This is something I had been hoping was true for so long! I now have found sources which strongly suggest Kant doesn’t believe in God; not just the J-C God; any kind of GOD! There are textual sources which are necessarily ambiguous; as his system allows for a God, but biographical sources can be twisted to demonstrate how he is an atheist. I need to do more reading; refer to Manfed Kuehn’s biography
I just realised something; nearly every person I know is aged under 60. I have little sympathy with the elderly because I hardly know any. If many people are in the same situation; then the elderly are invisible to society. This is very worrying. Very worrying.
I only have a few hours a day, nay, a month, in which I am truly the person I want to be. The rest of the time I feel hopeless, empty, weak. For the hours when I am alive; I am immortal, I am potential actualised, I am not a man, I am dynamite. My life is so short; I do not know when I will be awake again, because of that. I must appreciate every moment I am alive. I may not come back again.
1. The person who is rarely living; the person who is dead; the person who is in a state of constant rest. The person who is only alive when they are at their greatest, at all other times they are dormant. This is the hero who saves the world; but his world was not saved: he is the living dead.
2. The person who everyone relies on, who is reliable, who is always there for you. This person is great, he is constantly present. This person is almost never absent in the community. This is the person who is useful in many situations. She is great in her own right.
Are both mutually exclusive?
- Construe (I get physical pleasure saying this word)
- Imbue (same)
- According to Kant…
- (anything with) Hypothetico-Deductive method
- *Lyrics of Hangar 18*
- *Lyrics of Pyre of Gods*
Hume was right. We don’t spend our days worrying about evil demons, or whether peacemeal instances of sensory doubt lead to a grand denial of knowledge. Doesn’t mean skepticism is wrong though, it’s just too hard to seriously entertain outside of the philosophy mode of thought we take; which is very much different to our everyday mode of life (apparently). Skepticism is like a virus; a computer virus. It is designed to find any source of doubt and expose it, and use its logic to infer grand denials of knowledge. It’s a virus that works. Things like skepticism of knowledge and skepticism about meaning should be seen as challenges to philosophical effort.
I think at this point in time, the former can be successfully defeated, by transcendental arguments. I, of course, could be wrong about that; but the empirical fact that we simply assume certain things tells us that the skeptic’s challenge isn’t so important, we can go on life without it. Perhaps skepticism is undefeatable, but is that really important?