/lit/ - Literature

this is an impor

>>11085138
tant question
(fucking auto)

>>11085145
Yes I know that, thanks for clarifying it. Nonetheless, the aim of this post was to get an aswer to said question.

>>11085234
yeah i hope you appreciate the bumpportunity i give you

Damn was kant black???

>>11085241
please make this a thing >>>/pol/ #KantWasBlack

>>11085237
I do appreciate it, and for this reason I owe you my recognition. I wish to you good luck and happiness for the rest of your life.

>>11085249
You too my wholesome anon friend

>>11085241
I believe that matters of race are of no importance on the particular context of this thread. I thus ask you gently to refrain from discussing such topic in the thread which I have started.

>>11085096
>Is it necessary to read Hume before Kant?

Yes, the CRP is literally a response to Hume's philosophy

>>11085260
Thank you for your answer. Should I read all his works? Or is only a selection of his bibliography necessary to understand Critique of Pure Reason?

>>11085265
Ideally you should read the Treatise of Human Nature, but if you're not up for it because it's too long then read An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

>>11085280
Thank you for your answer, I truly and fully appreciate it. I hope people you meet in the future threat you as kindly as you have threated me, if not more.

>>11085295
you are such a lovely anon - i hope you will find a big tit goth gf who will share your very specific kink and all what is right for you comes to you so you can become an even more amazing loving person.

>>11085295
Why “threat”?
>>11085333
Nice trips of three

>>11085361
English is not my native language, so I have assumed that "threat" was an adequate verb to use in that context. If I accidentally misused, I ask you kindly to show me how was my usage of said verb erroneous.

>>11085333
>>11085295
>>11085280
>>11085265
lol fggts

>>11085396
Hatred causes more hatred which causes harm to everyone. Be a good man, love everything and everyone.

>>11085096
Honestly (I'm not memeing), to fully appreciate Kant, you have to read all the Early Moderns:
>Descartes' Meditations
>Leibniz's Monadology
>Locke's Essay
>Berkeley's Principles
>Hume's Enquiry (not Treatise)
and, if you want a laugh at the above,
>Reid's Inquiry and Essays

If you read everything on this list, I *promise* you that reading the first Critique will be like sliding into a warm bath. Kant is mainly difficult because people dive in without context (Kantext?), but this difficulty evaporates if you fully understand the Theory of Ideas and the messy shit it took on the floor of philosophy.

>>11085096
Reading philosophy in order is a meme. Read what you want to read. The questions you may have about certain philosophies brought up in a given work can be answered by going back to it and reading it afterwards. Yes, people will shit on you for "reading Aristotle without Plato, Spinoza without Descartes," etc., but in terms of expanding your knowledge the temporal order of reception makes little difference to the ideas themselves. This obsession with reading philosophy "in order" is a product of the conflation of the history of philosophy with philosophy itself that has gradually been taking hold in universities since the nineteenth century, a trend Schopenhauer described presciently and precisely.

>>11085423
"No"

>>11085718
But if the greatest gift of contemporary philosophy is understanding how wrong all of them were, what is the point?

>>11085255
Of course race is relevant. You must consider the historical circumstances of a person in order to fully contextualize their work. What inspired the question, and what action was responsible for the inspiration, and from what or how that action occured, is all just as important a part of the developmental chain of discourse as the question now (or then), which too will be a historical mark in the sand that we use to contextualize the advances we will make later. To deny a race or a racial circumstance, or circumstances not simply racial but something extraneous but shared by a people of a race, would influence development across any sphere of human expression means a willing absconding for understanding the entire picture of a phenomenon as we see it now and is therefore, for denying that fuller and more defined truth of a particular reality, intrinsically ascientific, and its suppressive agents are themselves antiscientific.

>>11085911
Did you just do the verbal equivalent of making a big dirty doodoo in your smarty pants diaper?

Is it necessary to fuck guys before girls so that you know what it is like to be with a guy so that you can know what to do with your own body to provide maximal pleasure for the girl? Do the Greeks still apply?

>>11085856
Philosophy is not about conclusions (which assuredly will be overturned soon enough); philosophy is about the practice. Love is a dynamic tension between the beloved and the lover — both of whom will be forever separated from each other. Love of wisdom, therefore, is about the absolute poverty of the lover tied to the philosopher's craft and cunning: the endless hunt, the infinite walls between the Knight and the young maiden's bower.

>>11085978
Philosophy is the pursuit of truth, so it is inherently about conclusions -- of which Hume and Kant no longer have anything useful to offer.

>>11085994
>a human being can obtain perfect Truth through logical form

>>11086012
You can (with overwhelming ease) learn enough truth to know when something is wrong

>>11085994
>of which Hume and Kant no longer have anything useful to offer.
What lead you to this conclusion?

>>11086018
How the fuck can you learn enough to know Kant is wrong without having read Kant???

>>11085856
The point of studying past philosophies (no matter how flawed they might be) is to exercise our reason, and watch the unfolding of Spirit throughout the history of philosophy. To engage with the history of philosophy is itself a fundamentally philosophical task.

Hume is a joy to read anyway.

>>11085096
Why does Kant look like a Negro in this pic?

>>11086108
Because he was really a mulatto and gis long walks were really long butt bumping seshes with his manservant but no one talks about it.

>>11086123
>The growth of the spongy parts of the body had to increase in a hot and humid climate. This growth produced a thick, turned up nose and thick, fatty lips. The skin had to be oily, not only to lessen the too heavy perspiration, but also to ward off the harmful absorption of the foul, humid air.
>The profusion of iron particles. which are otherwise found in the blood of every human being, and, in this case, are precipitated in the net-shaped substance through the evaporation of the phosphoric acid (which explains why all Negroes stink), is the cause of the blackness that shines through the epidermis.
>...In short, all of these factors account for the origin of the Negro, who is so amply supplied by his motherland, that he is lazy, indolent, and dawdling.
Kant did not think highly of Negros or mulattos.

>>11086081
Truth doesn't care about the history of philosophy. The truth can never be reversed, shut back in its box. This is the value of earlier philosophies, the truths they contain, not their place in the "grand history of philosophy" or "development of the Spirit" or whatever other nonsense your mediocre brain deems fit to contrive and lay on the public banquet table for mass consumption, Georg.

>>11086222
You're just jelly that my lectures are more successful than yours lmao. How is your famous and talented mom doing these days, Arthur?

>>11086327
I don't read the pulpy bilge my mother churns out, although you both would have a lot to talk about, give your common area of interest.

>>11086222
Truth might not, but human language and human thought does, so that in the same way pure reason might lead to truth, the way to pure reason (or whatever such system) may be trod with old-shod strides; a third-order system.

>>11086421
There is a marked difference between reading past philosophers for their ideas, and reading them for the sake of situating them in a progressive history of philosophy. In the first case, the ideas they uncovered or rectified are all that count, and philosophies thousands of years and miles apart can be related to each other as peers, and the conflicts between them can be clearly seen, whereas in the second case, the state of the case must be twisted and revised in order to give the appearance that all philosophy is harmoniously united in working toward a single goal. The work of Hegelianism is the work of vulgar historical optimism.

Skip both, read King Hegel

>>11086507
>reading Hegel without reading Descartes, Hume, Kant and Spinoza first

>>11085255
the audacity of this nigger

>>11085241
No, you fucking idiot.

Damn kant looked like THAT?

>>11085978
This is true meta-philosophically, but not philosophically

>>11086222
>I know the nature of truth
Wew Schoppy

>>11085241
So what? Your mere notion of not EVEN CONSIDERING Kant being a POC makes your statement HIGHLY problematic

>>11085241
No. He was just an ugly virgin.

>>11085248
Try reddit instead

>>11085772

Where did he do that?

>>11085241
yes, just look at this older picture of him

There is no point in reading any philosophy older than 20 years ago beyond odd desire to learn history of philosophy.

>>11085096
What's the best translation of A Critique of Judgement?

>>11085718
Thank you kind anon, I believe this post to be extremely useful. I wish to you success, happiness and all that you desire in the future.

>>11088946
Best of luck, anon. Although I don't agree with Empiricism, it is extraordinarily beneficial to grapple with these texts — they unlock many different, contemporary debates as well. The only slog on that list is Locke's "Essay" (everything else is under 100 pages), but his flaws were magnificent in scope and well worth discovering.

HE IS HERE

>>11086085
this. he didn't really write that much either, so it's best to just read everything.

>>11086888
Anyone who claims to make a true statement is tacitly assuming the nature of truth in general. It's not as profound a question as you pseuds make it out to be.

>>11088428
In the preface to On the Will in Nature, I believe. If it's not there, it's in the first section of the first volume of The World as Will and Idea

my native language is german but I am actually considering reading kants critique in english. should I ?

>>11085248
Kek ebin simply ebin

>>11089947
got him good