All anti-Kant propaganda on this board is a psyop by several materialist atheist factions attempting to detract from the truth of the transcendental ideality of empirical reality.
>>23613286Explain what that means
There is no anti-Kant propaganda, there are 2 people making 5 low effort Kant threads a day and causing people to see "Kantposting" the same way they see McCarthyposting after some youtuber makes a video about Blood Meridian. There's a substantial Aristotle thread almost every day and nobody talks about Aristotleposting or anti-Aristotle propaganda because it's just a normal thread and not someone trying too hard to force a meme. Stop being annoying.
>>23613604It doesn't mean anything; it's a vapid metaphysical statement that attempts to condense so much meaning into one sentence, but ironically ends up being devoid of any. It's the intellectual equivalent of an involuntary muscle spasm.
>>23613633The Kantposters frankly don't have any idea about Kant either. >>23613634 is correct since the quoted statement is a total abuse of Kantian terminology and it requires no deep knowledge of Kant to know that.But Kantposting is acceptable anyway because it irritates Hume fanboys.
>>23613604>>23613633>>23613634>>23613674>the transcendental ideality of empirical realityThis filters many, many people for some reason.
>>23613604It means that the conditions of experience are structured by ideas; ideal categories.
>>23613633>>23613634>>23613674case in point
>>23613711of what?
>>23613286I agree. I love Kant. Kant for president of 4chan!!!
>>23613738based
>>23613286I like Kant but he's basically entirely responsible for the critical anti-realist view that most of these people ascribe to.
>>23613987>he's basically entirely responsible for the critical anti-realist view that most of these people ascribe to.It's not him per se, it's the people missreading him.
>>23613286Nobody cares about circlejerking around your favorite rotting corpse. Just go to the grocery store or gym or something like a normal person.
>>23614020>4chan>normal person
>>23614003I mean, Kant is a great thinker, and he's particularly successful in his attempts to identify a priori intuitions we intuitively map onto the world. It's a really novel idea actually. But when it comes to the existence of things-in-themselves, he has a relatively weak case. A very common criticism is that if time is an a priori intuition then there is no reason to believe that things in themselves have a causal relationship with the phenomenal world. Without this causal link, it isn't clear why we should believe in anything beyond phenomena at all. I should say I'm more familiar with some of the ancillary literature and I've only read the Prolegomena and selections from the Critique. That said, the dominant view seems to be that Kant failed to adequately justify the noumenal world which paved the way for the critical anti-realists.
>it isn't clear why we should believe in anything beyond phenomena at allSome people haven't been infected by philosophical brainrot and can still function in the real world
>>23614102>dominant view seems to be that Kant failed to adequately justify the noumenal worldYou really gotta read the critique bro. You're missing out on a lot of subtleties that completely btfo the dominant view.
>>23614112>in the real worldBack to ignoring the suffering of the self or the other; not enough gulag-tokens (money)
our empirical reality are shaped by our mind's cognitive faculties! Kant! Kant! Kant!
>>23614239If you don't believe in noumenal reality then why would you care about the suffering of anything? It's all just a meaningless dreamscape of shapes and colors and sounds and sensations.
>>23614246
>>23614246>our mindwhose mind?
>>23613286i can't read him and he makes me feel stupid but actually Kant is stupid and overweight and doesn't even own a PS5
>>23613286No, everyone is just fucking sick of retards spamming low effort kant/hegel threads. There's no discussion to be found in them, just the one or two faggots who keep making the threads acting all smug for namedropping le deep german wizards while everyone else calls them out on it. You can tell none of these people really care about discussing philosophy because they never discuss what became of Kantianism after the Critiques were published or later thinkers who responded to Kant or anything, even though those threads are very interesting and worth discussing. It's all just a circlejerk about the same 1-3 thinkers and how cool they are and how cool those who post pictures of them must be. Gay as fuck.
>>23613697What does Ideal mean here, a content of thought?
>>23614205Can you point to some arguments Kant made in the critique that you found compelling? For various reasons I don't have the time to read the entire critique at the moment.
>>23614671>You can tell none of these people really care about discussing philosophy because they never discuss what became of Kantianism after the Critiques were published or later thinkers who responded to Kant or anything, even though those threads are very interesting and worth discussing. It's all just a circlejerk about the same 1-3 thinkers and how cool they are and how cool those who post pictures of them must be. Gay as fuck.True.
