>A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
Yes, I love it when Kant takes a compound verb and wraps five or six dependent clauses inside of it. It’s so interesting.
>>25306818me too. i love kant.
>>25306810>my system may be retarded overall but the GIST is geniusKant at his most honest ladies and gentlemen.
>>25306837
>>25306838I piss and shit the CPR. Trolling aside you radically altered how I think about reality and I thank you and wish we were frends irl.
>>25306845>I piss and shit the CPRwhat means this?
>>25306810>"The whole of a system is greater than the sum of its parts"Ftfy
>>25306810>Kant clung to his university, submitted himself to its regulations, retained the appearance of religious belief, endured to live among colleagues and students: so it is natural that his example has produced above all university professors and professorial philosophy.>A scholar can never become a philosopher; for even Kant was unable to do so but, the inborn pressure of his genius notwithstanding, remained to the end as it were in a chrysalis stage. He who thinks that in saying this I am doing Kant an injustice does not know what a philosopher is, namely not merely a great thinker but also a real human being; and when did a scholar ever become a real human being? He who lets concepts, opinions, past events, books, step between himself and things - he, that is to say, who is in the broadest sense born for history - will never have an immediate perception of things and will never be an immediately perceived thing himself; but both these conditions belong together in the philosopher, because most of the instruction he receives he has to acquire out of himself and because he serves himself as a reflection and brief abstract of the whole world. If a man perceives himself by means of the opinions of others, it is no wonder if he sees in himself nothing but the opinions of others! And that is how scholars are, live and see. .
>>25306810Just reading this passage is a clear demonstration of how inefficient this man is with his words.>>25307388This guy knows what's up
>>25307390>>25308399>t. midwits
>>25308411Imagine thinking that using a thesaurus to generate overly verbose slop makes you sound intelligent.
>>25308419fortunately i don't.
This is "it gets good 200 chapters in" and "no, you just don't *get* it" all rolled into one pile of ball of shit. Truly he is a masterful dung beetle.
>>25306810Ok, sure, fair enough.>>25307390So does he actually address any of the content of Kant's philosophy? This is just dismissing Kant because he can't be a "real philosopher" according to him. Why should I care about Nietzsche's hot takes?
>>25309907>expecting an actual argument from Nietzsche
>>25309907>So does he actually address any of the content of Kant's philosophy?imagine for a moment if Kant thought that you could learn things from something that never changes by showing how it will always be the exact same thing, except the knowledge you get from it can also be manifoldNietzsche does not like this because it makes us more than a historical pile of shit. you should care about Nietzsche if you don't want to have your character assassinated by a man with an instrument
