/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10173533]

Kant Thread

[Anonymous No.10173541]

[Anonymous No.10173547]

>>10173541
This is amazing got any other dank Kant memes ?

[Anonymous No.10174215]

want to get into Kant. What book is a good start?

[Anonymous No.10174223]

Stop presupposing the phenomenal-noumenal divide

[Anonymous No.10174227]

>>10174215
-Stanford.Plato secondary source on Kant
-Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
Then be done with it

[Anonymous No.10174275]

>>10174227
Thanks

[Anonymous No.10174370]

>muh categorical imperative

[Anonymous No.10174379]

is world disclosure aesthetic or cognitive?

[Anonymous No.10174380]

>>10173533
I'm impatient and I really want to read this guy. Anyone think I can get into him with only a greek phil background?

[Anonymous No.10174383]

>>10174380
just spend the one week it'll take you to read Descartes and Hume.

[Anonymous No.10174392]

>>10174380
>>10174383
This, both are pretty short, don't get memed into reading Locke and Leibniz like I did

[Anonymous No.10174418]

>>10174380
Just read Descartes' Meditation, Hume's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and maybe Locke's essay, and then spend like an afternoon reading background info on Wolffian rationalism, Humean empiricism, and and French (Lockean) sensationalism. Maybe read some article or blog post about Newton's influence on Kant, and the nature of Newton's "leave the thing-in-itself as it is" structural-scientific realism.

Then you can understand Kant easily.

[Anonymous No.10174429]

>>10174215
What is Enlightenment

[Anonymous No.10174465]

>>10174429
btw gerfag here so Kant is comparatively easy for me there's just some word you have to learn a priori to understand Kant

[Anonymous No.10174686]

>>10174465
*words

[Anonymous No.10174769]

>>10173533
I unironically view this man as effectively the most evil man to ever live.

[Anonymous No.10174854]

>>10174769
what autistic reason do you have?

[Anonymous No.10174898]

>>10174465
I've heard Kant is actually easier to read in translation without obnoxiously long sentences, latinized grammar and outdated words.

[Anonymous No.10175033]

>>10174854
Kant did not provide a valid critique of reason, reason as such is unassailable. He only did a phenomenal job of undercutting his monstrous strawman of it and infected all our current halls of higher learning with his poison. Reason is Man's best and only tool of survival.
The notion of the noumenal world is a patent absurdity and, logically, a baseless floating absraction.

[Anonymous No.10175050]

>>10175033
>he thinks CPR was a critique of colloquial 21st century definitions of reason
I guess I got caught responding to bait

[Anonymous No.10175071]

>>10175050
Directly his was a critique upon the empiricist perspective on reason. Yes, I know. In effect however his view amounted to an attack on man's mind and psued academics for decades now have been opperating off his premises. Such is the state of our modern "intellectuals".

Objectivism>>>Kantianism>Empiricism

[Anonymous No.10175075]

>>10173533
who kant thread
lit thats who

[Anonymous No.10175080]

>>10175033
>an abstraction is floating
only objectivists think this is in any way bad

[Anonymous No.10175082]

The Virgin Kant
> be a manlet
> never travel 3 miles beyond birthplace
> be stuffy old professor
> prefer deadening systematic thought
> be notoriously difficult to read

The Chad Goethe
> herculean physique
> travel all around italy
> become nobleman
> have divine insight through powerful intuition
> be celebrity all over europe at young age

[Anonymous No.10175088]

>>10175071
>In effect however his view amounted to an attack on man's mind
This is so wrong.
>Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

CPR was about a person's ability to turn back in on cognition and analyze his capacity to make judgements. It was about determining the conditions under which anything becomes intelligible to humans. It was a celebration of the human's ability to overcome docility using reason.
>Directly his was a critique upon the empiricist perspective on reason
I bet $20 you can't elaborate on this point

[Anonymous No.10175359]

>>10175080
Correct, we are the only. A fucking tragedy. Objectivism is the only system of Philosophy with a knowledge of what constitutes context that is devoid of contradiction and one that does not invent and rest on ad hoc axioms.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html
As much as this antagonizes people; this is why I assert that Objectivism does and always has "eaten" everything it comes into contact with. I like to say Objectivism is the first ever formulated "Metaphilosophy".

