Perhaps it's not the world that's wrong

Your realty is constructed by your unique experience, and thus unique to you.
Thus perhaps it's not the world that is
wrong, but your view of it, such as your expectations.
This is not to say that there is a right way to view the world, only that the bad way makes ones upset.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/vZQJFbrqjUY
youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po
youtube.com/watch?v=3bB8LIk0_2M
youtube.com/watch?v=S-znw35eCkg
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/external_world
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Oh look it's the Kant Canadian again. Stoic Philosophy is the most wise and practical of all and as the Greak Marcus Aurelius once said, "Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one."

*Great

Also forgot to post the pic.

>Stoic Philosophy is the most wise and practical of all
Is it not practical to be rational?

>Your realty is constructed by your unique experience, and thus unique to you.
I guess you mean 'reality' when talking about 'realty'. if so, this is mere sophistry, pseudo-poetic metaphors taken at face value. there's no such thing as my reality or your reality, there's only reality and everyone's own distorted, mostly incorrect and very incomplete view of it.

Kant is my favorite (I think)

I mean "the reality that you perceive," not idealism. Idealism is the biggest straw man ever created.

But of course. Stoicism is just that and it really should be self-evident.

>"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of 'virtue,' as Kant would have it, is pernicious."

youtu.be/vZQJFbrqjUY

Maybe Kant was talking about a way of perceiving virtue not understood by the individual that is useful to the hierarchy of tradition.

>Kant
literally irrelevant now. He was important at the start of German idealism, but people like Schopenhauer and Hagel built upon his shit enough where reading about memes like the categorical imperative is just silly.

Mix in some Epicurianism as well, the other main Roman philosophical camp. They give a practical guide to achieving happiness.

Here's to a northern border wall...

>the glass is half empty or half full...you decide.

The skeptic always wins in the debate between realism and idealism as neither can be shown to be true. You either take that mind behests matter as an a priori assertion, or matter acts as the conduit for the mind as your a priori. Both a logical and rational, but no argument can prove it either way, so the skeptic wins in his assertion that reality is fundamentally unknowable.

t. Schopenhauer - the world as will and idea

you're talking about practical reason now... synthetic a priori

The irony

>Kant
>German Idealism
Talk out of your ass more. Kant was the last person to significantly advance the field. Schopenhauer literally added nothing but his opinions and phenomenology is interesting and actually my preferred method of approaching reality but I'm aware that it's nothing but that, a preferred method, specifically because of Kant, and you would be to had you read anything more than some opinion pieces or wikipedia articles.

didn't he become a bit of a solipsistic?

*A bit solipsistic

where my merleau-ponty niggas at

Damn straight!

Kek, I can definitely see the irony but in my defence I am about to go to bed and have quite a productive day ahead of me tomorrow.

youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po

Represent!

I'm only half way through the book, but I haven't picked that up so far. He is definitely an idealist though as materialism is just an extra step to explain our experience.

>Talk out of your ass more
Nigga, the entire German idealism era spawned from Kants work. So much has been added and critiqued in his work by German idealists. His work is only important in understanding the works of philosophers that followed.

Yes Schopenhauer's works are mostly phenomenological, but that is the most fundamental field in philosophy. His system of analyzing the world allows you to see thorough some of Kant's more silly arguments.

Kant is only good for context on the works of superior philosophers.

We PoMo here. You get your stupid ass off this board

pomo are just a sad excuse for romanticists who think derrida was saying pic related about rationalism as a whole:

you a bitch

Tried to read this book but I Kant seem to understand what the fucking this guy is talking about.

>Tried to read this book but I Kant seem to understand what the fucking this guy is talking about.
T. Brainlet

u mad nobody actually reads your philosophy's books faggot?

Pomo is the big bang theory of philosophy.

>deontology
lol

also pomo is pretty much the foundation for most political and social movements since the 60's. So yeah people read pomo, and it has an effect on society.

The construction is both a prio and a posteriori. This book is terrible, read second authors.

>believing in consequentialism when the frame problem exists
only big brain nibbas understand the categorical imperative

>also pomo is pretty much the foundation for most political and social movements since the 60's that are variations on marxism. So yeah people regurgitate what their professors (who also haven't read anything), and it has an effect on society.
ftfy

>only big brain nibbas understand the categorical imperative
Categorical imperative is a shit. Has the famous "if a dude comes in and asks where your son is so that he can murder him" paradox. You have to answer, because if you didnt answer then you would be disobeying the imperative (if all people in the world didnt answer questions society would be shit) and if you lied you would also be disregarding it.

