debunking Kant

[theRetard]

his main idea is about there's a thing how we see it, and there's a thing in itself (without our interpretation)
but his thing in itself is already an interpretation
If the thing in itself is also a kantian interpretation (and this is indeed the case) then his entire system collapses

 

[theRetard]

@Klasik616

 

[theRetard]

saying that thing in itself is reality beyond interpretation while using an interpretation to define it creates a contradiction

 

[emogymmaxx]

username checks out

 

[theRetard]

username checks out

why

 

[theRetard]

.

 

[Nebelix28]

What nigga.

 

[theRetard]

What nigga.

do you need explanation?

 

[Nebelix28]

do you need explanation?

Yes

 

[paladincel_]

Obvious how he messes up (not in the way OP says, but simply saying that there is a thing in itself in the first place) but can you debunk stuff from the middle of critique of pure reason?

 

[theRetard]

Obvious how he messes up (not in the way OP says, but simply saying that there is a thing in itself in the first place) but can you debunk stuff from the middle of critique of pure reason?

you are wrong my cutie

 

[theRetard]

Obvious how he messes up (not in the way OP says, but simply saying that there is a thing in itself in the first place) but can you debunk stuff from the middle of critique of pure reason?

thing in itself exists. but kant is wrong because our interpretation is also thing-in-itself

 

[Klasik616]

 

[paladincel_]

thing in itself exists. but kant is wrong because our interpretation is also thing-in-itself

Thing-in-itself is total absurdity, there is no argument to be made for it. That's why you're saying this right now, cuckie.

 

[paladincel_]

Loling at OP dodging the question entirely. Debunk stuff from the middle of critique of pure reason, not the basics. Even if it's false can you debunk it on its own?

 

[theRetard]

Thing-in-itself is total absurdity, there is no argument to be made for it. That's why you're saying this right now, cuckie.

there can be, i can prove it's existence. the absurdity comes when we are saying that phenomes and thing in itself are different things

 

[theRetard]

Loling at OP dodging the question entirely. Debunk stuff from the middle of critique of pure reason, not the basics. Even if it's false can you debunk it on its own?

i don't have this book lul. i don't know what he even says in the middle, my naughty boy

 

[Klasik616]

i don't have this book lul. i don't know what he even says in the middle, my naughty boy

"Marx was wrong because he didn't work" level argumentation

 

[paladincel_]

there can be, i can prove it's existence. the absurdity comes when we are saying that phenomes and thing in itself are different things

Then do it.

That might be absurd but it's not as absurd as saying you can prove the thing-in-itself.

 

[theRetard]

"Marx was wrong because he didn't work" level argumentation

I didn't even make an argument about it so it is false analogy

 

[richoxne]

by the same logic, nothing can be asserted and one cannot be a Pyrrhonist

 

[theRetard]

Then do it.

That might be absurd but it's not as absurd as saying you can prove the thing-in-itself.

thing in itself exists, because non-existence does not exist, so thing in itself just can not be non-existing

 

[theRetard]

by the same logic, nothing can be asserted and one cannot be a Pyrrhonist

i've never claimed that nothing can be asserted

 

[paladincel_]

thing in itself exists, because non-existence does not exist, so thing in itself just can not be non-existing

 

[theRetard]

so why is this wrong?

 

[paladincel_]

For anyone not able to see through the absurdity, this could be used to argue literally anything exists, including things which completely contradict each other. I could explain further why OP is actually delusional if he's not trolling but he must see that he is in fact wrong if he runs into this big of a contradiction.

On top of this, you actually have no idea about the thing-in-itself. Nothing. The thing-in-itself is just an abstraction in a space which, when analyzed simply, you see why it can not allow for the human mind.

As for the previous claim, Kant would actually be right that your perception of the thing-in-itself would hypothetically be different from the thing-in-itself. Your eyes, your mind, everything would make the perception different under materialism which is literally what the OP argues for when arguing for the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

 

[paladincel_]

Feeling like a generic debate just running in circles asking a guy to just say why he knows about the thing-in-itself and him using sophistry.

 

[unstable]

there is huge problems with his categorical imperative too and it is bad moral theory overall.

 

[theRetard]

Feeling like a generic debate just running in circles asking a guy to just say why he knows about the thing-in-itself and him using sophistry.

just call something sophistry to make it seem like you don't lose a debate lul

 

[theRetard]

there is huge problems with his categorical imperative too and it is bad moral theory overall.

virtue ethics mog

 

[unstable]

For anyone not able to see through the absurdity, this could be used to argue literally anything exists, including things which completely contradict each other. I could explain further why OP is actually delusional if he's not trolling but he must see that he is in fact wrong if he runs into this big of a contradiction.

