[ 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: 11 KB, 264x356, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3512000 No.3512000 [Reply] [Original]

You have ten seconds to refute the greatest German philosopher ever.
OH WAIT, YOU KANT

>> No.3512001

pronounced cunt
>refuted

>> No.3512007

I seriously think Kant was mentally ill, perhaps OCD

We all know about the walking shit, but th efact he wrote books about how to avoid swallowing flies while walking, as well as the fact that he was a beta permavirgin who demanded everyone act perfectly in line with reason is pretty worrying

>> No.3512008

>>3512001
no

>> No.3512005

refute on what? he said a lot of stuff

>> No.3512009

>>3512008
yes

>> No.3512011

Morality does not work that way.

>> No.3512013

Objective cunt.

>> No.3512015

"ra" as in random, "caw" with a nasal vowel.

>> No.3512019

>>3512009
no
the a is pronounced as the a in bra but shorter

>> No.3512022

>>3512007
>mental illnesses
>OCD
>DSM
>diagnosing sum guy u read
>beta
lel

>> No.3512027

>>3512011
Philosophy does not tells us how things are, but how they should be and thus makes us build them that way.

>> No.3512030

>greatest German philosopher
>worst theories ever

>> No.3512034

>>3512027
wh - oa

>> No.3512035

>>3512027
>implying Truth hasn't been the number one priority for philosophers since its inception

read a book.

>> No.3512037

>>3512027
He still done goofed then, considering how virtually nobody seriously uses the Categorical Imperative as a moral guideline.

>> No.3512038

>>3512030
>greatest
>not Hegel, Marx or Nietzsche

>> No.3512040

>>3512027
>Philosophy does not tells us how things are
That's very very wrong.

>> No.3512046

>>3512019
Don't worry. he probably just watched that 3 minute philosophy YT video with the edgy guy thinking he's smart for knowing the basic bullet points on the major philosophers.

>> No.3512051

>>3512035
>>3512040
I'm not talking about what it claims to be doing. Of course it claims to be telling us how things are, but the claims of philosophy describing its actions are not descriptions of that action but part of it.

>> No.3512061

philosophy is for faggots I'd rather smoke books

>> No.3512070

>>3512051
I wasn't talking about it claimed to be doing.

>> No.3512090

>>3512070
Well, philosophy ain't science, even when presented in its from.

>> No.3512093

I'll have a go. Kant's ethical philosophy is radical to the point of fanaticism. These "perfect duties" one must live by leave no room for mitigating circumstances or situational judgement. Kant would even be against going back in time to kill young Hitler, because as he argues, no possible outcome justifies the deliberate commitment of a fundamentally immoral act, no matter the circumstance. Let's look at another example. If a murderer comes to your doorstop and asks you where your friend is so the killer can murder your friend, Kant would argue it is still immoral to lie to that person, regardless of the outcome of your lie (saving that man's life). The fact of the matter is Kant's philosophy fails to take into account that moral decisions are made in the real world, and as such we need to factor in all the various components and considerations of a decision before deciding whether it is moral or not. Kant's philosophy operates in this hypothetical realm where it is possible to preclude an immoral actions simply from the action itself and nothing else. That's not how the human brain works and that's not how the real world works. By Kant's brand of deontology, the crime of manslaughter shouldn't even exist because there is no ill-will in that action. And, as we all know, Kant says an action may only be immoral if it has intrinsic immoral intent, which manslaughter, by definition, does not.

>> No.3512096

>>3512093
>murderer on the doorstep scenario

Confirmed for wiki-casual

>> No.3512095
File: 280 KB, 400x300, Kant Destroyer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3512095

>>3512001
Filename

>> No.3512098

>>3512090
Philosophy is a sham. It died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a cuntbag of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that all philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of living on Fathers money and forming semantic bullshit to convince everyone you are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

"Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?"

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
"Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? STFU, Shoppy. Next."

>Hegel - Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
"Objectivity? Really, Hegel. STFU. Next."

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful.”
"Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant m8 and you're talking out ur arse.

Listen, cuntbags, the answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions should be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art. So go ahead, fuckers, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, because that's all you bitches can do.

>> No.3512100

>>3512090
What does science have to do with anything? If anything, science is looking for truth at a lower ontological level.

>> No.3512103

>>3512098
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all human constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology...,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Of course, these can be spread out to many more fields, but only an idiot would resort to philosophy. Even Philosophy has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from a linguistic and psychological standpoint; can we ever have identical viewing of these symbols. Or a physics perspective; am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on. Philosophy is dead.

>> No.3512104

>>3512093
That took longer than 10 sec, gtfo

>> No.3512106

>>3512098
yawn

natural science is a branch of philosophy. you're a brat.

>> No.3512110

>>3512098
Fuck off Derrida

>> No.3512200

>>3512096

Oh fuck off. Just because I've read the Categorical Imperative doesn't mean I can't use generally accepted criticisms of it. It's still valid, by the way

>> No.3512259

I think OP just made this thread to show off his pun.
>OH WAIT, YOU KANT
What did you just call me?

>> No.3512472

>>3512093
>Kant would argue it is still immoral to lie to that person...

If you had read Kant's work thoroughly, you would of known Kant recommends you say "nothing at all".