it's such a universal book. it applies to literally everything.
>>24945491The more I read philosophy the more I feel like everyone's magnum opus is basically the world is both matter and form :O, material and ideal :O, and aesthetics blends the two :O ; Is this one of those books ?With those insights comes the real important questions, how do you derive Ethics from this, and what is the actual importance of Aesthetics.
>refutes kant>remains unrefuted
>>24945569>The more I read philosophy the more I feel like everyone's magnum opus is basically the world is both matter and form :O, material and ideal :O, and aesthetics blends the two :O ; Is this one of those books ?Have you only read Plato? In any case, CoPR is pretty much solely focused on idealism with no care for materialism.>With those insights comes the real important questions, how do you derive Ethics from thisKant is remarkable because he derives logically-consistent ethics from his metaphysics.
>>24945491Then it can't be that good
>>24945589it is really really ridiculously good
>>24945491pseudest book ever written
reading this book rewires your brain making you AGP.its a demonic grimoire
>>24945673filtered cope
>>24945697No one is "filtered" by the Critique of Pure Reason. 14 year olds can read it, it is a very simple book.
>>24945700definitely filtered
>>24945569Yes, that's why I switched to fiction. Everyone's regurgitating the same ideas dressed up slightly differently so might as well get some entertainment out of it.
>>24945818True
>>24945586His ethics are just Spinoza's
Einsteinians hate Kant. Bergerians hate Einstein
>>24945491Bro haven't read world as will
>>24945586>logically-consistent ethicsDoesn't matter that it's logically sound; all logic must be built on axioms which you gain from your experience of reality. If you first impression of Life is that "muh all suffering bad", you can have logically-consistent ethics and find shit conclusions. You find good axioms through a scientific process, you come up with one, test it against all situations in life, if you find strong contradictions with your intuitions or find unexplained behavior your axiom is probably unrefined. Ethical truths are truths that must be seen, felt, not proven.To me life must be lived to be happy, when people make moral statement like "drugs bad" they say it's bad if you want to achieve happiness, atleast it's how people get an intuition for it, even if they don't understand it themselves. When people say "murder is bad" it's a bit a double meaning, to me it's both "killing and stealing won't help you find happiness", and aswell "Murder is bad because I want to live, so don't do it to me", I find that reasons for these statements that involve "suffering" or whatever version of the "harmony of society" (be it from religious or humanist origin) to never be based on anything more than "suffering bad", "society good on its own", "progress good on its own", "god is good on its own". The only difference then between me and those who "reason" is that I have chosen the good thing, me, and will become happy, and the others will remain miserable dedicating themselves to something other, I find it all so very dumb. All the heavy logic and rhetoric of philosophy is boring and mostly obfuscation, it's always "I've analyzed thoroughly ideas and these are my 'objective' conclusions" instead of the true and better path "Here's what I believe in and stand for, see that I am right because through all experiences of life my view suffers no contradiction". There's no logical explanation to arrive at truths such as "Reality is real", "I want to live", so I think every ethical work whose aim is to "deduce" retarded.
>>24945818Indeed. I'm still reading philosophy to feel complete, to make sure I haven't missed anything, but as of now I discover no new ideas. I do keep encountering novel and beautiful ways to *express* those ideas, I still remain moved by how some great minds manage to connect or express in the most succinct and elegant ways the core ideas, that keeps me going.
>>24947101already did
