Is there a book that contains most of his views and thoughts (like Zarathustra for nietzsche or crisis of the modern world for guenon)? And if there isn't what is a good small book that will introduce me to him?
>>24723262Parerga and Paralipomena if you don't want to read fourfold root and world as will and representation.If you understand Kant, you won't really gain much from reading the world as will and representation or the fourfold root of principle of sufficient reason.
>>24723283thank u friend
>>24723283>If you understand Kant, you won't really gain much from reading the world as will and representation or the fourfold root of principle of sufficient reason.Huh? Are you implying SchopGod is somebody that does not meaningfully add anything to Kant or go beyond him?
>>24723397kant was wrong and easy to refute. schopenhauer made kant more coherent but it doesn't really matter since there are far better directions to go after kant and he didnt say anything that was particularly groundbreaking. there is a reason that of the many post kantian philosophers schopenhauer only influenced gay physicists and no actual philosophers.
>>24723409>kant was wrong and easy to refute. Interesting, based on this board youd get the impression that Kant solved all of philosophy. Ive been looking for Kant criticism. Due to coming to a personal conclusion that philosophy is closer to religion ultimately than not, and as a follower of Wittgenstein, ive been less interested in philosophy per se, and the interactions between philosophers and essentially criticism of philosophy that can push you out of the very convenient bubble it feels like philosophers can sometimes wrap you in with their intelligence and fancy high order words/concepts
>>24723423yes in my opinion what happens is people read a great philosopher with the preconception that because he is a great philosopher their goal when reading him should not be to critique but only to understand. thus when the philosopher says something dumb instead of trying to understand what is wrong with it they just reread it over and over until they brainwash themselves into thinking that it makes perfect sense because until it makes sense to them they don't think they understood it. Kant in particular writes in a very long winded and obscure fashion in an attempt to obscure the flaws in his argument. you should read kant but reading kant is pointless if you don't then read criticism of kant and post-kantian thought, and schopenhauer does make some interesting comments on kant but there are other philosophers who went in more interesting directions with it. Anglo philosophy contains the most explicit engagement with Kant in philosophers such as Charles Peirce, William James, and Wilfrid Sellars, WVO Quine, and others like JL Austin in his essay "Are there a priori concepts." Continental philosophy (i.e. Hegel and post-Hegelians) also engage with Kant in more interesting ways than Schopenhauer but in more oblique fashion. Also, now there is a speculative realism movement started by Alain Badiou and Quentin Meillasoux that rejects Kantianism as well as much of Hegelian influenced thought.
>>24723423>there will always be idiots confusing revelation with reason, philosophers don't care and this really only makes those who believe revelation more confused>all men have opinions, few think.Well if it isn't the pomo voegelin larper. >m-muh he done said only some reason is directed m-muhSounds like a pomo.>n-no like it be about seeking order n sheeeitGo back to religion.>n-nah it be like political n sheetGo join the traditionalist retards.>w-wait it be different this time m-muh turditional gonotology and m-muh no done did gnosis jus meta yoGo be a Muslim. Islam is the last refuge for sorting you idiots out. Socialism won. I'm not even sure why you're here babbling about how you made sense of it.>b-but I made sense of itI don't remotely care.
>>24723565You type in a very weird way that makes it hard to understand what im supposed to be wrong or mistaken about
>>24723572You don't do dialectic so I'm doing it for you. Technically I've given you multiple opportunities for this and you always bail or it's just what I have presented. You're a retard. If you made sense of it and have the order you sought then you get to shut up or suck dicks in your shitbox.
>>24723581>Technically I've given you multiple opportunities for this and you always bail or it's just what I have presented.Im not who you think I am. I was a schopgod defender for a long time until I learned how many people even other than Fichte anon were critical of him. Also probably doesnt help that my disillusionment with Nietzsche made me much much much less "accepting" of philosophers that immediately sounded convincing.Basically, if youre not plato or Wittgenstein and dont try to directly incorporate counter arguments and opposing considerations directly into your philosophy to engage with, then I'm less likely to be convinced because its harder to see the flaws in a closed system.It's actually exactly why I find Plato's political system judgements about how certain political structures change from one to another to be faulty, him and the interlocutor agree on too much without establishing enough. I forgot the name of the dude but he doesnt ask "what do you mean by X?" enough like he usually does to Socrates earlier in the republic, that's one red flag. And I have loads of respect that Plato, unwilling or not, even opens himself up to that very way of discerning the validity of some of his thought.