>>also pomo is pretty much the foundation for most political and social movements since the 60's that are variations on marxism. So yeah people regurgitate what their professors (who also haven't read anything), and it has an effect on society.
Hurr hurr marxism stoopid hurr hurr

This thread again? Didn't the Overman beat him to death with his own words?

>Categorical imperative is a shit. Has the famous "if a dude comes in and asks where your son is so that he can murder him" paradox. You have to answer, because if you didnt answer then you would be disobeying the imperative (if all people in the world didnt answer questions society would be shit) and if you lied you would also be disregarding it.
>ha, see, this incredibly idiotic strawman of the categorical imperative PROVES it's wrong!
good job misunderstanding it the exact fucking way idiots always do.

>marxism
>not a basic bitch idea
didn't say it was stupid (it is) I said that implying pomo is responsible for most current movements is disingenuous if you don't mean it in the most grandiose and enveloping meaning of "responsible". Is it responsible for marxist variations on social theory? Yes. Is it responsible for transhumanism, the new rationalists, literally every other economic theory, accelerationism? Fucking lol.

You are spouting basic bitch gender studies garbage. Tell me the most interesting idea your favorite pomo philosopher.

Really he cleared up the idea of the imperative for the idiots who believed kant was invoking no hierarchy for moral actions.

>good job misunderstanding it the exact fucking way idiots always do.
Good job correcting me. I sure know what I did wrong and that the categorical imperative has no problems, especially ones that can just be literally googled under "problems with the categorical imperative" and be provided by well read sources.

>didn't say it was stupid (it is) I said that implying pomo is responsible for most current movements is disingenuous if you don't mean it in the most grandiose and enveloping meaning of "responsible"
Post structuralism is pomo, is responsible for a lot on the philosophy of language, and is directly responsible for the whole gender thing, as well as decoloniality.
Nigga you dont know shit

you've posted this before and once again you're demonstrating you know nothing of Kant.
Kant proved that synthetic apriori can be BOTH REAL AND TRUE. In other words, there is an objective world outside our own perceptions.
Stop repeating this subjectivity garbage. Kant in fact proved just the opposite.

nigga how. Post proofs, because thats not how the rest of the academic community interprets it, in fact thats the whole point of the idea of the categories, in that they are the building blocks of analysis, and that they are how the noumenal world is interpreted, by necessity becoming the phenomenal world

>Apply Kant critique to Kant.
>Nothing remains.
>Makes you think.

Kant is the biggest cuck of a 'philosopher' I have ever read.

so it is our perception that is wrong?

ty leaf, i suspected it was me not understanding complexity of this world and all those hard working honest bureaucrats that toil every day to make this heaven on earth possible. im blue pill now.

Could never get down with the categorical imperative.

people who believe it are bitches with a thirst for christs cock and a desperate overwhelming desire to have some objective standard with which to live by

And by ‘superior philosophers’ you can only mean Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Trump is a KANTIAN, HE'S A GERMAN IDEALIST. Have you read the works of frederich schelling? Have you read the criticial historical introduction on the philosophy of mythology? Schelling was a German Idealist philosopher, he was roommates with Holderland, and with Hegel. Trump is going to derive the complete system. Kant could not complete the system.

1st Critique, written in 1781--Trump is KANTIAN! I want everyone here to know, Donald Trump is a KANTIAN. HE'S A GERMAN IDEALIST

K-kantbot

Kant's work mainly results from assuming Cognition is an instrument.

Hegel's work mainly results from assuming Cognition is the Absolute.

Schopenhauer's work mainly results from being wrong.

>Schopenhauer's work mainly results from being a virgin.
ftfy

>Be skeptical of everything mang it's the height of knowledge and self-awareness.
>C O N T E X T U A L I Z E
I think the "everything is a mental construct" people are really vying for the obnoxious throne with the "just be rational objective logical empirical my guy" people.

Just so we're clear, Kant isn't an empiricist. Unique experience doesn't somehow change the way we experience things for him. For Kant the system by which we think as humans is pretty much universal. We intuit Nounema in space and time, and this intuition becomes a concept in our minds. This concept is linked with the first "concept" in our minds, that is the "I". Our world then keeps uniting concepts into a manifold, and concepts within the manifold are related to each other by the Understanding by Kant's Categories. Then, Reason either unifies certain concepts in the Understanding into one concept, or divides them into multiple concepts.

