Immanuel Kant. The most overrated philosopher of all time. He

Being right isn't all there is to the philosophy game. Just having a coherent line of reasoning seems enough to achieve immortality. Even if those ideas lead to monstrous applications and devastation.

Kant serves as an important benchmark. Like the metric measures, he can be relied upon to provide the simplest and elegant measure of wrong.

>>2606531
Except that life is far too complex to just rely upon "simple" elegant measure of wrong.

>>2606574
Reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ

File: smuggie....jpg (50KB, 599x461px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x461px

>>2606484
>The only thing that is good in and of itself is a good will
I came up with this for a highschool thesis and everyone laughed at me.
Only a Bible study took me seriously. Weird that Kant had the same idea.
You couldn't understand the outside world without first having a knowledge of understanding itself, nothing rational is unconscious.
A good will following a universal is good. You just presuppose the law to be bad.
>pic rel
>inb4 /pol/ memes
not a valid response, the onus of proof remains on you.

File: 1462885486081.png (166KB, 645x580px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 645x580px

>>2606484
Kant influenced Hegel
Hegel influenced Marx and Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche
Marx influenced Lenin and Stalin
Nietzsche influenced Hitler
Trump will complete all of this

>mfw Kant will lead to the engulfment of the world in nuclear fire

>"We were following orders or obeying the (universal) laws of Hitler/The Reich."
How does that work when Kant puts so much importance on reason of the individual. Every person is their own ethical ruler.

>>2606484
What works of Kant have you actually read, op?

>A will which follows universal law without regard to the consequences.
One of the main points in Kants explorations of our practical reason is that if there's good & bad, it can only be derived from our a priori knowledge. So only our will can be good, because consequence belong to the phenomenal world and are thus a posteriori.

>It is pretty tough to know what a "universal law" is. Most people, if not all people, have to go with the laws promulgated by "popular scientists" or their own alleged "governors/governments".
Kant specifically tackles this in the beginning of the second chapter of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Read it.

>As far as FACTUAL things are concerned, Kant argues that we know our own minds better than we know things outside our own minds
From a Kantian perspective, this makes perfect sense. Keep in mind that Kant is an idealist (of some sorts atleast), so you're using 'things outside our own minds' in a completely different way as Kant.

>>2607910
Kant argues that we all, individually, choose to impose this universal law upon ourselves. That might sound a bit paradoxical, but Kant things that we all posses the same faculty if and reason. When this faculty leads us to an universal law about ethics (which for Kant it does), we'll all subject ourself to this law. In short: we all individually choose to act according to universal law. It's part of the third formulation of the Categorical Imperative.


There are two things you have to keep in mind when trying to understanding Kantian ethics.
1) His epistemology/ontology is his starting point. If you don't understand that framework, you'll never get his ethics.
2) His ethical principles are purely a priori. He again and again stresses that giving examples in the phenomenal world is not the right way to investigate our practical reason.

>>2606484
>It is pretty tough to know what a "universal law" is. Most people, if not all people, have to go with the laws promulgated by "popular scientists" or their own alleged "governors/governments".
>So when German people tried to explain why they went along with the holocaust, among other atrocities, the answer which the majority gave and which (to them) actually explained their complicity was:- "We were following orders or obeying the (universal) laws of Hitler/The Reich.",
>using a strawman that was BTFO by Arendt
Jesus

>It is pretty tough to know what a "universal law" is.

Note to self, make philosophy easier. Good idea, chap.

>So when German people tried to explain why they went along with the holocaust, among other atrocities, the answer which the majority gave and which (to them) actually explained their complicity was:- "We were following orders or obeying the (universal) laws of Hitler/The Reich."
>(universal)

So, the most important part of your critique of Kant is the part that actually had to get parenthesis because its so fabricated from out of think fucking air? Pretty weak shit fuck boi

>>2606484
>It is far easier to understand almost anything other than even the simplest "human mind", for if "minds" were easy to understand there wouldn't be such overwhelming contradictions between various philosophers and their alleged "philosophies".
Not sure if trolling, what a shitty argument. Obviously he means knowing in a stricter sense than you.