>>10175088
>If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself.
This is an equivocation on what roles these things play on man's mind using pure metaphor.
A book does not think nor can think on behalf of man. You can only read a book and integrate it into the sum of your conceptual facult nd practice/internalize the notions it argues as competently as you are able.

>It was about determining the conditions under which anything becomes intelligible to humans.
ALL things are "intelligible" what matters is the degree each man is able to reason it out. To place the on us on "conditions" is a backwards contradiction.
Have a quote:
>A “straw man” is an odd metaphor to apply to such an enormous, cumbersome, ponderous construction as Kant’s system of epistemology. Nevertheless, a straw man is what it was—and the doubts, the uncertainty, the skepticism that followed, skepticism about man’s ability ever to know anything, were not, in fact, applicable to human consciousness, because it was not a human consciousness that Kant’s robot represented. But philosophers accepted it as such. And while they cried that reason had been invalidated, they did not notice that reason had been pushed off the philosophical scene altogether and that the faculty they were arguing about was NOT reason.

$21 for a good response from you

[Anonymous No.10175375]

[Anonymous No.10175422]

>>10175359
Why post in a kant thread when you clearly haven't read him? You're the reason lit is so shit. It's you.

[Anonymous No.10175460]

>>10175422
>implying
I have read him. I wanted to see for myself if Rand really did dissect Kant as hard as she claims so I read CoPR right after "Philosophy: Who Needs It"
Kantfags just like to move goalposts in perpetuity. It's kinda their Hallmark.

[Anonymous No.10175492]

>>10175359
>concepts formed from concepts are unkosher because [appeals to pragmatism]
sad

[Anonymous No.10175519]

>>10175359
you don't understand empiricism and you haven't read Kant. You don't know what Reason means in his corpus. You want to show rid the philosophical community of questioning existence but you challenge it with just as equal nonsensical claims. You have provided zero arguments in favor of a mind independent reality barring ad hominem toward Kant. You seem to believe that man suddenly emerged one day able to reason about himself. What are you getting at? What are your real motivations behind believing in Objectivism?

>moving goal posts
LOL. You cannot even keep track of our own argument.

[Anonymous No.10175549]

>>10175375
This is /lit/'s version of MUH DEGENERACY.
But I agree with it 100%.

[Anonymous No.10175629]

>>10175519
>You have provided zero arguments in favor of a mind independent reality barring ad hominem toward Kant.
Why would I do that, that is not my intent at all. Objectivism posits that reality exists as an objective absolute and that man's mind, by means of reason, is his means of perceiving it.

[Anonymous No.10175663]

>>10175359
>Objectivism is the only system of Philosophy with a knowledge of what constitutes context that is devoid of contradiction and one that does not invent and rest on ad hoc axioms.

post-structuralism

[Anonymous No.10175686]

>>10175492
Wrong, Objectivism destroys pragmatism.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html

[Anonymous No.10175782]

>>10174215
>>10174380
pic

>>10175033
What are you talking about when you say "reason is unassailable"? What is it that you think Kant was critiquing, 1+1=2? Are you retarded? Do you think that metaphysics from pure reason is possible? Do you think that we can derive whether God does or does not exist from reason alone? This is what Kant was outlining - the limitations of metaphysics.

You're also in no position to claim that the notion of the noumenal world is absurd.

>>10175071
>an attack on man's mind
I have no idea how you can think this unless you are unironically a Thomist. Kant saved science. I would tell you to just go read Kant but I know for a fact you would not understand any of it.

>>10175359
>>10175460
>>10175686
Ayn Rand was the biggest fucking idiot in all of philosophy and literally the only people I know that think her works are good is trailer trash and bogans. If you would even just take a second to google whether her criticism of Kant was even coherent and click on the first couple of links you would learn that she, like you, is a lying pseudo intellectual who has absolutely not read Kant.

[Anonymous No.10176071]

>>10173533
>Kant Thread
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.htm
/thread

[Anonymous No.10176615]

>>10176071

>what [morality] had to be saved from was reason.
On the contrary Kant believes the only basis for morality can be in reason

>dictates to man the rules of morality and which makes itself known by means of a feeling, as a special sense of duty.
He explicitly denies the theory of moral feeling in the Critique of Practical Reason, it's one of his main refutations in the book, she is saying the opposite of him again.

