Kant

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Kant

Post by uwot » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:44 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:25 pm
It is insane to assume that phenomena have a 'cause'. Why would anyone do that?
It's the default position. I'm fairly confident that if a child sees a puppy, they presume it's because the puppy exists.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:06 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:18 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:49 am
That is not even an argument. Its just nonsense, Kantian nonsense if you like.
For myself and many others Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all time.
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.
There are many other 'greatest' philosophers from Eastern Philosophy, but they are not that organized intellectually since their focus is more on spiritual and self-development.

I don't agree with Kant totally - 5% especially his reference to deism which is not a serious issue as that can be substituted with a non-deistic substitute.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:17 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:19 pm
So, in what way EXACTLY do you think KANT is out of date?
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 Ubermensch has no relevance, the base idea is good, but what he says about such person is outdated, and doesn't relate to modern science.
Only glaringly ignorant people would find Kant interesting, glaringly ignorant about basic science.

Have you ever heard about any army that wants to develop super soldiers to hire a philosopher that knows Kant? Infact where in society does a big business want a philosopher?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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.

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.
He's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.

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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am

Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Yadda yadda ..bla bla...bla...
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
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.

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.
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
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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 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,
  • 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 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].
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.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:55 am, edited 3 times in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 am

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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.

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.
He's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.

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.
You are simply waving nonsense. Anyone can do that easily.
Ask yourself, what standing and 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 formalize 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.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 am
You 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.
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.
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!

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:18 am

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 am
You 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.
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.
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!
"Trust me" that is a give away.
IQ is a very limited measurement of the holistic and whole person.

If you are highly analytical, then you should be above to analyze Kant's philosophy.
I would not insist you read every philosopher, but Kant is one of the greatest (I think THE greatest) philosopher of all times. Thus Kant deserved to be read and understood [not necessary agree] before you condemn his views as outdated.

What observed is the best of those analytic philosophers, e.g. P. F. Strawson, Guyer and others ended with the wrong views of Kant's ultimate view of the thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

So even if you [analytically driven] have read and 'understood' Kant you are likely to end up with wrong view of Kant's ultimate stance on the thing-in-itself, i.e. not anything objective.

Because you are analytical, you are likely to be led by pseudo rational syllogisms as Kant stated here driven by existential psychological compulsions;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [thing-in-itself] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions [things-in-themselves] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason
    .
    CPR-B397
Read the above slowly and carefully.

Note the above is similar to Hume's claim "there is real cause for every effect" is pseudo-rational. Hume argued why humans arrived at the "certainty" of a cause for every effect is due to psychology, i.e. of customs, habits and constant conjunction.
The mother of all certainty is to claim the ultimate cause is God!

Kant claimed those of analytic philosophy are led by the nose to reify a final objective cause, by their psychology.
This is why it is so critical to understand this limitation and thus one can be more human and contribute to humanity at the highest level.

Let me predict,
you will definitely wave above as nonsense and outdated, and that would be without any solid justification.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:07 am

uwot wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:44 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:25 pm
It is insane to assume that phenomena have a 'cause'. Why would anyone do that?
It's the default position. I'm fairly confident that if a child sees a puppy, they presume it's because the puppy exists.
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.

That doesn't mean that phenomena are 'caused', how is that a default position?
Last edited by Atla on Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 am, edited 3 times in total.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:10 am

HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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.

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.
He's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.

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.
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.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Kant

Post by Atla » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
HexHammer wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:14 am
Why would anyone waste time on Kant, the babblehead? It's outdated nonsense!!
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.

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.
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
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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 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,
  • 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 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].
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.
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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:10 am
HexHammer wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:24 am
Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm
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.

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.
He's outdated because everything what he says are replaced by newer things.

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.
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.
Btw, I got an MBA, and yes business management is irrelevant here.
However, some of the principles are universal and apply everywhere, e.g. principles of management, problem solving techniques, strategic planning, and others.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Kant

Post by HexHammer » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:00 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:10 am
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.
Ever taken an IQ test? ..it's about 98 or something? Maybe even lower?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am

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.
Your earlier point was Kant's philosophy is useless, e.g. the Categorical Imperative are not applicable to the real world.

Kant's reason for throwing in the noumenon [empirical related thing-itself] is to understand the basis of knowledge [a priori and a posteriori] thoroughly without a doubt except for the noumenon.

The empirical is supported by reason, but there are reasons without empirical basis, Kant assumed and assigned the thing-in-itself to such reasoned ideas based on pure reason. One of such ultimate thing-in-itself is God, a transcendental illusion.

Now that God is proven be illusory thus impossible to be real, such a proof is very practical to wean off theism and cut off the grounds of all theistic driven evil and violent acts committed in the name of a supposedly real God.

The illusory thing-in-itself is also manifested the Categorical Imperatives which are ideals and illusion, but they are very useful as guides to the practical ethics to improve the moral and ethics competence of humans. Kant provided very sophisticated and refined arguments to justify this in reconciling 'ought from is' morally and apply ought back to 'is' ethically.

To top it all, all the elements of the Philosophy of Kant are to support his vision and mission of Perpetual Peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... cal_Sketch

Thus Kantian Philosophy [from the deepest roots of humanity] has an intense practical intent in contrary to your pessimism and skepticism.
It is just that such a subject is not ABC and unfortunately Kant is not a good writer thus difficult for most to grasp his ideas.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Kant

Post by A_Seagull » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:38 am

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
So why try to apply them to the real world then?

And if they are ideals...for whom or what are they 'ideal'?

If they merely demonstrate a certain degree of internal consistency but no connection to the real world, then they are indistinguishable from fantasy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests