/lit/ - Literature

The last avatar of Vishnu.

I am preparing for Kant right now. Read half of Monadology. Read an introduction to the Prolegomena. I conclude that Kant is inverted Leibniz in terms of Epistemology-Ontology dichotomy. For Kant, our sensibilities and intuition aids pure reason inknowing objects and events, and these "aids" are necessary (pure reason cannot go beyond experience). For Leibniz, changes in the monads corresponds to changes in the physical world. I get it as in the "monads" are just "ding an sich" the monads (things) are accomodating themselves to make themselves accessible to pure reason. While for Kant, our intuition and sensibilities interpret noumena (pure existence) so that it is accessible to pure reason.
Am I getting this right?

Kant made difference between 3 distinct metaphysics: Rational Psychology, Rational Cosmology, and Rational Theology. In which he argued that "the soul, the world, God" lacks objective reality (transcendent). Why is the world transcendent? Isn't the word "World" refer to a material object? Namely, the universe? How should I tackle this?

What makes philosophy books so thick? I mean look at Kant. Every discussion about him boil down his ideas to basically
>"Our perception is limited to what we can sense and we cannot sense what is in-itself (noumena)"
How can this extend into hundreds of pages? I would like to philosophize too but how do I do it properly making hundreds of pages of my own idea?

>>19374550
Read Kant, then come back, k?

What should i read to be able to understand this cunt

Imannuel Kant is the most important philosopher ever and Critique of Pure Reason is the most important book ever written
prove me wrong

to what extent does the motive for an action matter in assessing its moral worth, /lit/?

If all your friends jumped off a cliff then would you too?

hi

can anyone recommend me good book's on kant's philosophy? a concise compilation of his main ideas? a good intro / companion to his works?

thank you

Is it right to say that Marx's 'alienation of the proletariat' comes, via Hegel, from Kant's transcendental freedom? I'm finally reading about Kant, and I can't help but feel that there is a very real link between his philosophy and Marxism.

What should i know before reading Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals?

Hey, /lit/!

Were Kant's concepts concerning the transcendental schema wrong, and why, summarily, were they?

Also what other works can I read to get a better understanding of the different approaches to Kant's work, i.e. criticisms and extensions thereof?

>>6364067
RIP Kant

Greatest of all time.

>>6284886
>reason is limited by experience
>experience is mind-dependent
>b-b-but other shit exists I swear just trust me

>so the twelve pure concepts come under four classes: quantity, quality, relation, and mode. but these is too abstract n shit so letz "deduce" principles for they application in experience n shit.

>first principle is axiom of intuition. this means all shit has quantity lel

>second one is some shit where everything has quality. call it anticipation or some shit

>third is that everything has relation, see the pattern yet lmao?

>fourth is everything got a mode.

>it''s philosophy now that i've restated it now and shit. a priori etc.

Why do people take this retard seriously?

I just finished the Critique of Pure Reason (well, large bits of it--I go to a "Great Excerpts" college, because The Great Books are too long), and I want more Kant.

I read the Cambridge translation of CPR by Guyer and Wood, and I'm thinking of switching to the Pluhar for a reread because it seems more readable.

But I also want to branch out and read the Prolegomena and the other critiques. I have no idea what translation is considered standard or even respectable for Kant. Anyone have any thoughts?

>>6196702
>implying Kant isn't the greatest pre-Oakeshottian philosopher

>"greatest philosopher ever"
>makes coherent argument that all of human understanding is limited to experience and the structures which condition it
>fucks it all up by asserting for no reason that he knows something to exist beyond experience called noumena, because he's so desperate to distance himself from the much superior Bishop Berkeley

Why do people take Kant seriously again?

You're up in the club when this guy slaps your gfs ass

What do you do?

Question to the philosophers of /lit/. Do you mostly read primary or secondary literature on a subject? Does it depend on the philosopher? How do you decide?

I get a vibe from most of the conversations on philosophy here that reading the original text is the thing to do, even if the in-joke is that everybody only reads wikipedia pages. But I recently got recommended that for writers like Kant, there really isn't much point in slogging through his actual writing, which isn't very good, when others present his ideas more clearly and beautifully.