/lit/ - Literature

>>15390110
You can read commentaries and supplementary books and substitute wikipedia for the Stanford Encyclopedia and video essays for interviews with scholars and you'll be golden.

>>15390110
Because Wikipedia is not written by scholars of the subject, can be edited by anyone, and is not subject to peer review. The same is true of video essays. Furthermore, significant, thought-provoking commentary is impossible in the space of a Wikipedia page or a video. Also, if you don't understand why Wikipedia and videos are insufficient, your knowledge is so woefully insufficient that you should probably consider that proof of their failings.
If you want overviews, read Copleston or some other secondary text. The next best thing would be what >>15390121 suggested.

read about Master–slave dialectic by hegel.
When you read by your own, then you are master.
When you using essays and wikipedia, you are slave

>>15390110
you'll know what the conclusions are and the basic reasoning used to arrive at those conclusions, but you'll never really "get" it. it's like in math, you could theoretically just read wikipedia articles on the concepts and watch youtube videos, but if you get asked to solve a problem about it, you're most likely going to be lost. you'll understand what the question is asking, but not how to actually solve it. similarly to philosophy, you need to actually engage with the material somehow.
in other words your method would just make you a walking encyclopedia. enough to impress randoms and pseuds but not enough to understand the whole of what you're dealing with

1. Read the wikipedia entry.
2. Decide if you are interested to learn about it in more depth.
3. If so, read the source material.
4. If not don't read the source material.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

>>15390121
This is what I do (throw in university lecture recordings on youtube). I barely read the original works and I'm able to navigate discussions no problem, but I do still fell kind of guilty tho. I know that I'm still missing something, but at the same time I cant get myself to read shit like the first critique. The only source material I've read is some intro to phil tier shit and the postmodern philosophers. I honestly dont know how people find foucalt to be difficult or obscure/overly verbose, it's way more enjoyable to read than autistic germans (even tho I find the ideas of the likes of kant and heidegger to be far more profound).

The only reason to read the source material is if you read what people say about it in wikipedia/stanford encyclopedia and want to disagree with it by forming your own interpretation of the original works (keeping in mind the common interpretation so you can discredit it) to impress your academic friends and professors.

>>15390164
It's okay, OP. The point is to find an area that interests you and read deeply into that one area, while having a broad enough knowledge to understand its links to the rest of the corpus of Western philosophy. If you like Foucault, read Foucault. Eventually, you will have a deep understanding of his ideas and be able to use them in your life and work. If you spend your time reading authors you dislike and are uninterested in, you will likely come away with a half-baked understanding and have no interest in applying their ideas.
Just make sure you read an actual overview at some point, like the Copleston. It's difficult to know what you don't know without those.

>>15390173
especially potent with nietzsche

>>15390173
You sound like you don't actually enjoy philosophy. Why are you here?

by learning through wiki or youtube docs you introduce a filter between you and the material, obviously. you aren't learning Kant, you're learning [random youtuber's] interpretation of Kant.
> the main objective is to understand the ideas
no its not, you're viewing philosophy as a list of points to be remembered. it's more the act of discovering a rich interpretation of reality, which takes work. it's not something you can 'win' by memorizing the most definitions.

>>15390197
To share my wisdom.

>>15390110
As soon as you are reading a secondary source, at least in the case of philisophy, you are reading an interpetation. Now, a big part of being a philosoher is interpreting and working with the ideas that came before you which you cannot do without reading the primary sources for yourself.
Sure, if you just want to pass exams or feel smart and knowledgeable, reading only secondary sources is fine but if you want to truly engage with philosophy, it is absolutely necessary to read the primary sources or otherwise your thoughts will bear no weight at all.

>>15390110
Philosophy is not primarily about understanding the "ideas" as some sort of end goal or summary, but understanding the reasoning that gets you to these ideas. Browsing wikipedia articles will let you associate names with general thoughts, nothing more.

>>15390110
Because great writing has already achieved the highest point of sublimation. There are no unnecessary sentences, or even commas. Therefor, it can't be summarized. They once asked Tolstoy to explain in a couple of words what War & Peace was about and he said that if he could do that he wouldn't have written the book, he would have just written those couple of sentences. Don't be a faker bro

>>15390110

There is a profound difference between reading directly from the mind of a genius than from a second- or third-rate mind that is only capable of offering interpretations or summaries.

>>15390146

Sadly or no, there are no shortcuts to Kant. It's almost difficult to appreciate the magnitude of what he did, since we've received his ideas through cultural osmosis (aka "Seinfeld syndrome"). But he's definitely worth the effort; Schoppy described reading him (IIRC) as the scales falling off his eyes. To answer your question, Patricia Kitcher does a great job on her introduction to the Hackett ed. of the Critique, but it still lacks the scope of Kant's work. Some philosophers, like Aquinas or the logical works of Aristotle, benefit greatly from secondary lit., though you should ALWAYS read the primary lit if you're serious about studying philosophy. I don't think Kant benefits from the secondary lit unless it's a modern application of his theory (I'm convinced that his ethical works are bunk).

Other philosophers — I am here thinking especially of Plato — are both a pleasure to read as well as greatly misinterpreted by the majority of scholars (though this trend is lessening in the 21st c.). You lose a lot by reading the secondary lit., but gain much by reading them directly. Berkeley, Hume, Kierkegaard, Iris Murdoch, and certain contemporary philosophers of law are really engaging and great authors (haven't read Nietzsche in depth, but I imagine that ppl would speak similarly). Wittgenstein is one of those people that scholars try to rewrite in order to for their theories, so you should be making up your own mind about philosophers like him. The real issue with secondary lit is that you lose out on developing your own critical reasoning: Descartes and Locke, though huge, can be found to be peddling serious and crippling contradictions in their theories with only a little effort.

TL;DR: Secondary lit is valuable, but never as a replacement for reading primary texts and doing the work yourself. SEP should always be used instead of Wiki, but SEP is not some almighty gospel — it sometimes forwards contentious claims and interpretations without backing.

>>15391742
>Sadly or no, there are no shortcuts to Kant
this means he had nothing valuable to say.
>It's almost difficult to appreciate the magnitude of what he did, since we've received his ideas through cultural osmosis
then you don't need to read him.
>Schoppy described reading him (IIRC) as the scales falling off his eyes
not a real thinker, not a real argument.
>you should ALWAYS read the primary lit if you're serious about studying philosophy
that means there is no actual valuable to be found.
>misinterpreted
>you should be making up your own mind about philosophers like him
plato isn't important, only the ideas we do or do not ascribe to him.
>can be found to be peddling serious and crippling contradictions in their theories with only a little effort
only valid argument, not a reason for exhaustively studying primary works to learn and understand the ideas you're interested in.
pseud factor: 8/10
final evaluation

>>15391965
Retard factor
10/10

>>15391965

>>15391965
>only things that are easy to explain are of value

>>15391965
This is some /v/ shit

>>15390110
Yes.

>>15390164
>I cant get myself to read shit like the first critique.
Kant is truly the great plebe filter of philosophy

>>15390121
This.

>>15392078
not what it means, general relativity isn't easy but you don't have to go to einstein to understand it. meaning there is objective content and value in it divorced from einsteins personal writings.

Someone who thinks them reading the Standford on a book is the same as reading the book is making such a basic map/territory error that philosophy is certainly not for them. Not to worry, they'll lose interest and be into something else in five years, probably Dale Carnegie self help.

>>15392132
>Someone who thinks them reading the book is the same as doing the philosophy is making such a basic map/territory error that philosophy is certainly not for them. Not to worry, they'll lose interest and be into something else in five years, probably nietzsche self help.

>>15392116
You won’t understand relativity by reading a wiki or a summary or an video on it. Without the math all you have is some empty concept that you cant validate or use. When a physicis says he understands relativity, he does essential consult whatever the direct theories and concepts are (not eisntein’s probably, because others have refined them). The same applies to philosophy. Without the methdology, all you have are empty concepts that have no weight or relevance, just conjecture. The truth is in the method.

>>15392152
>not eisntein’s probably, because others have refined them
DING DING DING

>>15392142
This is pretty bad, anon. You sound like a cross poster. Your rhetoric and shitposting game is like another anon said, at a /v/ level. Why are you trying to get into philosophy if you dont want to read philosophy? Just read the very short introductions series, but everyone whi has read any primary work will immediately tell your full of bullshit when you can’t even recognize the terminology.

>>15392165
Yeah, and? There are other Kantian philosophers after Kant who have dedicated their time to refining his theories and articulation. But guess what, their books are equally as long and obtuse as his. You’re still going to have to read 1000+ pages.

>>15392168
>Why are you trying to get into physics if you dont want to read principia

>>15392182
the thinker is not important, only the ideas.

Yes. Why?

>>15392193
The ideas are the most meaningless part since they mean nothing without their grounding. What matters in philosophy is the argument, which to understand you have to read. The ideas divirced of the argument are no different than some shower thoughts or stoner thoughts.

>>15392193
>All particulars are instances of universal forms.
>Oh wow, that’s interesting, anon. How come?
>...
What do you expect to accomplish with a mere catalogue of ideas and no argument to support them?

