| ▲ | fao_ 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IDK, I understood them perfectly well. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | throw4847285 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But what were they actually saying? They just used the phrase "college-educated" and several synonyms as an insult to put themself forward as just some working class Joe who has no time for rich people and their hoity toity high and mighty philosphizing. If I was to be charitable, I guess maybe their argument was that Kant only believed in subjective universality because he was rich, but that doesn't make any sense. Both Kant and Hume grew up middle class, and ended up in academia, and had very different conclusions about what "taste" is. It's just a knee jerk reaction to dead white men philosophers and anyone who is interested in them as a bunch of elitists. That's not an argument, that's some kind of misplaced class resentment masquerading as an argument. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||