Kant or Hume lads?
Dawkins, christfag heehee
I Kant even decide which one to pick just to Hume-r you
>>7478360
lel
>>7478360
kys mm
>>7478359
hume was atheist you fucking mongoloid
>>7478374
>damage control
your tears are like fine beer
These threads never work out
hume
>>7478403
why him over kant?
>>7478412
Because IKantunderstand him.
>>7478425
WhyKantyou understand him?
>>7478442
His work is cold. Not veryHumen
>>7478492
In what way isn'tHumeen?
>>7478502
FUCK
O! Who bears this blessed chest?
Whence this bodice'd goddess?
>>7478359
this board is dead, no one reads big books anymore.
>>7478353
Who is this saemon daemon?
Harris
/thread
Hume. He seems to me to be grappling ingenuously with deep issues, whereas Kant strikes me as more of a reactionary and systematizer, someone utterly self-consumed and obsessed with the idea of finishing metaphysics once and for all, freezing it to reflect current scientific advances, and becoming one of history's 'great men' in doing so. Hume's observations have by and large survived Kantian critiques, and while Hume is comparatively timeless, Kant is easier to trace specifically to a certain German era of metaphysical reaction.
Also, I think that pretty much everything that people credit to Kant was already done before, and more radically and interestingly, in the works of people like Berkeley (he effected no 'Copernican Revolution,' but only claimed he did).
>>7478353
kill the rich
>>7478353
Hume.
>>7478412
Because he's simply right in his sentimentalism.
Kant is wrong about reason in morals.
Thus Hume's project succeeds even if his philosophy has mistakes, and Kant's philosophy fails even if he argues more clearly and more rigorously.
>>7478353
dat bosom
>>7478353
Such a perfect mode!
>hurrr durr causality don't exist
Into the trash it goes
>>7479045
>I've never read Hume or have a single fucking clue what his philosophy says
Into the trash YOU go.
>>7478353
apples and oranges my good lad
>>7478353
she would love a 3some with those two.
>>7478841
I can tell you haven't gotten to Kant yet. I'm not going to rag on you for two reasons. First, because Kant really is difficult and really does at first seem boring or obvious. But based on your comparisons, you could not be further from understanding him. The second reason is that undergraduate posturing is a mainstay of intellectual passion, and you would not be where you are without your willingness to push beyond your comfort level.
I can't put the desire in you to really hunker down with Kant, but if you ever want to move forward in philosophy, you must one day do so. Based on what you've said, you are in for a wild ride or a rude awakening. Forget everything you think you know about Kant and just read Kant.
>>7479347
Not true. Comparing Hume with Kant is vital to truly understanding either.
>>7479812
I've already read Kant. I had to spend a large amount of time with him when I was an undergraduate. And I don't think the opinions I offered on him above would even be possible to formulate in that way by someone who hadn't read him -- in particular, the part of his personality I allude to (the desire to be a 'great man') is only apparent if you've read the various Prefaces of his Critiques.
>>7478353
Hume's moral investigations are far more coherent than Kant, who has no business talking about anything but logic and metaphysics.
Hume wasn't nearly as autistic as Kant, and if shows. Kant had no understanding of people or human nature; Hume did.
>>7479347
Reminds me of Clover a little bit to be honest family.
>>7480749
Kant should have stayed away from metaphysics too. Just awful, of course most metaphysics is. His ethics was an interesting idea, although universally useless. Oh and he should've used a ghostwriter.
>>7478374
loooool
>>7480733
I'm glad you've been able to come up with opinions that feel to you like they're substantial, but I'm afraid you didn't get your money's worth if that's all you took from your class. For your benefit and the benefit of anyone who may be reading, I want to assure you here and now that whatever you think have understood, it is not Kant.
Your comparison with Berkeley is particularly telling, since Kant himself makes this comparison multiple times in order to distinguish his own view. Take note. In just this lies your failure to comprehend the significance of the Copernican turn -- really, it's meaning at all -- for the difference between Berkeley and Kant is just that difference between SUBJECTIVE idealism and TRANSCENDENTAL idealism.
If Hume is the closest thinker to Kant who is not his successor, then Berkeley is maybe the furthest away. And without doubt it is perfectly possible to continue to uphold Hume against Kant if that is our wish. Kant is by no means an unproblematic thinker and there are many ways to criticize him, a return to Hume being one of the most revealing, that is, if we are to stick with the early moderns. But a conflation with Berkeley will never be one of them. This is Kant 101.
You cannot criticize someone before you have understood him. And Kant is not someone who you can afford to simply misunderstand. Not in the current year.
>>7478506
hahaaha
does anybody have a screencap about kant saying that he's right and picture of a skull was attached to it
>>7478353
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DPQZfsAHgSg
>>7481315
>Your comparison with Berkeley is particularly telling, since Kant himself makes this comparison multiple times in order to distinguish his own view.