Any critiques on pic related? No ad hominem please.
>>23614784I think form might be a better descriptor here, but it depends on how you view the content <-> formal distinction. Ideal in this case would mean expressing the form of thoughts as categorical relations. You see this with the deduction of the categories. It is a “transcendental deduction” because it is deducing the necessary conditions (transcendental) for structuring experience into determinate objects, and the categories in question are concepts such as unity, plurality, totality, etc.
>>23615697 Kant is a german atheist bourgeois who did the same mistake as all atheists: they take their personal brain farts for the ultimate normative universal truth while also claiming that truth is relative because that was their propaganda to kill feudalism centuries ago.
>>23614102The "noumenal world" is just the world of Leibnizian monads, each with infinitely rich internal structure which is an incomplete mirror-image of all other monads. They sustain their existence through an act of synthesis of the manifold of all other monads and thus are pure self-activity. Each monad has a corresponding concept but due to the infinite richness of monad's internal structure this concept can be only exhaustively known by God. Thus, in God's mind, the world is entirely knowable a priori through conceptual analysis. This kind of individual concept which exhaustively describes a monad and identifies it among other monads is called an intellectual intuition. But this kind of intuition is inaccesible to a singular monad, a finite intellect.Kant borrows this picture from Leibniz to describe the noumenal world (he speaks of intellectual intuition, God's intellect etc.), but insists that it is entirely pointless to discuss whether objects given to us in perception have this rich internal structure. We can only know objects as they are in relation to us, not as they are "in themselves" (an sich). But Kant's picture of the mind is essentially Leibnizian: there are internal ("ideal") manifolds of space and time which the intellect "synthesizes" through the categories producing "unities". From the perspective of Leibnizian monadology, all objects that the Kantian subject (one of the monads) represents in itself are themselves self-sustaining monads with this internal structure and each monad is a partial reflection of all other monads which can be completly known only by God (since the synthesis that each monad engages in is finite and thus incomplete). There are more similarities which I won't discuss now.1/2
>>23615797There is no question of whether noumena exist or not. They are the same objects as phenomena, just seen from the perspective on a hypothetical purely conceptual infinite knower, i.e. God. Kant just says it's pointless to speak of the internal structure (he also speaks of "absolutely inner properties" sometimes) of objects if we cannot, even on Leibniz's own account, know them at all. But because the human mind for Kant functions similarly to a Leibnizian monad, Kant uses this terminology to make it clear to the reader that he disagrees with Leibniz's whole metaphysical enterprise which essentially amounts to a type of teleological optimistic panpsychism. When Kant invokes the noumena in his practical philosophy, he invites us to consider the world as-if it was the world of Leibnizian monadology (he speaks of a "Kingdom of Ends", "realm of freedom" etc.). We might hope that this is so, i.e. that we really live in the best of all possible worlds where all objects act according to a hidden God-given purpose etc., but this is a matter of faith. Therefore Kant "denies knowledge [of the noumena] to make room for faith".Each monad is a reflection of all other monads. Thus there emerge two perspectives of looking at the world as a consequence of this Leibnizian picture. There's the solipsistic or "transcendental" perspective ("transcendental idealism") and our everyday perspective ("empirical realism"). Kant doesn't say that either perspective is more true, because they're ultimately equivalent (and they also would be according to Leibniz). Kant essentially gives an empiricist twist to Leibnizian metaphysics here.This is not very deep (most of it is common sense nowadays) and takes up only a very small part of the Critique. Some people just sadly have no idea who Kant is arguing against and therefore misrepresent his position. Or expect something very deep without considering that Kant is literally one of the influential philosophers ever so many of his points won't seem very deep to a contemporary reader.2/2
>>23615791What does your script say about Schopenhauer?
>>23615791The previous post looks like Schopenhauer.>>23615697No critique on my end per se, Schopenhauer had a technically sufficient system which is usually overlooked in favor of his unfair characterization as a depressed misogynist.
>>23613634It means empirical reality is contingent on the existence of a transcendental ideal. That is, Existence requires the precedence of an informing Essence. The reason it's 'transcendental' is that it implies those conditions exist above empirical reality, rather than being embedded in it, which is a more materialistic view.Ask me anything about Kant, btw; I'll answer if I can.
