Was Kant a Douchebag?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:53 pm

Amazingly enough, the sad, pathetic, imbecile for the ages, named Kant, is a hero of many on this forum. In addition to his repeated gibberish writings, some of his more immoral idiocy is set forth in the following quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race." (I'm white, but that is not the reason I'm so perfect, it's because I have blue eyes. Kant missed the blue-eyed part, the dumbass.)

It is alway immoral to lie, "even if lying saves an innocent life." (Telling a lie to save another's life would seem the morally right thing to do, but apparently hurting feelings by lying to someone is worse than chopping their head off.)

"The negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling." "The blacks are very vain but in the Negroe's way, and so talkative that they must be driven apart from each other with thrashings." (I guess you can't brag about whitey, unless you demonize blacks. What a jerk-off this guy was. Intellectual hero, my ass.)

He also had much to say about women, including that they were not possessed of "certain high insights," were "timid," and "not fit for serious employment." (Obviously, he never met Margaret Thatcher.)

Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?

Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Outsider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:04 pm

Who's your hero?

Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Outsider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:23 pm

"If by nature women were equal to men, and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely among nations so many and different some would be found, where both sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities. And since this is nowhere the case, one may assert with perfect propriety, that women have not by nature equal right with men." [Spinoza, Political Treatise, XI]

:roll:

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:50 am

Outsider wrote:Who's your hero?
Does it matter? Since I've been here people have been writing like crazy mentioning Kant as if he was some center of the moral and intellectual universe. In eading up on the guy, he was nothing but a loser. I just find it interesting that so many people think a racist, sexist, and immoral individual would be considered some sort of hero.

My heroes are people like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Franklin Douglas, and Lynda Carter has to get an honorable mention.

Impenitent
Posts: 2386
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Impenitent » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:25 am

no, Kant was a synthetic douche and an a priori bag...

-Imp

User avatar
Jonathan.s
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:47 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Jonathan.s » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:01 am

Kant is often said to be one of the three or four most significant philosophers in the history of the subject (the others being Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas). His writing is famously difficult and dense, and even his greatest admirers (for example Schopenhauer) have found it necessary to provide lengthy critiques and corrections to what they saw as his errors.

Nevertheless, according to the SEP
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields.
Probably the most important aspect of his work was the so-called 'copernican revolution' in philosophy, which said that, rather than 'thoughts conforming to things, that things conform to thoughts'.

There is not much understanding of the importance of Kant's arguments, particularly amongst scientists, who tend towards one or another form of realism - that is, the conviction that reality can be thought of in terms wholly independent of the perceiving intelligence.

But overall, I think Kant's work has stood the test of time well. It is a subject I would like to understand better.

Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Outsider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:30 pm

What we have learned here today is that anybody who challenges our modern morals is ill.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:48 pm

Jonathan.s wrote:Kant is often said to be one of the three or four most significant philosophers in the history of the subject (the others being Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas). His writing is famously difficult and dense, and even his greatest admirers (for example Schopenhauer) have found it necessary to provide lengthy critiques and corrections to what they saw as his errors.

Nevertheless, according to the SEP
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields.
Probably the most important aspect of his work was the so-called 'copernican revolution' in philosophy, which said that, rather than 'thoughts conforming to things, that things conform to thoughts'.

There is not much understanding of the importance of Kant's arguments, particularly amongst scientists, who tend towards one or another form of realism - that is, the conviction that reality can be thought of in terms wholly independent of the perceiving intelligence.

But overall, I think Kant's work has stood the test of time well. It is a subject I would like to understand better.
Kant also stated that wars were good, it brought people together, which made him something of a fascist goon. I note that you did not try to defend him based on his moral beliefs, which I think have been shown to be false and childish. And this is a man whom modern philosophy considers a big-shot? Simply amazing.

If Kant stated that things conform to our minds, what does that even mean, and what evidence did he put forth to support his theory? Our brain does, in fact, on occasion, with respect to some things, fill in the blanks. For example, TV screens, when they shut off, you see a grey screen. That is as dark as the screen ever gets when it is turned on. Our brains fill in the dark spots, like when a movie is showing a night scene. However, for this, we have empirical evidence, and we have an understanding of how the wiring in our brains brings this about. The fact is anyone who thinks that some old-timey racist philosopher's suggestion about physical reality is superior to anything going on by use of the modern scientific method is either delusional, ignorant as hell, or simply doesn't care to learn. Kant's empirical speculations should be buried along with his racism, sexism, and pro-war stance.

Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Outsider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:54 pm

ForgedinHell wrote: Kant's empirical speculations should be buried along with his racism, sexism, and pro-war stance.
Are you denying that "War is not the father of all things"?

Is violence a fairytale?

Do things come about without war or violence for you?

What's it like in your fairyworld?

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:02 pm

Outsider wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: Kant's empirical speculations should be buried along with his racism, sexism, and pro-war stance.
Are you denying that "War is not the father of all things"?

