/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11008283]

>tfw too dumb to understand Kant

[Anonymous No.11008295]

>>11008283
go on spark notes after every chapter and read the summary or some shit then

[Anonymous No.11008297]

try taking a college course

[Anonymous No.11008328]

>>11008283
I'll summarize
>I was a five foot nothing goblinfaced manlet who tried to rationalize my pathetic existence to the point of pure obfuscation and coped with the fact that I could never fuck by saying that the world in which fucking takes place is actually unknowable
>also, fuck god, I got hung up on that as well for some reason and succeeded in adding nothing of value

[Anonymous No.11008332]

>tfw too dumb to understand Diophantus

[Anonymous No.11008375]

>>11008283
Critique of Pure Reason is THE slowest read. I will finish it over the course of my life no doubt. I have to take notes every fucking paragraph to keep it all sounding reasonable. Shakespeare is easy compared to this motherfucker. Astounding mind no doubt. Probably the worst person to talk to though, its no wonder he died a permavirgin.

[Anonymous No.11008476]

>tfw too smart to use dead memes

[Anonymous No.11008515]

>>11008328
its funny because you and OP said the exact same thing but with different words

[Anonymous No.11008520]

>>11008328

[Anonymous No.11008547]

What's there not to get? he's straight foward as they come OP.

[Anonymous No.11008549]

>>11008515
enlighten me. Explain Kant's position and core concepts
go ahead, try

[Anonymous No.11008552]

>>11008547
Heidegger's works would beg differ

[Anonymous No.11008560]

>>11008283
Kant is hard, but he's even harder if you haven't read your Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11008565]

>>11008560
Kant is only hard only if you carry a plebastic aptitude for the metaphysics

[Anonymous No.11008571]

>>11008565
Is English your first language?

[Anonymous No.11008574]

>>11008549
Specify something youd like me to explain

[Anonymous No.11008582]

>>11008574
the categories

[Anonymous No.11008591]

>>11008571
Yup

[Anonymous No.11008613]

>>11008591
I find that hard to believe. Come back when you can post without using Google Translate.

[Anonymous No.11008722]

>>11008328
Damn I should read Kant

[Anonymous No.11008734]

>tfw two intelligent too understand Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11008735]

>>11008613
Sorry you're a braintler than I, and can't follow my prose.

[Anonymous No.11008753]

>>11008735
>Kant is only hard only
>plebastic aptitude for the metaphysics
>braintler

[Anonymous No.11008773]

I like anime.

[Anonymous No.11008789]

>>11008283
u jus need to thingk RELLY hard, lik dis

*thingks*
uffff

*relly thingks*
mmmmfffff

*pop*

noe i undresstend Can't LOLE !!!
noe u try it

[Anonymous No.11008795]

>>11008753
Here let me help you out.

>Kant is only hard only
Kant is only hard, only if you carry a..
>plebastic aptitude for the metaphysics
Plebian, spastic, ability to under the metaphysics
>braintler
Typo.
It's meant to be "brainletler"

[Anonymous No.11008802]

>>11008789
Hey froggy had a brainblast!!!!
>Yipee eye Eeeeee cowboyzz Zee!!!
Welcome to THE DARKSIDE HEHEH ^_*

[Anonymous No.11008816]

>>11008795
>under the metaphysics
?
Your writing is clunky. Also, if you are referring to Aristotle's Metaphysics, then I suggest you capitalize the first letter of "metaphysics."

[Anonymous No.11008830]

>>11008816
You don't need to understand Aristotle to understand that metaphysics are indeed a real aspect of our totallity.

I meant to write >understood, I'm phone posting and sometimes I type to quickly.

[Anonymous No.11008840]

>>11008830
>to quickly
I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11009240]

>>11008574
AND HE DISAPPEARED
I laugh.