>The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion.
It's real insofar as it's objective, and it's a distortion if that's what you would call "having an experience". If you experience seeing the color red, will you think that the red as we experience it actually exists? He thinks space and time are like that too.

>man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters
This is a poor way of putting it. They aren't filters, they are rules, rules for the construction of experience (uniting all of the data we get). When we are looking around, we're getting a lot of sense data. Now in order to make sense of all of these various data points we must have some kind of connection between them, so that we can experience it, otherwise it would be a ton of disconnected sense data. Space and time are forms, cocnepts, rules that provide unity to our sensations. They are a form we imppose on data so that we can have reliable connections between everything.

Our brains are not 100% generalized, there are *some* rules/processes needed prior to having experience, because we need some applied to our sense data before we can even start extrapolating concepts from it. Think about it in the Chompsky way where he states that there is simply too much calculation and data about language to believe a child can learn it just from observance, they must be predisposed to language.

>and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective
The criterion for Kant is definitely not that it be collective. That's like saying that objectivism is collective because everyone sees the same universe.

>his argument amounted to a negation of man’s consciousness. 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
If by "unable to prove from pure reason alone and no emperical data every truth of the universe" is being blind then yeah I guess he did negate it. But otherwise this is hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.10178009]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10178065]

Kant is a hack.

[Anonymous No.10178366]

>>10175782
>do you think that we can derive whether God does or does not exist
Better; Objectivism just factors hims out entirely as a metaphysical irrelevance both if he does and doesn't exist. It (validly) dismisses the question of proving if God exists or not by calling on the law of logic; That you are never called upon to prove a negative.

>>an attack on man's mind
>I have no idea how you can think this
I think this because unlike you assert I actually HAVE read Kant and concluded that Rand hard refutes him. I could not have failed to become curious of Kant in Rand's aggressive attack on him after reading P:WNI.
Kant's whole motivation in this matter is the desire to escape the law of causality and identity. His philosophy is essentially one big rationalization for the desire to keep the irrationalist's cult of Mysticism and all the intellectual shortcuts and 'package deals' (as Rand puts it) that entails. Moving the goalposts of what Kant's critique of reason constituted is pretty much the modus operandi of those trying (and always failing) to defend him against Rand. Unlike Kant's thought; reason is not indicted because it cannot be practiced infallibly. Fallibilty being a epistemological indictment to "pure reason" is the absurdity the entirety of Kantianism rests on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQl_XlB0lQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ybzZqWYMdM

>Ayn Rand was the biggest fucking idiot in all of philosophy and literally the only people I know that think her works are good is trailer trash and bogans. If you would even just take a second to google whether her criticism of Kant was even coherent and click on the first couple of links you would learn that she, like you, is a lying pseudo intellectual who has absolutely not read Kant.
A. Again, yes I have
B. I'd much rather go to the source material in question than read someone's loaded summary of it dripping with agenda.
C. Ad hominem. In addition you have only ever purported THAT a thing you assert about Rand is true and not how this is reasoned out. I'm sure you also take the fact that she is hated so vorciferously among academics as 'proof' that she is not to be taken seriously. An appeal to authority fallacy I have a response ready made for:
The dreaded, horrible secret that academic philosophers face (and why they do not even allow the notion of Objectivism as a philosophy) is that Objectivism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy. And pseuds the world over are perpetually butthurt over this incontrovertible fact. Yes fact, I do not exaggerate. Including it among their other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say, it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke"

[Anonymous No.10178400]

>>10178366
>That you are never called upon to prove a negative.
But we are called upon to do that all the time in science and mathematics. The question is whether we can derive, e.g, the existence of monads from pure reason alone (we can't)

>Kant's whole motivation in this matter is the desire to escape the law of causality and identity
Kant's motivation is to *save* causality from Hume.