On top of this, you actually have no idea about the thing-in-itself. Nothing. The thing-in-itself is just an abstraction in a space which, when analyzed simply, you see why it can not allow for the human mind.

As for the previous claim, Kant would actually be right that your perception of the thing-in-itself would hypothetically be different from the thing-in-itself. Your eyes, your mind, everything would make the perception different under materialism which is literally what the OP argues for when arguing for the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

can you
explain me what kant actually said that is being debunked i haven't read it much.

 

[unstable]

virtue ethics mog

hmm, but it has its problem as well the ethics of epicurus are also very nice even though he was of hedonist school.
in reality there is no morality or ethics we made it up.

 

[theRetard]

For anyone not able to see through the absurdity, this could be used to argue literally anything exists, including things which completely contradict each other. I could explain further why OP is actually delusional if he's not trolling but he must see that he is in fact wrong if he runs into this big of a contradiction.

yes anything exists, and things which completely contradict each other also exist, they exist like false concepts.
cutie, it's the simpliest ontology, is it actually that hard to understand?

On top of this, you actually have no idea about the thing-in-itself. Nothing. The thing-in-itself is just an abstraction in a space which, when analyzed simply, you see why it can not allow for the human mind.

>says that thing in itself is an abstraction in a space
>says that you can't know something about it

you contradict yourself

As for the previous claim, Kant would actually be right that your perception of the thing-in-itself would hypothetically be different from the thing-in-itself. Your eyes, your mind, everything would make the perception different under materialism which is literally what the OP argues for when arguing for the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

your eyes, your mind are also things in itself lul.

 

[theRetard]

For anyone not able to see through the absurdity, this could be used to argue literally anything exists, including things which completely contradict each other. I could explain further why OP is actually delusional if he's not trolling but he must see that he is in fact wrong if he runs into this big of a contradiction.

On top of this, you actually have no idea about the thing-in-itself. Nothing. The thing-in-itself is just an abstraction in a space which, when analyzed simply, you see why it can not allow for the human mind.

As for the previous claim, Kant would actually be right that your perception of the thing-in-itself would hypothetically be different from the thing-in-itself. Your eyes, your mind, everything would make the perception different under materialism which is literally what the OP argues for when arguing for the knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

"you are wrong because you are wrong" type of argument lul

 

[paladincel_]

can you
explain me what kant actually said that is being debunked i haven't read it much.

The OP is completely wrong in claiming the thing-in-itself is real but he is wrong in the original post because:

Kant said there is a thing-in-itself and our interpretation of it.

OP tries to debunk it just by saying that Kant only has an interpretation of the thing-in-itself but in reality I've pointed out above why it's more complex.

OP then tries to claim the thing-in-itself is ACTUALLY real so what is he even saying? He then refuses to give any argument for why this is the case.

 

[theRetard]

in reality there is no morality or ethics we made it up.

wrong

 

[unstable]

The OP is completely wrong in claiming the thing-in-itself is real but he is wrong in the original post because:

Kant said there is a thing-in-itself and our interpretation of it.

OP tries to debunk it just by saying that Kant only has an interpretation of the thing-in-itself but in reality I've pointed out above why it's more complex.

OP then tries to claim the thing-in-itself is ACTUALLY real so what is he even saying? He then refuses to give any argument for why this is the case.

is my interpretation correct: kant says that when we see a thing both our interpretation of it and the thing itself both are very real?

 

[paladincel_]

yes anything exists, and things which completely contradict each other also exist, they exist like false concepts.
cutie, it's the simpliest ontology, is it actually that hard to understand?

Things which contradict the existence of something else don't exist along with that thing. It's not even "the simpliest ontology" it's just 3 year old tier logic you're failing.

Keep not knowing the difference between "it's" and "its" on top.

>says that thing in itself is an abstraction in a space
>says that you can't know something about it

Do you even know what you are imagining?

Do you even know the difference between talking about the thing-in-itself and knowing if it's real or not? This is a troll. Get something better to do.

your eyes, your mind are also things in itself lul.

They are the perception, Kant isn't starting from a phenomenological point of view. And obviously I had some doubts that I misunderstood what you're saying but now this confirms everything I said above is more than enough to shit on your "ughh I'm gonna repeat what I heard in a debate as if it's relevant to this debate, this works, right?" type of argumentation.

