There’s a lot less Kantposting lately, so I guess I’ll have to fill in. Alright, listen up and get your critiques of pure reason out and start reading. 10 pages a day should be manageable for everyone.Btw what is the best introduction to Kant? (Some anons might need help after all)
>>24846858Just read the Prolegomena and proceed with Schopenhauer, He's not worth it since his premise is outdated and refuted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer
>>24846863I don’t think you can dismiss the most influential philosopher since Descartes and jump straight to the two outlier-lunatics in philosophy. Seems like a coping strategy.
>>24846858What will Kant give me that I cannot already know from Shakespeare and Plato? Why should I crack him open instead of going deeper where I already tread?
>>24846870Schopenhauer’s work, along with the critique of Kantiasm he includes as an appendix, already contains everything of value in Kant. There’s no need anymore to slog through that ugly monstrosity of a book he wrote
>>24846889What if I just enjoy torturing myself? Everything you say is operating under the assumption that I have something better to do than sit in a dark room and read Critique of Pure Reason.
>>24846888Plato is too optimistic in the capability of reason. Plato should be read by everyone as well, best before engaging with Kant. But when you’ve understood what Kant wanted to achieve in philosophy and especially in metaphysics, you can’t just dismiss his contributions. There’s a reason why philosophy post-Kant took the shape it has.
>>24846889But you do know about the other two critiques waiting for you?
>>24846898>Plato should be read by everyone as well, best before engaging with Kant.How much plato should one know before engaging with Kant?He just feels so daunting, like this could take months out of my life trying to figure him out.
>>24846895Read Hegel then
>>24846895That’s a fair point, in that case I think the first critique is an excellent torture device>>24846902Like what, the critique of practical reason with its categorical imperative? I wonder if anybody in Kant’s day was able to read that sophistical slopfest without pissing themselves in laughter>>24846907It will take you months to figure him out, unfortunately not because he has anything important to say but because he is a bad writer, but that realization won’t give you your months back
>>24846907I would suggest you pick one of the early dialogues (just go by what sounds interesting), then read the politeia and to finish up the timaios. Doing it this way you will become familiar with Plato’s most important thoughts which get referenced the most in the history of philosophy.
>>24846870I'm talking from Experience because Kant does not offer something substantial because between Schopenhauer and Spinoza (if you read Spinoza) He'll only be Substantial in deconstructing Spinoza and then you won't have to read Schopenhauer because Schopenhauer reinvents Spinoza's epistemology and transcends it and makes a convincing argument and meaning out of it but in his own terms of World as Will (Even though he didn't directly take from it, it's just my own interpretation but it's true if you read him)But regardless he's good if you want to learn A priori and posteriori arguments and his epistemology
>>24846922My initial interest in Kant was to be prepared to get into German idealism. That’s why I’m very sceptical about engaging with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, since these two represent the counterpart to that tradition.
>>24846907>>24846920Whoops, I didn’t realize you meant you were daunted by Plato instead of Kant. I’d recommend starting with Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, then Phaedo. They’re like a self contained story and easy to understand. Then Gorgias and Protagoras and the Republic, and you should be in a good spot
>>24846941I would seriously reconsider that project if I were you. Compared to Hegel Kant is a great writer, and after you read a bit of Kant you will see how terrifying that statement really is
>>24846941Hmmm, I believe then it won't be great to engage with them if you don't want a full deconstruction of realityI believe Fichte and Schelling would quench your Kantian thirst after you finish him and then proceed with the Post strucuralists and even KierkegaardBut before you should definitely read Hume if you haven't read him and then Read Prolegomena if you don't want to torture yourself but if you want then proceed with Pure critique of Reason and say goodbye to your time
>>24846895You wont, youre a psued.
Critique of Pure Reason isn’t nearly as difficult of a read as people make it out to be.>>24846889Ironic that you’d write this considering Schopenhauer states himself in The World as Will and Representation to at minimum read Critique of Pure Reason before engaging with that work and also criticizes secondary texts on CPR saying they’re completely inadequate.>>24846941Just read it bro
>>24846995What's a psued?
>>24847032The kind of person that gets hung up on a typo
>>24847036You'll be fine.
>>24846949>>24846951I am actually aiming at Fichte and schelling primarily.
>>24847030I know, and I view it as one of the great flaws of Schopenhauer that he was already infected with Kant’s nonsense by the time he got to his main work. It amazes me that Schopenhauer was still able to write in such a lucid and powerful style after absorbing all that slop. And having read WWR I think you only need a very basic understanding of Kant to get it. I could be wrong though.
>>24846863>>24846870I reject both your premises and accept what you both deny.
