So does anyone actually understand what the fuck his philosophy was or do we just pretend that we do?
>>18700251We simply Kant know for sure what his philosophy truly was...
I don't claim to understand Kant and kant be bothered to read his notoriously dry writing, but I think I understand his idea of the Categorical Imperative.>what you do should be a universal maxim
>>18700251I think his moral argument for God is interesting, to say the least, though it's probably not sound. Still cool though. Other than that I don't know much about Kant other than the very basics, like his idealism, his categories, the basics of his denotology. I have not studied him in depth and I'm more familiar with classical philosophy. I hope to one day read him and at least get a working understanding of him but, as far as I can tell, he thought is extremely in-depth and takes a lifetime of study to gain a scholarly understanding of this man and his thought. He is one of the giants of modern philosophy. He shifted the whole paradigm of it. I think he even influenced scientists as well. I know he was the first to come up with the nebular hypothesis which was shown to be scientifically true. Einstein also read him and got something out of him.
Descartes>Mathematics are the blueprints reality. Anything can be designed or predicted perfectly with math and 0 observations.Hume>Math deceives people into thinking real life is as objective and logical as Math. We always need to observe as much as possible. Kant>We can take the random observations of Hume's universe and contort it to the logic of math till it contradicts itself. (eg. Apple Falling > Newtons Laws > Einsteins Laws)Hegel>Kant's system applies to all of human history, not just science. Marx>And its technology what causes systems to contradict themselves. Not people thinking up contradictions with their mind alone.
I really tried and all I remember is basically like the golden rule type thing, and that also you are born with some knowledge.
The world does not reflect reality but instead we make reality reflect how our mind organizes things. There are universal and necessary ideas but they don't reflect metaphysics but those law like regularities or pricinples that are ultimately the output of the mind. Secretly, it is actually very hard to not act in line with his views. You never for example tell a chemistry professor there is no need to explain phenomena in their terms because physics classes exist. Both are seen instead as reflecting their respective phenomena. This is a Kantian view. Cognitive and neuroscience are heirs to Kant as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w&t=1shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQnG0fyEr_whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89xjsBW9AAI&t=1shttps://youtu.be/DbjZEDR5EXI?si=2Q7egv3lTwi3ohvzhttps://youtu.be/gjzKATrXHmw?si=pDqNJ2nBZL-DOVNL
Kant also fully formulated a major account of metaethical non-natural realism. Kantian metaethical constructivism holds that moral principles are not discovered as mind-independent moral facts but are constructed through rational practical deliberation which appear as logical rules and principles. On this view, moral norms are justified because they are principles that rational agents would endorse under appropriate conditions of practical reasoning. For Kant this meant by Kant’s categorical imperative. Moral objectivity therefore comes from the universal requirements of practical reason rather than from an independently existing realm of moral properties or some natural feature of the world.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e_yqyOh6Z4
Kant also has his own view of aesthetics and beauty. Kant held beauty as pleasure were just as false as feelings of pleasure as evidence of religion. They reflected our own desires rather than anything real. For Kant, beauty is experienced through a disinterested pleasure, meaning we appreciate something without desiring to possess or use it. A judgment that something is beautiful arises from the harmonious “free play” of imagination and understanding, and although it is based on subjective feeling, we nevertheless expect others to agree with our judgment. Beauty therefore involves a distinctive kind of subjective universality: we cannot prove that something is beautiful through concepts or rules, yet we regard our judgment as having a claim on everyone’s assent. This was a part of his later work in the Third Critique.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Ab7qCHjnEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kb8Vc-hUBU
>>18701890>>18701923the system seems innocuous on its surface, but Kant is the literal originator of globohomo. Woodrow Wilson is described as the "most Kantian" president.
Kant is also the main theorist of human rights and the state behind what we recognize as the state . Kant argues that the central purpose of politics is to establish a rightful condition in which the external freedom of each person can coexist with the freedom of everyone else under universal laws. A reciprocal order of duties in other words. This requires a republican constitution grounded in individual freedom, legal equality, representative government, and the rule of law;. Kant argues that republics should also be less inclined toward war because citizens themselves bear its costs and the state has an obligation to the individual. A state that serves only a single person for example fails is this basic rationality or if only served one family in charge of a state or some religious authority. Kant theorized something like a UN but not as we have it. The idea is because states exist in something like a state of nature or market with each other. As a result states should form a federation or league of free states committed to resolving conflicts without war rather than simply establishing temporary peace treaties. States are to be governed by logical order of public law, and reciprocal freedom much and that interaction should exist at the international level.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCOE7-KoJbU
