Which way Western Man?
>turns around and reads Hume
>Digs a hole and reads Descartes
>>24715202>>24715217
>>24715137What's the central point of the critique of pure reason?
>The SchopGod, Fichte wars are heating upI want the truest philosopher to win...keep warring
>>24715217>Builds a time machine and helps Alexander conquer China
>>24715237I don't know, I've never read it. I just like editing the cover into memes.
>>24715137The illusion of free choice
Tbqh I was planning to read Phenomenology of Spirit after Critique and then move to The World as Will after that
>>24715426>I was planning to read Phenomenology of SpiritLmao, good look with that
>>24715137>>24715418
Is there anywhere to get a new copy of The Science of Knowledge for <$65?Seems like a silly price for a paperback
>>24715418That’s not Nietzsche
>>24715418>Wagner was to the end of his life a philosopher. All the currents of philosophical thinking that were important in his day, from Fichte's idolisation of the self to Marx's critique of the capitalist economy, and from Feuerbach's repudiation of religion to Schopenhauer's theory of the will, left traces in his dramas. There is no work of philosophy that delves so deeply into the paradoxes of erotic love as Tristan and Isolde, no work of Christian theology that matches Wagner's exploration of the Eucharist in Parsifal, and no work of political theory that uncovers the place of power and law in the human psyche with the perceptiveness of The Ring.>The Ring itself is a post-Hegelian work. In the descent into Nibelheim, Wagner gives us an image of industrial capitalism that says more than a thousand pages of Karl Marx. In the character of Wotan he presents a brilliant summary of the vision underlying Hegel's political philosophy. And in the drama of Siegfried and Brünnhilde he unfolds an epitome of the idealist philosophy of self-knowledge.
>>24715237How and what do we know independent of our physical senses.
>>24715526New? No. Used is the way.
>>24715137>going home for the books of wisdom and the prophets
>>24715310I can't wait
This is Schopenhauer's influence just on the surface:>Those who have cited his influence include philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche[26] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[27] scientists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein,[28] psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud[29] and Carl Jung, writers such as Leo Tolstoy,[30] Herman Melville,[31] Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse,[32] Machado de Assis,[33] Jorge Luis Borges, Marcel Proust,[34] and Samuel Beckett[35] as well as composers such as Richard Wagner,[34] Johannes Brahms,[34] Arnold Schoenberg[34][36] and Gustav Mahler.[34]>InfluencedAnjos, Assis, Bahnsen, Beckett, Bergson, Borges, Brahms, Brouwer, Campbell, Einstein[9], Fet, Cioran, Dilthey[10], Freud, Gray[11], Hardy, Hartmann, Hesse, Horkheimer, Huysmans, Jung, Reve, Kraus[12], Ludovici[13], Ligotti, Mahler, Mainländer, Majorana[14], Mann, Maupassant, Michelstaedter, Nietzsche, Proust, Rank, Reve, Rilke, Ryle[15], Santayana, Schlick[16], Shaw, Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Solovyov, Spengler, Tolstoy[17], Vaihinge,r Volkelt, Wagner, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Zapffe, Zola.
>>24715137Fichte, obviously. I’m reading him right now. Although he is quite complex and you really need to pay attention, because every word matters to understand him, it’s a joy to read.
>"Schopenhauer killed Fichte. I am just pissing on his grave."- Nick LandLMAOOOOOO
"Schopenhauer wrote the most lucid introduction to Kant that I've ever seen."- Nick Land
""Schopenhauer with a few more blackpills" is the only philosophical ambition worth having."- Nick Land
I'll stick with Kant and not choose either path, thanks
>>24716104Anyone who truly chooses Kant has implicitly chosen Fichte. Fichte is just Kant with better arguments. He is the original esoteric Kantian, the OG.“Until now, the author has been sincerely convinced that no human understanding can advance any further than that boundary on which Kant stood, especially in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, and which he declared to be the final boundary of finite knowing - even though he never determined the boundary for us. The author realizes that he will never be able to say anything that has not already been indicated by Kant, directly or indirectly and with more or less clarity. He will leave it to future ages to fathom the genius of this man who, often as if inspired from on high, drove philosophical judgment so decisively from the standpoint at which he found it toward its final goal.”
>>24716146>Fichte is just Kant with better arguments.HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA>“Fichte is the father of the sham philosophy, of the disingenuous method which, through ambiguity in the use of words, incomprehensible language, and sophistry, seeks to deceive, and tries, moreover, to make a deep impression by assuming an air of importance — in a word, the philosophy which seeks to bamboozle and humbug those who desire to learn. After this method had been applied by Schelling, it reached its height, as every one knows, in Hegel, in whose hands it developed into pure charlatanism. But whoever even names this Fichte seriously along with Kant shows that he has not even a dim notion of what Kant is.”-Schopenhauer
>>24716151It’s true though. Just compare Kant’s deductions of the categories with Fichte’s, it’s like ooga booga art compared to the Sistine Chapel.
>>24716158(You)
>>24715237>g-g-god exists, trust me!!! without god, we have no objectivity!!!
>>24715820SchopenGod is too powerful...
>>24715942>>24715943>>24715945Damn why didnt anybody tell me this Land guy was so based? Its actually very rare, for Nietzsche inspired/obsessed people, especially the ones who have a left leaning disposition, to care about let alone respect Schopenhauer, they never realize just how much Nietzsche ripped directly from him
>>24715137Let's see; Schopenhauer:>Nietzsche>Wagner>Freud>Spenglernow, Fichte:>Schelling>Hegel>Marx, Engels & friends
>>24716206Nick Land is a Schopenhauerian. Shitgelians have lied to. Land took a huge shite on Hegel. >>24716217Mention his aesthetic influence. This is also where Schopenhauer utterly buck breaks charlatans.
“The idealisms of Kant and Fichte do not go beyond the ought and the infinite progress, and remain in the dualisms of determinate being and being-for-self. True, in these systems the thing-in-itself and the infinite shock or Anstoß enters directly into the ego and becomes only something for it; but it proceeds from a free otherness which is perpetuated as a negative being-in-itself. The ego is therefore undoubtedly determined as ideal, as being for itself, as infinite self-relation; but the moment of being-for-one is not completed to the point where the beyond, or the direction to the beyond, vanishes.” - HegelGee that’s a legitimate attack that shows genuine understanding of transcendental philosophy. Fichtesisters… our response?
>>24716246I was wondering why I couldnt understand this shit if it was supposed to be schopenhauer, until I saw the "-Hegel"
>>24716258Kek
>>24716246It’s a forgivable misreading, this is exactly why Fichte abandoned the method of the three foundational principles, because it suggests this primitive is/ought dualism. But Hegel didn’t know the lectures and Fichte was too buttblasted by the atheism controversy to publish them. You could read the whole Nova Methodo lectures as a retroactive response to this. Tl;dr - being-for-one is the noumenal self in Nova Methodo, it is not in time, the infinite progress does not exist for it as such. We of course phenomenally experience infinite progress and Hegel does not dispute this.
>>24715237what you see is NOT what you get