[Anonymous No.11009253]

>>11009240
there is literally not one single fuckwad who has "read" Kant and "understood" him who can then explain anything that he said coherently. Also, pretty much everyone who uses the term "Kantian x" means something completely different from anyone else
He is such a useless thinker and a prime example of what happens when academia is left to its own devices. They just dig useless holes and argue about how to get out of them again. meanwhile, scientists accomplish things that have real-world value and can actually articulate what it is they're doing and why
now watch as some brave dumbass tries to refute this and there ensues a shitshow of "hurr, actually that's totally wrong, he meant this by that which would mean something like this"

[Anonymous No.11009274]

>>11008789
>>11008802
I'm fucking dying

[Anonymous No.11009305]

Kant was critical of what he called transcendent metaphysics and advocated what he called transcendental metaphysics. Transcendent metaphysics gave answers to metaphysical questions that went beyond any possible experience. Kant believed we could only answer metaphysical questions from the starting point of experience and used what he called transcendental arguments to support his position. These arguments begin with stating something that is indubitable about our experiences (such as saying that we experience things in time and space) and attempt to discover what other things must be true in order for that aspect of our experience to be possible. Kant uses these type of arguments to establish why synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. He then made a distinction between a priori concepts and a priori ideas. Concepts are applicable to our experiences (such as apple and Earth) and he believed it is okay to use them constitutively because concepts do actually constitute what appears to us as reality. Ideas are not applicable to our experiences (such as God and the self) which means we can't use ideas constitutively because they do not apply to our reality. Using ideas constitutively would be trying to go beyond our experiences and was the defining feature of transcendent metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11009327]

>>11009305
>tfw haven't been eating that many vegetables lately
Thank you for this very based advice.

[Anonymous No.11009419]

>>11009253
>Also, meanwhile, scientists accomplish things that have real-world value and can actually articulate what it is they're doing and why
>now watch as some brave dumbass tries to refute this and there ensues a shitshow of "hurr, actually that's totally wrong, he meant this by that which would mean something like this"
you are either underage or poorly educated

[Anonymous No.11009424]

>tfw understand more Hegel than Kant

[Anonymous No.11009430]

stop reading philosophy

[Anonymous No.11010907]

>>11009253
Ayn Rand in fact viewed the man as a gaint self-contradictory fallacy and the most evil philosopher to ever live. What does /lit/ think of this?

[Anonymous No.11011335]

>>11008283
am I the only one who thinks he's harder to read than Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.11011422]

The best thing kant did was inspire CS Peirce to disagree with him.
This is why I recommend Peirce if kant is a little too hard for you.

[Anonymous No.11012245]

>>11009253
>scientists accomplish things that have real-world value and can actually articulate what it is they're doing and why

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11012743]

>>11012245
>he says using a computer

[Anonymous No.11013029]

>>11012743
That's what engineers are for. Not scientists.

Also, what are scientists doing and why? And what is real world value?

[Anonymous No.11013103]

>>11013029
>That's what engineers are for. Not scientists.
Engineers have scientific training, you dunce. And they'd make nothing if not for the scientists who designed them, unless of course they are those scientists.

[Anonymous No.11013127]

>>11012743
>>11013029
>>11013103
Nothing to see here folks. They are just Illiteratus from /sci/.

[Anonymous No.11013173]

>>11008328
I thought I was in the thread where people write their minds and you were talking about yourself.

[Anonymous No.11013184]

>>11008375
Kant is probably the single most intelligent human being who has every existed, and I totally agree about having to take notes every paragraph

[Anonymous No.11013187]

>>11013173
You were not wrong. Every thread is that thread.

[Anonymous No.11013200]

>>11010907
Kant's philosophy is objectively better, more valuable, more consistent, and less full of contradiction than Rand, the fact that she thought she was anywhere near enough his league to provide commentary is astounding.

[Anonymous No.11013215]

>>11008283
Empiricism: No statements are true without recourse to experience, all knowledge begins with experience
Idealism: We can have knowledge independent of experience through reason, knowledge is independent of experience
Kant's Transcendental Idealism: All knowledge begins with experience, but we can have independent knowledge of and only the conditions of any experience at all, the transcendentals.

Have you, Ariadne's thread. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.11013250]

>>11009305
this made me want to read Kant.
which is of his work should I start?

[Anonymous No.11013257]

>>11013250
Prolegomena

[Anonymous No.11013276]

>tfw can't understand Priogenisius

[Anonymous No.11013288]

>>11013250
get a secondary source, kant is unreadable

[Anonymous No.11013320]

>>11009305
and this is why Kant is wrong and you should read Guenon and the Upanishads instead.

