/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12211683]

Can you imagine a conversation between these two?

[Anonymous No.12211692]

>>12211683
>So you're like, really smart, huh? How big is your head?
>exeunt Kant

[Anonymous No.12211701]

>>12211683
I think Joe Rogan could make it work because he knows where his limits are. He doesn't try to outsmart the brainiacs that come on his show, he gets them to open up.

[Anonymous No.12211704]

they both look like monkey, the guy on the right looks more primitive than schopenhauer
he probably couldn't wet his noodle and that's why he studied so much philosophy

[Anonymous No.12211707]

>>12211701
Yes I agree. It would be delightful.

[Anonymous No.12211717]

>>12211683
Kant loved to talk and Rogaine is good at getting people to talk for long periods of time.

[Anonymous No.12211722]

>>12211717
Did he love to talk to people? I don’t know much about him but assumed he would have been shy.

[Anonymous No.12211730]

>If, however, I investigate more closely the relations of given cognitions in every judgment, and distinguish that relation, as something belonging to the understanding, from the relatione in accordance with laws of the reproductive imagination (which has only subjective validity), then I find that a judgment is nothing other than the way to bring given cognitions to the objective unity of apperception. That is the
aim of the copula "is" in them: to distinguish the objective unity of given representations from the subjective. For this word designates the relation of the representations to the original apperception and its necessary unity, even if the judgment itself is empirical, hence contingent, e.g., "Bodies are heavy." By that, to be sure, I do not mean to say that these representations necessarily belong to one another in the empirical intuition, but rather that they belong to one another in virtue of the necessary unity of the apperception in the synthesis of intuitions, i.e., in accordance with principles a of the objective determination of all representations insofar as cognition can come from them, which principles are all derived from the principle of the transcendental unity of apperception. Only in this way does there arise from this relatione a judgment, i.e., a relation that is objectively valid, and that is sufficiently distinguished from the relation of these same representations in which there would be only subjective validity, e.g., in accordance with laws of association. In accordance with the latter I could only say "If I carry a body, I feel a pressure of weight," but not "It, the body, is heavy," which would be to say that these two representations are combined in the object,d i.e., regardless of any difference in the condition of the subject, and are not merely found together in perception (however often as that might be repeated).
>That's crazy man ... have you ever tried DMT?

[Anonymous No.12211746]

>>12211730
dude you should totally try shrooms

[monky-man No.12211747]

>>12211722
he looked like a goddamn monkey, son! of course he liked to talk, give the man some peanuts and a banana and he could talk for hours, for days, he was trained to do tricks by a circusman, his face is so primitive it's unbelievable, I think this is why he had no kids, it's probably impossible to mate and produce a human offspring with a monkeyman like Kant

he wasn't shy

but he craved attention and really wanted people to listen to him for once and stop viewing him as a stupid monkey, this is why he wrote the 3 critiques, it was a cry for help, he yelled "I AM NOT JUST A MONKEY EVEN THOUGH I LOOK LIKE ONE AND EVEN THOUGH I'M SHORT AND STOCKY LIKE ONE AND MY FACE LOOKS PRIMITVE AS FUCK!"

[Anonymous No.12211758]

>>12211730
>The faculty of desire in accordance with concepts, in-so-far as the ground determining it to action lies within itself and not in its object, is called a faculty to "do or to refrain from doing as one pleases". Insofar as it is joined with one's consciousness of the ability to bring about its object by one's action it is called choice (Willkür); if it is not joined with this consciousness its act is called a wish. The faculty of desire whose inner determining ground, hence even what pleases it, lies within the subject's reason is called the will (Wille). The will is therefore the faculty of desire considered not so much in relation to action (as choice is) but rather in relation to the ground determining choice in action. The will itself, strictly speaking, has no determining ground; insofar as it can determine choice, it is instead practical reason itself. Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will. That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which can be determined only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum). Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.

>Woah, that's fascinating. Jamie pull up that video of that deer rubbing its nuts a tree.

[Anonymous No.12211761]

>>12211747
he cute

[Anonymous No.12211784]

>>12211683
>damn, look at the size of that things head. that thing'll rip you to shreds

[Anonymous No.12211805]

>Yeah, so, I heard you're into nofap?