>>24723450>Anglo philosophy contains the most explicit engagement with Kant in philosophers such as Charles Peirce, William James, and Wilfrid Sellars, WVO Quine, and others like JL Austin in his essay "Are there a priori concepts." Continental philosophy (i.e. Hegel and post-Hegelians) also engage with Kant in more interesting ways than Schopenhauer but in more oblique fashion. Also, now there is a speculative realism movement started by Alain Badiou and Quentin Meillasoux that rejects Kantianism as well as much of Hegelian influenced thought.Interesting, this mostly sounds like Analytical philosophy but maybe I will drop that preconception when I read one of them.The only name I unfortunately recognize here is Quine, and I dont even know if its the same Quine ive heard of.Which name here would you say is best for getting familar or acquainted with a decent counter philosophy to Kant?You can give 1 to 3, I think thats reasonable, if you have the time.
>>24723262>where should I start with Schopenhauer Kant
>>24723610>loads of respect for Plato >I don't do dialectic thoughThis is a red flag, as the current vernacular would phrase it. Very well, you perhaps some points as to the larger health of the board? Could you explain this schopgod meme to me? I see it but I don't know what it refers to. Fichte's philosophy when gamed is one that technically can't be gamed out but it does produce similar results. The Fichte in question has solidified national identity due to resolution of simple contradictions. The Fichte in question seeked to continue evolving active intelligence. The Fichte in question remains too long in the natural state. The first outcome is most well known, I doubt it's common outside niche circles or perhaps Germany but it is well known. The second is more common, and this is not meant in a pejorative way, rather it is just that Fichte might grow bored and want to solve some other problems, if he chooses to continue evolving his active intelligence he is unlikely to damage the core system. If he remains in the natural state for too long he risks making a turn. This poses several ethical dilemmas for him, technically it is considered good manners to help him but he may simply want to move on to something else entirely.
>>24723450The opposite error is more common, being “independent minded” and immediately thinking of cheap objections to a philosopher without trying to understand him. You should read with maximum charity, ie advocate for the author to yourself, and only then criticize him when you know him from the inside. So many people think reading philosophy is like reading a reddit thread.
>>24723618Every philosopher worth reading after Kant has been opposed to Kant. Even Fichte and the neo-Kantians are opposed to the mere letter of Kant, his system is a complete mess as written. But he was onto something.
>>24723663Pseud go 10 minutes without mentioning reddit challenge
>>24723679Zing! Good one man.
>>24723677>Every philosopher worth reading after Kant has been opposed to Kant.Yeah sure, but dudes like Nietzsche that just say "well Kant thought there was truth, but actually there isnt truth, also Kant liked science but science actually kind of sucks and is a bit of a failure in reaping truth the way he thought it would".Im not just looking for opposing perspectives, or else philosophy just becomes like religion as I said, where you just pick and choose whichever particular denomination appeals to you.Im looking for philosophy that isnt stuck in its own bubble. That directly tries to address or counter or improve on prior notions with better conceptions and methodologies that possibly reveal something missed.I think this was ironically the inititial intent with the Genealogy method.But Nietzsche is a literal narrativizing retard, so even though he has a ton of interesting stuff to say, he doesnt even bother to pretend to try and justify it, and his bias spills all over his work. I have still yet to get a straight answer from Nietzschetards about how Ressentiment is not the most retarded empty hollow convenient concept ever to the point of meaninglessness that can be applied to almost every group, and how his conception of nobles vs slaves and power, applied to Christianity is not incoherent and explains how a less powerful class could possibly have the power to topple and erode the noble power and values. WITHOUT Nietzsche essentially saying "you see, the subhuman slaves were sneaky conniving, trifling fellows who by virtue of being weak had to be more clever and motivated!" God Nietzsche is so fucking retarded.
>>24723693>actually there isnt truthhe doesn't say this>his bias spills all over his work he is aware of this>Ressentiment is not the most retarded empty hollow convenient concept ever to the point of meaninglessness that can be applied to almost every group, and how his conception of nobles vs slaves and power, applied to Christianity is not incoherent and explains how a less powerful class could possibly have the power to topple and erode the noble power and valuescan you explain how it is hollow? he explains the power dynamics in the geneaology, which you summarized badly here:>subhuman slaves were sneaky conniving, trifling fellows who by virtue of being weak had to be more clever and motivated!" God Nietzsche is so fucking retarded.he never calls them subhuman, firstly, and people that think he thinks christianity is all bad have not read him carefully. but priests literally are people that use words rather than physical force to wield influence over others, I don't see why it is so hard to see why people that can do this well can overturn a social order
>>24723693I haven’t read Nietzsche yet so can’t speak to that, but none of the great philosophers in my experience are in a bubble, they’re all intensely engaged with contemporary and past debates. That goes for Kant, Fichte, even Schopenhauer. In this paragraph: > Im looking for philosophy that isnt stuck in its own bubble. That directly tries to address or counter or improve on prior notions with better conceptions and methodologies that possibly reveal something missed.You’re describing something everyone does. You seem frankly to have this silly bias against the idealists because of their technical language as if it’s all foolishness and they’re only talking to themselves. I don’t know what to tell you, read more.
I’ll say one nice thing about Schopenhauer - his criticisms of Schelling are accurate and in line with Fichte himself. He was just too impatient to realize that Fichte and Hegel are not actually transcendent, even if it “sounds like” they are; he thinks all three are of a piece but they are not. I definitely enjoy reading him call out that little poodle of a Neoplatonist for his dogmatism and the insufferable pretension of his claims to intellectual intuition. Then again, check out the Freedom Essay (pdf easy to find) and see how close Schoppie was to Schelling. This makes sense, they’re both dogmatists.
>>24723732>he doesn't say thisAre you retarded? Thats literally one of his most infamous quotes, that there are only preferences and in the beginning of BGE, he makes a point to talk about how certain philosophies reflect more on the philosopher than any truth, I no longer remember the specifics, as I read it earlier this year, but Im 90% sure im right Also theres picrel.>he never calls them subhuman, firstly, and people that think he thinks christianity is all bad have not read him carefully. but priests literally are people that use words rather than physical force to wield influence over others, I don't see why it is so hard to see why people that can do this well can overturn a social orderNot replying to all of this when youre only avenue of engagement is to go "Nooooo he didnt literally! call them subhuman, as he goes on to call the slave class sickly". Im not going to pull up the quotes because Ive already done it in the past and it never matters, Nietzschetards are literally braindamaged, they dont actually remember the words he says. I likened it to the bible when i first game across it, there have been so many translations, motivated ones, and so many interpretations, that people are astonished when the bible essentially justifies slavery or rape. Because the broad interpretation replaces the word. So when they read, the read with the way theyre supposed to interpret something at the back of their mind.You cannot engage reasonably with somebody like this. Present all the quotes you can, and it wont matter, they will ignore the quotes and intead posit the popular interpretation."Nobles didnt have to settle things with words! You see priests settled things with words! the historical records say so". Youre also a fucking retard, the priest class is fundamentally distinct from the slave class.
>>24723618>Which name here would you say is best for getting familar or acquainted with a decent counter philosophy to Kant?My favorite is Charles Peirce's essays at the beginning of 'the Essential Peirce vol 1' where he critiques the foundational notiosn of Kant's philosophy such as Kant's concept of "intuitions." His entire philosophy is based on this response to Kant. Like Schopenhauer, he also reduces Kant's categories. Schopenhauer reduces them to causality, and Peirce to his own three categories. I have some problems with his epistemology.William James is the second anglo to really attack german idealism at the base. In "Essays on radical empiricism" he attacks the German concept of "consciousness." His philosophy was taken up and completed by John Dewey in "Experience in Nature." James is also the foundation of Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy. Quentin Meillasoux's book "After Finitude" criticizes Kant's notion (and according to him, the notion of all post-kantian continental philosophy) that human beings cannot know reality but only our relation to reality using arguments that in retrospect should probably be obvious, but due to the Kant fervor I guess it took a long time for people to say it.
>>24723753Yeah it’s impossible, I’ve had the same frustrating exchanges with Platonists here. Most people are illiterate, they only remember the passages taken out of context that fit their view. And whatever you say it’ll be “oh yeah? What about… this!” Kant straight admits in the Prolegomena that one of the reasons for “scientific”/esoteric writing is to filter pseuds and keep them away from philosophy. Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent
>>24723766>Experience in Natureexperience and nature*
>>24723766>anglosIf you want a straightforward takedown of dogmatic Kantianism the intro to Schelling’s Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature hits all the main points and is accessible. There are many problemsIf sensibility and understanding are separate, how can we guarantee experience? Why couldn’t intuition simply refuse to comply with the understanding?How can a thing in itself be known to exist?Why the hell *should* the categories follow from laws of syllogistic logic?How does Kant know all this? What’s his method? Oh wait he doesn’t have one.Aren’t all concepts both analytic and synthetic?How is Kant not begging the question against skepticism?How can this noumenal will interact with phenomena?Trying to answer questions like that while preserving the “spirit” of Kant is what post-Kantian idealism is all about. It’s like hundreds of years of philosophical history compressed into 30 years.
>>24723766>Quentin Meillasoux's book "After Finitude" criticizes Kant's notion (and according to him, the notion of all post-kantian continental philosophy) that human beings cannot know reality but only our relation to reality using arguments that in retrospect should probably be obvious, but due to the Kant fervor I guess it took a long time for people to say it.Damn, this sounds like the most pointed critique. Will have to read this one, hopefully I can find an audiobook and dont need too many prerequisite readings lmao.As for the other guys, I think ill check them out depending on how much more I feel I need after this one.Which one would you say has the most "complete" feeling philosophy out of these 3? Im just curious. Im not talking about some arbitrary notion of "correctness" moreso whichever one tries to answer the most questions or engage with most considerations essentially.
>>24723791Anglos also developed Hegelianism and Kantianism from an idealist perspective, e.g. Royce, McTaggart, and Bradley, who were all popular at the time and who the anglos I mentioned were directly influenced by. Peirce himself claimed to be an "objective idealist." The difference is that the philosopher I mentioned had moved further beyond the naive absolute idealism precisely because they were responding to the ones who had already systematized German Idealist philosophy. Meanwhile, you and other german idealist worshippers want to remain stuck in the past and desire a single crystallized system to have solved philosophy. Of course, I'm not saying don't read Schelling, but your contempt for anglo philosophers is a symptom of the fact that you are a LARPer.
>>24723803I know I was just being a troll. I don’t even read German. I do not worship the idealists at all, I even have problems with my main man Fichte. I do not think it is possible to solve philosophy - a romantic idealist view btw. You guys have this idiotic view of us like we’re mindless fanboys, the fact is you’re too lazy to read philosophers like Fichte.
>>24723768>Yeah it’s impossible, I’ve had the same frustrating exchanges with Platonists here. I personally havent interacted with platonists, and funnily enough I know most academic philosophers are platonists right?I wouldn't even bother arguing with platonists though, as ive said, Platos dialogues are...already dialogues, and because of that unique factor, it is VERY easy to identify the flaws in his positions for reasons I stated above. When hes assuming too much, not justifying enough, not building the foundations enough. Because these are simply things he normally does in his dialogues, so if hes not doing it, the idea hes positing is incredibly shaky. And for the ideas he does justify, theyre also clear enough in that they consider most relevant factors, that you can easily imagine whats missing imo.If anybody wants any idea what actually engaging with Nietzschetards with direct quotes looks like I can maybe find an old thread that proves my point so that I dont just look like im coping and screeching.Seriously Nietzsche fans broke my entire conception of philosophy, it sounds silly in retrospect, but I actually used to think it was some serious endeavor into understanding, even above science because it tried to answer things it couldn't.I guess the most ironic thing about Nietzsche is that I should have listened to him in Zarathustra and BGE when he says every philosophers philosophy are basically just opinions that reflect their constitution and that its stupid to follow his ideas blindly because that less "noble" or whatever.I think he was right, because of how simple a contention that is. Thats something id expect to hear from an undergraduate in the modern day, since everybody is constantly trying to psychoanalyze and psychologize to discredit or dismiss someone.I guess Nietzsche gets credit for being "the first" although I doubt he actually was. Just the most popular, or focused on that in particular.
>>24723798Peirce wanted to create an architectonic, systematic philosophy that would replace Aristotelianism as the dominant philosophy of the west. But he scattered his system across a large number of short papers so you don't really get the feeling that he is a systematic philosopher when reading him. Alfred North Whitehead presented a rather systematic philosophy based on James's basic premises which seeks to explain both scientific and religious experience. Meillasoux has a weird philosophy like his teacher Alain Badiou and I personally prefer Graham Harman's version of "speculative realism" as a much more plausible development of the basic critique of Kantianism first stated by Meillasoux, but these guys probably gloss over a lot of questions as how to they are actually arriving at their positions.
