Was Kant right?

File: Hehe.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>131107569
No Kant is a yuge faggot.

>>131107569
No such thing as noumenal reality, there is only reality and that's it, and reason is perfectly capable of making sense of it.

Kant was a faggot.

Enlightenment was a mistake

>reasoning that you cannot reason

>>131107962
So Objectivism then? How do we prove Objectivism?

File: images.jpg (11KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 290x174px

>>131107569
Fuck you, kant licker. All ideas (forms) are real and the most real thing is The Good.

>>131107569

I don't think he's wrong, or rather his logic is incorrect IF you accept the premise that Objective Reality is somehow separate or does not exist.

alot of this ties into the need for people like Kant to take Naturalism to its final conclusion, which is ultimately a purely subjective reality where nothing is stable. That defies even the premises he uses to get to the end of Naturalism which is ultimately self-contradictory.

Alot of this borders on solipsism-esque premises about the unknown. and that is the problem with attempting to define the unknown. and why most philosophers of sound mind reject a purely subjective reality in place of an objective one. You could argue these divergent premises are equal given that they are based on the unknown, however the fruit bears itself out in time.

>>131108773

sry i meant to say,

>I don't think he's wrong, or rather his logic ISN'T incorrect

File: IMG_2811.gif (12KB, 374x520px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 374x520px

>>131108773
>>131108828
>Most philosophers of a sound mind
Such as? I assume you mean Ayn Rand, but who else

File: vince.png (204KB, 318x490px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 318x490px

>>131109437

>Ayn Rand

>>131108111
not really. it's reasoning that the only absolute that can be revealed via reason is that reason is absolutely contingent.

>>131107703
>>131107962
>>131108671
why even bother having opinions about philosophy in the first place if you're not going to take the effort to understand the thing you're opining on? serious question

>>131107569
That is NOT what the critique of pure reason was about.

He divides them propositions into two classes. These are analytic and synthetic. Analytic propositions have predicates that contain their subjects. The rest are synthetic.

Next he looks at how we justify these propositions. This can be done via reason (a priori) or observation (a posteriori/empirical science). A priori justifications are true in all possible worlds. A posteriori justification is inherently uncertain.

Kant held there IS a synthetic a priori. We no longer think this.

This has nothing to do with post modernism. Those nuts not only reject reason (through a process of reasoning) but also reject that we can choose between a posteriori propositions based on resemblance (as measured by predictive capacity) to mind independent reality. To a post modernist everything but post modernism is relative. To Kant only science is in a limited sense (it is dependant our perceptions plus the problem of induction).

-Philosophy PhD student- kun

File: IMG_2793.jpg (104KB, 1071x1032px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1071x1032px

>>131109559
I'm only trying to ask you about what you believe. I didn't say that I considered her to be 'of a sound mind.' I wanted to know if you considered her to be that

>>131109804
It's 4chan faggot; i have fun with images.

You have fun asking me why i have fun.

I will tell you that i have fun for you to have fun. It's fun isn't it?

File: heraclitus_change.png (34KB, 318x470px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 318x470px

If you ain't down with Heraclitus you ain't shit. Fuck the Enlightenment and fuck you.

>>131109805
So are you saying that postmodernism is not the end result of Kantian Epistemology.

What do you make of this
1/2
>Postmodernism is the first ruthlessly consistent statement of the consequences of rejecting reason, those consequences being necessary given the history of epistemology since Kant.
The key ingredients of postmodernism were laid out by the philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century. The develop- ments in Continental philosophy up to Heidegger provided the positive direction and impetus that postmodernism takes; and the negative developments in Anglo-American philosophy up to the collapse of Logical Positivism left the defenders of reason and science feeling dispirited, directionless, and unable to mount any significant response to the skeptical and relativistic arguments the postmodernists used.48
Yet much of twentieth-century philosophy had been piecemeal and unsystematic, especially in the Anglo-American tradition. Postmodernism is the first synthesis of the implications of the major trends. In postmodernism we find metaphysical antirealism, epist- emological subjectivity, the placing of feeling at the root of all value issues, the consequent relativism of both knowledge and values, and the consequent devaluing or disvaluing of the scientific enterprise.
Metaphysics and epistemology are at the heart of this account of postmodernism. Despite the postmodernists’ billing of them- selves as anti-metaphysics and anti-epistemology, their writings focus upon those themes almost exclusively. Heidegger attacks logic and reason to make room for emotion, Foucault reduces knowledge to an expression of social power, Derrida deconstructs language and turns it into a vehicle of aesthetic play, and Rorty chronicles the failures of the realist and objectivist tradition in almost-exclusively metaphysical and epistemological terms.

>>131110622
2/2
From the postmodern anti-realist metaphysics and anti-reason epistemology, the postmodern social consequences follow almost directly. Once we set aside reality and reason, what are we left with to go on? We can, as the conservatives would prefer, simply turn to our group’s traditions and follow them. Or we can, as the post- modernists will prefer, turn to our feelings and follow them. If we then ask what our core feelings are, we connect with the answers from the past century’s dominant theories of human nature. From Kierkegaard and Heidegger, we learn that our emotional core is a deep sense of dread and guilt. From Marx, we feel a deep sense of alienation, victimization, and rage. From Nietzsche, we discover a deep need for power. From Freud, we uncover the urgings of dark and aggressive sexuality. Rage, power, guilt, lust, and dread constitute the center of the postmodern emotional universe

File: frenchcunt.png (127KB, 220x256px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 220x256px

Enlightenment was a mistake and full of edgy faggots. It's a shame that monarchies in Europe didn't unite to crush the bourgeois scum funding this movement that led to bloody outcomes.

>>131110622

Some scholars missread Kant.

Look at how the positivists and Popper took him up...

Regardless his idea of the synthetic a priori was pants on the head retarded. It does not stand up to empirical scrutiny.

There are two things we can do here. Reject reasoning altogether or concede the synthetic a priori is part of hypothesis formation and be an empiricist of some sort (like all worthwhile philosophy is now).

>>131110622
>>131110828

Also give up your lit crit tier continental bs. It will get you nowhere and analytic philosophers will laugh at you

File: Baaaka.jpg (17KB, 332x187px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 332x187px

>>131111036
You don't understand a thing you faggot.

Don't put Rousseau and Voltaire in the same basket you rotten faggot.

Go listen to Jordan Peterson's podcast - all of it, at least all the lectures - for a crash course on how to intelligently deal with the limitations of reason without conceding to cultural Marxism

no such thing as noumenal reality, sorry champ

t. buddha

File: IMG_2806.gif (1MB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x200px

>>131111388
I'm just reading a book and I was curious what people thought of it's conclusions. No need to be hostile

>>131112006
Go observe ants or hyenas and redefine what is hostility faggot.

Also Fucking Hostile!

>>131107569
> If we concede this, are we not emboldening postmodernists who have championed this position and have subsequently filled the void that reason could not with feelings and emotions, which ultimately culminates in Socialism?
Not at all. The ideology that you are thinking of in connection to post modernism is called social constructivism. Kant was in no shape or form a social constructionist. All he was saying is that the objective reality exists, the problem is that we can't understand its true essence. Post modernists advocating social constructivism didn't like that so they spent a shit load of time deconstructing the idea of 'essence' to ultimately come to the conclusion that "no ojective reality exists, subjectivity is all there is".

IIIIIIIIIIIImmanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed...
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

>>131112680
>All he was saying is that the objective reality exists, the problem is that we can't understand its true essence

Was it not this idea that buttressed the postmodernists? Reason is employed to understand reality, but if we can't do that, then shouldn't we resort to things like social constructionism?

>>131113117

Please read Hume.

We know mind independent reality exists we just can't get at if 100%. We can still prefer theories that are closer to it than others.

Aristotle thought earth wind air and fire were the only elements on earth and motion was explained by things majorly comprised one those elements as just wanting to go where they belong. Einstein explains gravity as curvature of spacetime. Rocks still fall. Thing is Einstein predicts a lot more too so we say it's closer to the truth.

Kant is a foundation for analytic phil of science too. This is anathema to postmodernism.

If anything these people have their foundation in hegels dialetheism and intuitionist ethics. They say anything goes because reason excludes nigger voodoo from being true... and that racist. Literally.

>>131113890
>Reason has “no other purpose than to prescribe its own formal rule for the extension of its empirical employment, and not any extension beyond all limits of empirical employment.”
Would you say that reason cannot understand "noumenal reality?"

>>131114619
Should clarify that the green text is a partial quote from Kant

E. Michael Jones is right.

>>131113117
>Was it not this idea that buttressed the postmodernists?
yes but only to a small extent. It was mainly the controversial claim that reality could be made of the same fabric that constitutes abstract principles of the mind, hence why reason works.
>Reason is employed to understand reality, but if we can't do that, then shouldn't we resort to things like social constructionism?
That wasn't exactly what he argued. He was saying that there are certain limitations to human reason. He didn't claim that there was no objective reality. Quite the contrary. His main point was that we are unsure of the 'essence' or real reality of its nature. It neither entirely confirms the external world nor does it deny it. That was his form of idealism. Social constructivism makes it an absolute that the objective reality can exist depending on the individual. Literally that you are creating your reality, where as Kant was saying that reality revolves around the individual in that our perception is determined by our position/limitations. Not that you can create your own reality

>>131114619

Reason for K means deductive logic.

Nobody thinks we can deduce the true nature of world....

>>131114619
What that qoute is basically saying, although it is partial so I can't be entirely sure, is that the use of reason is to guide empircal research. And any use of reasoning that goes beyond the limits of of empirical research is bullshit. Concluding what my man said here >>131115240
You can't really prove the 'essence' or real nature of objective reality past what our scientific or empirical understanding allows us.

>>131114960
>He was saying that there are certain limitations to human reason.
But that's a huge blank for which anything can be drawn in. Which is what the postmodernists did.

Read pg. 39 and up if you want to see where I'm coming from
http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf

>>131116468
no they didn't. Kants point was that you literally can't without falling under contradictions and ridiculous metaphysical claism
see the second part of >>131114960
..... and to that kant was correct. If you ever read the metaphysical beliefs of post modernists you will find the most incomprehensible ridiculous shit. Not only that, but social constructivism leads to epistemic nihilism: a paradox

>>131107569
Bump

File: Screenshot (7).png (239KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1366x768px

>>131116468
I read it. and dude it literally was what I said here >>131114960
see pic for the highlight.

>>131116852
So rather they were partially inspired by a misinterpretation of Kant

>>131117354
Keep going senpai

>>131107569
boooring

>>131117453
In a way yea. I mean they have their reasons for disagreeing with kant but it is based off of extreme skepticism, similar to that of solipsism. The only difference betweent the two is that solipsism only cares about the belief of the existence of the self, where as social constructivists say all subjective belief is true.

Kant was basically just laying down how we can think of metaphysics as a science just as we understand the limitations of the scientific method. The only thing post modernists have in connection with kant is that they believe in an abstract fabric of reality. However, they radically differ on the role on the role of the individual in the system of reality. In the critique of reason there is a liken to that of cornipecus. Just as he said that it wasn't the star and planets that rotated around the earth, it was our perception that made it that way, so is the nature of our reasoning. It is all a perception depending on the individual no matter where you are.

Social constructivists say "nahhh we literally create reality. we made the cosmos bitches".... and you can see why they are such entittled spolied brats

File: IMG_2809.png (128KB, 256x284px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 256x284px

>>131118052
I tip my fedora to you, sir I enjoyed this thread

>>131107569
I Kant get on board with that sentiment.

>>131107569
Bump

>>131118911
kys

>>131107962
>>131107703
t. faggots that never understood Kant. Toddle back to Plato and Nietzsche, this is adult philosophy.

>>131107569
Not sure Kant was saying that reason is subjective, he was saying that PERCEPTION is subjective.

If anything he was saying that reason, pure reason, has objective limits that can be known, but without our perceptions to feed the mechanisms of reason it has little to no useful output to give us. THIS is where subjectivity creeps in. Fundamental reality is Noumena. Percepted reality is Phenomena.

Fundamental misunderstanding of Kant: he wasn't saying that the noumena and phenomena were different and separate worlds per se, they were separate because the latter was our utterly incomplete representation of Noumena.

