Message from @Existence is identity
Discord ID: 545041324424822795
You definitely get your ideas of Kant from the left.
The left took Kant to its logical extreme
Except not exactly as the only way to accept his ideas is to shut your mouth, expound no theories and die
If you cant trust your senses or reason, there is no way to know anything
Try reading this, it's only 2 hours and will give you a very different take on Kant than you will get from the left.
https://youtu.be/XoRNf1rFdxo
Just summarize it
It basically is a summary. Can't condense it much further.
I might watch it eventually but 2 hours is quite long
For philosophy, that's pretty damn short.
Have you read The Critique of Pure Reason?
Most of it.
How am I wrong? He attack Identity and Consciousness
He called them imperfect or flawed
Maybe they are dude.
Then the left has taken more steps than you
He seperated a Priori knowledge and Empirical knowledge
Good on him.
Causing reason and reality to go to war
Hardly.
Now, the step the left takes is well a Priori is experience but that has no attachment to Empirical knowledge
Empericist nonsense.
Yes?
Read the Hoppe book. You'll probably enjoy it.
I will, probably
But am I wrong?
About the left's rejection of a prior knowledge being able to describe reality, yes, if that's what you meant
So now you tell me, whats the right answer?
To what question?
Why do you reject the left's premises?
What premises?
They reject logic.
Premises can be illogical
But, what I discussed
Alogical really.
What did they get wrong?
The left is too broad a term. If I'm criticising empericists, then I would simply point out that if only empirically testable claims can be true, then the claim that only empirically testable claims can be true can't be true because it is not empirically testable.
I shouldve used a posteriori knowledge instead of empirical
They refer to both
The former refers specifically to Kant's terms
They reject that a priori knowledge is possible, so I don't see a difference.