/lit/ - Literature

Kant's pitchfork sounds like a freaky sex position

>>13314418
based

>>13314377
I got to say Neech had the coolest ones, though.

>>13314418
based

>>13314418

>>13314377
Yeah and the most worthless.

>>13314418
>Influences
>Locke

>>13314476
Ideas are technically worthless.

>>13314498
>define worth

>>13314441
In Freddy’s collected archives are notes that are just cool titles with cool chapter names with no content. They were rough drafts to unwritten works. That was how he wrote books. “It sounds cool” was exactly what he thought. Literal reddit-tier turbo brainlet

>>13314377
>abstract concrete distinction
it took 1800+ years to come up with *that*? what a bunch of retards

>>13314489
Kant was only influenced by Locke to the extent that he criticized Locke's belief in the possibility of attaining true, certain knowledge of the universe by the means of reason.
In that aspect, he was just as strongly indebted to Leibiniz as he was to Hume.
In regards to his political beliefs, he was not too radically different from other Enlightenment era thinkers, like Rousseau and Montisquieu, even if he did tie such concepts much more strongly to the ethical concepts of moral obligation and duty.

>>13314511
>Define worth
Not a spook

>>13314527
Well, we don't really know his intentions regarding those notes. Judging him for that would be meaningless.

>>13314531
They were actually already present to a certain degree all the way back in Plato and Aristotle's works (think of the theory of ideas exposed in Cratylus and The Republic, if you will), but it was only up until this era (the Enlightenment era) that people started making up all sorts of autistic classifications for absolutely everything.

>>13314536
Define spook

>>13314544
We do know his intentions. He would think up cool titles and chapter names to books whose contents he didn’t care to write about.
>Wouldn’t it be cool if I came out with a book with this title?
>Oh wait... check out these chapter names
>gonna be Le epic book ever

>>13314706
>source? my ass

>>13314377
What were some of his ideas?

>>13314729
pic related in the OP.

>>13314696
Something with no worth

>>13314527
Literal reddit take on a former scholar of Ancient Greek thought. Starting with a title is a writing habit as any other, it's hardly unique to Nietzsche. And the edginess in his writing is always very deliberate and consistent with its purpose.

>>13314531
A lot of modern philosophy is reframing ancient philosophy for other means.

>>13314706
>guessing the intentions of a dead thinker about the books he didn't get to write

Are you a necromantic telepath ?

>>13314734
I Kant even

>>13314778

>>13314527
>not starting with a title
Überpleb. That's why you're not gonna make it.

>>13314527
someone hasnt read deleuzes take on him

>>13314398
ew, that name was probably coined after the fact by some anglo philosopher (who were a mistake)

>>13314527

that's how it was generated, if it's worth anything

>>13314377
the fuck is noogony

>>13314834
Could you elaborate? I still haven't read that yet either

>>13314418
>Influenced
>Virtually all subsequent Western Philosophy

Mother fucker.

>>13315304
Essentially Deleuze posits that Nietzsche is a fortified Godsend in a double-reverse way (think I, Not-I) and the way Deleuze mounts the argument is spectacular. His easier critical book on Nietzsche is straightforward and dry and scholarly and boring enough, but it is not until the later works that he unveils Nietzsche’s spirit as akin to someone who would take his butler to the edge of the cliff and hold him by his ankle with one hand and shake shake shake like come on little chubby boy I know you like it. Deleuze claims this to be the number one distinction. The set-distinction he calls it, calling forth a foundation that equates N with Deleuze with everyone through the RHIZOME. To be an overman is one thing but to see the overman through a representation that hasn’t yet been called forth because Schopenhauer and Kant would have had to have foreseen the coming events (think historically vs ahistorically rather than just outright historically)—that is Deleuze’s driving force. And the testament to the set-distinctions is that if you made it through this whole post and agreed with absolutely anything that I said than you should leave this board because either you are untrained, braindead, hopeless, or consciously a charlatan.

>>13315318
That pic is so perfect

Antinomies, more like anti-NORMIES

>>13315532
No it isn't. It should be "its" not "it's". The fucking captions guys, I swear.

I can only think of one longer list. But it also is related to his style of doing philosophy.

>>13315852
>Schizoanalysis
Of course that's a thing.

>>13314377
it's either him, plato, or aristotle

>>13315852
French people technically can't be philosophers, so it doesn't count.

>>13315912
>technically
spook

>>13314418
god among men. Anyone have any tips for reading Kant, or just understanding him enough to get hot Phil majors into a threesome

>>13314527
Friedrice Itchyknee was a world-respected classical scholar before 25. Fucking dumbass. Go away and come back when you’ve done your reading.

>>13314418
Does anyone else other than the Greek boys and Kunt have that on their Wikipedia?