/lit/ - Literature

Critique of Pure Reason.

>>8553866
>>8553869

...

>>7820864
>>7824041

Secondly, you simply won't understand what Kant is trying to say unless you have some grasp of the basic terminology he's using.

What individual words do you understand from the above excerpts? Please describe the meanings you associate with them.

>>7093412
>>7092309

As a prep for Schopenhauer, you're going to want to get a solid grasp on Kant's distinction between empirical character and intelligible character. If you don't want to read all of the first two critiques (which I'd still recommend, merely for their own sake, because they're incredible) then you should read the passages from those works whenever Schopenhauer references, which he does frequently and with helpful specificity.

Schopenhauer also basically takes for granted the argumentation in the Transcendental Aesthetic of Kant's first critique - so that section of the book is more crucial to grapple with than the mammoth entirety of it. I also found this article extremely helpful: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/

>>7065756
>>7064882
>>7064836
>>7064684
>>7064681
>>7064678
>>7064674

I've come across these kinds of posts before, and if you're truly the author, I wonder if you've read the Critique of Pure Reason.

Because these posts seem to be unintentionally abusing the concepts of phenomena and noumena as Kant originally described them. The philosophy of these posts is stuck in the domain of phenomena, of what physics can describe, despite the author's phenomenological claims to the contrary.

In order to strengthen these claims (which I think will involve significantly changing them) the author will have to understand Kant's distinction between empirical realism and transcendental idealism.