>>23615831Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm trying to better understand what time and eternity could have in common. They seem to be as different as being and non-being.
>>23615887"Transcendental ideal" is Kant's term for "God". So your statement amounts to: "existence of empirical reality is contingent on the existence of God". I am very skeptical if you really read Kant.
>>23615801Thanks Anon, that's actually a good explanation. You've given me something to think about.
>>23615917Schopenhauer had a presupposition of matter baked into his notions of space and time iirc. Schopenhauer is also on record for declaring everything is will, and will to Schopenhauer is 'irreducible' so ascribing dualistic traits to him is probably only going to confuse you more than anything else. He had notions on how we 're-experience' things for lack of a better word that are still found in philosophy even today. It has been several years since I have read Schopenhauer but I am reminded of his interesting definition of consciousness which is a reflection of how things were originally presented to us and the process of deriving 'concepts' from this is merely just fabricating representations out of representations.
>>23613286I don't think using Qanon tactics to try to promote your philosopher is going to have the intended effect.
>>23615925>"Transcendental ideal" is Kant's term for "God".I refuse to believe anyone could seriously think this.
Kant was a midwit. Name one actually relevant and nontrivial thing he produced.
>>23615791>Kant is a german atheist bourgeois who did the same mistake as all atheistsHe wasn't atheist brainlet>Criticism alone can strike a blow at the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which are universally injurious—as well as of idealism and scepticism, which are dangerous to the schools, but can scarcely pass over to the public.-2nd preface
>>23616625You don't even know how wrong you are. Read the passage at A572/B600 or ctrl-f to "transcendental ideal".>>23616670You haven't even tried reading him and you should kill yourself now.
>>23616784He was an atheist.>Scheffner had often heard Kant scoff at prayer and other religious practices. Organized religion filled him with ire. It was clear to anyone who knew Kant personally that he had no faith in a personal God. Having postulated God and immortality, he himself did not believe in either. His considered opinion was that such beliefs were just a matter of "individual needs." Kant himself felt no such need.(M. Kuehn, Kant: A biography, p. 3)
>>23616805>He was an atheistActually read the Critique.>the hypothesis of a wise author of the universe is necessary for my guidance in the investigation of nature—is the condition under which alone I can fulfil an end which is contingent indeed, but by no means unimportant. Moreover, since the result of my attempts so frequently confirms the utility of this assumption, and since nothing decisive can be adduced against it, it follows that it would be saying far too little to term my judgement, in this case, a mere opinion, and that, even in this theoretical connection, I may assert that I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN GOD.-KdRV A826/B854GTFO with your cringe revisionary midwit secondary lit.
>>23616858An author in eighteenth century Prussia tries to hide his atheism. Who would have expected that?
>>23616878cope
>>23616894>copeCope with censorship Kant indeed did.
>>23616916>didn't read the critiqueYour opinions mean nothing to me.
>>23616916Iirc Kant actually circumvented censorship in his own time.
>>23616920Whether X was an atheist or not is a matter of biography, not of their works. I might know nothing of mathematics but I know that Euler was a very religious person. I might know nothing of electrodynamics but I could say the same about Maxwell. I can also confidently assert that Kant was an atheist through his life without touching the Critique even once. But I have read it. And I can confidently say that the question of existence of God is completly irrelevant to most of Kant's considerations regardless of the random passages you quoted. They are clearly inserted to avoid controversy.
>>23616928What that brainlet doesn't understand is that Kant was a mystic and had a direct relation to God without need for mediation by priests. Just because you don't go to church and don't believe ignorant praying (as opposed to say contemplative prayer or meditation) is effective, doesn't mean you don't believe in a supreme intelligence. It means you've developed a deeper sense of religion than midwit atheists and brainlet superstitiontards can understand.
Kant thinks all acts of "lying" are bad, just because we use the same word for themlmao, what a tard
>>23616947>French Revolution, which Kant enthusiastically endorsed (ibid, p. 340)If so, then Kant's God was an antimonarchist.
>>23613286Kants outline of human cognition works with any ontological-framework rrgarding nature of reallity. You can ltrly throw out TE out of the book and still have a good read.