>no academics take Rand seriously because she is just the best
ok


If you have honestly read CoPR I can't imagine how much boredom you must have suffered taking all of the time it would have taken to skim your eyes over each word without cognizing anything

[Anonymous No.10178443]

>>10178065
if you read schopenhauer you would know that he held kant in very high esteem. his epistemology is heavily based on kant

[Anonymous No.10178548]

>>10178366
Stefan molyneux detected. Keep indulging your small man delusion that everyone shuns you because your truth is threatening to their livelihood. You have John galt syndrome. It's a vision of yourself as fantastic as the skyhook "static electricity generator" that you jizz over.

[Anonymous No.10178597]

>>10178548
>>10178400
>But we are called upon to do that all the time in science and mathematics
Which is why we are discussing logical opperants and not the specific ciences, which rest on it. Numbnuts

>Kant's motivation is to *save* causality from Hume.
*as well as the morality of Altruism.

Notice you skipped past this part:
>Unlike how Kant thought; reason is not indicted because it cannot be practiced infallibly. Fallibilty being a epistemological indictment to "pure reason" is the absurdity the entirety of Kantianism rests on
That is the core of my whole post
Again:

>>no academics take Rand seriously because she is just the best
>ok
A. Not "no academics"; it's the large, commie inflenced, plurality of them.
B. I and Rand are not the only ones (then and now) that lament the pathetic state of "professional intellectuals" and the government assisted stranglehold they maintain. Rand's Objectivism being the great irrefutable defense of Capitalism is honestly the primary culprit. Such a strong proof of Capitalism simply can not be tolerated.

I actually do unironically view her as "the best" but why not attack my reasons for holding such an opinion? Going "ok" mockingly is just a dodge. Let me elaborate those reasons:
Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. She is the formulator of the what I would posit is the first ever meta-philosophy. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing (or one of the few things) they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered.
Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically cuckservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.

[Anonymous No.10178604]

>>10178400
>But we are called upon to do that all the time in science and mathematics
Which is why we are discussing logical opperants and not the specific ciences, which rest on it. Numbnuts

>Kant's motivation is to *save* causality from Hume.
*as well as the morality of Altruism.

Notice you skipped past this part:
>Unlike how Kant thought; reason is not indicted because it cannot be practiced infallibly. Fallibilty being a epistemological indictment to "pure reason" is the absurdity the entirety of Kantianism rests on
That is the core of my whole post
Again:

>>no academics take Rand seriously because she is just the best
>ok
A. Not "no academics"; it's the large, commie inflenced, plurality of them.
B. I and Rand are not the only ones (then and now) that lament the pathetic state of "professional intellectuals" and the government assisted stranglehold they maintain. Rand's Objectivism being the great irrefutable defense of Capitalism is honestly the primary culprit. Such a strong proof of Capitalism simply can not be tolerated.

I actually do unironically view her as "the best" but why not attack my reasons for holding such an opinion? Going "ok" mockingly is just a dodge. Let me elaborate those reasons:
Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. She is the formulator of the what I would posit is the first ever meta-philosophy. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing (or one of the few things) they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered.
Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically cuckservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.

[Anonymous No.10178614]

>>10178597
Kant didn't critique logical opperants... why is it that you keep pretending you've read it?? A critique of logic was done subsequently by the next thinkers though.

going "ok" mockingly is the only possible response to this joke:
> horrible secret that academic philosophers face is that Objectivism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy

[Anonymous No.10178633]

>>10178548
>>10178548
No, Molymeme is a damn AnCap and Ayn Rand fucking demolishes Anarchism and any notions that it can be married to Capitalism.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
I only marginally like the man and his videos are overlong rambling bloated fuckers. He onced tried, and failed, to "rebutt" Ayn Rand's criticisms of Anarchism.
Observe the comment section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2sLnHpyG4

[Anonymous No.10178660]

>>10178614
>Kant didn't critique logical opperants
I'm not saying he did; his was a failure to consider them a fundamental criterion of assessment in the first place. Choosing instead to purport his "analytic/synthetic dichotomy" and "noumenal world".

>going "ok" mockingly is the only possible response to this joke
The best you can come up with. Pro tip: there's probably a reason for that.

[Anonymous No.10178675]

>>10175033
I don't think you understand what you're talking about. Kant's attempt in part was to explain *why* we can't have knowledge exceeding the conditions of possible experience, that is, he circumscribed reason to experience and the conditions of experience. He didn't disdain reason; he sought to explain why it can't provide us of proof beyond our experience.

