Your realty is unique to you

And thus facts are subjective. Such as race and gender.

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/1802951/Kants_Racism
pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol1/judy.html
plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Who are you to tell me what my subjective reality is or isn't?

then explain why emergency rooms need to use or abstain from certain drugs based on the race of the patient
still waiting for a canadian poster to make ONE good post on this board

That is not entirely accurate, leaf. If I take your ideas to their fullest, why would any crime be considered wrong? Because you feel that one person's experience is somehow equal to another's? Your ideas lead to solipsism. Also kant is a nightmare to read.

OP probably means facts are subjective in a metaphysical sense. He's not saying you don't need racial specific drugs. He's saying that your interpretation of the world is based on how you interpret the facts, not the facts are facts.

not the fact that facts are facts*

>. Also kant is a nightmare to read.
Iqlet detected

"Enlightenment" is a lie.

this is how someone thinks when they need death

this whole thing is the gayest shit ever. shut up, the both of you. get a job.

You're not in Reddit brah. I can say whatever the fuck I want. You can go fuck off if it triggers you.

kantians btfo

Since reality is subjective and molded by my own experience all I got from your post was:

OP is a giant faggot.

im just saying you're a fag my man
like you ought to die

Somewhere in the void of space and time, you can hear Kant screaming autistically, whilist the winds of the cosmos whisper...
>spook

How can reality be objective if our eyes are subjective?

According to the hermetic principals, you're full of shit

>Brah

Kill yourself.
You will probably get a more positive return on Kikebook.

You see right through my facade senpai

...

Hey, that's a great comment brah. I hope you have a good day!

If you have to play the Kant card, you've lost.

4real tho, why does Sup Forums hate so much on Kant? I like him, but I'm not the most informed person
please give me a tl;dr of his bad shit and WHY it's bad
kthx

Kant? Nietzsche's punching bag?

I've had to study Kant before and his problem is that he contradicts his won philosophies a lot

ok, so i reject the idea that reality is unique to me
therefore race and gender are universal facts
and OP is a faggot

>what is a hive mind, the thread

no it's not kraut

A compliment

Life is a dream. After I hit send, my vessel will be granted the unconditional love of a suitable female.

Ok, but I'm going to proceed to play this biological game because I want to. Now shut up and get the fuck out.

>And thus facts are subjective. Such as race and gender.

And yet he states this objectively as a fact, thereby contradicting himself. Like trying to take your eyeballs out of your head in an attempt to look at them, or lifting yourself up by your own shirt-collar. It's a logical absurdity and a fatal self-contradiction. If everything is subjective then nothing is true. I can't believe you're this stupid.

I think the best course of action for you would be to kill yourself.

Why not ... by the same metrics > enjoy facing the consequence of your unnatural, unsuccessful end of the line reasoning.

You must be some kind of "special" to think that you can get away with just being "unique" in factual reality.

>this book
gobbledygook
>doctrine of elements
heretical
>rejecting empiricism
EXTRA heretical

hans, get me the flammenwerfer

>How can reality be objective if our eyes are subjective?

Here's how I try to approach this problem:

Your brain is sort of a "model building machine" and every model has to be simpler than the phenomenon which it's modeling. To put it another way, your brain compresses sensory information in order to better digest and understand reality. This tends to produce errors, pic related

If you compare the "mental models" of a dozen people viewing the same information, all of these models will be different because they've compressed the sensory information in different ways. This is what we mean by "subjectivity" even though the underlying sensory information (ie "reality") is the same.

>The identity of the senses prevents the subject from knowing Noumena through reason, ENLIGHTENMENT SCIENTISTS BTFO

Kant's critiques of reason are simply metaphysical and not useful in any application.
He, as well as other Counter Enlightenment philosophers, sought to save religion, culture, and tradition from the intense criticism it would recieve from practical sciences.
In a cruel twist of fate, Kant and his disciples would set the ground work for postmodern epistemology and in doing so destroy all that he desired to preserve.

I'd say that is a natural law. But how would you structure the problem if, one day, someone made a proof of a model that became more complex than the phenomenon that created it?

Only your perception of reality can be argued to be unique to you. There is an objective reality which underlies and is independent of the subjective perceptions we have of our experiences of this objective reality.

>Unironically referencing Kant
Oh god we're hitting peak Leaf levels

Perception is the only way you interact with the independent, objective reality.
So if your structures and models of the world come through your subjective sense identities, then how can you say anything of the objective world for certain?

That was Kant's core critique, notice he doesn't offer much of a solution.

The answer is simply that study and consensus are the best way to give us an appoximation of the objective world.

(you)

>someone made a proof of a model that became more complex than the phenomenon that created it

If a model contains more information than the phenomenon which it's modeling, is it really a model?

Note that I'm not an expert in this field (or in any field for that matter)

However if 10 people look at someone and 9 of them agree that it is the same thing, that 1 outlier is probably wrong.