>>23616947Hehehe I was not trying to weigh in on this argument per se, Kant explicitly stated he believes in God, and he also said that he had to make space in his head for belief just so he could have faith, or something to that effect. As far as I am concerned, this is evidence he believed. I just recalled how he bypassed the censors to publish something, can't stop Kant.
>>23616942>But I have read it.No you didn't.>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through itAnd it's not a book about math or physics, it's about METAPHYSICS, where God, is a central theme. This is a public statement of his METAPHYSICAL beliefs. If he says "I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN GOD" he is going on record as an expert in metaphysics, not as a mathematician, or a physicist, so your point about Euler is irrelevant.
>>23616960The book that he avoided censorship to publish is "Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason".
>>23616968Is this an inappropriate time to make a joke about how the right outfit does wonders?
>>23616959No it does not.
>>23616967You quote Kant warning against skimming through his works yet you insist on some random quotes being evidence of Kant believing in God despite the fact that biographical evidence tells us otherwise. If you want to demonstrate at the level of the text that Kant's work is somehow concerned with theological matters, you should provide an explanation of why is this the case, based on concrete examples. Then we can discuss this. So far you haven't given any reasonable arguments. And your repeated insistence that I haven't read the book is laughable.>>23616982I think a joke about the racial purity of reason would be more appropriate, given Kant's beliefs on these matters.
>>23616959Sure but there are some fragments (mainly the Transcendental Dialectic) which don't make sense if you don't assume with Kant that time and space are emergent properties of the human mind. Which isn't impossible given modern physics so I don't really have a reason to be entirely skeptical, even if most of what Kant writes makes good sense without it.
>>23616997>you want to demonstrate at the level of the text that Kant's work is somehow concerned with theological matters, you should provide an explanation of why is this the case, based on concrete examples.smfh so hard right now. it's unbelievable. It's a foundational text in M E T A P H Y S I C S. Just stop. >Thus the whole system of metaphysics consists of four principal parts: 1. Ontology; 2. Rational Physiology; 3. Rational cosmology; and 4. Rational theology.
>>23617034You're embarassing yourself. Kant is exactly CRITICIZING rational theology and rational cosmology in the Dialectic. Look at the context of your very quote, where he distinguishes 'transcendent' and 'immanent' physiology.
>>23617068>Kant is exactly CRITICIZING rational theology and rational cosmology in the Dialectic. grounded on purely theoretical reason. he developed a new theology grounded on PURE [emphatically] practical reason. Theology is still part of metaphysics, it just has new, although still a priori, and hence metaphysical, foundations. And there is SO much more. But the point at issue remains conclusive, Kant was a based God believer.
>>23617106Kant speaks of "moral theology", never of "rational theology". Again, you're embarassing yourself. This is Kant 101.
>>23617139(I mean: he never speaks of "rational theology" in a positive tone)
>>23617139read my post again you because missed the entire point.
>>23617154No, you're the one missing the point. My point was that you're quoting random passages without any understanding. Your comment interpreted charitably doesn't seem to contribute anything substantial to our discussion. I admit that Kant wasn't opposed to religion as a social phenomenon and that he gives interesting moral arguments for its role in "Religion". He just didn't have a faith in God personally.
>>23616786Name 1
>>236171931 what
>>23617204Name 1 relevant and nontrivial thing Kant produced.
>>23617180>My point was that you're quoting random passages without any understanding.I've mastered the system bro. I have attained to the true Kantian standpunkt. >A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.- Kant, CPR 2nd PrefaceAnd as for Kant's personal faith in God, the German word for belief (der Glaube) is also the one for faith. >ICH FESTIGLICH EINEN GOTT GLAUBEHis own published words. All else is cringe hearsay.
>>23617220I kneel
>>23617220I've got baited.>>23617218"Critique of Pure Reason", for instance
>>23617266>"Critique of Pure Reason", for instancekek but true
>>23617180>Kant wasn't opposed to religion as a social phenomenon and that he gives interesting moral arguments for its role in "Religion".You haven't understood Kant
>>23617277Maybe. But I have read about his life and I know he was an atheist. My point (>>23616942) still holds and you still haven't given any good arguments.