He never asserted a noumenal world. In fact, he maintained if there was one we'd have no knowledge of it.

[Anonymous No.10178679]

>>10178660
He did consider them ... I'm going to jump off the thread now, I can't just keep correcting everything you're just making up. I'm not sure whether you've skimmed it and didn't understand any of it or whether you didn't read it but either way this is not productive

[Anonymous No.10178695]

>>10178065
>call kant a hack
>using a picture of shoppy
lol

[Anonymous No.10178709]

>>10178633
>Observe the comment section

That comment, lol

>Stefan's answer to Ayn Rand:
"This situation would never occur because no customer would want that kind of arrangement"

>But that's exactly Ayn Rand's point. Her point was that there is no viable way for anarchical security to work.

>Stefan's answer: "people would come up with 'better ways' of doing it."

>Stefan's answer for why it is entirely possible for anyone to win at poker: "People would come up with better ways of doing it."

>Stefan's answer for beating the stock market: "People would come up with better ways of doing it." Genius!

>Wow, I never realized that an anarchical system could be so simple and straightforward to implement. It really is just that simple: "People will just come up with better ways of doing it."
--

I'll never understand how people can praise Ayn Rand in one breath yet completely misunderstand her the next when it doesn't suit them.

[Anonymous No.10178808]

>>10178679
>>10178679
>He did consider them
Not correctly. I didn't say he didn't consider them.

>He didn't disdain reason
Yeah he didn't disdain his assinie strawman of it. Quote:
>"A “straw man” is an odd metaphor to apply to such an enormous, cumbersome, ponderous construction as Kant’s system of epistemology. Nevertheless, a straw man is what it was and is not, in fact, applicable to human consciousness; because it was not a human consciousness that Kant’s robot represented. But philosophers accepted it as such. And while they cried that reason had been invalidated, they did not notice that reason had been pushed off the philosophical scene altogether and that the faculty they were arguing about was not reason."
In effect he absolutely disdained what reason *actually* constitutes. Rand's explanation of the volitional nature of Man's conceptual faculty hard-refutes his notions.

>I'm going to jump off the thread now, I can't just keep correcting everything you're just making up
Typical of Kantians
I made things up huh? Name. Them.
An indentification of the actual nature of these points that Kant *misattributes* to his theories on them is not me making shit up. You disingenuous little shit.

[Anonymous No.10178821]

>>10178808
Objectivism is objectively shit

[Anonymous No.10178840]

>>10178808
>gets everything wrong about kant
>people try to correct him
>"typical of Kantians"

[Anonymous No.10178907]

>>10175033
>Anglos
IP ban when?

[Anonymous No.10178922]

>>10178840
So you assert. Back it up
>People try to correct him
Nigger you (or he) fleeing the thread once pressured is not trying to correct me.
What Kantians are "typical" of is moving the goalposts and once that fails; running.

[Anonymous No.10178952]

>>10178821
Go on

[Anonymous No.10179326]

[Anonymous No.10179822]

>>10175375
is this /int/?
pretty well written for a malay, although I disagree with his implication that the man isn't free

[Anonymous No.10179846]

>>10179822
/pol/ but that's probably a proxy

[Anonymous No.10179857]

>>10179846
but /pol/ isn't a blueboard

[Anonymous No.10179880]

>>10179857

[Anonymous No.10179890]

>>10179880
sorcery

[Anonymous No.10179925]

>>10178604
Poor persecuted Capitalists. The world is so unfair to you.

[Anonymous No.10179944]

>>10179925
This but unironically. Capitalism is the most misrepresented single thing in modern history.

[Anonymous No.10179970]

>>10175375
Euphoric.

[Anonymous No.10180133]

>>10179944
I can't believe this idiot is still here

[Anonymous No.10181147]

>>10173533
I'm afraid I Kant let this thread die.

[Anonymous No.10181171]

>>10181147

[Anonymous No.10181682]

>>10181147
Kill yourself spic faggot. Tired of your shit.

[Anonymous No.10182697]

>>10181682
Not sure where you got the idea that he was a spic.

