Which Kant ideas do you disagree with?

Yes, tons of alt-right nerds who hate women love to cite him.

His essay, On Women, is pretty funny tbh.

Schopenhauer misread Kant and turned him into an idealist. Kant didn't think that the human mind "made" space and time, just that thinking is limited by it.

None. Kant dindu nuffin.

antinatalism is not about hating women

It's not clear to me if that is Schopenahuer's view from reading the secondary literature.

Immanyougotabigassforehead Kant.

Kantian appearances are sense data that don't conform to the categories of logical thinking, ie just seeing things without having the mind construct them. Schopenhauer divided the feeling of compassion,hunger, and pain from the concept of sensation, something that Descartes didn't do. Descartes thought all subjective experience were "ideas". Schopenhauer then thought that Kant meant by Thing-In-Itself that there was a world hidden to us that was real, which he didn't. Schopenhauer called that the Will and it's separate from thinking.

It's not about his antinatalism.
Schoppy literally wrote an essay about how women are biologically inferior to men

Yeah. Pic related. He's not wrong.

The idea of a thing-in-itself is the proper defence against accusations of Kant being an idealist. For true idealists, like Berkley, reality is composed of thoughts - specifically, God's thoughts.

Kant's point is that we can't know anything about the thing-in-itself. It's properties are necessarily hidden from us.

Not true. Schopnehauer would not describe any aspect of reality as being "separate" from Will. Everything we encounter is just various stages of the Will manifested as Representation.

Bitches are always talking when I'm trying to watch GoT.
t. Schopenhauer

…

For some reason I actually like the poor depressed troll with the Prodigy hair.

This is very interesting. He's mostly correct, but he seems to think that women do everything for men innately rather than because it is what they have to do under patriarchal systems to live. He fell for the common trap of thinking that everything that happens is natural and the way it has always been and always will be.

Replace "women" with "working class white men" and it would sound like a New York Times Op-Ed.

Yeah, Schopenhauer wasn't big on the idea of historical progress or even change. For him, the basic condition of man is unchanging, however much appearances may change. We're all just hungry snakes that don't realise we're cannibalising ourselves with everything we do.

he's not really wrong though

The properties of the Thing-In-Itself are not "hidden" like a book is "hidden" under a blanket.
It's a unknowable reality because the way our mind works structures reality in a certain way. Things In Themselves don't have existence the same way that an apple has existence. When I enter into a room, the room before I entered isn't a "Thing-In-Itself" because there isn't causal metaphysical link between my mind and the exterior world, my mind doesn't "create" the world like a toolman makes a tool.

He divided getting sense data, logic, and emotions (the Will) from each other. He thought since our "inner" sense of self as body (ie hunger and feelings) was different from the "outer" world of representation, the world as Will in ourselves underlies everything. The Will is the Will to Live and everything is a manifestation of it, it's just that we can't use reason to understand it. For Kant and Descartes there is no division between the "representation" or "idea" of thinking and feelings emotions or heat. Schopenhauer thought Kant was like Berkeley, where minds directly construct reality on a metaphysical basis. In reality his inner and outer division of world as Will and Representation makes no sense in a Kantian Idealist basis.

Forgot to mention, Schopy divides Will from thinking here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Fourfold_Root_of_the_Principle_of_Sufficient_Reason)

(archive.org/details/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft)

Admittedly I have no read the Fourfold Root, but I have read World as Will and Representation, and so my interpretation is based upon that later work.

We certainly agree on this point, but I don't believe that supports your perspective at the expense of mine. Kant felt it necessary to deny metaphysical knowledge to make room for faith. He maintained that to have knowledge of something requires that it be situated within either time, space, or the categories of understanding — as metaphysics was necessarily concerned with matters outside of the above, we cannot have absolute metaphysical knowledge. Despite this, Kant believes that we can know that external objects do exist, as sensation are simply ‘given’ to us and that implies that there is a source independent of our will. So we can know that the noumena exists, but not its actual essence.

