Momina’s Reviews > Kant > Status Update

Kant, honestly? =/

Haibar wrote: "Kant, honestly? =/"

Why not? :D You don't likes him fam? :P

He's too...well...
I subscribe to Rand's philosophy on a few points so I basically will have problem digesting him =P
Ayn Rand hates Kant like I hate eating snakes for breakfast =/
=P
You agree to his philosophy?

Haibar wrote: "He's too...well...
I subscribe to Rand's philosophy on a few points so I basically will have problem digesting him =P
Ayn Rand hates Kant like I hate eating snakes for breakfast =/
=P
You agree to..."


See, now I have no idea which points exactly of Rand are incompatible with Kant. You'll have to enlighten me on that. I'm guessing they'll have to do with ethics alone, since I can't imagine Rand having written much on epistemology. (?) Kant, on the other hand, has dealt with almost every single major philosophical question there is--from ethics to ontology to aesthetics. So, there's a lot on his platter to talk about and agree/disagree with. Where does one start? You can't even say that he had a "philosophy"; a reduction of that sort would be highly misleading and unfair to the amount of shit the guy's written. :P

And, I try never to "agree" while I'm reading philosophy. I'm too much of an eclectic to "like" people. :P That's like closing your head to all the other possibilities of seeing the world; having value judgments of what is "right" and "wrong" (something which philosophy tries to free you from in the first place) is like the biggest fallacy ever. For me.

And no respect to Rand for "hating" Kant. :P Guy founded modern philosophy, even if you disagree with someone, you don't hate 'em or you're no philosopher. :P And you never, EVER hate Kant, man. You're doing life wrong if you do. :P

Anyway, do tell me about the stuff on which Rand disagrees with him.

K after reading a bunch of reviews of Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It", I get the impression of what her problem was with Kant. And that has just reinforced my... Never mind. :P Anyway, don't be taken in by what "she" or anyone else has to say about some of the most important people in philosophy like Hegel and Kant (can't believe she hated Hegel, too. Like what the hell even...). Anyway, read them yourself. Those guys deserve a read more than Rand herself, and I say this without any prejudice. Kant, more than anybody in the history of philosophy, has been subjected to misinterpretation considering how incredibly dense his texts were. A simplistic reduction of any of his "philosophies" is not just evil, it's dumb.

You know what? Read "Sophie's World". A beginner's guide to Western philosophy from the Sophists to Kierkegaard. Very accessible, much reverential!

Nope. I do agree on keeping an *active* mind rather than a *passive* one because the true meaning of having an *open* mind is having no opinion,and we all always have an opinion about something, saying we don't like or dislike someone is diplomacy in it's sheer naked form =D either one is too coward to admit, or doesn't have enough material to argue

(No offense. Im basically quoting Rand)

And I'd rather hate someone than stay in the middle, not sure of my ideas or view of something. Rand didn't like the thing Kant preached, mostly ethical stuff, she said she didn't. She didn't sit in the corner and say I'm too cool and *open minded* to formulate an opinion. I disagree to a lot she says, but I respect the woman in sticking to a side and staying there and proving exactly why she believed in it. Her theory of Objectivism,yar


Kant as far as I know was a Philosopher...and hereby had his own Philosophy, given the aspects in his wide area of..uh..expertise differ and are wide...basic idea pey maut parti he Rand ko, epistemology pe to amney samney hotey to maar hi daltey ek dusrey ko =D

But I'm not Rand so I'll show diplomacy and say.. Literature and philosophy is subjective =D Sab chalta he =D

Man. One has to choose one's own philosophy, not what someone says or what the masses stick to. I don't stick to Rand blindly =D I just love her way and her theories and that bold rejection of the most highly followed people. Gotta love the sassiness =D (is that a word?)

And sure, I'll check it out Mel B-)

Haibar wrote: "Nope. I do agree on keeping an *active* mind rather than a *passive* one because the true meaning of having an *open* mind is having no opinion,and we all always have an opinion about something, sa..."

"either one is too coward to admit, or doesn't have enough material to argue"

We will never have "enough material" on metaphysical questions, how our mind works, what is knowledge and how we can even be sure of the reality of "that which knows". For every single argument is a counter-argument, and "agreeing" (for me, this is just me talking) means an approximation of "knowledge". Which you'll never have, even in its faintest form. There isn't a single, consistent explanation of the nature of reality and the validity of our phenomenal experience--because of postmodernism there is even no intersubjectivity between mortals, so no knowledge of any sort, of any entity, from any gateway is ever attainable. Forever and ever and ever.

Our "opinions" take little time in transforming into strongly-held beliefs which breed intolerance, hatred, genocides. Not kidding about the last word. Literally genocides from the mere fact that my version of reality is better, truer than yours. Not having views on something is something I'd like more people to admit, because basically when confronted with strong opposition none of them could ever hope to hold the consistency of their arguments. Even Rand failed at that. Every single philosopher failed at that.

So, what you have for opinions are basically faulty approximations of "knowledge"? Something that can be proven logically fallacious in more than several ways?

A "passive mind", as you call it, is one that isn't self-reflective. Not holding to one single dogma means that you're constantly employing your brain to answer metaphysical questions from as many vantage points as possible. I can't see how a self-reflective mind could be passive. And I can't see how you can have an opinionated mind that is "active".

