/lit/ - Literature

>>12197081
the hardest read of your life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2YtqUrr3Jw

Try Aristotle first.
Aristotle will help you make more mental gainz than Kant.
Syllogistic logic, teleology, and virtue ethics have remained mostly unchanged from Aristotle's days.
Kant's critiques are mostly Kant criticizing Aristotle through Leibniz and Hume.

>>12197081
>I've never read any philosophy,I've read between 10 to 15 books on my whole 19 years of life
>Am i going to get my ass kicked by it?

yes. "it will kick your ass"

try a babby book on kant or some youtube videos.

What's more concerning is that you think anyone on /lit/ can understand kant.

its not 2015 anymore. /lit/ is dumb as a bag of rocks.
Ain't nothing here you can't find on wiki

I think it would be unwise for you to try reading Kant's CPR just like that. Read the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on CPR and Kant before at least. Then if you still want to read it, use sparknotes to be sure you understand every steps Kant makes. Remember, Kant is trying to prove that synthetic a priori judgments are possible. By doing so, he could prove that metaphysic as something informative to say about the world.

>>12197081
How many times does it have to be said? Start with the Greeks?

>>12197081
Why are you doing this? you realize you're asking how you'll do with a textbook on mathematical analysis when your last experience with math was high school algebra. What do you have to gain by going in with zero context and no idea of what you want to get out of it? You don't just shove a physics book in your face and get "smart."

>>12197127
most people have jobs, social lives etc so don't have the time to read the entire western philosophical canon. And don't pretend that you or any other mouth-breather on this board has read more than two books in your infographic

>>12197277
I'm gonna do a PhD in philosophy tomorrow, I've never studied a day in my life but who has time for all that anyway? :)

>>12197277
I've read all of those except the secondaries and fragments, and I'm full time. What's your excuse? And moreover, why even bother if you're just going to halfass it? You don't have to read everything ever written but you can at least pretend you're actually invested in the field rather than shallowly dipping into something you don't get just for pseud cred.

>>12197304
why are you here?

all the readers left a couple of years ago.

you are a rare find indeed

I believe you should try reading Plato and Aristotle first and foremost.
Virtue ethics, teleology, and syllogistic logic have remained practically unchanged ever since the days of Aristotle.
I wouldn't laugh at somebody who'd never read any academic philosophy past Aristotle's Metaphysics, mostly because what Aristotle was able to deal with is what cannot actually be corrected, but only slightly improved upon in terms of presentation.
What Aristotle did not figure out (like a proper description of the human consciousness, or why there is something instead of nothing) is what still remains a mystery to us.
As a matter of fact, being able to understand and explain Aristotle's metaphysical system and Plato's Parmenides dialogue would almost certainly put you ahead of 99% of all people on Earth in terms of your philosophical knowledge.
What Kant did was mostly to fill in small gaps intentionally created by philosophers (like Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Hume) for the sake of giving themselves a job to do.
My recommendations on dialogues you should read by Plato are:
The Apology of Socrates, Crito, Euthyphro, Meno, Phaedo, Symposium, Gorgias, The Republic, Parmenides, Theaetetus, and Timaeus. If we had to narrow this list down, I'd say the essentials are Meno, Phaedo, Symposium, The Republic, Parmenides, and Theaetetus. Euthyphro and Io are both pretty short, and can be read within less than an hour.
Aristotle's essentials are:
Nicomachean Ethics, Organon (Logic), Physics, and Metaphysics. Some of Aristotle's other important works are his Poetics, Rhetoric, On the Soul, and Politics.
If you do eventually become interested in post-Ancient philosophy, or in getting to Kant, you should read Descartes' Meditations on the First Principle, Spinoza's Ethics, Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Leibniz's Monadology, Discourse on Metaphysics, Berkeley's Treatise Concerning the Principles of Knowledge, and Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Here's a neat page you might want to look into, since it's got lots of information on philosophy from just about any era. By the way, not even philosophy PhDs have to read all of this stuff, so don't worrry if you feel overwhelmed by the immense amount of stuff that appears here. They'll usually know very little outside of the basics and their area of expertise.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>12197081
Surely, you jest. Only a deluded boar, or an ignorant half-wit would audaciously pick up the first critique intending to read it cover to cover. We would not laud a pedestrian, fancying himself a sailor, who sets out suddenly without any prior experience, boasting to passerby that he is about to traverse the Atlantic--nor does he deserve anything but admonishment who sets himself to learn calculus who neglected his rudiments. Therefore, I, trembling at the thought that OP is in earnest and not skillfully having his way with us using some choicely crafted bait, carefully applaud, assuming that this is indeed a precious ruse, played by a wily poster out on the hunt for some gullible game, since no one in their right mind (and I utter this in a cold sweat) would wantonly decide to scale the Himalayan behemoth, the icy megalith that is the Critique of Pure Reason, the very name of which would cause even the brightest pupil of metaphysics, sitting confident at the head of the class, swiftly to turn pale, and fall ill, and promptly to have to leave the room, later to toss and turn in his bed, whilst nightmarish, unspeakable terrors haunt him from the edge of the abyss, taunting all his learning as mere child's play, mere school ground pomp, dashing all his heroes, his precious Greeks and medieval scholars, to dust. Nay, I shudder at the thought of the poor wretch, girded with youthful naivety, boasting a Herculean quest, who finds himself witless on a dark and narrow slope, with no comfort but the icy, rarified air stinging his lungs, yielding just enough breath to animate the next step.

