Can we get a thread going on this deontological mofo?
>>330808
His epistemological and aesthetic theories are much more interesting than his ethics desu.
I like all Kant philosophy but it's just for erudit interesting. It's impossible follow deontologist moral, dificcult believe in "conscious" "subjekt" after Nietzsche and the aesthetics doesn't explain the art in a world that killed the genius.
> Template
>>330808
>introductory text/video on Kant
>DUDE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE LAMO
Every fucking tiem.
>>330944
Hey dude what do you mean by >DUDE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE LAMO?
Kant is the one german idealist philosopher that i like. Hegel I understand him pointview but i hate the way he whites.
I just will appoint two lames arguments about Kant ethics:
- Follow the dust isn't just follow the own reason like he said in the "What is the enlightenment?"
- Moral is a priori, but in tomo 3 of the "Metaphysics of Moral" he uses a posteriori exemples to justifies your own moral
the whole basis of post-descartes philosophy is wrong and crazy and its endpoint is total separation of philosophy from real, worldy experience
go back to the greeks and medievals
>>331158
nope.
> thomas reid and your critiques about empirists
> pascal and your critiques about rationalists
>>330923
>It's impossible follow deontologist moral
0/10
>>331158
Medevil philosophy was basically a black hole of nonsense about God. The most importaint question going on is "Can man understand the world with his own reasoning and knowledge or does he need to read a holy book"
Most philosophers choose a middle ground where man could understand some things but certain things required a blind faith in the bible and blind obdience to the pope. Eventually we started getting philosophers that argued that man could understand anything, or nearly anything, with just his mind. Descartes was the last final product of it who allowed philosophy to completely separate itself from religious dogma. If something could not be understood rationally or empirically it got axed.