[Anonymous No.11013323]

>>11008375
>I have to take notes every fucking paragraph to keep it all sounding reasonable
This is the correct way to read the crits. Halfway through the 3rd at the moment. Its a slog, but it actually makes you better at organizing your thoughts and reading basically any continental theory after kant.

[Anonymous No.11013342]

>>11008283
Dude you're not dumb. Anyone can understand Kant, but he's challenging. He writes like an impossible motherfucker is all. Read other philosophers. Then read him over and over and over until you do get it. You will! Just be patient with yourself (and with his writing). Also, don't be scared or ashamed to read reviews of his stuff or other people's analyses of it (hell, even sparknotes) to help you along. It's actually super helpful if you're stuck on something in particular. It doesn't come naturally to anyone, and if anyone says it does, they're lying! I have faith in you, OP!

[Anonymous No.11013350]

>>11013215
So what Kant is saying is that everything you know is from experience, but you can have independent knowledge not based off experience? Is this brainlet alarm or am I misreading?

[Anonymous No.11013368]

>>11008375
Shakespeare should be easy, it's a fuccing play.

[Anonymous No.11013381]

>>11013350
Okay. So I'm going to fuck this up, but, more like many things you experience are from encounters through your sensory being (perception), which often informs knowledge, but there are some forms of knowledge you can think without experience of those forms in their Pure states as Concepts. Like Space, Time, etc. Geometry is the borderline case. You can think the idea of a point, this being Space, and then two points that connect, being Time.

That you can think the idea of Pure though enough to talk about it, or think it, or write it down. Although in the 2nd crit and the groundwork he gets towards how it might not be possible for humans to do, which may not rule out the possibility.

Its important to keep in mind he is operating on a 1700s model of consciousness that has the internal self-will as a unified, singular soul thing that directs the body by remote control, top down style.

Also yes to >>11013342
>don't be scared or ashamed to read reviews of his stuff or other people's analyses of it (hell, even sparknotes) to help you along.

[Anonymous No.11013413]

>>11009253
>I hate academia but I love scientists
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.11013439]

>>11008297
This is the best advice. DO NOT TRY TO SELF TEACH YOU WILL ONLY CONFUSE YOURSELF. It's unfortunate, but it's true of pretty much all philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11013450]

>>11013439
wut if im a phisolospherr myslelf

[Anonymous No.11013480]

>>11009253
I almost posted a huge triggered reply, but you know what, I am content just knowing that you will never know the feeling of success and joy and mastery that comes from that moment of finally wrapping your brain around kant's three critiques

[Anonymous No.11013507]

>>11013215
I think what you mean is that we can have certain a priori knowedge of empty formal principles, but its only if we can know these principles a priori that we have any hope of ALSO having knowledge of a non-formal empirical world.

there's that really famous line that I'm about to misquote: 'concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.' What kant means is that neither hard empiricism or hard rationalism can be correct, for neither can account for the possibility of experience (and therefore of knowledge of an objective world)

[Anonymous No.11013517]

>>11009274

Please go back to Rebbit

[Anonymous No.11013523]

>>11013450
>>11013450
Only after you've already been taught for several years at least would I say that you're probably capable of starting to teach yourself. It's like swimming. If you just jump in the water and just flail around until you learn to swim, you'll just drown. You need instruction.

[Anonymous No.11013570]

A proposal:
When I first started studying philosophy in college, I worked in chronological order (more or less). I started with Plato. "Obviously, Plato is right!" i contended vehemently. Then I read aristotle. Suddenly, Plato seemed very dissatisfying: it's just metaphors all the way down, and his theory of the forms just leads to confusion because it tends to conflate ontological issues with semantic ones. Then on to Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume. With each succession, I always felt like I learned more and that I could see all the flaws with the predecessor's arguments. Naturally, I left hume thinking that hume was right about everything - a philosophical god - nothing after him mattered. Then I had to read Kant. My class was on the CPR, and it was designed to break you. Suddenly, I did not leave thinking that Kant was right about everything, breaking with the usual pattern. In fact, I didn't have much of an opinion about kant, because he was so hard to understand compared to the others.