The only part that changes between each person is the "intuition" part, and the tendency of your Reason to unify vs. divide. You can't change your worldview. You can add new concepts that the Understanding will then bring into order in your mind, and then your Reason will do its thing, but you can't "change the way you see the world."

At least according to Kant.

"Our World" in the 5th sentence should be "Our mind."

Here's a little poem dedicated to Kant
>Let us first divide cognition, into rational analysis
>and sensory perception (which Descartes considered valueless)
>Now, reason gives us concepts;
>which are true but tautological
>sensation gives us images whose content is phenomenal
>Whatever greets our senses must exist in space and time
>for else it would be nowhere, and nowhen; and there for slime
>the space and time we pressupose before we sense reality
>must have innate subjective transcendental ideality
>these constant laws, by which we shape experience,
>are simply those which regulate our reason: that is plain.
>So don't ask why the stars display invariance;
>the Cosmos is produced by your disoriented brain!

hmmmmmmm...
I'm pretty sure that this is not what Kant says on the KrV.

I just kant even.

We don't intuit noumena. We intuit phenomena always within the two pure a priori forms of sensibility (space and time, as you said). This is really important, since the whole point of the KrV is that we can't have intuition of the noumena (something that Kant calls "intellectual intuition"; be very careful when using this expression: in german idealism (e.g. Fichte) means something radically different).
However, the generation of the concept from the phenomena we percive is way more complex than what you say; it involves a faculty called "imagination" (and it's a priori forms, called "schemes"), which mediates between the perception (which a priori forms are, as we said, space and time) and the reasoning (which has as a priori forms the 12 categories).

>Holderland
I fuck with this guy.

He has seen what makes the shadows on the cave wall, meanwhile we only have a faint idea that what we see are just shadows

This free-to-do-anything, bubble thinking ignores a lot of aspects: the instinctual life, the effect of environment upon you, the archetypes of human evolution. It's sounds humble but is actually puting the ego in the middle of the reality. By its nature is an implosion. If everything is so "unreal", you may consider suicide, what difference will this make, right?

You did a pretty inaccurate lecture of Kant. However, Sup Forums should be more interested in the 2nd Critique than in the first one.

I'll give you my view on which you said about the Categorial Imperative.
The Categorial Imperative says something like "do things in such a way that the reason why you did it could be universalitzable" (I apologise if my english is not ok. I don't know wtf is happening to me today, I'm having trouble to write properly).
The reason why I would lie in such a situation is to save my son's life. This seems a pretty universalitzable thing. End of the story.
The objection you made is pretty common in the kantian discussion circles, even in the academical world, but, to be honest, I've never seen the point of it.

When I said we intuit noumena I mean that noumena makes an impression on us, and what we actually receive and start to work with is phenomena.

You're right it is more complicated that I made it out to be. I was making the point that the general schema he lays out doesn't change for different people.

Also the 12 categories belong to the Understanding, not to Reason.

>The reason why I would lie in such a situation is to save my son's life. This seems a pretty universalitzable thing. End of the story.
Then its not a single imperative, its context dependent, and therefore subservient to context. As such it is not universal and objective, defeating the purpose of the imperative.

Golden Rule is a shit. Has the famous "I would want others to kill me if I was gay, so I will kill gays for their sake" paradox. You have to kill them, because if you don't then you would not be doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yeah, I just didn't know how to translate "entendimiento" to english. It was pretty obvious. I don't know what's happening to me today, I can't write english properly.

What you just said about the noumena causing the impression on us is also an important point: most of the kantian critics saw in this a remain of dogmatism. This was a pretty stupid mistake made by Kant just at the beggining of the Trascendental Aesthetics (A19/B33). He could just have omited this and the whole Critique would have been more consistent (I mean, even though this is obviously dogmatism, you can "cross it out" by yourself when reading this).

No worries. Speaking about philosophy is hard enough in your first language, much less speaking about it in another.

Does this mean that German Idealism intended to hand over Jerusalem to the Jews?

nonono, it does not work like this.
Imagine that I lied in such a situation. The practical principle (propositions that determine the Will) that determined me (my Will) to do such a thing has to be universalitzable (i.e. if everyone's Will was determined by such a principle, would that lead to a "contradiction"?). There are two types of practical principles: Laws and Maximes (?? i don't know how this has been translated to english, sorry). Only Laws are universalitzable. Hence, which the Categorial Imperative is saying is "act according to Laws". "I must not lie" is not, in my opinion, a law, or not in a higher degree that something like "I must care for my son's life" would be. That's what I was trying to say.

btw guys, I've been thinking for a while of start a website where us, the people from Sup Forums, could have this kind of theoretical discussions, share papers, resources,...
The main reason why I would like to do this is because Sup Forums's interface is really unfriendly to do this kind of things (mainly because it has no login). I was even thinking of opening (God forgive me) a subreddit.
Would any of the intellectuals in this thread support this? Any thoughts?

