[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 35 KB, 400x567, immanuel-kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11818327 No.11818327 [Reply] [Original]

>I love cake
>I'd love it if people baked cake and shared some with me
>So I bake a cake myself, then share it with some people
>Now everyone is baking cake and sharing it
>Everyone is fat and fucking sick of cake
How do Kantians resolve the dilemma of moderation?

>> No.11818330

>>11818327
just stop eating when you're not hungry anymore lmao

>> No.11818339

Is giving someone a lighter an immoral act?

>> No.11818573

>>11818330
What if I also would like to know what they think of my cake?

>> No.11818578

damn kant looked like THAT? he must have been slaying puss left and right

>> No.11819133

>>11818327
>I love eating cake so everyone should share cake with me
Do you think the categorical imperative is the golden rule or something? Where did you learn this from? lol

>> No.11819138

>>11818339

Yes

Gonna do it anyway

>> No.11819160
File: 45 KB, 434x600, 1535221297322 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11819160

>>11818578
nah bro

>> No.11819209

>>11818578
That's a flipped portrait of German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, a contemporary of Kant but a harsh critic of enlightenment ideas.

>> No.11819453

>too much cake
I question this assumption

>> No.11819595

>>11818327
As long as you don't force feed cake to people I don't see the problem

>This is my fetish
How do Kantians resolve the dilemma of fetishists?

>> No.11819599

I think you're misunderstanding the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It's not about whether or not you'd like if the results of your action were universalized (that would be a rather consequentialist view, and would no longer be based on pure practical reason), but whether or not universalization would produce logical contradictions.

>> No.11819609

no one is actually kantian, r-right? it's all just memes, surely

>> No.11819613

>>11819609
the entire world is kantian except for those labeled schizophrenics and eccentrics under kantian law

>> No.11819616

>>11818327
I'm pretty sure that's not Kant, but I can't remember what his name was.

>> No.11819622

>>11818327
I unironically believe that the bullshit Kant spout out is to blame for Schizophrenia. It's a mentally contagious disease, of which the descendent thoughts reach the brains of the vulnerable by proxy and destroy it forever. Hell if even pure wrongly folded protein without envelope can act as a pathogen (prions), than it's not too far fetched to imagine that structures as complex as thoughts can act as pathogens as well. Notice that Schizophrenia didn't exist before, that the risk of infection is higher in cities than in villages and that the term "nihilist" was re-invented by Jacobi in it's current meaning to describe Kant and his bullshit. I'm not drawing this out of my ass, look it up. The greeks were right in condemning Sokrates to death, they should have fucking ripped his tongue out way sooner.

He was a monster and has guaranteed a return to a cyberpunk 'Dark Ages' with a vengeance in time. We could have prevented this somehow, Stirner saw the truth.

>> No.11819631

>>11819599

Cont:
Sharing cake is an imperfect duty at best. Because you can't fulfill the duty all the time, you're not morally blameworthy for sharing your cake, even if fulfilling the duty is morally praiseworthy.

>> No.11819636

>>11819609

How many people do you think actually understand Kant's moral system vs how many think they understand it because of dank trolley problem memes?

>> No.11819638

>>11818327
Kant was literally insane, he thinks we will the world and time and space into existence.

>> No.11819640

>>11819631

*morally blameworthy for NOT sharing your cake

>> No.11819649
File: 42 KB, 800x587, slaughter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11819649

>>11819638

That's... not at all what he claimed. Is this board just full of pseuds that don't actually read the material they're criticizing?

>> No.11819677

>>11819636
ratio's gotta be 1:20 at least

>> No.11819707

Well - you ask how a Kantian might resolve the problem of moderation. Notice if I am thinking about acting on the maxim: "I would not like to eat cake in moderation" - then, this maxim would be in contradiction with itself, for if everyone didn't eat cake in moderation, there wouldn't be enough resources (flour, eggs, milk, etc.) for me to will my maxim, So: insofar as the maxim is in contradiction with itself, it fails to be universalize-able, thus failing the CI test.

>> No.11819743

>>11819707

That doesn't necessarily follow. Increase in demand incentivizes an increase in supply. I'm pretty sure we could produce enough cakes to kill everyone with diabetes if we really wanted to. But if we're talking about particular, empirical circumstances then we're no longer dealing with pure reason.

>> No.11819749

>>11819743
>I'm pretty sure we could produce enough cakes to kill everyone with diabetes if we really wanted to.
t. Marie Antoinette

>> No.11819760

Aristotle classified 540 animal species, and dissected at least 50. He believed that intellectual purposes, formal causes, guided all natural processes. Kant, though the attempts of the atomists to explain life in purely physical terms, devolved into some bastardized Platonic Idealism.

>> No.11819773

Kant was a Platonic dualist insofar as he held appearances (phenomena) were not things in themselves (noumena), but were rather reflections of things in themselves. He was an idiot.

>> No.11819799

>>11818327
That man is NOT Kant, for fuck's sake. Stop spreading disinfo.

>>11819616
>>11819209

>> No.11820681

>>11819649
yes. /lit/ is filled with pseuds that actively seek material that confirms their christian and alt-right ideology.

>> No.11820693

>>11820681
Kant was a Christian who hated Jews and degenerates

>> No.11820750

>>11818327
Being a legislator of the kingdom of ends isn't about everyone doing the same thing, it's about a universalizable rule. You must ask the question, what if everyone was able to do x, not simply what if everyone did x. Baking a cake does not use anyone as a means to an ends and can be universizable because we are dealing with restrictions not prescriptions. The rule isn't 'everyone must bake a cake', but rather 'anyone is allowed to bake a cake'. Making an 'X so then Y' argument is strictly utilitarian so you are all mixed up about Kant.

>> No.11821337

>>11819622
>Notice that Schizophrenia didn't exist before
erm

>> No.11821363

>>11821337
It did not

>> No.11822542

>>11820681
can confirm, we build monuments to kant in my christian alt-right minecraft server

>> No.11822591

>>11819160
el goblino

>> No.11822595

>>11819622
if life were a dream of euphoria we would not have schizophrenia or paranoia.

>> No.11822689

>>11818327
Making people cake (roughly, helping people) is an imperfect duty, it's universalizable, sure, but there's no dictate that says everyone must make cake for everyone all the time because it's an imperfect duty, meaning you don't have to do it. Not lying, stealing etc on the other hand are perfect duties and must be conformed to all the time.