What i am trying to suggest is that Kant is the first genuinely difficult major philosopher to read if one follows the cannon chronologically, and that is why people tend to be humeans about everything: because hume is the last philosopher they read that they actually understood.

Of course, that was many years ago, and now I actually think that Kant was right about most things -- and even if not, undeniably one of the most brilliant minds of western history. Still, worth thinking about.

[Anonymous No.11013623]

>>11013507
This anon did a much better job of explaining than I did.

[Anonymous No.11013673]

>>11011335
While Heidegger is known for being hard to grasp, he was actively tryin to explain his ideas in the most understansable way possible. It might take time to understand, but everything you need from Heidegger is in his book and texts.

[Anonymous No.11014648]

>>11013439
I never got animosity towards autodidacticism in regards to philosophy. If you start chronologically and are attentive enough, it should work out, no?

[Anonymous No.11014768]

>>11014648
There's nothing wrong with it at all, it's just that so many autodidactic students of philosophy lack the knowledge and discipline to push through the hard stuff and so dawdle around with only basic understandings.

[Anonymous No.11014773]

>>11009253
>meanwhile, scientists
Oh dear

[Anonymous No.11014793]

>>11014768
>>11014648
Nothing wrong with autodidacting. The only thing that is missing though is having discussions about what you have read, getting different interpretations from the professor, who knows as lot more than you, as well as fellow students. /lit/ serves as a very miniscule replacement for that, but even then there is a lot of bullshit to filter. but it's better than not having any discussion at all.

[Anonymous No.11014810]

>>11014648
>I never got animosity towards autodidacticism
It creates hordes of dumbasses who think they have it all figured out
case in point: this board

[Anonymous No.11014814]

>>11008283

>people who post brainlet memes are into philosophy

Not surprising. Anyway, you shouldn't worry about your self-determined lack of intelligence; you have to be kinda stupid in the first place to think Philosophy is worth your time. Keep going!

[Anonymous No.11014815]

>>11014810
test.

[Anonymous No.11014816]

>>11008375
i could understand if your not a native english speaker but shakespeare is taught in secondry schools and i remember learning his work when i was 12. compare an entertainers work to a philosopher and ur a fool

[Anonymous No.11014844]

>>11014810
autodidactism =! skimming through wikipedia articles

[Anonymous No.11015147]

>>11008375
Its actually a pretty easy read. Once you
ve understood what hes trying to do, which you'll do after 100-200 pages if you understnad anything at all, the rest is very easily understandable, and almost repetitive.

[Anonymous No.11015309]

>>11013350
My post is likely causing the confusion. No, Kant would say everything you know is *not* from experience. But unlike rationalism, Kant believes knowledge *begins* with experience. The difference is that Kant believes we can have what is called "a priori" or independent knowledge of those things that transcend experience or that experience presupposes, those conditions that all experience must meet.

For example, there is no possible perception you can have that is not in space and time. Kant argues we can have a priori knowledge of space and time, but it doesn't follow that you can have a priori knowledge of that cat that is standing over there. Usually people will say Kant believes that space and time are constructs of the mind for this reason, but the actual literature does not support it. Instead, Kant argues that space and time are a distinct logical relation you "share" in with the object of experience. Space and time are not actual properties of the objects or your mind.

There is also no possible experience that my kicking that cat will not cause something. Causation is another pure concept that Kant argues for. Pure concepts are, unlike space and time, not given in sense intuition. The understanding develops these pure concepts from experience. We can then have a priori knowledge of the pure concepts as they apply to experience. Reading his Metaphysical Deduction and Transcendental Deduction carefully will provide you his arguments.

I actually suggest Frederick Copleston's chapters on Kant in his History of Philosophy series. Most of the book is on Kant and he does a great job at laying it out. Of course, you'll need to read Kant for the actual arguments.

[Anonymous No.11015343]

>>11008328
>people are STILL assmad about the fact that an otherwise insignificant-seeming man who barely left Königsberg managed to solve all the big problems that philosophers and thinkers of the world had over millenia puzzled over

[Anonymous No.11015569]

>try to read Critique of Pure Reason when I'm 18
>don't really understand it but get an epiphany "a-ha" moment every now and then
>think I'm too stupid to understand Kant
>read it again for school (phil major) years later
>straightforward as fuck

Heidegger and Hegel, now that's something else.