>As one’s love of life is intended by nature for the preservation of his person, so is his sexual love intended for the preservation of his kind, i.e., each is a natural end. ... Now, the question arises whether the use of one’s sexual capacity, as far as the person himself who uses it is concerned, stands under a restrictive law of duty; or whether, not having the end of reproduction in view, he be authorized to devote the use of his sexual attributes to mere brute pleasure and not thereby be acting contrary to a duty to himself.
>That such an unnatural use (and so misuse) of one’s sexual attributes is a violation of one’s duty to himself and is certainly in the highest degree opposed to morality strikes everyone upon his thinking of it. Furthermore, the thought of it is so revolting that even calling such a vice by its proper name is considered a kind of immorality; such is not the case with suicide, which no one hesitates to publish to all the world with all its horrors (as a species facti). It is just as if mankind in general felt ashamed of being capable of such treatment, which degrades him even below the beast. Even the allowed bodily union (in itself, to be sure, only animal union) of the two sexes in marriage occasions much delicacy in polite circles, and requires a veil to be drawn over the subject whenever it happens to be mentioned.

>Damn, wow... let me look for this video of a guy screwing a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.12211808]

>>12211761
lol he looks like smug pepe

[Anonymous No.12211823]

>>12211805
>which degrades him even below the beast
Kant was wrong about this. Animals wank.

[Anonymous No.12211826]

>>12211761
immanuel kek

[Anonymous No.12211838]

>>12211761
Pepe Kant

[Anonymous No.12211842]

>>12211761
OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.12211848]

>>12211842
You know that /v/eddit's two favorite reaction image characters are both hairless, don't you?

[Anonymous No.12211849]

I unironically think Kant is a qt

[Anonymous No.12211862]

>>12211683
>Weed has the peculiar fate of being able to intoxicate the rare breed of user into a state of mind not unlike that of the acute Foster Wallace who passed away ten years ago today. Whether this state of mind should be sought after, is a question perhaps better reserved for a later work, but we, in our current state of philosophy, should question not whether this state should be sought after, but whether this state is even attainable. This question, though of the utmost importance to anyone who seriously thinks of the matter, is a question that has hitherto escaped all the serious thinkers of the past, who, like I, have been willing to instead set their ships on sights more metaphysical. Plato, in the first book of his Laws, when discussing drinking parties, does indeed preternaturally pose the statement that if there ever were a drug that makes one feel pain rather than pleasure, then that drug should be sought. And Herodotus, in his histories, in a more passive manner, mentions the marijuana intoxicates of certain pagan bathhouses. But despite the former case, which is as attuned to genius and judgment as it is mystic, and the latter case, which is almost purely historical, the goal of our present inquiry lies in a complete critical examination of the topic of whether or not a higher state of mind is indeed achievable through that common drug.

[Anonymous No.12211870]

>>12211805
>dude, common, like what's so bad about chokin' the chickn mannn!!

>The autonomy of the will is the sole principle of all moral laws and of all duties which conform to them; on the other hand, heteronomy of the elective will not only cannot be the basis of any obligation, but is, on the contrary, opposed to the principle thereof and to the morality of the will.
>In fact the sole principle of morality consists in the independence on all matter of the law (namely, a desired object), and in the determination of the elective will by the mere universal legislative form of which its maxim must be capable. Now this independence is freedom in the negative sense, and this self-legislation of the pure, and therefore practical, reason is freedom in the positive sense. Thus the moral law expresses nothing else than the autonomy of the pure practical reason; that is, freedom; and this is itself the formal condition of all maxims, and on this condition only can they agree with the supreme practical law. If therefore the matter of the volition, which can be nothing else than the object of a desire that is connected with the law, enters into the practical law, as the condition of its possibility, there results heteronomy of the elective will, namely, dependence on the physical law that we should follow some impulse or inclination. In that case the will does not give itself the law, but only the precept how rationally to follow pathological law; and the maxim which, in such a case, never contains the universally legislative form, not only produces no obligation, but is itself opposed to the principle of a pure practical reason and, therefore, also to the moral disposition, even though the resulting action may be conformable to the law

[Anonymous No.12211873]