>>15390121
idk i think that might be decent for introduction, but often times i feel like they have a specific nuance to them that is different from the og text. you can experience the different flavors the writer meant. Ive had courses and whatched videos, where im like "yah you got the gist, but I wouldnt state it that way, or you forgot another thing the original author said".

>>15392210
>>15392223
>What matters in philosophy is the argument
yes of course, obviously reading about the ideas will include the arguments. You have to be deliberately nitpicky and dishonest to assume it doesn't. But the thinker is not important. What did kant think about this? how does heideggers x relate to malebranches y? etc. this is not important.

>>15392165
I'm not sure the kind of refinement youre talking about is possible in philosophy, given the fact that philosophical questions cannot be answered by using a purely mathematical language. You could not know wether a philosopher has refined Kant's philosophy if you literally don't know what his arguments and terminology were: those are required in the first place, if you want to make such a judgement. This kind of interpretation is not required when it comes to the understanding of scientific theories, since they're predicated over mathematical models, rather than rational arguments expressed in our non-formalized common language.
As such, we can criticize the philosophers' method of exposition only if there were a way to either a)fully formalize the language used in philosophy or b) deal with philosophical questions (i.e. ontology, phil of science, ethics, phil of mind, and so on) in purely mathematical terms. Unfortunately both options seems to be barred (and let me add: if you can prove that one of them isn't you would immediatly become one of the most relevant philosophers in human history, possibly the most relevant). As long as this is the case, the philosophers' method of exposition is the most valid there is (unless you think we should simply not think about these questions - and I wonder how you could prove such a normative claim, given the framework that is implied by said claim).

>>15392267
No one is trying to say that the thinker himself is the key element here. Philosophy isn’t like the science where an idea can be divorced from its development. The same ‘idea’ expressed expressed by 3 different philosophers will end up in 3 qualitatively different arguments and conceptions. What is impressive about Kant’s philosophy is his arguments, with all its nuances. There’s no way to summarize what Kant is saying without writing an equally long commentary. In fact, Norman Smith’s commentary on the critique, the “standard” one in english, is almost 300 pages longer than the critique. All you’ll get with a summary of the ideas and arguments is a loose notion of the real deal, that can easily be undone by someone’s careful questioning. It’s like only knowing the grand canyon from descriptions. There’s a qualitative gap between the actual work and it’s interpretations.

>>15392288
>I'm not sure the kind of refinement youre talking about is possible in philosophy
then it's garbage.
>philosophical questions cannot be answered by using a purely mathematical language
nor can biological or chemical ones.
>what his arguments and terminology were
don't care about kant, kant isn't important. it's only important whether or not he discovered something important, and in which case what he discovered.
>scientific theories, since they're predicated over mathematical models
not all scientific theories.
>rather than rational arguments expressed in our non-formalized common language
this is the case for many scientific theories.
>As such, we can criticize the philosophers' method of exposition only if there were a way to either a)fully formalize the language used in philosophy or b) deal with philosophical questions (i.e. ontology, phil of science, ethics, phil of mind, and so on) in purely mathematical terms
doesn't follow, wrong premises anyway.
you're mathematically and scientifically illiterate and incapable of thinking.

>>15392351
you literally just said "no" as a response to every point he made. stop posting, brainlet.

>>15392351
>im trying to understand this philosophy without any direct exposure to it, can I?
>No
>THEN IT’S GARBAGE
Why are you such a whinny retard?

>>15392334
>Philosophy isn’t like the science where an idea can be divorced from its development. The same ‘idea’ expressed expressed by 3 different philosophers will end up in 3 qualitatively different arguments and conceptions
clearly wrong based on what actual philosophers are doing (try to read some analytic philosophy journal articles). but if that was true it would be all garbage.
>What is impressive about Kant’s philosophy is his arguments, with all its nuances. There’s no way to summarize what Kant is saying without writing an equally long commentary
if the argument was impressive it could be reproduced and reformulated. Euclids proof of the irrationality of the square root of two is an impressive argument and can therefore be reproduced a million ways.
>All you’ll get with a summary of the ideas and arguments is a loose notion of the real deal, that can easily be undone by someone’s careful questioning
this proves it's garbage ad sophistry.
>>15392364
no I proved his logic about theories only being able to be divorced from their originators if they're strictly mathematical ones.
>>15392401
if you can't be directly exposed to a philosophy outside its original works, that proves it's garbage. this isn't the case for those things in philosophy which has value.

>>15392429
>*proved his logic wrong

>>15392429
>if you can't be directly exposed to a philosophy outside its original works, that proves it's garbage. this isn't the case for those things in philosophy which has value.
Post one philosophy you can read a summary of and fully understand and I’ll prove you immediately wrong

>>15392454
here you can either say: summary means briefly summed up so of course any complex ideas and arguments can't be fully given justice. In which I'd say that there isn't just the original works and summaries.
Or you can say that all non-original works are necessarily summaries because they can't contain every last sentence of the original (even if they're longer). In which case I'd say that what is necessarily missed isn't important.

>>15392429
Anonimity really brings the cave-dweller and their retardations wrong. You dont read a single analytic journak. All your responses are entirely illogical and any real analytic would notice.
>if you can't be directly exposed to a philosophy outside its original works, that proves it's garbage.
Pray tell, explain? What does “garbage” mean here? I doubt you have a formalize definition.
>clearly wrong based on what actual philosophers are doing
Argument ad populum? Hm, interesting.
Also a non-sequtur when you think about it. How does philosophers writing philosophy contradict his point?
>if the argument was impressive it could be reproduced and reformulated.
According to? How come? Pls explain?
>Euclids proof of the irrationality of the square root of two is an impressive argument and can therefore be reproduced a million ways.
But it’s a mathematical argument, no?
>no I proved his logic about theories only being able to be divorced from their originators if they're strictly mathematical ones
Then can you provide another example like the one above (Euclid) that isnt mathematical?

>>15392497
No. Im literally asking for you to give me an idea or philosopher you dont have to read directly and yet understand. Forget about “fully”. I’ll even tell you my very simple method. You give the name, I’ll google the book, look up a random page, and ask you a question concerning it, you’ll have no answer and will look like a fool. It isn’t worth doing here, I’ll admit, because of anonymity you’ll just double down on your bullshit. But im comfortable in the fact that irl, you’ll be a stammering pseud who cant defend a single one of his ideas in rational debate because you’ll do anything not to read.

>>15392500
>I doubt you have a formalize definition.
you serious? you don't need a formalized definition of garbage, you understand what I mean when I say it. It's not worth spending any time on.
>Argument ad populum?
nah because it proves you wrong about there being only one way to do phil, and that way being one that is intensely focused on the primary sources and the personalities at all times.
>According to? How come? Pls explain?
It's the standard we apply to any other area. Why should phil be different? In any other area of knowledge you wouldn't be taken seriously if you insisted that the only way to understand your ideas were to read your words.
>But it’s a mathematical argument, no?
mathematical arguments aren't some foreign objects completely irrelevant to other discussions. You thinking this proves you're mathematically illiterate. any argument you can name by name doesn't require you to go to the original source. You can pretty much choose any of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_arguments
>>15392535
>Im literally asking for you to give me an idea or philosopher
general relativity.
But for a philosopher, I don't think you need to have read dennett to understand his reductionism. I happen to have read him, because he's probably the best representation of his ideas, this becomes less probable as we grow more distant in time from the original presenter of the ideas we are interested in (and the ideas more influential). compare learning newtonian physics in the 1710s to newtonian physics now.
>look up a random page, and ask you a question concerning it
of course what you'll do here is ask a question only concerning the text without central importance to the idea in question.
>But im comfortable in the fact that irl, you’ll be a stammering pseud who cant defend a single one of his ideas in rational debate because you’ll do anything not to read.
you think those scientists defending evolution against creationists all have read darwin?

>>15392983
>It's the standard we apply to any other area. Why should phil be different? In any other area of knowledge you wouldn't be taken seriously if you insisted that the only way to understand your ideas were to read your words.
I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but you're completely wrong about this. I've been yelled at by my advisor for not having read this or that source and trying to comment on it.

>>15393035
Ok so engineers are learning latin and reading principia. thanks guy.

>>15393040
1. STEM is not philosophy.
2. STEM is not the only field in existence besides philosophy.
3. I'm not in STEM.
4. Your insistence on making STEM comparisons proves nothing.

>>15390110
>Bearing in mind that the main objective is to understand the ideas
I thought the main objective of reading philosophy was to impress strangers on /lit/

>>15393105
what are some serious fields you think it is impossible to understand the central ideas of without reading directly the guy who came up with that idea? I'm having a really hard time just imagining that any idea (or argument or finding or thought experiment or whatever) can be
1) so personal and subjective that the only way to grasp it meaningfully is to go to one specific person
2) at the same time be worthy of serious study.