Is violence a fairytale?

Do things come about without war or violence for you?

What's it like in your fairyworld?
You used a double negative, which would mean you stated war sucks, which is what my position is. Do you really expect anyone here to believe you are some warrior? LOL. You are probably hiding a squirt gun under your bed for protection.

Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Outsider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:26 pm

ForgedinHell wrote:
Outsider wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: Kant's empirical speculations should be buried along with his racism, sexism, and pro-war stance.
Are you denying that "War is not the father of all things"?

Is violence a fairytale?

Do things come about without war or violence for you?

What's it like in your fairyworld?
You used a double negative, which would mean you stated war sucks, which is what my position is.
The last time I checked Shakespeare and Chaucer used double-negatives for emphasis, and that's the Line I come from... I hope I didn't offend any of your Grammar Gods and such Alphabet Masters Yjhsjgqh because you calling Shakespeare and Chaucer a Nazi or an anti-semite because they don't agree with your grammar rules could be a little too funny for me to take.

And looks like my emphasis worked - enough to get you to not be wishywashy and admit your position for the record.

For the record, Fih, believes war and violence have no existence in the creation of things; in effect he is calling himself a Coward, because
1. Kant was a douchebag and unheroic for his pro-violence stance, and
2. Fih has been boasting of nothing but his pro-violence stand and his muskles and gym and beating people up and beating women up and offering 1000$ for it and plucking out an eye...

wow, have a nice trip falling down on your own :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do you really expect anyone here to believe you are some warrior? LOL. You are probably hiding a squirt gun under your bed for protection.
What good are you as a lawyer fooling to help people when you cannot even look after yourself, shooting same side goals dumba--.

Idiot, why does it always come to issues of fear and protection with you - must be one big scaredykat hiding inside you... I can see its driving you krazy making you dream of guns and hidden enemies and nazis... how traumatic.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:21 pm

Outsider wrote:
For the record, Fih, believes war and violence have no existence in the creation of things; in effect he is calling himself a Coward, because
1. Kant was a douchebag and unheroic for his pro-violence stance, and
2. Fih has been boasting of nothing but his pro-violence stand and his muskles and gym and beating people up and beating women up and offering 1000$ for it and plucking out an eye...

wow, have a nice trip falling down on your own :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do you really expect anyone here to believe you are some warrior? LOL. You are probably hiding a squirt gun under your bed for protection.
What good are you as a lawyer fooling to help people when you cannot even look after yourself, shooting same side goals dumba--.

Idiot, why does it always come to issues of fear and protection with you - must be one big scaredykat hiding inside you... I can see its driving you krazy making you dream of guns and hidden enemies and nazis... how traumatic.
Writing more gibberish again? How do you manage to write so much without making a single-coherent point? You and Chaz definitely have something in common.

Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Atthet » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:35 pm

You're so, so right ForgedinHell! Kant was a douchebag! I agree with you, and your insights into philosophy and morality are just, inspiring to say the least! Keep up the good work, and keep producing worthwhile reading material, ForgedinHell!

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:52 pm

Atthet wrote:You're so, so right ForgedinHell! Kant was a douchebag! I agree with you, and your insights into philosophy and morality are just, inspiring to say the least! Keep up the good work, and keep producing worthwhile reading material, ForgedinHell!
Well, put it this way, how many people here claim kant is some sort of intellectual hero? How many times after someone loses a debate, they try to feign victopry by writing, "You should read Kant" "If you would read Kant, you would know what I am talking about"? And yet, what do we discover when we actually read his writings? That he was a racist. He was a sexist. He was a fascist, who thought war was a good thing for building character. That means he was a zero.

The only person on here who offered any defense for him claimed that Kant wrote that our brains create reality. Yet, I mentioned scientific findings that show when the brain does embellish on what it receives in terms of signals, it actually often constructs the image to conform to physical reality. An example is our brains will observe a lump of coal outside as black, while we will see a snow ball in a dark room as white, despite the fact the photons impinging on the brain show the coal to be lighter than the snow ball. In other words, if the writer above is correct, then Kant got it completely ass backwards.

So, why waste anyone's time mentioning Kant? Are we supposed to foolishly believe that by studying the ravings of a racist who got his science ass backwards that we are going to educate ourselves? The man was a douchebag, an idiot, a rube, and the fact he is a hero of philosophy just proves how utterly worthless and destructive philosophy is as a discipline.

Ram
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: Was Kant a Douchebag?

Post by Ram » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:55 pm

First, even if Kant were a racist, and a philosopher, it doesn't follow that his racism was logically related to his philosophy. And in fact, countless people have studied Kant's philosophy with interest, without being aware of any racist side in him.

Second, Kant has natural-scientific credentials as well. He is recognized as one of the authors of the standard "nebular hypothesis" concerning the formation of the solar system (aka the Kant-Laplace hypothesis).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests