So, are you supposed to read Hume and Descartes beforehand?
>>24782474And yet you'll get filtered
>>24782474You're supposed to read secondary literature. Just google "guide to kant pdf" and read it. Read two to be sure. It's that simple.
>>24782474Schopenhauer says to read Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics first, but I think you'd be fine without it. The important stuff in Critique, like the Transcendental Aesthetic, doesn't require anything prerequisite to understand.
>>24782474start with the greeks
Why did he say that the Noumena will never ever be accessible? is it like a hard biology problem? like our sense organs literally cant evolve to the point where we can access it? or is it something more?
>>24782581Never do this garbage. "Secondary literature" obsession is the death of philosophy.
>>24782799We can never get beyond the conditions of how we experience things. The object is always and forever filtered through the subject. Kant himself tries to pushback against this in the second edition with his refutation of idealism and attempt to more adequately ground the categories in the B Deduction: Schopenhauer rightly sees this as a copout.
>>24782802I am yet to see people obsessing over secondary lit. At best they want a simple foundation for what they are going to read for the next 10-20 hours, that's it.What I am seeing is a bunch of people getting way over their heads and getting utterly BTFO'd by the very first sentences of the books that they will then pretend to have read on social media for likes. And instead of trying to understand any concept found in them, they will just memorize terms or sentences and feel like they belong in a club. You're a newbie, act like one. Read secondary literature.
>>24782799the phenomena-noumena distinction is an epistemic distinction and not an ontological distinction. when you "realize" something, what once was noumenal becomes phenomenal.
>>24782840>I am yet to see people obsessing over secondary litI take it you've never entered a Western philosophy department in the past 20-30 years and don't pay attention to it as an academic field. 90+% of its output is commentary on previously great philosophers. Regardless, you're better of doing shit like this>>24782713than reading something like the Allison book on Kant.
>>24782847And this is the Shelling/Hegel copout that completely misunderstands Kant that Schopenhaeur hated so much. No, experience and reflection do not get us beyond the phenomnal/noumenal divide. The object is still being filtered through your subjectivity, you can never arrive at the object-qua-object stripped of the subjective factor you bring to it.
>>24782851>90+% of its output is commentary on previously great philosophersAnd not the commentary on commentaries. People obsess over the original authors.Case closed.
>>24782812>>24782847Ive Studied, In Very amateur way though, buddhist philosophy and came across a very high level concept known as Rigpa, I probably wont be very good at explaining it but its basically the concept of breaking down the subject object relationship into a direct realization of “oneness” which is the ultimate nature of the mind. does this “contradict” the noumena in a way?>inb4 religion copeIm just asking because in my own opinion i feel there is a potential relationship between these concepts, one is filtered through western enlightenment thought(kant) and one through Eastern philosophy.
>>24782855>you can never arrive at the object qua object>except shopes is cool and correct when he calls it the willPot kettle black
>>24782474It helps. All philosophy is in a conversation. It's an ongoing dialogue, and you're only included if you understand.
>>24782861Schopenhauer cops out as well. I'm a pragmatist downstream from Quine and Wittgenstein tbqh with you.>>24782860Schopenhauer regularly brings up the concept of "maya" and this Rigpa seeems like a way out of the veil of maya, but again I think these are all copouts. There is no getting beyond our own subjectivity in my view.
>>24782861Really dont get this boards obsession with Schop, I dont know its just I personally dont like him, he claims to be “life denying/will denying” but its like, what does that even mean? that just sounds like suicide but in a super roundabout way of going about it.
>>24782877I think there's a certain love for a philosopher who is almost entirely ignored by the formal field of "philosophy." There's been a massive Hegelian revival in Anglo-American departments despite him getting tossed out as nonsense by the analytics in the early 20thC, but again Schopenhauer is entirely overlooked for whatever reason. Also, many here love Nietzsche, and the N-S connection is pretty obvious.
>>24782886Im actually pretty OK with Nietzsche, I mainly like him for his refutation of Schop. I guess I just prefer life affirming philosophy in general, Its just something about being a living creature and then coming up with the decision of “hey i dont like being alive anymore” that just rubs me the wrong way. humans are like the only recorded species to consciously kill ourselves. that wrong in my opinion, just be alive until you get stopped from being alive. if thats the “will” as described by Schop i surrender to it i guess.
>>24782972I don't really disagree. I think Schopenhauer is interesting to read as a commentator on Kant and a view of how "post-Kantianism" could have been different if it wasn't dominated by perverse Hegelians. Despite his flaws he's much better than old windbags.
>>24782812Another of the very few points where Schopenpseud and Fichte are in agreement. There’s a great rant in one of his lectures where he calls the B text a “betrayal” of idealism but I can’t be added to transcribe it into my phone.
>>24782474Ian M. Banks apparently
>>24782855If every object is “filtered” by our subjectivity then there is, by your own terms, no such thing as a thing in itself, everything is in relation to the subject and has no being apart from the subject. Kant explicitly lays out its noumenal (thought) character in multiple places. You got filtered kid, dust yourself off and study Fichte.
>>24782855>he thinks Hegel and Fichte pretend to lead you past the subject into the Thing beyond the subjectWhy not try reading these guys yourself rather than repeating Schopenhauer? You might as well accuse Aquinas of atheism.
>>24783981>by your own terms, no such thing as a thing in itself, everything is in relation to the subject and has no being apart from the subjectThat's not at all what's being said. If there wasn't an object we wouldn't be grasping a representation of it. Objects being does not represent on being perceived or experienced by a subject. You're collapsing epistemology and ontology like a Post-Kantian pseud.
>>24783993Through a series of logical fallacies they lead you to the supposed unity between the subject and object and collapse the distinction entirely.
>>24783981"Thoughts without content are empty"Pick the Kant back up and put that retarded second-rate thinker down.
>>24784000Of course there is an object but this object is only a limit of consciousness. You’re critiquing thinkers you never read, this is a pseud move.>>24784009No. Neither Fichte nor Hegel does this, nature, limitation is quite real and it is not at all “up to us”.>>24784033But you’re right, and Kant was right when he said this. It’s tiresome man. Come home.
It seems like you think Fichte and Hegel thought our brains were creating reality or something. You’re stuck on the fact that there is an object for consciousness and think it means there’s a spooky ? we can never know that is mechanically causing things from beyond consciousness. You can’t know the thing beyond consciousness or whether there is such a thing. It’s like a monster under the bed. But ofc you think “it’s contingent, so it’s not up to me” - yes - “so there’s a beyond” - no - “and I can know it!” -no. It’s rich that a Schopenhauerian takes this line. YOU guys are the ones who claim to know le thing in itself. Real idealists know it’s a myth. And this will go on and on because you’re a dogmatist, a form of retardation, so you won’t understand what I just said.
>>24784082>we can never know that is mechanically causing things from beyond consciousness.It's moreso that there wouldn't be anything for consciousness at all if there was no "spooky" so to speak. There would be no experience whatsoever, and this is what Kant is getting at with "thoughts without content are empty." "There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience" as Kant says in the introduction. And earlier in the B Preface: "This consciousness of my existence in time is bound up in the way of identity with the consciousness of a relation to something outside me, and it is therefore expeirence not invention, sense not imagination, which inseparably connects this outside something with my inner sense." All experience and indeed all notions of identity are necessarily bound up with that "spooky" you so deride. So again, pick up your Kant and put those second-rate thinkers down.