>>23617292>My point (>>23616942 #) still holds and you still haven't given any good arguments.You are in the denial stage.
>>23617309>*psychological projection*I read Nietzsche. I thought Kant was a theist. Then I read his biography and realised this isn't so. You're denying the obvious.
>>23617292Kant: I literally explicitly publicly express my unambiguous belief in GodYou: *head explodes*
>>23617335cope
>>23617365Hey remember that time Kant clearly and unambiguously said he firmly believed in God in his most celebrated and famous published work?
>>23617106This is exactly as I've come to understand his metaphysics intertwined within his epistemological critique>>23617139Faggot got filtered by Kant and confused the Critique of Theoretical Reason with the shitty Practical Reason
>>23613604God run world
>>23618087Simple as.
>>23616786I was going to be kind to you, but you're unpleasant as well as being a retard.You've confused 'transcendent' with 'transcendental'. The former is what Kant hypothetically denotes God, the latter the categorial framework of reality. Learn something before you insult others, faggot.
>>23617019I see what you mean but it still holds on. Limits of human reasson are not determined by wether what we experience is apriori structure of our mind or not. We are still bound to those contents and those contents only. Metaphysics still trys to go above what is presented via concepts and will fail nom the less, no matter if space and time are a priori or not. So what i am trying to say is, TE (imo ofc) only gives "taste" or rather presents the facts about human mind that are presented in CoPR in one of two possible ways. Perhaps the path towards those facts would be different for Kant but non the less it would be same conclussions.Its something like (albeit not exactly but similar) to what theory duality in physics is, representation of one and same thing in two different ways, but while such aproach in physics may uncover new insights about a thing, in philosophy, regarding limits/capacitys (what ever we call it) of human reasson it allways boils down to same fact.This is why i love Kant. In begginings i hated him because of his ontological framework but when i notoced that it does not actually matter i was in love with what he saw.
>>23613286My last Kant hate thread only got two replies. This board is hopeless. I give up trying to argue with you people. None of you will ever free yourself from the legacy of religions on earth, in fact you even want to actively re-brainwash yourself even though we discovered a way to escape. That is the whole point of Kant. I don’t want to distract you from the truth, I’m trying to lead you into greener pastures. All your lives would be better if you stopped believing in “God.” I hate Kant because of his reputation as the main “philosopher” someone should read when in reality he is just some random guy spouting his opinions with poorly cobbled together arguments like every other philosopher and shouldn’t be given special place, and the worst part is that his opinions are actively detrimental to human flourishing.
>>23618714My real goal with hating Kant is simply to introduce people to the idea that he can be wrong so that they don’t read him with the attitude of trying to understand his ideas only without trying to critique them.
>>23618714>actively detrimental to human flourishingbased
>>23618370I didn't confuse anything. The guy I was responding to posted a completly incoherent (or, at least, incorrect) statement which sounds like something what Kant would write but on closer inspection is completely nonsensical. "Transcendental IDEAL" isn't the same as "transcendental IDEALISM". Kant uses the transcendental IDEAL (as in: some presumed perfect object) as an TRANSCENDENTAL explanation for where the idea of a TRANSCENDENT metaphysically perfect ("ideal") being (God) comes from. The section on the "ideal of pure reason" is where he criticizes proofs of God's existence. What's so hard to understand? It really requires one ctrl-f through the book (which you can find online) or a look at the table of contents to prove me correct yet you faggots will insist that I am retarded because you don't have sufficient knowledge of Kant to immediately recognize when someone is spewing obvious bullshit. I really have put some effort into understanding what Kant was up to. Not quite as retarded as Kantposter (who is a baiter with no deep knowledge of philosophy anyway), but I have read most of Kant's works and genuinely tried to understand them and their historical significance. Is it so difficult to have enough intellectual decency to give someone the benefit of the doubt and read the passage he put before your ugly face (A572/B600)?
>>23618714If you're so Kant-free and flourishing why are you depressed and posting on this board?Proof is in the puddingAnd your life sucks
>>23618807This is my first post here in a week
>>23618793We're just arguing about terms. Kant means that people have historically confused the Transcendent Ideas with Transcendental ones. The latter are the manner in which we cognise, the former putative metaphysical ultimates which can be used to describe God, as the scholastics did. He chose the terms to reflect this, and then went on to describe how they inherently separate and only confused together in his bit on dialectical confusions. i.e. our manner of cognition is not valid to speculate about metaphysical ultimates. The former are Transcendental, the latter Transcendent. 'Idealism' denotes in the former the suite of cognitive apparati by which we think; used in reference to the latter, the historic metaphysical musings which Kant castigates.
