Ok who is right?
Hate to say it but the migger is right
>>25158957Can the guy who read it in 6 hours explain the part on the synthetic unity of imagination in relation to transcendental apperception to me without fumbling?
>>25158957They're on twitter so they're all wrong by default
>>25158957
>>25158957idk man there's no reason to push yourself to read faster imo. Take your time and take shit in at a normal pace, if a line really speaks to you then put the book down for a few minutes and think about it. Plenty of time to get around to other books later. If I'm reading so fast that I'm not comprehending well then I may as well spend my time doing something else
>>25158957you can be retarded and read quicklyeveryone is right
>>25158957reading speed was something worth bragging about in middle school
you read it but did you get it
>>25158957Reading quickly (and by extension reading 100 books a year or whatever) isn’t a particularly great brag. It just tells me that you either consoom or you’re just thinking in numerical terms, more books read = better. Either way, you’re less likely to have retained anything if this is the case.
>>25159227>muh retentionReading the same book twice or two books on the same topic in the time it takes you to read it once is better for retention. Retentionfags never once explain what they’re doing to RETAAAAAAIN that information, because they have no fucking clue how memory works and they’re just proud to be a slow reader, like bragging you’re retarded. >No you see I’m better at running because I walk so I don’t get exhausted.
Reading and understanding are two different things. I do not understand Kant at all whatsoever. Hume mogs the shit out of him and is a much easier and better read.
>>25159239how can you know that Hume mogs Kant if you can only understand one of them? The only meaningful statement you can make is that Hume is much easier and better to read.
>>25158957I've spent 2.5 years reading the main Aristotle books, excluding De caelo and On Generation and Corruption (because I think most of it is already on Physics). It has been intermittent, though; there have been several months in which I haven't read or in which I've read other authors. At last I've read Metaphysics, and it has taken me one month and a half. I take notes while reading in order to make sense of it and relate the ideas to other authors. For example, I noticed that the nosis noeseos in Metaphysics and certain reading of the agent intellect in On the Soul do not quite match unless some kind of hegelian Absolute or a special interpretation on God's omniscience is postulated, then I checked it on the internet and it seems that's the case, which also lead Aquinas to interpret the agent intellect as a function of the human soul and not of God. So when I get to read Aquinas or Hegel, I will probably grasp them easily, or easier than if I hadn't done this. I don't want to brag, it's just to illustrate how this methodical and thorough way of reading is much more productive in the long run if you take philosophy seriously. There seem to be many people who just want to rush the classics so that they get fast to the modern schizo authors who support their ideology.
>>25159239I understand both of them and I’d argue Kant is better though his audacity betrays him. Hume didn’t even synthetic a priori, how could he be better?
>>25158957I'm so glad I'm able to actually read for fun instead of needing to try to show off on the Internet because I'm insecure.
>/lit/ - Twitter Drama
>>25158957>sometimes my dyslexia makes me read faster and comprehend betterAnother fake "disorder" like adhd or autism.
>>25159236If you stop and smell the roses for long enough, that extended time of your sensory experience in smelling those roses burns into your memory more potently and the “taste of the madeleine” will evoke a stronger memory than if you were to take a quick whiff and fuck right off. Basically, temporality plays a role in retention.
>>25159227>reading 100 books a year or whatever
>>25159320Battler only reads mystery slop anyway.
>>25159280This is a good post, thanks anon, and even more proof that starting with the Greeks is not a meme.
>>25159313>>25159236You’re both right now shush.
>>25159280Excellent thing to do, I think you will definitely gain a better understanding of Kant and Hegel having by a good knowledge of the classics like that. I've only read a little Aristotle, but I think it makes a huge difference because they all relate back to him quite a lot.
>>25159710More than Plato I find, at least who I’ve read anyway.
>>25158957This guy's dad disowned him btw. So not only is he a midwit xitter slop account shilling for ZOG, he's also been completely emasculated and stripped of his heritage and family name.
>>25159324>This is a good post, thanks anonThx>and even more proof that starting with the Greeks is not a meme.Indeed, it's not a meme. But one does not have to follow a strict chronological order either. Just like with regular history, the history of philosophy is multilinear, and there might be a somewhat independent line that starts after another, so you wouldn't need to know everything between the start of the first line and the start of the second line before starting with the second line. >>25159722Before Aristotle I read Plato and I feel the same. Plato's thought is harder to pinpoint than Aristotle's, even though Plato's works are easier to understand, because they are mostly exoteric (meant for people outside the Academy) and he does not show the complete philosophy of the Academy, whilst Aristotle's works were meant to be used inside the Lyceum. Aristotle even mentions "unwritten doctines" by Plato, which he partially explains in Physics and Metaphysics, and they seem to be much more Pythagorean than what he shows in the dialogues. For these reasons I think that Plato has tended to attract philologists (and hermeneuts) and mystics, rather than systematic philosophers, who are most of the big guys. I don't want to underestimate Plato, he was probably freer as a thinker than Aristotle, and it's astonishing how he casually anticipates modern ideas as mere remarks in his dialogues, but I think that Aristotle's influence is more consistent throughout the history of philosophy.
>>25159307About as fake as your mom's orgasms when you're fucking her
>>251589576 hours is too much. You can get Kant's main thrust by skimming a summary in 6 minutes.
>>25159227I regularly read 100 books a year in my teens and 20s it's only around an average of 1.5-2 hours per day of reading, depending on the books, obviously not ones like Critique of Pure Reason
>>25158957>DionsynianAgentPeople with such corny, "look at me I'm super special esoteric boy" usernames are often just im14andthisisdeep teenagers or larping pseuds. Their new favorite buzzword is "epistemology".
me who did not read it.
>>25159280>For example, I noticed that the nosis noeseos in Metaphysics and certain reading of the agent intellect in On the Soul do not quite match unless some kind of hegelian Absolute or a special interpretation on God's omniscience is postulated,... so they don't match unless you read what Aristotle said, and then they obviously match?>Hegel mentionedoh, my bad, it had a lobotomy
>kant>humeHume mogs most of the enlightenment/post enlightenment with the is-ought gap alone. But Aquinas mogs both of these frauds into oblivion
>>25161198Don't forget "ontologically evil" and "faustian"
>>25158957All these people should die. The middle one is most correct though. If you're reading half a page a day, even of Kant, you have an intellectual disability
>>25158957the mentally ill dyslexic because he actually enjoyed reading the book instead of forcing himself to feel smart
>>25163269For someone like Kant, I say 5 pages a day is more than apt, half a page is too little.
>>25164753A couple dozen at least or you'll be stuck on Kant for the rest of your life
>>25164753>>25164762The latter half of Critique of Pure Reason is a breeze compared to the first, about 50 pages for the everything following the Analytic is enough.
>>25164767Didn’t mean to put a “the” before “everything”. Forgive my retardation.