>>12211870
>To further add,
>This remark, which only concerns the method of ultimate ethical inquiries, is of importance. It explains at once the occasion of all the mistakes of philosophers with respect to the supreme principle of morals. For they sought for an object of the will which they could make the matter and principle of a law (which consequently could not determine the will directly, but by means of that object referred to the feeling of pleasure or pain; whereas they ought first to have searched for a law that would determine the will a priori and directly, and afterwards determine the object in accordance with the will). Now, whether they placed this object of pleasure, which was to supply the supreme conception of goodness, in happiness, in perfection, in moral [feeling], or in the will of God, their principle in every case implied heteronomy, and they must inevitably come upon empirical conditions of a moral law, since their object, which was to be the immediate principle of the will, could not be called good or bad except in its immediate relation to feeling, which is always empirical. It is only a formal law- that is, one which prescribes to reason nothing more than the form of its universal legislation as the supreme condition of its maxims- that can be a priori a determining principle of practical reason. The ancients avowed this error without concealment by directing all their moral inquiries to the determination of the notion of the summum bonum, which they intended afterwards to make the determining principle of the will in the moral law; whereas it is only far later, when the moral law has been first established for itself, and shown to be the direct determining principle of the will, that this object can be presented to the will, whose form is now determined a priori; and this we shall undertake in the Dialectic of the pure practical reason. The moderns, with whom the question of the summum bonum has gone out of fashion, or at least seems to have become a secondary matter, hide the same error under vague (expressions as in many other cases). It shows itself, nevertheless, in their systems, as it always produces heteronomy of practical reason; and from this can never be derived a moral law giving universal commands.

[Anonymous No.12211876]

>>12211862
heh

[Anonymous No.12211879]

>>12211808
your move, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12211882]

>>12211870
>>12211873
>I hope that clarifies things, Mr. Rogan?

[Anonymous No.12211908]

>>12211722
He was quite social, he used to put aside an hour every day to socialize and discuss philosophy with friends iirc

[Anonymous No.12211914]

>>12211862
Toppest of keks

[Anonymous No.12211976]

>>12211805
>unnatural
>against sexual pleasure’s purpose
>causes social revulsion
>thus immoral
Is that really what he’s saying here? I really can’t see how that could be an argument for the immorality of masturbation
Saying that an unnatural use is misuse really seems fallacious to me
t. Brainlet

[Anonymous No.12211980]

>>12211683
Who is the guy on the right

[Anonymous No.12211985]

>>12211980
Abraham Lincoln

[Anonymous No.12212032]

>>12211980
The most evil man in the history of mankind.

[Anonymous No.12212055]

>>12212032
Hegel?

[Anonymous No.12212064]

>>12211722
he never dined alone

[Anonymous No.12212091]

>>12211980
ok so basically
im monky

[Anonymous No.12212093]

>>12212032
shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.12212112]

>>12211761
He's gotten away with the Myspace angle for too long.

[Anonymous No.12212119]

>>12211849
this something about him is cute
probably that he's so smol and male (which is super cute) and then add on top that he's the biggest brained braniac ever
idk but he cute

[Anonymous No.12212565]

>>12211879
E4

[Anonymous No.12212646]

>Kant starts to explain why smoking weed is against the categorical imperative
>Joe Rogan gets weirdly agitated and defensive, eventually threatening to punch Kant

>Kant tries to explain transcendental idealism and the sensory–epistemological gap
>Joe Rogan invites Kant to use his sensory deprivation tank "to find the noumena"

[Anonymous No.12212670]

>>12212093
Kantfags confirmed violent autists

[Anonymous No.12212748]

>>12211683

Actually, they're uncannily similar in their dishonest Agnosticism and their blind acceptance of Biological Essentialism. Libertarian/Weedpublican "work ethic" or "life coaching" is essentially Kantian too.

[Anonymous No.12212824]

>>12212646
Kek

[Anonymous No.12212992]

>>12211908
>and discuss philosophy with friends
I read somewhere that he hated discussing philosophy when he was with his friends because he spent so much of his personal time on it, but that could be apocryphal

[Anonymous No.12213201]

>Talking about his critiques in great detail.

Woah that's insane. Jamie pull up that video of the chimp with the giant balls. Jesus that thing could tear you to shreds.

[Anonymous No.12213307]

Cherrypicking Kant has got to be the biggest philosophical crime nihilist conservatives routinely do to invalidate any picture of the secular-minded individual. To attach yourself to one of Kant's paragraphs and not to read the entirety of him, shows that you are not engaged in philosophy at all, but are training like shitty lawyers to become fact checkers and readers scouring pages for information that one decontextualised services your arguments. Kant's road to understanding is apolitical, and all frigid leftys and anal conservatives that miss this point are useless humanbeings that have no value beyond their instrument use. That is the rule, tools.

[Anonymous No.12213312]

>>12213307
Woah, that's deep bro. Jamie pull up that 4chan post of some asshole randomly rambling about nothing.