[Anonymous No.10182967]

>>10182697
Carlos dude

[Anonymous No.10183244]

>>10173547
you have to go back reddit

[Anonymous No.10183293]

Reminder that Time and Space are an a-priori form, therefore so is movement.

Therefore so is change.

Therefore so is causality.

Therefore so is matter.

[Anonymous No.10183314]

[Anonymous No.10183534]

>>10183293
But what if I reject "a priority" as an wrote absurdity?
The failure to recognize that logic is man’s method of cognition, has produced a brood of artificial splits and dichotomies which represent restatements of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy from various aspects. Three in particular are prevalent: logical truth vs. factual truth; the logically possible vs. the empirically possible; and the a priori vs. the a posteriori. Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience.

[Anonymous No.10183586]

>>10179880
That was really well written

[Anonymous No.10183703]

>>10183534
so not only does the Rand poster not understand what Kant was critiquing, what the role of logic in the Critique is, what Kant's conception of causality is, nor his morality, but he has even given away he doesn't understand what basic terms like "a priori" mean.

>I reject that there is "a priori"
>we apply logic to experience

!!!

[Anonymous No.10184842]

>>10173533
delet

[Anonymous No.10185016]

>>10183703
If Kant's conception of an analyitic/synthetic dichotomy is wrong, as I would assert, then his view on the role of logic necessarily follows. An 'a-priori' proposition is one which, though it may be elicited by experience, is seen, when known, to have a basis other than experience. Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false, in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants. An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts.
The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others?
The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and thoseg which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.”
The Objectivist theory of concepts undercuts the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at its root. Since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units, the existents, which it integrates including all the characteristics of these units. Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily fucking selected portions of existents. There is no damn basis whatever, neither metaphysical nor epistemological, for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups. One of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning. The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity or from the concept. A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.

[Anonymous No.10185364]

>>10179857
You can choose the colour you want, retard

[Anonymous No.10186109]

>>10173533
Reminder "cunt" is the proper pronunciation

[Anonymous No.10186117]

>>10173533
Fuck Kant
t. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10186153]

>>10175033
Until the advent of certain technologies, atomic physics were noumenal, though their existence could be intuited (See Democrates) if not expounded upon. Noumenal designates something as being beyond the grasp of our senses, not of our TOOLS

[Anonymous No.10186187]

>>10186153
Right, until.

[Anonymous No.10186322]

>>10175549
At least it is a tad more thought out than your average /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.10187032]

>>10173533
ayo fuck this book learning bull shit.

[Anonymous No.10187370]

>>10186153
"Noumenal" would be a great rhetorical lens to view things through but we all know that Kant go further and uses it as an epistemological point of assessment.

[Anonymous No.10188280]

>>10174223
This

[Anonymous No.10188752]

>>10178065
>*Hegel
FTFY

[Anonymous No.10188769]

If I see one of you Kantian motherfuckers irl then I'm going to assert my categorical imperative up your a-posteriori.

[Anonymous No.10188985]

got to write a philosophy paper on 'Is Kant right to deny that acting from inclination has any moral worth?'
>does /lit have any criticisms

[Anonymous No.10189130]

would Kant have sanctioned a teleological suspension of the categorical imperative?

[Anonymous No.10189135]

isn't the fact that Kant died proof that he morally erred and thus is system is flawed in some way?

[Anonymous No.10190539]

>>10184842
No u

[Anonymous No.10191694]

>>10189130
No. He was too embroiled in the fallacy to abandon it or sanction abandon ing it in part.

[Anonymous No.10191724]

>>10173547
gb2plebbit faggot

[Anonymous No.10191988]

>>10178604
> I would posit is the first ever meta-philosophy

What are your thoughts on Wittgensteins work in this area?