"And, lastly, I suggest that you try to project what would have happened if, instead of Annie Sullivan, a sadist had taken charge of Helen Keller’s education. A sadist would spell “water” into Helen’s palm, while making her touch water, stones, flowers and dogs interchangeably; he would teach her that water is called “water” today, but “milk” tomorrow; he would endeavor to convey to her that there is no necessary connection between names and things, that the signals in her palm are a game of arbitrary conventions and that she’d better obey him without trying to understand.
If this projection is too monstrous to hold in one’s mind for long, remember that this is what today’s academic philosophers are doing to the young—to minds as confused, as plastic and almost as helpless (on the higher conceptual levels) as Helen Keller’s mind was at her start."

No! Those things are all true, we can never have consistency in philosophy or anything I dunno how you can argue about Rand since you just said you never really read her. But that does not mean one has to step back, not knowing, not really wanting to know.. because world out there is too big and the knowledge too vast? Yes, my opinions or anyone else's is according to what they have known and understood so far... they might not be right, but to them that is their philosophy and if you disagree..fine prove them wrong ! Make them change rather than live your entire life swinging, diplomatic, changing colours and statements at every occasion..

Having no opinion? That's..death. How can you live having no thought, no reflection, upon a matter? Most of us do live like this, never actually confessing to it though and swing from one side to another hoping for answers to questions all their lives and not getting any

Your last paragraph was totally bogus, quit playing with words and twisting a simple line into long artistic sentences =P A self reflective mind will not be passive, it will think and reflect and will know or try to understand the metaphysics even if it doesn't hold on to a single dogma. Getting to that is a higher level. A passive mind is the so called *open mind* the one which never argues, never sees, never reflects...just holds back in every argument, declaring itself to be too above..too eclectic..too high to come form opinions with us mortals =D

Haibar wrote: ""And, lastly, I suggest that you try to project what would have happened if, instead of Annie Sullivan, a sadist had taken charge of Helen Keller’s education. A sadist would spell “water” into Hele..."

Okay 1) this is being condescending of her and 2) the most rational thing would be to refute these "academic philosophers" on logical premises. Do that, and you'll get attention. Just striking out every single major thinker as "wrong" isn't going to win you any favors. :P And 3) the purpose of philosophy is not to give answers or to solve the mystery of our paltry existence, but to help us unlearn every single thing we've ever believed in/thought as it attacks the very foundation of our ability to know things.

So, like, what even....

Haibar wrote: "No! Those things are all true, we can never have consistency in philosophy or anything I dunno how you can argue about Rand since you just said you never really read her. But that does not mean one..."

Man, true reflection means having a kaleidoscopic vision. If I continue looking at this one thing from this one same perspective, how am I being truly reflective? Anyways, there's no point in this. You're not getting what I'm trying to say here. Pointless argument.

Condescending? Go fly a kite =_=

The true purpose of philosophy is not to give answers? Yea I do love that theory. It shuts up everyone =D and that too that says there is no reality, there is no truth =D

Then why kill yourself talking nonsense in long sentences and tedious words? Why do we unlearn and relearn and redefine? Just for fun? Or is there a deeper meaning to all this? Philosophy is the quest to know..but has been muddled by so many people with big-ass dictionaries..


No no, striking them wrong is a chore everyone can do.. proving them wrong is a bigger feat. And that's what I am saying. Talking can go on all day, but hey man, the woman proves every word she says..

But hey ! I am NOT her blind believer, I am coming off like one but no way =_= that woman was obsessed with a lot of crap =P

Momina wrote: "Haibar wrote: "No! Those things are all true, we can never have consistency in philosophy or anything I dunno how you can argue about Rand since you just said you never really read her. But that do..."

And it's not like we have no thoughts. What I'm saying is that we have just too many thoughts to side with just one. For every explanation I give to myself, I think of 10 others that reject it, and I cannot prove the validity of any single one of them because each is valid in its own respect. To pick one, I'd have to make a choice that has nothing to do with the laws of logic.

And I'm not hating upon Rand. I was here debating the futility of having philosophical opinions. Because I'd rather know that I can't know things in-themselves, than live in an illusion of knowledge. That's all.

You are saying... Don't stick to one thing and say nothing is absolute. I agree. You yourself discard Rand and perhaps some other philosopher's theory at some whim, right? Where's that kaleidoscopic vision now? You gotta read everyone and pick something for yourself. There's no right answer is what we say to fool ourselves. You yourself are not getting the point either. That's also a cool way to end a discussion =D Keep reflecting all your life and end up knowing nothing....because we were far too..open..to agree or disagree to someone =/

So basically your mind is way too stranded and muddled to choose the one thing? There will always be thousands of options, inside our heads or outside...and the way we choose that one option will define us. That will be your philosophy..

Haibar wrote: "You are saying... Don't stick to one thing and say nothing is absolute. I agree. You yourself discard Rand and perhaps some other philosopher's theory at some whim, right? Where's that kaleidoscopi..."

Lol I don't discard! I read them all and have equal respect for all thinkers! You can't say that to someone who's read Sartre and Nietzsche. :P I haven't discarded her on a whim, my problems with her have nothing to do with the validity of her system. It isn't about her btw. I'm not attacking her.

Haibar wrote: "So basically your mind is way too stranded and muddled to choose the one thing? There will always be thousands of options, inside our heads or outside...and the way we choose that one option will d..."

Well said. [Ecleticism/relativism are philosophical schools, too, paradoxically, ironically. More like stances, points of departure than proper schools.] Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. Nicely put.