*starting

Well I'll say this. I don't know what your political opinions are, but I'm assuming they're fairly right wing since you're on Sup Forums.

The alt-right has a need for intellectuals. Right now all it has are Evola and Dugin, who's views don't actually line up particularly well with most of the people on this site. If you created a website or subreddit I'd be in favor of it, cause ultimately the anonymous nature of this website makes it hard to really create a dialogue outside of a thread.

In which case its
"act as if it were to be a universal law... unless it costs you more to do so", defeating the whole purpose of it. Making things dependent on context removes any power that the imperative has, making it essentially a matter of self-interest, which kant was very much against.

basically by making a hierarchical arrangement of values the categorical imperative fails, as the very presence of the hierarchy implies that there is some underlying structure that underpins society and makes things more valuable that others, defeating the idea of the imperative yet again, as the imperative becomes subservient to these more valuable ideas raising the question "how do we classify and act on these important values". Once again making the imperative useless as the imperative was supposed to provide an answer to this

I 100% agree. We have to give the alt-right a solid theoretical foudation.
I've been talking of this with two friends of mine already, and we will soon start it. If you are interested, we can contact each other somehow (email, whatever) and get this started.

I'm not sure if this is a linguistic problem, but the Categorial Imperative does not say that what you do has to be makeable (pretty sure this word does not exist lol) by everyone; it says that the """reason""" why you do what you do has to be assumable (i made this one up to) by everyone.
We agree on this, right?

I've got a throwaway/half-used email.
[email protected]

Hit me up, it might be a bit before I respond though

cool! It may take a few days for me to mail you... I'm overloaded with exams and stuff, and I won't be free until the 22nd of december

Thats not what every other source on kant says it means, you are essentially making an assumption about other people making assumptions. Thats really shit for a deontology.

nice.

What do you think about the theoretical discussion web btw?

there is no alt right

Dont want to be a downer but it wont work. The alt-right does not exist as an ideology, but a vast and diverse group of almost always conflicting ideologies held together by hatred of liberalism. Its pomo as fuck in that it is entirely decentralised and lacking any central doctrine

I knew that we were having a problem here. This whole confussion with the Categorial Imperative is due a change on it's meaning that Kant himself made between the KpV ant the Foundations.
I'll ask a professor on my Uni who's an expert on Kant!

That's exactly why there's intellectual potential within it, and Sup Forums does not encourage this kind of discussion.

Immanuel Kant: me big fan.

Predicting the cognitive dissonance will be strong in this thread.

But this contradict what you just said.

I'm a firm believer in the Jungian collective unconscious, therefore I believe there's waves of human realizations which it's the thing memes tap into.

Also a mapuche tenor because why not.

youtube.com/watch?v=3bB8LIk0_2M

That is because on Sup Forums you see the "alt-right", and you see that its composed of everything from civnat neoliberals who say "democrats are the real racists MAGA" to hardcore nazbols who wish only to ethnically cleanse their lands and destroy capitalism. Its far too large and every movement utterly loathes each other.

But they all want to go back home, that unites them all as the concept of home it's a Noumenon.

youtube.com/watch?v=S-znw35eCkg

nigga what

A pre conceived notion based on the understanding of things being despise your perception of them, it's based on the Platonic idealism and the simple realization that even if you don't hear it that tree still made a sound.

Bump for enlightment.

>This thread again? Didn't the Overman beat him to death with his own words?
THIS

>nazbols
You don't know what that word means. Dugin wants whites dead.

Sup Forums nazbols and most outside of russia have zero connection to dugin

Immanuel Cant

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/external_world

what did he mean by this

Everyone needs to SHUT UP!

> only that the bad way makes ones upset.
Discontent is what moves a man's hairy ass faster than anything. You should always be in control of yourself and your emotions, but not to the point of stagnation. So, if you look at modern human mating conventions and the effect they have on society, a reaction that makes you upset is the most likely to make you do something that will be good for you and your children in the long run. Just because something is "the way things are" doesn't make it right, or even practical, and history is littered with that sort of collective mistake. Slavery, genocide, and brutal regimes.