>>24846907reading Plato for Kant is incredible waste of time. All you have to know is that in metaphysics Plato posited the theory of ideas and he believed that the only thing barring us from knowing reality is unclear thoughts. If we just have more clear and sharper concepts that we arrive to with reasoning and dialogue we can ultimately come ever closer to reality.
>>24846907Months? Anon, there's thousands of people that have been studying Plato for 50+ years.
>>24847482Yeah and they're completely wasting their time. Boil down the dialogues into the actual arguments you've got like 30 pages of material. A philosopher like Kant, or really any philosopher, will say more in a paragraph than Plato will say in dozens of pages.
>>24847430>>24847917Reading at least the politeia should be a minimum requirement for everyone interested in an intellectual pursuit. It’s not just about the arguments, one has to know how philosophy in dialogue-form looks like.
>>24847917for me, it's spending my years as a social media scholar
>>24848296Congratulations, now you have a future as a disciple in transcendental philosophy.
does anyone think Kant's uses "appearance" to just explain everything without accounting for why we can think of it? i think Bergson mentions something like that. but is there anything in Aristotle that refers to this word, or is it more specifically with reference to physics?
anyone read kant's lectures on anthropology? some chatbot recommended me that shit earlier i was like bruh all those kantoids on /lit/ never told me abt that one
>>24846858>Just read the ProlegomenaAs a person who have read both the Critique and Prolegomonaonoan, the critique merely fleshes out the points in the proleogmeoneonaasiona. Once you get it u get it, not really that complicated imo
>>24848787The question is, if you can perceive more than the appearance of an object or gain more by reflection than just the appearance with applied categories. I think there is a problem in Kant with the noumena and the thing-in-itself, but I’m not the only one. It was acknowledged by the German idealists, that’s why they were able to develop their systems without needing to break with Kant entirely.
>>24847069Schopenhauer's writing is clear because he has not attained to a philosophical point of view. His philosophy is, as Kant would say, 'a whole nest' of rigid contradictions, abstractions, i.e. the sort of thinking that occurs in ordinary life, of 'this' and 'that'. Genuine philosophical thinking tries to peek behind the looking glass of ordinary thought, so the language is inevitably difficult and all these guys are rather painful to read. I'm not just talking about the idealists here but any great philosopher, Aristotle, Plotinus, this is universal because it's logically necessitated by the task of philosophy itself. Heidegger said somewhere that 'intelligibility is the death of philosophy'. That said as far as philosophical writing goes Hegel is the greatest stylist, of what I've read, unless you want to count Kierkegaard. It's an acquired taste but once you get used to him he's full of humor and grace. Many other philosophers go out of their way to be ugly and scientific but Hegel had some flair. Even the occasional dick joke.
>>24849483>>24849483>The question is, if you can perceive more than the appearance of an object or gain more by reflection than just the appearance with applied categories.I've been trying to convince you guys for months that Kant's language of 'mere appearance' versus the true 'thing-in-itself' obscures what he's actually trying to say. The thing-in-itself is a limiting concept; its role is to account for the givenness of experience, though not in a dogmatic sense, and to leave a space for the practical postulates which transcend experience. Appearance is real, it is what we experience, and we can't know what the thing-in-itself is, but *even whether it exists*, as Kant says in c. 3 of the Analytic. Or consider his Refutation of Idealism - he doesn't actually demonstrate an external world, because this would be dogmatism, how can I step behind experience and know the nature of phenomena and how they're related to me? But he can prove that the appearance of an external world is necessary, that it's phenomenally independent, and that is all he does. But most casuals read him as this radical dualist. Schopenhauer is as always a terrible influence on people here, what an absolute retard he was.So no, you can't 'perceive more than the appearance' of an object. The appearance is the truth of the thing. Kant, unlike Hegel, really is a shit writer and his imprecise metaphorical language prevents most people from understanding him.
>>24846858Roger scrutons Kant book is an excellent introduction to his thought. It’s very short but hits the nail on the head, while being comparatively clear.
>>24846863This, but don't proceed with Schopenhauer. Pure sophistry. Prolegomena is a good entry point to Kant however.
>>24846920>It will take you months to figure him outIt really doesn't. Though the republic and a decent ability to recognize patterns, you should be able to get the gist of Plato's position. Maybe add Timaeus if you are still a bit clueless.
>>24850258I just spent an hour reading through a pdf of this, skipping around to the more key/controversial portions. It has my endorsement, Scruton understands Kant. It was highly gratifying to see him saying the same shit I've been saying here for a long time, getting called a pseud and so on by Schopenhauerians, 'transcendental solipsists', and other riff raff. Is the transcendental synthesis some sort of cognitive or psychological 'process'? Absolutely not. Is the thing-in-itself some sort of mysterious entity? Absolutely not. Solid book. And he helped me better appreciate the relationship between Kant and the rationalists, I've only ever read the Monadology desu.
