All of (post-Kantian) western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Kant and more specifically the First Critique (Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Edition 2)
>>23536546Very true
>>23536546kant is #1
>implying that the First Critique doesn't retroactively change all pre-Kantian philosophy into a series of footnotes to the aforementioned Critique
>vaguely praising philosopher for being influential and insightful>offering nothing of substancepeak of /lit/
>>23537487I prefer these to "I hate Y because lit told me it was bad"
>>23536546Refuted by many post-Kantians.
>>23536546What about Holderlin, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche?
>>23537484Retroactively refuted by Parmenides, though
>>23536546Is he the culprit for modern philosophy being bad?I thought it was Hume.
>>23536546>Kant's kryptonite has entered the chat.
>>23537866lol not even
>>23537881A priori "knowledge" doesn't actually exist and there is no real distinction between "analytical" and "synthetic" propositions.
>>23537945>though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.
>>23537487Why don't you provide or offer to the argument then ?
>>23536546Kierkegaard and Cioran's philosophy are not a footnote to his philosophy
>>23537954if you were to give birth to a person with an otherwise perfectly normal brain but deactivate all their senses but somehow feed them and keep them alive. would they know they're alive? people blind from birth dont dream in pictures.
>>23537963Holy shit you are retarded. Do you think such a situation isn't implicitly described by Kant's philosophy, expressed in that particular quote you're replying to?
>>23537958why should I? I have no responsibility to your thread. I point out low=effort garbage when I see it.
>>23537487That’s /lit/ Kant worshippers for you. A bunch of vapid cunts.
>>23536546These threads are boring. My Aristotle threads blow yours out of the water. This is because Aristotle is a superior philosopher, obviously. Sometimes for fun I will attack Kant's ideas with Aristotelian arguments and you fags can't even answer me, you also never recognize them as Aristotelian because you've never read Aristotle. Gotta go atm, next time.
>>23537963If you deactivated all of their senses then they would be unconscious. Our inner world, including the sense of self, depends on sensory experience, this is obvious by induction. We hear our thoughts when we think, even abstract thought is accompanied by imagination in one form or another, and when we don't experience any imagination/sense, that's when we're unconscious. Incidentally this is why Avicenna's flying man is a shit argument for the immortality of the soul. Someone who never experienced any sensation would be in a vegetative, unconscious state. As an anon said earlier, a priori knowledge doesn't actually exist. All Kant did was take errors made by earlier philosophers (Descartes, Hume, Locke) and draw them to their furthest conclusions. If you already realize why those three are wrong, don't waste your time on Kant.