Here's a direct quote from §31 of WWR volume 1:

‘What Kant said was essentially the following: “time, space and causality are not determinations of the thing in itself, but instead belong only to its appearance, since they are nothing but the forms of our cognition. And since multiplicity and all arising and passing away are possible only through time, space and causality, it follows that these too belong only to appearances and not at all to things in themselves. But given that our cognition is conditioned by these forms, the whole of experience is only cognition of appearance, not of the thing in itself: and so the laws of experience cannot be considered valid for the thing in itself. This holds even true for our own I, which we can cognize only as appearance, not as what it might be in itself.”

Schopenhauer was a NEET and permavirgin with literal mommy issues, so I honestly think his personal unhappiness may have distorted his intellectual endeavours.

I think I read somewhere that Shoppy based his critique on the second edition of COPR, and after he got his hands on the first one he claimed he could find nothing of error

I disagree with Kant that if a murderer asks where my family is, it would be wrong for me to lie to them.

...

Wew, anons. Stop being such newfags.

Kant is a fucking madman.

I've read Fourfold Root and the parts of World as Will and Representation where he lays out his theories of knowledge. Also read Prolog by Kant, Beginning parts of CPR (Kant said the book was dry and he wasn't lying) and Allison's Transcendental Idealism. If you have the EFJ Payne translations that's what I've read, those are the best.

That's a giant mistake, Schopenhauer himself to read Fourfold first because it lays out his entire theory of knowledge. He keeps pestering the reader about it.

Kant elevated metaphysics to a higher plane. He said that anyone who abolished metaphysics was a bandit in the Prologemma of any future metaphysics.

That quote shows precisely where Schopenhauer went wrong. A appearance is a unorganized sense data experience in Kant, and once it's connect to the categories then it becomes a Phenomena. Appearance is subjective but Phenomena hold objective across all human minds. The world is my phenomenal experience and I can accurately predict things in it.

Wrong. Kant laid out that positive noumena were things Plato's Ideas, ie they are unknowable. Negative noumena are things apart from our cognition, i.e. reality without the mode in which we think. Kant didn't argue that unknowable reality has metaphysical existence, ie actually exists.

EFJ Payne translations of Schopenhauer, to be accurate.

He was actually a bourgeois fuck and lived off of stocks.

I know he nags about it, but my philosophy professor tried to outline what was in FR, and suggested it wasn't as important as WWR.

Perhaps, but it does indicate that Schopenhauer did not interpret Kant as a Berkely-esque idealist. He clearly recognises that there was more to Kant's metaphysical system than mere ideas.

I know, so literally Not in Education or Employment. He had a very NEETish lifestyle. He wasn't partying it up, mostly just writing his philosophy and beating up his elderly neighbours.

Don't ever trust Philosophy professors. Read the primary sources yourself. I had a philosophy professor who interpreted Plato as a modern democrat and Karl Marx as a guy who advocated the welfare state.

It does because Schopenhauer ignored the division between appearance (random empirical experience) and phenomena (empirical experience connected with rational law). Schopenhauer's "world is appearance" basically translates to the world is a big illusion and the Will has the most existence or is the most "real" thing.

I liked the essay where Schopy said he would beat people with his cane if he heard a horse whip crack again his town. I think that's "On Noise".

*crack again in his town.

Derp

As well as being a pure slave moralist, the concept that consequences simply don't matter as long as the intent was good is ludicrous.

Furthermore the concept of definite morals is ridiculous. Human constructs cannot be 'definite' without becoming awkward and excellent.

...

Weapons-grade cancerous autism. This is what you get when you go too far up your own arse.

He's mostly not wrong about women, but I have personally known plenty of women who are more like men in this regard (and vice versa). It's just a trend in personality traits really. What do you honestly expect when women's optimal strategy is to attach to a man with high social status and/or access to resources, when a man's optimal strategy is mastery of some field?

Yeah sorry ignore that typo.

All of them except for the need for a synthesis of self.

KEK

care to explain?

I don't care about people who died 50000 years ago. Left and Right are two sides of the same coin. Way to play right into their fucking hands you stupid fucks. Google divide and conquer when you are ready to put on some big boy pants.