[Anonymous No.10191992]

>>10176615
Randanon can you refute this as well
>>10176615

[Anonymous No.10192004]

>A. Not "no academics"; it's the large, commie inflenced, plurality of them.
Yeah dude those pesky economists are all gommies

[Anonymous No.10193411]

>>10192004
>equivocating academics with economists

[Anonymous No.10194053]

>>10191992
>as well

the randanon hasn't refuted anything, he just keeps rambling from the basis of having read the wikipedia article on kant + whatever Rand wrote about him

[Anonymous No.10194724]

>>10191988
Wittgenstein subscribed to the primacy of conciousness, so while I can laud him for his analytic rigor, his results are arbitrary, rationalistic "propositions" in no particular order.
Note that "a Metaphilosophy" is taken by me to denote something different that just "metaphilosophy". The two implying two disticnt things; the latter being a wide field of abstract study.
Note as well the differences between saying "formulated metaphilosophy" (which I meant to include) and "written-about metaphilosophy." To formulate an entire system is distinct from waxing meta about something already or even yet to be established.

A strong indicator of my assertion Rand acheives a higher order of magnitude of this 'meta' is the fact that she coined so many fallacies:
>Stolen Concept Fallacy
Attempting to undermine the concept itself by attacking the hierarchial root(s) upon which it logically depends, or using a concept while denying the validity of its roots.

>Package-Deal Fallacy
The fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. A subset of the Composition/Division fallacies.

>Floating Abstraction Fallacy
When concepts are detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote.

>Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (Context Dropping Fallacy)
Substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. To tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item.

>Reification of Zero Fallacy
Regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent.

>Rewriting Reality Fallacy (likely not particularly hers)
Attempting to alter the metaphysically given.

[Anonymous No.10194734]

>she still believes in the a priori/a posteriori distinction
it's been 300 years, people

[Anonymous No.10194901]

>>10194734
do you think that logic doesn't exist or what

[Anonymous No.10194912]

>>10194901
Knowledge, yes

[Anonymous No.10195119]

>>10194912
logic can be defined loosely as rules for formulating knowledge. you acknowledge these rules must have existed prior to the knowledge being formulated, right? those rules are what we call what is "a priori", or, pure reason

[Anonymous No.10195295]

>>10188769
step up bitch

[Anonymous No.10195798]

>>10195119
Nah.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/a_priori.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic-synthetic_dichotomy.html

[Anonymous No.10195897]

>>10195798
So in the first link she shows that the principe of non contradiction is prior to knowledge. The principle of non contradiction is a prime example of something a priori.

>"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience."
This is infact the same thing Kant says about it. He has a famous slogan on it: "“thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind” (A51/B76)

Rand (and you) have a lot of fundamental misunderstandings about Kant. I highly suggest actually reading Kant's works if you want to debate about it. I know you have already claimed to have done this but we both know that you haven't.

[Anonymous No.10195901]

>>10195119
>you acknowledge these rules must have existed prior to the knowledge being formulated, right?
Prior to what? There's no such thing as knowledge, that word has no referent.

[Anonymous No.10195903]

>>10195897
I want to say a little more about the second part of this, about Kant's slogan etc.

Kant denies that we can have knowledge a priori, because what we do have a priori is there only for the purpose of being preconditions, or rules that are required, in order to have experience and have knowledge. E.g they are only there to be applied to experience. You can see that this is in line with what Rand has said. Kant's proposal is that because, in Rand's words, "knowledge is not aquired by logic apart from the aplication of logic to experience", we can't use a priori principles to derive knowledge outside of experience. That was Kant's conclusion of his work.

[Anonymous No.10195905]

>>10195901
prior meaning that in order to have something like knowledge having knowledge presupposes or requires these concepts already, e.g they can't be aquired by knowledge because any knowledge presupooses them logically

[Anonymous No.10195910]

>>10195905
Knowledge is a word that has no referent, please stop acting like it means something. It is functionally dead.

[Anonymous No.10195912]

>>10195910
I was using it because Rand did, I am trying to step down to the lowest common denominator here since I am talking to a retard who gets all of his information from Ayn Rand of all people to get your information from

[Anonymous No.10195913]

>>10195912
LOL you're talking to 2 people, I'm not the guy who posted those links. You're a butthurt gnostic, get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.10195916]

>>10195913
nothing in what I said implied you were him ... yikes

[Anonymous No.10195919]

>>10195916
You sure about that? Because what you said only applied to that Randroid

[Anonymous No.10195922]

>>10195910

>that image

frogtwitter intps that float from idea to idea with no depth are the worst fucking pseuds on the net

[Anonymous No.10195925]

>>10195922
I like frogtwitter for the memes, not the rigor.