[Anonymous No.11015577]

>>11010907
He isn't really self-contradictory, but he actually is evil in the Nietzschean sense (who was a major influence on Rand) in that his philosophy is life-denying (best shown by Schopenhauer) thus evil. He also has an entire critique on Kant's categorical imperative about how it turns human beings into "automatons of duty." Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.11015587]

>>11013570
My university makes sure you read or are taught Kant every course, every year. Different professors giving different takes too. They know how hard & important he was so they hammer it in until you get. It's the best approach imo, although I did have a period where I was completely sick of him.

[Anonymous No.11015590]

>>11015577
>life-denying
Most meaningless term to defend absolute nonesense that I have ever listened to. People unironically using such a term is a good detector of retarded opinions

[Anonymous No.11015601]

>>11008375
You think Shakespeare is hard?

[Anonymous No.11015605]

>>11015590
It's actually a very enlightening dichotomy, but yeah your "it's useless" argument blew me away.

[Anonymous No.11015609]

>>11013570
>Then I read aristotle. Suddenly, Plato seemed very dissatisfying: it's just metaphors all the way down, and his theory of the forms just leads to confusion because it tends to conflate ontological issues with semantic ones

I don't see how you could come away from reading Aristotle thinking this

[Anonymous No.11015647]

>>11013381
>but there are some forms of knowledge you can think without experience of those forms in their Pure states as Concepts
You will never have an "experience" of what youre calling a "pure form." The 'pure' concepts of the understanding are themselves without content. They are what ALLOW you to have contentful thoughts about other things.
>That you can think the idea of Pure though enough to talk about it, or think it, or write it down.
what? That doesn't sound like kant at all
>but there are some forms of knowledge you can think without experience of those forms in their Pure states as Concepts
Unfortunately, even if this is true, his theory does not essentially require such an account of the mind.

[Anonymous No.11015678]

>>11014648
>>11014793
The problem with autodidacism is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to realize when you are getting something wrong. Thinking that you can get away with it anyway because "muh big brain" is just hubris. Those readers tend to be really dangerous too. Some are *ok, but most are really bad. They'll either tell you the conclusions without the arguments (in which case, you cant understand anything), or they fuck up either the conclusions or the arguments.

>>11014810
Correct.

[Anonymous No.11015684]

>>11014844
>>11014844
>>11014844
You might be able to get away with it with simpler stuff like Hume, but Kant, you really need to have help. I understand that this means that a lot of people on this board who have read kant still probably dont get it at all... but that also seems to be borne out in this thread

[Anonymous No.11015807]

>>11015605


>Not thinking in pure material terms denies life somehow
A powerful word behind an stupid idea is pretty much worthless to discuss the veracity or something

[Anonymous No.11015820]

>>11015807
Kant is categorically denying that the 'world' (in the common sense definition of the world) isn't real. Schopenhauer took the idea to its logical limit and ended up advocating asceticism - withdrawing from life. It's pretty obvious.

[Anonymous No.11015879]

>>11015820
equivocate harder, sophist.

[Anonymous No.11015887]

>>11014844
I know and I've never implied autodidacts don't actually read. But they don't read enough most of the time and they really overestimate their knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11015890]

[Anonymous No.11015892]

>>11015807
>Not thinking in pure material terms denies life
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11015909]

>>11008283

Kant was a brainlet OP, you can safely ignore him

[Anonymous No.11015927]

>>11015820
But that's not what kant advocated for, right?
He just said the 'world' as we understand it is limited by the human capacity to know and perceive. The categorical imperative was his way of showing people how to behave morally by thinking for themselfes and without having religious leadership that dictates their dogmatic rules.

[Anonymous No.11016001]

>>11015820
>Kant is categorically denying that the 'world
t. I don't understand Kant
As I said only brainlets use life denying as a serious attack to a systematic philosophy

[Anonymous No.11016191]

>>11011422
the virgin kant vs the chad peirce

[Anonymous No.11017553]

Kant is a little ass bitch