>>23613286I'm not a materialist atheist, I'm an Aristotelian and you damn well know it. You know who I am too, I think. Kant is the ultimate loser in post-medieval philosophy. The analytics hate him because they've overturned the logic that underlies his fundamental distinctions. Existentialists hate him because he's a bloodless system-builder. People like me hate him because we recognize that the base of his thinking is identifiably sophistical (I mean that literally, not pejoratively) and it destroys the possibility of philosophy as we understand it. Each of these groups is right in its own way - the philosopher said "truth is like a door, easy to hit." (Meta.2.1). And everyone has a problem with YOU because you just spam "Kant!" over and over again and have nothing interesting to say, or (as you have claimed in the past) are simply too lazy to say anything interesting.You cannot make a total distinction between extramental facts and intramental ideas about facts. Each side of the equation is relative to the other. Kantianism is like saying that we can't really see because we have eyes.
>>23618947>I'm an Aristotelian and you damn well know itNo anon, this is 4chan. We don't know who the fuck you are. Did you forget to take your meds? >*something something intramental ideas*You've clearly never read Kant. kys faggot
>>23618996>You've clearly never read Kant. kys faggotYou got filtered by Kant.
>>23619082what is this supposed to mean
>>23619090I mean that every time I point out problems with the subjectivity of Kant you just sperg out and say "NO THE THE WHOLE POINT OF KANT IS THAT THE WORLD IS MIND". You're a pseud, I've talked to you several times.
>>23619093I literally post here since yesterday.
>>23619110I find it hard to believe that there's more than one person in the world who thinks that Kant didn't essentially deny the knowability of reality in itself, outside the mind. You claim that I've "never read Kant" and yet this is exactly what Kant says, it's also exactly how (to take just one example) Russell read Kant. You think there's an 'esoteric Kant' that points toward the German idealists - that's wrong to begin with. And even if it were true, they were wrong, too.
>>23619127I am the guy who says Kant was an atheist, not the Kantposter.
>>23619149Well then you're wrong too. Kant wasn't an atheist, he was trying to save theism from what he thought were the nigh-insuperable objections of the empiricists. He just did it in a retarded way.
>>23619159>to save theism from what he thought were the nigh-insuperable objections of the empiricistsEmpiricism is a movement which has roots in Calvinist orthodoxy. Even Hume never explicitly renounced, to my knowledge, the existence of God. So once again you're talking out of your ass. Or rather you're taking Nietzsche as an authority on Kant, since this whole meme about Kant being "muh Christian in disguise" is just taken from this schizo's works. Except you cannot even do that properly and add some nonsensical remarks about empiricists which are nowhere to be found in Kant's works.
>>23614020>go to the grocery storethis is your alternative to discussing dead philosophers? Are you an NPC?
>>23619243Grocery store is where you discuss American Pragmatists.
>>23616878God is pretty central to Kant's ideas albeithoughever.
>>23619218No, you're talking out of your ass. It's laughable that someone who doesn't remember Kant's explicit references to Hume thinks he knows all about him.
>>23619288>...Kant's explicit references to Hume thinks he knows all about himI invite you to show me a passage where Kant says his whole enterprise is crafted so as to respond to Hume's critique of religion. He doesn't say that anywhere. His response to Hume is about causality, not God. There is not a single mention of Hume in Kant's work on moral theology ("Religion in the Bounds of Mere Reason").>>23619278That's quite a vague statement. And irrelevant to our question of his personal faith or lack thereof.
>>23619359>I invite you to show me a passage where Kant says his whole enterprise is crafted so as to respond to Hume's critique of religion. He doesn't say that anywhere. His response to Hume is about causality, not God. There is not a single mention of Hume in Kant's work on moral theology ("Religion in the Bounds of Mere Reason").He doesn't, but if you read between the lines a little bit that simply is exactly what he's doing. He's finding a way to say "well, yes, Hume is right, BUT..." and then morality and God. He doesn't have to come out and say "I'm afraid of empiricism and how it might overturn the moral order" for that to be true. Me: "Kant was trying to find a way to accept skeptical empiricism and simultaneously save God and morality."You: "NUHH UH he never SAYS that!"Me: "But that's exactly what he did..."You: "You're a pseud!"You're a fucking pseud, dude.