We have no access to reality (Noumena) that is unfiltered by our limited, imperfect, corruptable perceptions. The world we experience is an imperfect Phenomal representation based on our reason's interpretation of our perceptions' interpretation of the Noumena.

We know that this is true: you do not see the world as it is, or every object, even the empty air in front of you, would appear as an infinite vortex of atoms, subatomic particles, waves, photons, etc. But even then its not possible. Remember quantum physics: an electron is merely a potentiality until it is measured.
I.e. our perceptions fundamentally change the world. That's the limit of perception. That's Noumena/Phenomena.

This guy was off the charts.
Easily the greatest philosopher. Truly achieved the Copernican Revolution he set out to. The empiricists were wrong, the rationalist/idealists were wrong.

What he came up with just by thinking is astonishing. If his books weren't so fucking impenetrable without decent university tuition then he'd get the credit he deserves. Anyone can pick up Plato or Nietzsche with a bit of effort because very little is metaphysical. Kant rewrote philosophical vocabulary to investigate pure metaphysics.

>>131107569
>>131123464
Part 2: Why Kant was so great (in extreme brief)

Part of his investigation in the Critique of Pure Reason was to come up with an example of the synthetic a priori statement, a statement or piece of knowledge that was irrefutable to anyone using reason but which also required perceptual experience (long held to be an impossible task).
One example he came up with was the law of cause and effect.
Events have causes by definition (a priori) but perceptual experience is needed to understand this (synthetic). One can experience individual events and never understand causality behind them (e g. extreme temporal discounting amongst low intellects).

The reason that perceptual experience is needed for this is because cause and effect are conditions of our understanding and perception of the world. You cannot function, cannot make sense of anything, any event or occurence or object, if you cannot grasp cause and effect. Cause and effect imply a change over time occurring within a space.

Space and time are necessary conditions of Reason. Therefore reason has an objective basis. BUT our reason is limited.

Therefore it is useful to know the limits of pure reason and the consequences of its interaction with perception. The limits of reason he delineated are the Twelve Antinomies from CoPR.

Time and space are two: noinformation we ever gain will answer whether space and time are infinite or finite. Neither answer will ever make full sense. These concepts represent the breaking point of our ability to reason.

This claim is his putting an OBJECTIVE mark on reason. Nobody is free of this limit, reason is objectively limited for all in this same way.

Long live Kant, the bastard was far greater than we give him credit for.
If the general understanding of Nietzsche is only now catching up with where his own mind was 150 years ago, it will take another few hundred years of development before we finally understand exactly why and how Kant was so right.

File: the_other_form_of_art.jpg (88KB, 634x693px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 634x693px

>>131107569
>Was Immanuel Kant correct in asserting that reason (in the Enlightenment sense) was subjective and could not be used to divine truths about noumenal reality?

Is this about art, well, art is different to any other human production. I dont remember Kant's critique of the sense with regards to art, but the current non sjw theory is that it is the market that decides.

Later Bourdieu came up with the theory of cultural production (umbrella term), which loosely also applies to production of culture defining objects and art from the stone age and till now.
Even though they may not be artistic other than in the accumulated history and supplementary literature about the object.

The field of culture is at a perception
1. The safe road
The old traditional road of traditional and nationalized cultural production and preservation, where culture is experienced through the objects, (even though its evolving.)

2. The modernism narrative
Where culture is often politicised and used to solicit a emotions towards different atrocities or raise awareness about current affairs.

>>131124997
*precipice

File: kant magee tristan long.png (4MB, 805x8363px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 805x8363px

The postmodernists go further than what Kant was actually saying. The postmodernists take the lack of proof of any correspondence between experience and noumenal reality as positive *disproof* of any correspondence between experience and noumenal reality. They believe they can say definitively that there is no correspondence, but that's not what Kant was saying nor does it follow logically from what Kant was saying. That something has not been *proved* does not mean that that something has been *disproved*.

We don't know to what extent our experience corresponds to noumenal reality. Experience may not correspond at all to noumenal reality, or there may be significant correspondences.

Schopenhauer:
>... he who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence ; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy. Such a man then stands to the man who knows the Kantian philosophy as a minor to a man of full age.

File: kant magee tristan long.png (4MB, 800x8398px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 800x8398px

>corrected version