/lit/ - Literature

>>15391742
>Sadly or no, there are no shortcuts to Kant
this means he had nothing valuable to say.
>It's almost difficult to appreciate the magnitude of what he did, since we've received his ideas through cultural osmosis
then you don't need to read him.
>Schoppy described reading him (IIRC) as the scales falling off his eyes
not a real thinker, not a real argument.
>you should ALWAYS read the primary lit if you're serious about studying philosophy
that means there is no actual valuable to be found.
>misinterpreted
>you should be making up your own mind about philosophers like him
plato isn't important, only the ideas we do or do not ascribe to him.
>can be found to be peddling serious and crippling contradictions in their theories with only a little effort
only valid argument, not a reason for exhaustively studying primary works to learn and understand the ideas you're interested in.
pseud factor: 8/10
final evaluation

>>15229315
>no Mumford

>>9982486