So if the whole Catholic Church agrees that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then it is true?

One faggot goes and says the opposite and everything falls to shit.

The problem with that suggestion alone is that it means facts are contingent upon consensus and are subject to change as time goes on.

>So if your structures and models of the world come through your subjective sense identities, then how can you say anything of the objective world for certain?
We can say nothing about anything with 100% certainty, but, with the use of empirical observations coupled with reasoning, we can formulate models which can allow us to more accurately predict outcomes and explain phenomena.

>can't say anything 100% certain
But Kant wants you to not say anything at all because it hurts his fee fees when someone criticizes religion and tradition.

There are Categories of Action which determine what we know.

...

True, but obviously an appeal to majority or some shit.

wow cant believe no one posted this. Read Kant Mother fuckers. German Idealism is a huge Red Pill.

also, """""

>

get absolutely BTFO. someone pls react so that I know that someone learned something from this.

It do you have the excerpt that explains why he is against race mixing?

Be a special snowflake - Kant

did you seriously ask me why germanic, Enlightenment europeans might be racist?? for a quote on that?

Kant didnt even leave his hometown!!! he's as xenophobic as it comes!!!!!!!

Maybe. But I wanna see his reasoning.

here you go then.

seems obvious....

academia.edu/1802951/Kants_Racism

"He's a racist" doesn't hold it's weight with anyone who has their head on their shoulders in 2017.

...

I like your approach. I have been thinking about it but never thought the word "compression". Now I understand myself better. Also, as "artist" I have this theory that the sum of all that mini-wrong models developes into our dreams (which I think are generated between a mix of synesthesia between all the senses (specially spacial ones) and memories in a crazy salad) and our art. Art its often about the right compression.

Im drunk and this rambling turned out weird. I need to organize my thoughts.

Tl dr: nice post man, you activated about 34 almonds.

The words are all jumbled together in the essay you sent. I'll just look for his original comments.

I think its should be BLARINGLY obvious that if the most MORAL and one of the most HIGHLY regarded philosophers of all time understand that races are VERY different and the africa sucks(which it still does) it falls that racism, in the segregated sense, is entirely sensible.

thats why its cited. every "quote" has a number that corresponds to section.

can you read German,?
do you read Kant?
do you understand how extremely obvious it is that Kant, who again, never left 20-30 miles from his hometown, and lived in the 18th century was.....

a little bit racist....

come on. you dont need to be a german idealist scholar to understand that do you?

The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling (Die Negers von Afrika haben von der Natur kein Geföhl, welches über das Läppische stiege).[3] Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have even been set free, still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality, even though among the whites some continually rise aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color. (Beobachtungen, 296-97; Observations, 110-11)

more for you pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol1/judy.html

Well we can't just base it off of just that. Does anyone here have Kant's comments on race mixing?

Well I think Kant would agree with your labeling of him as a racist.

...

i hope i satisfied you/

Kant was fucking cancer. He's what created postmodernism in the first place.

If his works weren't bad enough the interpretations are god awful.

Read a real philosopher, like Pinochet or Neitzche

ugh noooo. you fucking retard. go kill yourself.

immanuel kant the king of german idealism. i know you havent read him and neither has anyone else here apparently.

WOW
That quote sounds just like the enlightenment thinkers, the empiricists, rationalists, positivists.
It sounds just like the Men who founded the US upon Modernist views.


And yet, Kant's philosophical foundations led to the point we are today where truth and reality are linguistically or socially constructed. That there is no subject and object, but rather Being or Nothing.
It led to this nihilistic Postmodern world we observe today, from the teachings of Kant, to Hegel, to Nietzche, and Heidegger.
The Neo-Marxist undertones are found in the mid 20th century through men like Focault, Marcuse, Rorty, and (to a lesser extent) Derrida.


Man, but that Kant sure was redpilled and there weren't any other thinkers at the time suggesting these things while laying a superior framework that would better guide human evolution either, no sir-ee.

i makes me realize that if White Men actually read Kant the West who have been a much better place.

The philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism begins with Kant's “Copernican revolution,” that is, his assumption that we cannot know things in themselves and that objects of knowledge must conform to our faculties of representation (Kant 1787). Ideas such as God, freedom, immortality, the world, first beginning, and final end have only a regulative function for knowledge, since they cannot find fulfilling instances among objects of experience. With Hegel, the immediacy of the subject-object relation itself is shown to be illusory. As he states in The Phenomenology of Spirit, “we find that neither the one nor the other is only immediately present in sense-certainty, but each is at the same time mediated” (Hegel 1807, 59), because subject and object are both instances of a “this” and a “now,” neither of which are immediately sensed. So-called immediate perception therefore lacks the certainty of immediacy itself, a certainty that must be deferred to the working out of a complete system of experience. However, later thinkers point out that Hegel's logic pre-supposes concepts, such as identity and negation (see Hegel 1812), which cannot themselves be accepted as immediately given, and which therefore must be accounted for in some other, non-dialectical way.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

>regulative function
Can you explain what this means?

