Why I am doing this to myself, I am not sure.
>>25268347Oh, what have we here? Very well, let us both learn together. Heresy is not native to the world; it is but a contrivance. All things can be conjoined.
>>25268347You'd be better off reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," because without Kant it's impossible to understand either Schopenhauer or Hegel.
>>25268415I'm getting the Oxford introduction to Kant to read as a prelude, hope that's enough.
>>25268347Okay Eduard Von Hartmann
>>25268421You don't seem to have much of a philosophy background.Reading Schope without knowing much is fine, but Kant and Hegel especially really can't be read like that - and it's only fine with Schope because you're mostly getting his world view in good prose, not his actual philosophical views.I'd recommend you read Plato, personally. Then read some secondary stuff about the intervening period, British empiricism, etc., then you can maybe kinda not really just about get Kant and can move onto Hegel.You really won't get much out of it!
>>25268448cute
>>25268523>Plato I got through the Republic, Phaedo and Apology.>British empiricismI've read Hume's Enquiry, that's why I'm hoping I can just gloss over Kant.
>>25268523It is impossible to understand Schopenhauer without reading Kant, he himself writes this in his book "The World as Will and Representation"
Wwr is an easy and comfy read. I chose to read it on purpose when I quit smoking because I knew I’d be mentally retarded for 3 weeks or so.
>>25268415I don't think that's necessarily true, at least for Hegel.
>>25268523I love Plato myself, but reading Plato isn't going to help him out much. Reading Kant directly otoh will, the first Critique at minimum.
>>25268914Hegel:>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that its merit remains unaffected by whatever faults may be found in it. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently for genuine knowledge, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one must turn to that preceding exposition.
>>25268415I think you could read Schoppie without Kant. He has a 12 year old’s reading of the cpr, it is not hard to understand.
>>25268928I love that quote too. Something similar is going on even now with most readers of Kant thinking he’s talking about cognitive science and how the brain might shape reality. I will also suggest that Kant retroactively refuted Hegel.
>>25268347...Have you started yet?
>>25268958You can shill your phenomenological reading of Kant all you like, the fact remains that he refers repeatedly to “our cognitive faculties” and even speculates about the possibility of other beings experiencing reality in a radically different way.
>>25269063>phenomenological reading of Kantwhat's that?
>>25269099To maintain that Kant is only writing about the nature of experience rather than the nature of reality. This way of reading Kant generally minimizes the thing-in-itself either claiming it’s only a manner of thinking about an object or denying that it has any role in Kant at all (lol). It gets shilled hard here because this is how le German wizardmen read him.
>>25269111>It gets shilled hard here because this is how le German wizardmen read him.The what?
>>25268421look up Edward Caird. your welcome
>>25268823cope>>25268523fpbp
>>25268347I'm also soon going to start reading Phenomenology. How hard is it compared to Philosophy of History which I mostly found difficult but manageable
>>25269176Harder, but its difficulty is overstated. The Preface is usually a hurdle for readers, but you won't do yourself any harm if you skip to the Introduction and save the Preface for after you finish the rest. As long as you don't treat it like a breezy read you can skim, the Phenomenology is decently readable, with the qualification that the Force and Understanding chapter tends to be the most significant hurdle besides the Preface. But those opening chapters may be a relief, since you can see quickly that Hegel isn't writing gobbledygook.
>>25269111>denying that it has any role in Kant at all (lol).This is what all Kantians believed. Hegel said in the Science of Logic that Kantians were trying to maintain it as irrelevant and obliterate it altogether
>>25269111But Kant literally says that his findings of necessity are universal only for human beings
>>25268523>Reading Schope without knowing much is fineWell Schopenhauer himself disagrees
>>25268347You've obtained an intuition of the Esoteric Kantian Core, yet fear going straight to the source. >>25268958Metaphysics— the Königsburg Mage was not so small minded and unambitious to benight his architectonic vision to a mere epistemology. These contempirary cake-eater materialists wearing the skinned suits of Neoplatonism and Idealism would have it so (Guyer & Wood's SINISTER translations are accessories to their philosophical CRIMES)
>>25271573>Guyer & Wood's SINISTER translations are accessories to their philosophical CRIMESDude what? How? They are mostly literal word-for-word translators. Are you German or something?