>>23619384I am genuinely amazed at your level of self-deception. You'd rather suspect a conspiracy theory based on little to no textual evidence than give up what Nietzsche told you and hundreds of idiotic little """historians""" of philosophy mindlessly repeated. Despite the fact that there is clear biographical evidence (see my thread on Kant being an atheist) that Kant was an atheist, and was one through most of his life, you pretend that there is any signs to the contrary. And what is even more notable is that you do all of that without appreciating Kant's works or having read any of them. And this shows.You say that Kant failed miserably in his "mission" to save Christianity against Hume (despite him never mentioning Hume in the context of his writings on religion and despite Hume never explicitly renouncing faith in a God). Instead of rethinking, like any reasonable person who is actually interested in a given thinker, whether this, given his (supposed) abject failure, was the purpose of his philosophical enterprise, you would rather insist that he's an idiot and a fool, probably because you've read some Ayn Rand-level bullshitter who told you that this is so. You're in fact trying to be maximally unCharitable against all textual and biographical evidence because short Konigsberg incel bad subjectivist.You haven't probably even read the relevant works. And, if you did, you weren't very careful. This is obvious from the fact that your "interpretive hypothesis" is too finely grained to be helpful at actually deciphering what an author had in mind when formulating his arguments. Even assuming that Kant was a devout Christian, to prove that he was responding specifically to Hume you'd have to prove that Kant had read Hume's "Dialogues on Natural Religion" or "On Miracles" or some other text on this topic. Yet you've provided no evidence that he did (I am not certain if there was even a translation available). You could substitute literally anyone else for Hume in your story. I suspect you've heard something about "Kant being influenced by Hume" so you thought it makes sense to reference him in this context. Appealing to "reading between the lines" is at this point a laughtable attempt to hide your obvious incompetence. Buddy, you haven't read the lines themselves.
>>23619384>might overturn the moral orderAnd surely Kant, a supporter of French Revolution, would be very worried about traditional moral order. Definitely much more than these atheistic empiricists like Bishop Berkeley!
>>23619093lol that wasn't him that was me
>>23619127>it's also exactly how (to take just one example) Russell read Kantkek gtfo
>>23619538Kant never supported the French Revolution retard unless your the faggot OP from this thread that posted a bunch of disinfo on Kant>>23618027
>>23620277>All anti-Kant propaganda on this board is a psyop by several materialist atheist factions attempting to detract from the truth of the transcendental ideality of empirical reality.There is a major psyop like kantposter said. They can't defeate him so they defame him. Truth is he was a based God believer, but not explicitly Christian, in the sense of belonging to a church, but he was in the truest sense of the word as a philosopher.>You must realize that 'philosopher' does not mean someone who is clever at dialectics or science but someone who rejects illusory appearance and undauntedly seeks out and follows what is true and good. Being a philosopher is in practice the same as being a Christian; only the terminology is different."—Erasmus, Anti-Barbieri
>>23620307It's crazy how the Transcendental Argument for God perfectly and eloquently works within Kant's Epistemology
>>23620277>The revolution which we have seen taking place in our own times in a nation of gifted people may succeed, or it may fail. It may be so filled with misery and atrocities that no right-thinking man would ever decide to make the same experiment again at such a price, even if he could hope to carry it out successfully at the second attempt. But I maintain that this revolution has aroused in the hearts and desires of all spectators who are not themselves caught up in it a sympathy which borders almost on enthusiasm, although the very utterance of this sympathy was fraught with danger. It cannot therefore have been caused by anything other than a moral disposition within the human race. (Kant, The Conflict of Faculties)>As if that were not enough, Metzger revealed that Kant had the audacity to endorse the principles of the French Revolution, defending them even at dinners in the noblest houses. He was not afraid of being blacklisted (as it was done in Königsberg). Kant was impolite and insensitive (Kuehn 2001, p. 4)