>children are going to read the critiques
literally what

anyway yeah that's fucking hilarious, all this shit is kant's fault anyway.

>Your realty is unique to you and thus facts are subjective
no my perception of realty might be unique but realty is real, whether you like it or not. 1+1=2 even if you think its 3. Facts are not subjective

Well it can't be a fact if it is subjective.

How do you know math has any application in the real world or that it is representative?
You presuppose that mathematics has anything to do with an independent, objective reality, so you're accepting an axiom that cannot be proven to be true.

I'm playing postmodernist's advocate.

Facts are contingent upon the time period.
It was common knowledge, a fact to the people at that time, that the Earth was flat less than a millenium ago.
Do you believe that everything you know now won't be amended or falsified in a few hundred years?

I have 5 fingers on my right hand. I have to hands. 5+5 =10. WOW maths really works. We also can use math to "predict" stuff in nature. For example how fast an apple will fall of a table. We can repeat that exercise and we will see that we can predict it every single time. The fact that we both use a pc to type this out proves that math works.

I literally quote a dialogue of Hegel and Kant saying Niggers are bad, wtf


the western world did not fall because of Kant or Hegel or Nietzsche.

they were long dead and their works unread.

the fall came during and after ww2 when the Christian Spirit of Europe tore at itself.

Marx should hold far more Ire than ALL german idealist or any enlightenment thinker

shame on all of you, especially if you are germanic or anglo

if you think reality is subjective then why do you school others

pic

are "things" material objects or metaphysical?
either way he seems kinda right, physical objects are filtered through the human visible spectrum, light travel time (not immediate), senses etc.
Metaphysical objects are filtered through upbringing, social environment, culture etc.

You can still day that a group belonging to the same race and ethnic group is likely to share the same reality since they use the same filters, therefore diversity isnt a good thing

Denying facts and patterns... I wouldn't expect anything less from a Canadian twink.

Death is also subjective. You should take this book with you when you jump test my theory.

So you're defining fact, not as the ultimate objective truth, but what is reasonable at the time, correct? For example, we would consider it a fact that there exists an atomic particle with a negative charge that we call an electron. But in the future, we may find out that this is not the case.

Mathematics is good for making models that approximate what will happen in reality, but they do not in FACT represent what is actually happening in reality.
That's why simulations are considered to never be 100% accurate. They give the best approximation possible and were created through trial and error.

I don't believe anything I'm typing.

So then how can anyone claim to know an objective truth now when all others before were discarded through trial and error in favor of something else.

I agree. We can only strive for the objective truth (as far as we can tell).

I disagree, but whatever.

Why do you think we can attain an objective truth?

>How do you know math has any application in the real world
>but they do not in FACT represent what is actually happening in reality.
goal post moved.
You are right they don't represent reality. Just like saying that facts are subjective wont make them so neither will me claiming 1+1=3 makes it actually 3. The FACT that 1+1 is still 2 proves that reality is just that real, no matter what I wrote,write or will write.

Fuck off you dumb post modernist cunt.

That's why math was invented so people can understand and see the same thing. Doesn't matter if you see different or have different feelings about it. The meaning of numbers stay the same.

Whatever created this reality is aware of the truth.
We'll call it God as a placeholder.
Given enough time for humanity to evolve sufficiently, I suspect one day, humanity will manage to discover immortality.
What happens to the probability when given infinite tries or time?
Everything becomes a certainty.

The discovery of God grants man the ability to know the objective Truth, something not contingent.

1+1=3 could be possible.
Numerals are very arbitrary metaphysical digits that don't necessarily correspond to noumena.

You can be any kind of nigger, leaf-faggot, but water is wet and 2+2 is 4.

Entirely possible, but do you think that this idea about what it takes to attain an objective truth is "going" to happen the way that you describe it? I think it's entirely possible that we will hit some sort of physical limitation that stops us from reaching that goal and that we currently don't know enough to make an accurate prediction.

It's possible our reliance on knowledge will fail us and we will have to use a new tool/sense that will get us there.

The only thing I worry about with what I suggested earlier was that our knowledge will begin to give us diminishing returns because our very knowledge is a simulated means of reaching truth.

Imagine I began walking to Church, I make the first 50% easily, then 25%, then 12.5%, then 6.25%, etc.
I get infinitesimally close to my church, but I'll never make it there because my very legs, the method I'm using to get there, won't allow me to finally reach my destination.


That will be for future generations to fret over though.

Numerals only work because it is collectively agreed upon.
If we are to disregard the collective and focus on the subjective interpretations of those numerals, then they are as meaningless as the next thing.

>Kant
>on Sup Forums
It's called pearls before the swine my leafy friend