[Anonymous No.10195931]

>>10195922
I hate Logo Daedalus, too

[Anonymous No.10195951]

>>10194724

>everything I don't like is a fallacy
>worship (idolatry) of the purely rational faculties to the exclusion of all others
>literally impossible to get everyone to embody because of free will and ignorance (lack of knowledge thereof, as opposed to willful denouncement)

[Anonymous No.10196022]

>>10195951
>I dont understand Stirners philosophy but shit post anyway

[Anonymous No.10196028]

>>10196022
It's not like this board has any purpose other than shitposting
The only thing more pathetic than the shitposters here are the people who think that circle jerking about each other being the next DFW is going to help their careers

[Anonymous No.10196072]

>>10196028
>It's not like this board has any purpose other than shitposting

We literally have two separate boards just for shit posting /b/ and /s4s/ yeah its not oxford but theres reason to drag down discussion even lower.

[Anonymous No.10196080]

>>10196072
It's not even an inner city American public high school
I suggest fucking yourself

[Anonymous No.10196099]

>>10173533
ITT: Ontological pussies

[Anonymous No.10196179]

>>10195910

Someone explain all the things on the right hand side and why they offer a way forward. Some I've seen before, e.g. steelmanning, deep ecology.

[Anonymous No.10196183]

>>10196080

Reminder that Stirnerites are Rick and Morty watching whimsical nihilists.

>WHO GIVES A FUCK BRO. EVERYTHING I HATE IS A SPOOK. GONNA BREAK SHIT LIKE LIMP BIZKIT. GONNA BREAK SOME SHIT TONIGHT WITH MY BACKWARDS BASEBALL BAT MORTY BURRRPP.

[Anonymous No.10196191]

>>10196183
The only inherently bad thing you mentioned is nihilism, which stirnerites can't be, because they believe in themselves and in ownership

[Anonymous No.10197106]

>>10195951
>worship (idolatry) of the purely rational faculties to the exclusion of all others
>others
Such as?

[Anonymous No.10197172]

>>10195922
>"intps"
>calls others pseuds

[Anonymous No.10197872]

>>10191992
Missed this post. Sure
>>10176615
>[morality]
>[]
The missing word here is the *Altruist* morality, saving it was his expressly stated purpose. Auguste Comte was under threat by the march of the scientific method and Kant feared this.
>Kant believes the only basis for morality can be in reason
Yes his strawman of what reason constitutes invented to save Altruism.

>If you experience seeing the color red, will you think that the red as we experience it actually exists
Yes it does. The absurdity that the concept of red DOES NOT INCLUDE the fact that it a wavelength of light perceived by the cones in our eyes has no basis. Why would it exclude it? It only excludes it when one hamfists Kant's preposterous system of regarding the universe. An esoteric descriptor involving the meta nature of a concept in question is not apart from the object or a specially category subsumed from it. It is simply a matter of degree.

>They aren't filters, they are rules
The point Rand is making is that Kants moronic notion they are *automatic* filters/rule is false. We have to remember Kant is making an epistemological point, not a metaphysical one. Kant is not cognizant of the volitional nature of man's conceptual faculty and simply assumes conception possesses the same automatic nature as perception and sensation. They aren't. Rand's distinction is that she was the first to fully flesh out the implications of volition into a full philisophic system.

>Now in order to make sense of all of these various data points we must have some kind of connection between them
The connections are inherent in the existents themselves. This is on of the only 3 valid axioms: The Law of Identity. (the other two being The Primacy of Existence and Conciousness Concomitance)
Kant only btfos Empiricism. Rand my friend is not an Empiricist OR a rationalist: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationalism_vs_empiricism.html

Also this >>10185016

[Anonymous No.10198025]

>>10174392
>Leibniz
I kind of want to get into him, what background do I need for him and where should I start?

[Anonymous No.10198221]

>>10196179
I posted that image and I don't even know how to start making sense of it. It's just a mass of synthetic propositions that yield striking images.
The imaginal stage is the last stage of life for insect species that undergo metamorphosis.

[Anonymous No.10198542]

>>10195910
>Metaphorical goyim
So...Jews?