/lit/ - Literature

>>12990532
Apart from being one of the GOAT philosophers, Kant resolved the conflict between British Empiricism and Rationalism. It's like he stumbled into some dank and unlit dungeon cell, where people were flinging shit and slinging jizz into each other's eyes — the smell was beginning to disturb the common folk. So he unlocked the cell door, lit a few torches and sprayed Febreeze all over the place, before he put on his heavy-duty gloves and got to scrubbing the foundations. This is not to say that he didn't miss any spots, or that some weird Germans did not take up residence in the cell soon after he was finished. Germans being Germans, they thought it more hygenic to leave behind the shit and cum, and just to deal in Latex and piss.

In other words, if you want to understand Kant just a bit, you need to read the first Critique. If you want to understand the first Critique, you need to read early modern philosophy: Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Leibniz, in that order. (Leibniz can be put anywhere after Descartes, but Locke attacks Descartes and the later Brits run a train on Locke's corpse. Thomas Reid is another breath of fresh air, to be read after Hume, but he didn't "solve" very much.)

>>12879108
First of all, it looks extremely cool. When I have the free time, I'm going to make a higher-res version, because this is the best quality I've seen. Second, many commentators contemporary with Kant (and Berkeley, for whom this was a similar issue) noticed how transcendental idealism leads us to a kind of epistemological solipsism. Of course, Kant heavily rejected solipsism on both moral and scientific grounds — the irony thus being that although his first Critique was meant to resolve and dismiss solipsism, even he could not avoid it. To be clear, not everyone reads Kant this way. Perhaps the most well-known is Schopenhauer, who embraced the consequences of solipsism.