[monky-man No.12213352]

>>12213307
most people are political peons, social slaves, societal prostitutes, monkey see monkey do basically, when it's cool to be religious they're religious, when it's cool to be atheist they let go of god, when it's cool to kill jews they kill them, when it's cool to be pol-correct they are, when it's cool to be mysoginistic they are, when it's cool to be a slave to the pussy they are, the average person is a clockwork mechanism that isn't really capable of introspection and most of their actions are just averages of common societal ideas, of political currents

and they're so stupid, these instincts are so strong that they don't understand why different countries have different norms, moralities, religions, etc., they defend these ideas like pawns, like biological peons because that's what they have to do as social animals, as beta-males/normies/whatever you wanna call these "normal" humans, these neurotypicals

[monky-man No.12213365]

>>12213307
they revere normality and conformity and they can't do shti if no one is doing it already, just take a look at shit like travel or memes or videogames or the usage of the internet, it's no wonder why facebook, google, apple, etc. are so incredibly successful because all they do is harness the energy of stupid people, they use them as resources, they can be used as resources, they are like flowers, or bees, they have a role, a function, and you can abuse them, you can pick apples, you can collect honey from a hive, etc.

when someone becomes a "great man", it's always because he is either incredibly lucky, or indredibly eccentric and very individualistic and courageous, he realizes that there is no need to be a societal and biological peon, and becomes more interiorized, he lets go of most of the social/external influences and channels his energy into eccentric, odd goals that are very risky but are calculated in a very efficient way by his subconsciousness

there's this obnoxious meme of how "odd" these great men were, and it's pretty obvious that you won't do shit with your life if you're predestined to be a neurotypical conformist drone that shudders at the thought of having a moment of introspection, of self-doubt or at the thought of daring to step outside of societal norms

the average troglodyte is a political peon, he's a pawn, a slave to the pussy, a slave to the iphone, a resource, like a block of ore, he's ready to be mined, hell, they even call it "data mining" but might as well call it "retard mining" or "normie subjugation" or "abuse and exploitation of neurotypicals"

[monky-man No.12213373]

>>12213307
they can't understand how it's even possible to be apolitical, because they're born that way, in a way people like you and me are like asexuals are to people with normal sex drives and sexual preferences

I mean, when you think about it, if it weren't for the chemical reward and satisfaction you get from human contact, from sexual penetration, from raising a child, etc. you wouldn't waste so much time and money on a woman, so from the perspective of the asexual this doesn't make sense

but for a normal human being having a sex drive and having a family is natural and very important for a healthy, beautiful life

these neurotypical political peons are similar in this aspect, they can't understand how you can't care about political drivel, they can't understand a world or an individual that doesn't taint everything with political bullshit

they're insufferable but what the hell can you do? they have to act like that, it's natural for them, they're the bee drones of humanity, we're the leaders, the pimps, the shitlords, they're the resources that FAANG exploit, it's thanks to them that Apple is so successful, not thanks to Steve Rimjobs and it's ironic how Rimjobs is revered by normies, when in reality Stevie got rich because of idiots like them

imagine a world where slaves revered empires like the British Empire, thinking "wow, these guys are so strong, they enslaved everyone!"

too bad it's not so obvious for them, for them buying a phone and wasting their lives on facebook is "natural", it's not slavery, so Apple is not the British Empire in this example, it's something different, even though in truth it is not

[Anonymous No.12213376]

>>12211747
was he stocky? I always thought of him as short and skinny, like smol, all his energy went into his big brain

[monky-man No.12213377]

>>12213312
>12213312
piggot subhuman detected, stop oinking and fuck off to your pigsty

[Anonymous No.12213549]

>>12213377
Oh look, the NPC bugged out and failed to quote the post properly.

[Anonymous No.12214211]

No one pointed out that these two people cannot speak the same language and therefore could have no meaningful conversation

[Anonymous No.12214493]

>>12213549
>uses the NPC, an unfunny and overused meme
a bit ironic, don't you think, brainlet?

[Anonymous No.12214717]

>>12214493
That's exactly what a low iq brainlet simulating npc would say!

[Anonymous No.12214721]

>>12214211
Kant had a close friend who was an English merchant or something like that, maybe he knew a bit of English.

[Anonymous No.12214722]

>>12211761

Imagine having a giant brain like Kant.

[Anonymous No.12214730]

>>12214211
German is one of the 12 languages Joe Rogan is fluent in.