kant was great. prove me wrong protip: you kant

yes i Kahn

>>7444166
he was an antisemite and misogynist

whew, lads

BTFO

>>7445743
this makes him greater.

more like a great autist

>>7444166

I can Spinoza your view.

File: DontTrollMeNewfag.jpg (89KB, 383x514px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 383x514px

goofy goblinhead ass lookin nigga

a priori dis dick

>>7445791
This desu senpai

>/kænt/

File: images.jpg (9KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 194x259px

>there exists a phenomenal and noumenal world
>it is impossible to know anything about the noumenal world
>and yet i am justified in positing it
>i have improved on Cartesian scepticism

>>7444166
Empiricism/objectivism>

I agree with you senpai, he's great
>tfw all your friends are Empiricists

If his writing style was any more bland I would have died. Just died. And he was keked for life.

Oh and deontological theories blow.

Who the hell is this guy? Why do I see him on a daily basis on /lit/?

>>7448401
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

>>7448417
Thanks.

>>7444166

He believed in free will...so he was stupid.

>>7448532
free will isnt required for the kantian system to function

>>7444166
1). He created a straw man argument to destroy reason.

2). With reason out the picture, he reintroduced a concept which had been dead since the enlightenment - altruism.

If I had a time machine, this asshat would be the first person to kill.

>>7448554
>reducing the synthesis of rationalism and empiricism down to two minor and incorrect personal gripes

s m h
t b h
f a m

I just got a copy of cpr from my father in law... How do I get past this thing in itself

>>7448554
>>>/atlassociety/

>>7445743
you just described a great majority of legendary writers and poets.

try harder

File: image.jpg (12KB, 180x256px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x256px

>>7446437

So Kant's system doesn't allow for a coherent distinction between knowing and positing (AKA postulating)?

>>7448532

Yes he did, but are you understanding the term "free will" in the specialized sense in which he used it?

>>7448539

Far from true.

The categorical imperative is stupid
Kantian ethics are stupid

Motivational internalism is incompatible with Kantian ethics

>hur no exceptions, no exceptions

>>7448401
This board is 18+

>>7446437

>can't into agnoyology

lel pleb

>>7445743
>trying to discredit someone's philosophy by disagreeing with his personal views

Ad hominem out

>>7449727
>I don't like this guy
>hur dur he's stupid

Do you have any legitimate arguments?

>>7449875
>motivational internalism is incompatible with Kantian ethics

It's like you can't read.

Also the categorical imperative and the Formula for Universal Law doesn't account for *any* agent-relative constraints or personal integrity. Yes, I realize this is the point, so one can't weasel out of an obligation, but it's far from a perfect or even decent ethical system.

File: image.jpg (109KB, 374x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 374x600px

>>7449980

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "agent-relative constraints" or "personal integrity," but Kant does use the agent's autonomy, and thus (in Kant's view) the agent's inviolable dignity, as a foundation for our duties to other moral agents, *and* for the agent's own duty to him/her/itself. Though I haven't read the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant goes into detail there about how our duties to others balance with duties to ourselves, out of respect for all of our own individual intrinsic moral worth - and I wonder if this wouldn't go a long way toward providing the "agent-relative constraints" and "personal integrity" that you're talking about.

I won't be around for a few hours to see any response.

>>7450069
Right, right, I understand Kant's Formula for Humanity, which is what you're referencing. Im aware that Kant asserts that one must treat other persons as ends and not means and that one has a duty to oneself. However, this does nothing to combat my qualms with his system.

I'll explain with an example: A madman wielding an ax breaks open your front door and ties you up. He asks where your wife is. You know that she's hiding under the bed upstairs. Is it morally permissible to lie to the man?

Kant would say no.

The categorical imperative allows for absolutely no exceptions. One must always act as if one's actions would be adopted by everyone, hence the Formula for Universal Law. One can *never* lie, regardless of circumstance. Thus, his system cannot account for agent-relative constraints (the desire to protect one's wife). It's a ridiculous and overly-simplistic ethical system.