/lit/ - Literature

But by far the greatest difficulty lies undoubtedly in the subject itself. The latest school [German Idealism] has expressly characterized its philosophy as an ESOTERIC SCIENCE [emphasis added], which would at all times remain confined to the narrow circle of the initiated; yea more, which is also intended to be solely confined to them, inasmuch as what constitutes it philosophy is, that it does not lay aside the veil which is impervious to the eye of the unitiated-- its scientific garb.
- Chalybäus

>>23355916
they are looking down upon us from the Empyrean with joy

Mark my words anons, history will show the German idealists to have been right all along. The current realist common sense metaphysical paradigm has been fleeble flabbled since the time of the dinosaurs. In fact, and already, the descendants of the dinosaurs have lived on this same earth, and continue to live on this same earth, not necessarily among us, but beyond our major population centers. They have had millions of years prior to the emergence of modern homo sapiens to develop their metaphysics to a degree incomprehensible by the limitations of the present stage of human cerebral development. As Hegel has said, reason runs far ahead of understanding, and this is true. The world is rational, in principle, understandable, but that understanding is progressive depending on the progressive development of the physical counterpart to the mind, the nervous system and brain. Have you ever noticed the size of the heads of the Greys? The Blues? Even the Reptilians? That's right, their cerebral capacities far exceed anything we humans are currently capable of, or even can dream of given our current cerebral development. But the German idealists already knew this even 200 years ago, and the limitations Kant set for the human understanding in 1781, are just that: HUMAN limitations, or rather, the limitations of humankinds present cerebral constitution, which, as a our evolutionary theory has made irrefutably clear, is not static but dynamic. We can and must catch up to our current more evolved overlord species, often considered extraterrestrials, although this is also a misunderstanding through ignorance. Ultimately, the categories of the understanding are the necessary conditions for the transcendental unity of self consciousness, this is true, but we need not necessarily stop here, That unity need not be limited to SELF consciousness; it can and must be expanded to RACE consciousness, a Hive Mind, if you will, a super-organism composed of smaller organisms all consciously controlled and identified with ONE consciousness. This way and this way only can we defeat the more intelligent species of creatures on this Earth that have dominated us for centuries. The alternative is indefinite servitude and submission. Gott mit uns.

What's good introductory secondary lit on German Idealism
I've gotten a sense for the social, political and economic stuff but on the actual metaphysical/philosophical context, I'm still very shallow

You can't shit on Hume if you're an Empiricist (which most people low key are as proved by the way they live) since Hume took a massive shit all over Empiricism. And Rationalists don't shit on Hume because Hume's unhinged autism unintentionally furthered the Rationalist cause to the superior level of German Idealism.

>>23274146
you can't shit on hume if you're an empiricist (which most people low key are as proved by the way they live) since Hume took a massive shit all over empiricism. And Rationalists don't shit on hume because humes unhinged autism unintentionally furthered the rationalist cause to the superior level of German Idealism.

>>23192316
neither

All analytictard criticism of German idealism boils down to calling it gibberish-- which is just a roundabout way of saying they couldn't understand it-- which is just a euphemistic way of saying they got filtered. How does the analytictard respond?

inb4
>germans nonsense

yes little analytictard I get you can't understand it, but that's the point: just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean we superior IQ actual philosophers can't.

inb4
>you can't either
lol and you would know that how? Since you'd have to have understood the text yourself beforehand in order to judge whether someone else did or did not understand it, and analytictards by their own admission can't understand it since it's "gibberish" to them.

>>22778006
>t. fell for the meme
ironically you just called yourself a retard filtered by Frege-- which funny bc it's true. But I am kind; read this to stop being a retard:

https://philarchive.org/archive/MILFAG-2

Where did it all go wrong for German Idealism?

>>22581095
don't care. Kastrup is still stuck in his baby schopenhauer phase. his takes have not reached the FULL POWER OF GERMAN IDEALISM which materialism can in no way and will never refute.

There is no way an objectivist interpretation of Kant is a genuine inference from his ideas. Although it might follow a more correct path, philosophically speaking, Kant’s philosophy is inherently trapped in Subjectivism.
Yes, psychological interpretations wrongly isolate the Subject, when in reality the conditions of possible experience are intersubjective. Nevertheless, these intersubjective conditions still divide a realm of things in themselves and representations, positing experience as experience of appearances. Since we cannot know things beyond experience, the existence of things in themselves cannot be affirmed in order to legitimize a realist foundation for objects of experience, which are thus mere representations and appearances. Kant in this way inheres more from Descartes and Berkeley (the innate ideal principles, with regard to the former, and the second-rate order of objects of perception, second-rate because they are not in themselves, but appearances conditioned by the understanding).
The objectivist reading tries to circumvent this by appealing to knowledge of what is in itself, for they claim that this intersubjective structure (be it an I, an Idea, a Form) is an instance of the Archetype of the structure of reality itself. In this way there would be knowledge of what is in itself and a causal dependence between this general transcendental structure and the (inter-) subjective one, which in the end both subjective and objective structures are comprised under this general (Absolute) structure.

Why is german idealism so much better current anglo "philosophy"?

>>21660088
>or are there more modern prophets/religious systems that can rival them?
Literally

Apparently /lit/ hates german idealism because it's too /x/ and /x/ hates german idealism because its too /lit/.

Bros I wanna see the catalog /lit/ absolutely filled to the brim and overflowing with German Idealism posts. Get to it bois.

ITT share your favorite ideas or quotes from the german idealists

For me its:
>Nothing can be more obvious than that anything we merely think or conceive is not on that account actual; that mental representation, and even conceptual comprehension, always falls short of being. Still it may not unfairly be called a barbarism in language, when the name of "concept" is given to things like a hundred dollars (referring to Kants famous claim that the concept of an actual hundred dollars is exactly the same as that of an only possible hundred dollars, and the distinction between the two is not conceptual at all but has to do with the manifestation of the corresponding sensations or lack thereof). And, putting that mistake aside, those who perpetually urge against the philosophic Idea the difference between Being and Thought might have admitted that philosophers were not wholly ignorant of the fact. Can there be any proposition more trite than this? But after all, it is well to remember, when we speak of God, that we have an object of another kind than any hundred dollars, and unlike any one particular concept, representation, or however else it may be styled. It is in fact this and this alone which marks everything finite: its being in space and time is distinguished from its concept. God, on the contrary, expressly has to be what can only be ‘thought as existing’; his concept involves being. It is this unity of the concept and being that constitutes the Concept (of God).

GermanIdealistbros, What is the endgame of German Idealism? What do I get when reach the end? Why should I spend my time and energy on it? Do I get enlightenment at the end? Do I become more smarter? Do I get psychic powers? Do I get to meet God? Do I become happier? Do I realize my immortality? What is the point of it all bros?

I've been at this for years now and actually my life is a lot worse off now than when I started. But I've already invested too much time. Quitting now would be such a waste. Have any of (You) made it to the end?

What are the best secondary sources on German Idealism? Also, I've been having a hard time finding good editions of the works of Fichte and Schelling in English; does anyone have any recommendations?

Any books on theurgy in relation to Kant or German Idealists?

Is the deepdive into german idealism worth it?

>>17314984
German Idealism

What actually is identity? From Fichte to Hegel.