>>12197360
to be a bodhisattva but with shitposting

>>12197081
You should start with simpler stuff like Descartes Meditations

>>12197364
Fantastic

>>12197127
>>12197081

>>12197277
You don't need to quit your job and become a NEET just to read a few dialogues by Plato and some stuff by Aristotle.
That's really all there is to read in terms of philosophy.
Nothing ever written by Deleuze or Quine will ever surpass Plato's Parmenides.
Besides, there is no need for everybody to read eveything from motherfucking Anaximander to Land or Kripke, or whoever is popular these days.
Just reading a few major authors, like Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, one of the Stoics, the Gospels, probably Descartes, Hume, and Nietzsche is all that I would honestly expect somebody to read in order to participate in casual philosophically-themed conversations. There's no need to sink into this whole philosophical canon thing. As a matter of fact, outside of the works of certain particularly good, enjoyable, literary-like philosophers, like Heraclitus, Plato (mostly the early dialogues, not so much in the later dialogues), Epictetus, Seneca, Boethius, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Camus, I wouldn't expect anybody to have to actually read through these philosophers' works straight over consulting some kind of summary of their works instead.
People should spend their time enjoying fiction and poetry instead of mentally struggling through dense philosophical works of no real interest to anyone but academics.

>>12197100
>>12197117
>>12197127
>>12197226
>>12197361
Damn,i guess i'll start with the greeks.

>>12197457
Sure, but don't waste you time going through Hesiod, Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, unless you're into ancient mythology and history. Just head straight to Plato's Dialogues.
The Pre-Socratic fragments have a few interesting tidibts (like, for example, Heraclitus' panta rhea and logos, Parmenides' One, Empedocles' love/strife division, and Anaxagoras' Nous), but they're mostly secondary to Plato and Aristotle's actual works in terms of importance. They did eventually seep their way into Modern and Contemporary philosophy through people like Spinoza, Fichte, and Nietzsche, but it's not quite necessary to read these works.

I am an expert on Kant who wrote a dissertation under Christine Korsgaard, ama.

>>12197501
How did Kant and Hegel differ in terms of their political/moral beliefs?

>>12197501
Is it true Kant saw categorical imperative as principle of non contradiction applied to action? And if so source?

>>12197518
Not the PhD guy. I'd say the categorical imperative is the universalization of the individual's moral principles into a sole set of moral laws which all people can arrive upon by the means of reason, and which apply to everyone because anyone can acknowledge them as perfectly true, not too differently from Kant's elaboration on the distinction between the pleasant and the beautiful.

>>12197512
Lol implying Hegel is worth reading.

>>12197518
Kind of. Not so much logical contradiction between two mutually exclusive actions, as "contradiction" between two principles of willing. Also, Kant's views on will vs. action are another can of worms

Read this https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3201869/korsgaard_kantforumulauniversallaw.pdf?sequence=2

>>12197518
>>12197541
Again not the PhD guy. There is no contradiction between different people having their own moral principles, but once they become moral laws, they must be respected by all people.
All people should abide by moral laws, but any person can, in addition to that, create their own set of moral principles which apply to no one but themselves.
Contradiction only exists when comparing something against a part of itself (general against specific or universal against particular). Something is said to be contradictory if a particular exception to a rule goes against the general form of a rule.

>>12197081
Read the fucking greeks

>>12197717
Fuck the Greeks while reading

>>12197843
Fucking geeks read the r

>>12197081
In all honesty it probably won't be as interesting if you don't have the context of the rationalist and empiricist problematic facing western philosophy up until Kant (Kant's project of establishing conditions of experience beginning in the subject becomes a lot 'richer' when you go into it thinking in terms of the prior traditions that purported to have direct access to the world). Otherwise, it will only kick your ass if you don't learn the vocabulary of Transcendental Idealism.