism into something slightly more airy-fairy than it really is. Kantians do of course believe in causality, it's an a priori condition for experience and understanding. Kantians of course are not contented with ignorance, but they do call it wisdom to attempt to realise the boundaries of the knowable (even if Hegel later says that to know a limit is to go beyond it). Kantians of course trust reality as they perceive it.
Although you have perhaps hit the nail on the head when you claim that Kantian philosophy has no "practical" use -- it's a bit like Kant's definition of beauty, "purposiveness without purpose". It's perhaps a problem of the utilitarian thinking of modern sciences that all furthering of our knowledge and wisdom needs somehow to have a "practical" use and that there are no point to metaphysical considerations.
But your final statement of how all philosophy is dependent on the social/historical context in which they are given shows you moving towards away from the naive realism of scientific materialism into perhaps the territory of Hegel's historicism or Nietzsche's perspectivism. I wonder: do you think that historical/social determination applies also to modern scientific materialism or is that the one school of thought exempt?

>>22963686
I include real-life ethical choices within practical use and that includes "moral" choices or rather personal choices.
> I wonder: do you think that historical/social determination applies also to modern scientific materialism or is that the one school of thought exempt?
It's obviously not, but it can be aware of that fact and study their position within a historical process and use those insights to correct their point of view from presuppositions emerging from that determination. I'm determined but I know it and that knowledge of how precisely (not just as an abstract empty fact) yields useful insights for improving my point of view.

Wittgenstein filters another. Once you grasp his work, you'll see how so much philosophizing can just be dismissed.

>>22963456
Can confirm

>>22963706
Interesting okay. You are smarter and more well-read than I thought. I assumed you were just a /sci/ browser come to claim philosophy in general was bullshit (which of course it is but there's a difference between /sci/ person vs. a philosophy reader saying it). I apologise also because I think some of the statements of my previous post were badly or confusedly worded (ie. "Kantians trust reality as they perceive it" -- maybe true on a practical but not really a theoretical level).

>>22963456
As a Kansan, I will single-handedly bring back 'hot ziggety!'

>>22963559
> By your logic, you can trust reality as you perceive it but only treat it as some kind of hallucination where suspension of disbelief is only necessary for practical life.
That's a good summary you did here actually.
But it's not clear to me what's your problem with this mindset.
Are you pretending to not understand it?
Come on, you summarized it, it should click in your head.