Re: Kant
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:44 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Yes I agree "Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all time" even including Eastern Philosophers since Kant is more systematic and organized in his arguments.
In every way possible? Ubermensch has no relevance, the base idea is good, but what he says about such person is outdated, and doesn't relate to modern science.
He's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pmYeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
There is just reality. And the part of reality in our head is both a 'representation' and an 'ultimate real thing' at the same time. Not sure if he really got this, seems like he categorized this part as one or the other, but not both.
Kant is not easy to understand, that is why I had to spend 3 years full time [autodidact] plus I have referred to 7 English translations of the CPR.
Kant understood the above are argued convincingly against it.
You are simply waving nonsense. Anyone can do that easily.HexHammer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 amHe's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pmYeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
There is just reality. And the part of reality in our head is both a 'representation' and an 'ultimate real thing' at the same time. Not sure if he really got this, seems like he categorized this part as one or the other, but not both.
Those who like Kant falls flat on their faces for empty rhetorics just like you say 'ultimate real thing', it's a delusion that only dreamers will love.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality, study science instead, read the business version of Sun Tzu.
Because I'm a prodigy analyst, I have surpassed most people in analytics. I can do my own lawsuits and always beanted lawyers, since they can only parrot things so it's easy for me to find a weakness in their lawsuits.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 amYou are simply waving nonsense.
Ask yourself, what credibility do you have to condemn Kant's philosophical theories when you have not read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's view fully.
To insist you can is merely insulting your own intelligence.
If you have understood Kant's theories, you would have noticed the progress in morality and ethics within humanity since the last 1000 years or earlier is parallel [20%] with the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.
Thus if we can formalized the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics and put that into practice, humanity will have a system as ground to expedite the Moral Quotient of humanity.
"Trust me" that is a give away.HexHammer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:01 amBecause I'm a prodigy analyst, I have surpassed most people in analytics. I can do my own lawsuits and always beanted lawyers, since they can only parrot things so it's easy for me to find a weakness in their lawsuits.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 amYou are simply waving nonsense.
Ask yourself, what credibility do you have to condemn Kant's philosophical theories when you have not read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's view fully.
To insist you can is merely insulting your own intelligence.
If you have understood Kant's theories, you would have noticed the progress in morality and ethics within humanity since the last 1000 years or earlier is parallel [20%] with the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics.
Thus if we can formalized the Kantian system of Morality and Ethics and put that into practice, humanity will have a system as ground to expedite the Moral Quotient of humanity.
Been in administration and quality department of a big business as a snotty 20 y old, if you are gonna fight senior staff, directors and CEO ALL AT ONCE ..then you have to know what you are doing, else you will quickly be a head shorter!
If you are gonna scold the CEO then you must be very intelligent and know what you are talking about, else you are dead ..dead .....dead!!!
I've found simple solutions to big problems and thereby reduces many tasks with hours, even tho I was glaringly ignorant, I just understood the working principles where academics needs to study the answer to a problem, else they can't think for themselves and do weird things like "Goldberg Contraptions".
Many of my buddies have an IQ of 135+, but they can't think abstract. They have very poor analytical sense, they are extremely naive and will think everything in a book is admissible and 100% true, thereby fool themselves and parrot flawed or even wrong knowledge.
Trust me Kant is outdated!
Yes there is an image of the puppy in our head, so we presume that there's an puppy out there too, and a sort of mechanism or process between the two.
I've already looked into pretty much all of science and built from there, and no one gives a damn about business here, but thanks.HexHammer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 amHe's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pmYeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
There is just reality. And the part of reality in our head is both a 'representation' and an 'ultimate real thing' at the same time. Not sure if he really got this, seems like he categorized this part as one or the other, but not both.
Those who like Kant falls flat on their faces for empty rhetorics just like you say 'ultimate real thing', it's a delusion that only dreamers will love.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality, study science instead, read the business version of Sun Tzu.
Obviously the thing-in-itself is just an assumption nothing more, since we can't ever know 'what it's like' or whether it's even there. But I don't see any convincing argument why we shouldn't make this assumption.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 amKant is not easy to understand, that is why I had to spend 3 years full time [autodidact] plus I have referred to 7 English translations of the CPR.
I came from the Eastern Philosophy background. Why I invest the time and pursued Kant's philosophy is because I noted the parallel with Eastern Philosophy. Thus I can understand Kant's CPR reasonably well since Kant's philosophy in the CPR is parallel to those of Eastern Philosophy.
I have read the commentary of Kant's CPR from many famous philosophers and I noted >80% of them do not understand Kant's ultimate's view. Most of these are from the realists' camp, e.g. P. F. Strawson, Guyer, and the likes.
Kant's Categorical Imperatives [CIs] are ideals [Pure] and not meant to be applied to the real world, note Pure and Applied Mathematics.
The CIs in Kant's theory are the moral_rules-in-themselves, thus are the PURE ideals and illusions and are merely to be used as guides only for the "Applied Morality" which is 'Ethics".
viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744
Kant understood the above are argued convincingly against it.
Kant is not easy to understand, thus the German philosophers [Hegel, Schilling, Schopenhauer] who came after him missed Kant ultimate point and go suck into the whirlpool of illusion, as Kant proclaimed,
Schopenhauer in his "The World and Will and Representation" dedicated half of one of his very thick volume to argue against Kant's thing-in-itself [an illusion].
- They [things-in-themselves] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion [thing-in-itself], which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397
Schopenhauer argued the thing-in-itself is real as the Will and thus an inherent ground of reality. Schopenhauer got it wrong as being unceasingly mocked and tormented by that transcendental illusion.
The basic requirement is one need to spend at least 3 years full time to read Kant's CPR including secondary sources to understand Kant's view on the thing-in-itself. Even then, it is NO guarantee one will fully grasped Kant's philosophy of the thing-in-itself.
Note the case of Alison versus Guyer -both are experts on Kant with at least 40+ years on studying Kant's ultimate of the thing-in-itself. Both disagree with each other i.e. 100% opposite view, so one of them is right and the other did not understood Kant fully or both are wrong.
I agree with Alison's view on the thing-in-itself which cannot be objectify at all in anyway.
Btw, I got an MBA, and yes business management is irrelevant here.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:10 amI've already looked into pretty much all of science and built from there, and no one gives a damn about business here, but thanks.HexHammer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 amHe's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pmYeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
There is just reality. And the part of reality in our head is both a 'representation' and an 'ultimate real thing' at the same time. Not sure if he really got this, seems like he categorized this part as one or the other, but not both.
Those who like Kant falls flat on their faces for empty rhetorics just like you say 'ultimate real thing', it's a delusion that only dreamers will love.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality, study science instead, read the business version of Sun Tzu.
Your earlier point was Kant's philosophy is useless, e.g. the Categorical Imperative are not applicable to the real world.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 am
Yeah his categories just don't seem to be applicable to the real world. But I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong. Maybe it's because his categories put a nonsensical emphasis on human senses/perceptions.
Obviously the thing-in-itself is just an assumption nothing more, since we can't ever know 'what it's like' or whether it's even there. But I don't see any convincing argument why we shouldn't make this assumption.
And if we don't assume it then why stop there, maybe all of our experiences are illusions as well etc. so we end up with not being able to say anything about anything.
So why try to apply them to the real world then?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am Kant's Categorical Imperatives [CIs] are ideals [Pure] and not meant to be applied to the real world