 

[unstable]

wrong

do you think that sky daddy makes morals and if we don't follow them we'll be punished.

 

[theRetard]

The OP is completely wrong in claiming the thing-in-itself is real but he is wrong in the original post because:

Kant said there is a thing-in-itself and our interpretation of it.

OP tries to debunk it just by saying that Kant only has an interpretation of the thing-in-itself but in reality I've pointed out above why it's more complex.

OP then tries to claim the thing-in-itself is ACTUALLY real so what is he even saying? He then refuses to give any argument for why this is the case.

@unstable he is just trying to rehabilitate his position by saying that i'm wrong without any arguments for it, so don't believe him. he doesn't answer anything

 

[theRetard]

do you think that sky daddy makes morals and if we don't follow them we'll be punished.

not necessary that it is sky daddy. but morality exists independentely from human minds

 

[paladincel_]

All you need to do is imagine the OP arguing with a PhD in biology without knowing what the most important part of the cell is. Just imagine him copy-pasting this reddit-tier vomit to whatever the person says.

Easiest debate of my life and it's not something to brag about.

 

[Klasik616]

I have read the book completely, this @theRetard doesn't even have the book. He's trying to debunk something he has seen on Youtube. He should be aware that epistemology doesn't actually need a "thing in itself" to exist, this is a postulate from the pure reason and not an object been somewhere. Kant proved that knowledge is possible through unity of aperception (from the trascendental subject) which contains the material influx into a concept made in the world, the concept is possible thanks to multiple categories. Nothing outside the empirical world is observable or can be known, it just can be postulated as a metaphysical principle without a proof. And when you accept it, you can think of noumenon as a regime in the universe that's guiding empirical objects (teleology) such as the noumenon of liberty or God which isn't found anywhere but could explain a lot of things, this is what the "thing in itself" means. It cannot be known, proven or disproven due to it's metaphysical essence (it's outside the limits of our human perception). I will not reply to anything after this comment.

 

[unstable]

@unstable he is just trying to rehabilitate his position by saying that i'm wrong without any arguments for it, so don't believe him. he doesn't answer anything

so you are saying that only our interpretation of thing exists and the thing itself does not exist? or atleast we can't prove its existence.

not necessary that it is sky daddy. but morality exists independentely from human minds

hmm, are you talking about evolutionary morality? elaborate.

 

[paladincel_]

3 seconds to leave before the troll traps me

 

[paladincel_]

so you are saying the thing itself does not exist?

thing in itself exists, because non-existence does not exist, so thing in itself just can not be non-existing

No, you're just dumb.

 

[theRetard]

Things which contradict the existence of something else don't exist along with that thing. It's not even "the simpliest ontology" it's just 3 year old tier logic you're failing.

Keep not knowing the difference between "it's" and "its" on top.



Do you even know what you are imagining?

Do you even know the difference between talking about the thing-in-itself and knowing if it's real or not? This is a troll. Get something better to do.



They are the perception, Kant isn't starting from a phenomenological point of view. And obviously I had some doubts that I misunderstood what you're saying but now this confirms everything I said above is more than enough to shit on your "ughh I'm gonna repeat what I heard in a debate as if it's relevant to this debate, this works, right?" type of argumentation.

you're repeating the same bullshit that I refuted.

 

[unstable]

No, you're just dumb.

i still don't understand, i like this topic can you guys help me. what is your stance on kant.

 

[theRetard]

i still don't understand, i like this topic can you guys help me. what is your stance on kant.

this retard does not even understands the simplest ontology, dont ask him anything about philosophy

 

[theRetard]

I have read the book completely, this @theRetard doesn't even have the book. He's trying to debunk something he has seen on Youtube. He should be aware that epistemology doesn't actually need a "thing in itself" to exist, this is a postulate from the pure reason and not an object been somewhere. Kant proved that knowledge is possible through unity of aperception (from the trascendental subject) which contains the material influx into a concept made in the world, the concept is possible thanks to multiple categories. Nothing outside the empirical world is observable or can be known, it just can be postulated as a metaphysical principle without a proof. And when you accept it, you can think of noumenon as a regime in the universe that's guiding empirical objects (teleology) such as the noumenon of liberty which isn't found anywhere but could explain a lot of things, this is what the "thing in itself" means. It cannot be known, proven or disproven due to it's metaphysical essence (it's outside the limits of our human perception). I will not reply to anything after this comment.

read every molecule. but how does this debunk my takes?