I am aware of this, and if you had read both Berkeley AND Kant, you would know that Kant straightforwardly mischaracterizes Berkeley's own position as denying the reality of empirical objects. If anything Kant only reveals his ignorance of Berkeley's position (we do not know if Kant ever read Berkeley's actual works) in that when he sets out his own position, he says nothing that Berkeley would actually disagree with. His major difference with Bekreley is in fact as he himself admits a REVERSION TO LOCKE in the re-introduction of the thing in itself, which Kant explicitly associates with Lockean primary qualities, albeit in a far more extreme, and transcendentalized, form (yes I understand the difference, please spare me). The move to transcendentalism is a reactionary move: the majority of pre-modern philosophy, both ancient and scholastic, was transcendentalist in the Kantian sense of believing that explanation could occur by means of deducing necessary conditions of observed phenomena. One of the great feats of the empiricists in my opinion was to show how backwards this way of thinking was, which is why it is hard not to see Kant himself as reactionary.
>If Hume is the closest thinker to Kant who is not his successor, then Berkeley is maybe the furthest away.
This makes absolutely no sense, considering that Hume and Berkeley are so close to one another that it's impossible to understand Hume except as reacting to Berkeley. Most of what is traditionally attributed to Hume as novel (the critique of causality included!) is already fully fledged in Berkeley.
>You cannot criticize someone before you have understood him. And Kant is not someone who you can afford to simply misunderstand. Not in the current year.
Kek, bitch swerve.
>>7478353
Hume
Hume always and forever and always
Hume
>>7481315
He compared him to berkeley only by saying that some of Kant's most interesting points werent totally original, but descended from Berkeley as well as others.
Come on, hes not conflating them, hes saying in Kant's philosophy which includes: [A,B,C,...,Z] the interesting bits like M were already written about by Berkeley.
You're acting like hes saying that Kant's [A,B,C,...,Z] is equivalent with Berkeleys, which couldnt be further from his point (or at least what he wrote, it might very well be what he meant)
>>7482102
I don't knowHumeyou think you're talking to, but don'tHumer your self,kant. Watch your tongue.
>>7478353
S A U C E
A
U
C
E
>>7478841
>anglophone exceptionalism
Kant on Duty vs Inclination, Hume on Ethics
>>7483407
But for Kant, acting from duty without the influence of inclination IS ethics, essentially. So you seem to be saying "Kant beats Hume when it comes to Kantian ethics, but Hume beats Kant when it comes to ethics."
Hume. Just look at the clarity of his writing and compare that to Kant's writing, which was confused and all over the place.
>>7484003
This.
Hume is actually a good writer, Kant is fucking horrible.
Iwon'tpick.
>>7484003
I don't think it's correct to call Kant's writing style "confused." There are instances where Kant is extremely vague, or where he uses words outside of their strict defintions; but this doesn't characterize his style as a whole. More often, from what I can remember, he uses words with very technical, precise meanings, often in combination with several other words of equal nuance, and he provides details and qualifications so that his claims are extremely specific and intricate. This certainly makes his writing confusing for the reader - and his long nests of sentences within sentences (within sentences) doesn't help, for sure - but this isn't the same as him being confused as a thinker. There are areas, yes, where he could have written more straightforwardly, even if these are not a majority; but I also believe that some concepts and arguments just can't be expressed in simple, easy-to-follow language.
And there are also moments where his writing achieves beauty; his analogy of the dove in the first critique, and section 83 of the third critique, especially come to mind.
>>7478353
Huh, I never noticed before that she has three arms.
>>7486045
so kant basically explains kharma
>>7483982
sort of, for Kant what is good is what is right, and what is right is rational. He wants to reduce it to an inert principle (the common contrast against Humes position on desire) but that's just because he thinks the desire to act ethically is the desire to act rationally.
The insight of Kant's duty's that inclinations can't be credited as ethical where they compel agents to act without consideration of reason, like a mother's instinct to nurture (as he reasons with the example of the dutiful father)
this is perfectly fine with Hume's 'pushpin' ethics
Kantian retributionism also deserves a mention
>>7478353
Schopenhauer somehow was a fan of both.
>>7487153
They aren't really all that opposed.
>>7486829
what's kharma?
>>7486837
>he thinks the desire to act ethically is the desire to act rationally.
it is quite sad that Kant is a rationalist . especially when is position can hardly be qualified as reasonable.
>>7486837
They would be compatible if Kant had absolutely no say on the passions, in which case Kant would be like specialist of the rational will and Hume would be a specialist of the passionate will -- let me know if this is what you're saying.
And without a doubt Kant at all levels ends up much more on the rationalist side of things. But at the same time he is also known as the great negotiator between both extremes. Unlike his predecessors, he sacrifices nothing of common sense in his account.
There is nothing more commonplace than the thought that to be truly moral is a kind of pain. Kant really begins on this experiential observation as something to be explained. All his machinery is then brought in specifically for this purpose. What is it that leads up to be moral? What are we motivated by when we are moral in spite of our own happiness?
The true incompatibility between Hume and Kant is in the following: reason makes too much sense, is too reasonable, for it to just mere illusion -- Kant's ingenious solutions are too perfect to be wholly interchangeable with just any other custom. The connections with theoretical reason are now clear.
>>7486829
I don't know much about Buddhism, but I'm confident the concept of kharma is more in line with the (largely Kant-inspired) philosophy of >>7487153
>>7488112
did kant give explicit principles following his categorical imperative ?
also, do we know what he did before writing his books ?
was he always a recluse ? do we know why he chose this life ? [was it a choice like Montaigne]
>>7478353
p qt if you ask me
>>7478379
>modrian pepe
wew
ok