>>24723820>But he scattered his system across a large number of short papers so you don't really get the feeling that he is a systematic philosopher when reading him.(which is not to say that he didn't have a complete philosophy or that you can't determine what it is from his writings)
>>24723811>You guys have this idiotic view of us like we’re mindless fanboysI talked to esoteric kantfag too much. there also genuinely are a lot of insane Hegel fanboys.
>>24723826>there also genuinely are a lot of insane Hegel fanboys.recently the worst has been fichte anons, theyre too haughty. I do appreciate them introducing doubt in Schopenhauer though so that i can maybe be motivated to learn beyond him and even kantcriticism is the easiest motivation for me
>>24723812Nietzsche attracts edgelords and cranks. You won’t find many crank idealists except for on /lit/. Try Fichte’s introductions on wikisource, they’re not too long and not written in technical language. They should help you understand why people were interested in saving Kant from himself in the first place. Idealism is interesting to me because it rejects the crude aspects of premodern thought without succumbing to scientism, it’s a balancing act in the middle of modernity. It’s also politically subversive.
tekken 4
>>24723830I’m only haughty with people I deem to be retards. Can’t speak for the other Fichtefrens
>>24723854>I’m only haughty with people I deem to be retards. >Interviewer: Who do you deem retards?>Fichteanon: Everyone who doesnt subscribe to German IdealismSo basically everyone on this board.
>>24723846>Try Fichte’s introductions on wikisource, they’re not too long and not written in technical language.Yeah. Ive been debating reading a bit of Fichte. Might do it before I delve into the anglo idealists. Only problem is im just worried about not picking up on the language, I wonder if its some kind of mental deficiency of mine, but when people speak with words imbued with like double meaning, or prestablished meanings, Im not good at assuming the meaning, because Im scared of being wrong. Its part of the reason I was duped by Nietzsche so long. I gave extra charitability to his interpretations that werent necessarily implied by his words because I was worried of being wrong and missing somdsomething "surely this cant be as stupid as it sounds like it is".Also why does nobody ever talk about the hilarity of a philosophy book where the entire middle of it is LITERALLY just A-Z quotes tier where he says shit like "beating women is actually good, they need it" im embellishing yes, but im not even that far off. And I say this as somebody that likes BGE because it sort of broke me out of my science worship by appealing to some doubts Id been having about science.Anyway as for Fichte's introductions. By wikisource do you mean SEP? Itd help if i could find any of Fichte's introductory stuff by way of audiobook.Somebody recommended me hegels history of philosophy in the past and I still have to get to that. Im quitting as soon as he starts babbling in rune language though.
>>24723885https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Johann_Gottlieb_Fichtenot that anon but literally wikisource
>>24723885https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Johann_Gottlieb_FichteThere are two introductions. As far as ambiguity in reading I feel the same way, like I’m reading Hegel’s Logic now and am retarded in face of it. Reading things over and over is the best way, you will sink into a natural and cogent interpretation. Hegel’s hop from what I’ve read is great, besides the part on Fichte ofc.
>>24723753>certain philosophies reflect more on the philosopher than any truthhe says that, but he never denies the reality of truth. I'm sorry that we couldn't have a real conversation, but I attempted to engage with you, and all you did was chimp out and insult me. I did probably not start things off well with my trite remarks, so it is partially my fault. I think Nietzsche is more complicated than you present him, which, by the way, is the 'popular interpretation.'
>>24723897Not that Anon, but I recommeded people to read Hegel's Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences and his Lectures on the History of Philosophy because:1) they're in public domain (unlike Durant's The Story of Philosophy or Copleston's A History of Philosophy)2) they in many cases expand upon and ellucidate on many topics that are only briefly touched upon in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.Back when I originally went through my studies on Western philosophy, I had the end goal of getting to read philosophers like Hegel and Heidegger, so I often read through portions of Hegel's Lectures after going through the works of specific philosophers so as to see how Hegel made sense of this or that thinker's ideas, while anticipating what else to read prior to Hegel.After reading Kant's Critiques and some brief summaries on Fichte and Schelling's ideas, I read Hegel's PoS, using the then-incomplete Half-Hour Hegel video series to complement my reading, but ended up eventually having to just rely on myself for the last bit of Hegel's PoS. Reading Hegel's Encyclopedia after the PoS did help confirm many of my suspicions regarding Hegel's own postures (as opposed to wildly exaggerated caricatures of him as an incomprehensible mystic and a charlatan), but I wouldn't recommend anyone to just rely on Hegel's Encyclopedia to get a perfect grasp on his philosophical system.