>>15390110
Usually when I read summaries or second hand sources on big philosophical works it's total bullshit compared to what the philosopher actually said

Also, people interpret things differently. I like to read stuff for myself cuz everyone has their biases and agendas

>>15390110
Mann says it's not only about the philosophy, which very often becomes outdated - but about the philosophers, who are one of a kind people, you might happen to really appreciate (on Schopenhauer)

>>15393142
>1) so personal and subjective that the only way to grasp it meaningfully is to go to one specific person
No one has ever made this assertion.
This has already been stated, but you are conflating two separate modes of study.
One is to have a surface-level understanding of the final result of someone's work as a stepping stone to something else. Alasdair MacIntyre's discussion of Nietzsche is a good example. I don't have to have read Nietzsche to understand his presentation of Nietzsche and its place in his system of thought.
The other is to understand the work itself, meaning the process of reasoning that led to the final result, and the methods and principles that are made clear in its exposition. For this, one must read the original work. I cannot understand how Nietzsche arrived at his conclusions, nor can I understand all his conclusions, nor can I understand how all these fit together, without reading the man himself.
If you want a bugman comparison, one can understand Newton's laws without having read Newton, but one understand neither Newton the scientist, nor the process by which he derived his laws, and therefore not also the means by which one can apply his methods of thought and investigation, without having read Newton himself.

>>15391965
Are you retarded? How, for instance, did you derive
>there is no actual valuable to be found
from
>you should ALWAYS read the primary lit if you're serious about studying philosophy
What is the point of studying philosophy, if not to ground your vision of the world by wrestling with the most essential questions of all? It's the real pseud move to memorize facts and names off of Wik or SEP, like some lowly insect. Moreover, if you truly believe that only Plato's ideas are important (and not the man himself, which I never implied), then misinterpretation of those ideas is the greatest error of all! How to avoid others' misinterpretations? Read the fucking text!

Unless you're serious when you said
>only the ideas we ascribe to him
In which case, you are nothing more than a data-gathering worm, autistically flailing to punch above his weight. You read like low-energy bait, but I'm pissed off and on speed, so fuck it

>>15393203
>one can understand Newton's laws without having read Newton, but one understand neither Newton the scientist, nor the process by which he derived his laws, and therefore not also the means by which one can apply his methods of thought and investigation, without having read Newton himself.
then why aren't physicists learning latin and reading the principia? because understanding newton the scientists isn't relevant for understanding physics, and because you're wrong about about the need to read him to understand his methods of thought and investigation, to the extent that it's important to understand them at least.

bloodless knowledge is absolutely useless. That is your answer.

>>15391965
>not a real argument.
By the same logic we should discredit your entire post too

>>15393290
>then why aren't physicists learning latin and reading the principia?
1. Because the methods that Newton used are no longer in use in physics.
2. Math students do indeed read the Principia Mathematica in translation, just as they still read Euclid's Geometry.
>and because you're wrong about about the need to read him to understand his methods of thought and investigation, to the extent that it's important to understand them at least.
Nope, his methods are simply no longer useful to physicists. But they are useful to mathematicians, which is why the more advanced students of mathematics still read the classics.
This still doesn't prove anything about philosophy, by the way.

>>15393244
>if not to ground your vision of the world by wrestling with the most essential questions of all?
this doesn't require the original sources.
>It's the real pseud move to memorize facts and names off of Wik or SEP, like some lowly insect
this doesn't follow from not studying the primary sources intensely. false dichotomy.
>if you truly believe that only Plato's ideas are important (and not the man himself, which I never implied), then misinterpretation of those ideas is the greatest error of all! How to avoid others' misinterpretations? Read the fucking text!
this doesn't follow at all. the "misinterpretation" becomes the ideas, because in discussing idea X there is no reason to state that you shouldn't discuss idea X because conventionally_believed_originator_of_X didn't actually mean X. You could go back and read the originator and come back from it with a different idea Y, but then that would be a different discussion.
>In which case, you are nothing more than a data-gathering worm, autistically flailing to punch above his weight
then you think all scientists are "data-gathering worm, autistically flailing to punch above their weight".

>>15393348
>then you think all scientists are "data-gathering worm, autistically flailing to punch above their weight".
I don't know about the guy you're responding to, but this is exactly what I believe. For the most part, and increasingly so with each passing day, most scientists are autistic savants with a razor-thin field of vision for the world around them. Any suggestion that their closed system of numbers and measurements might not have a monopoly on truth-value is met with screeching.

>>15390110
I hate Wikipedia for that, very limited info, and usually poorly written

>>15393342
calculus is no longer in use in physics?
>the more advanced students of mathematics still read the classics.
I think you'd be surprised.
>>15393383
thank you for being honest, but this is the reason no one should take you seriously.

>>15393411
Think what you want, the field speaks for itself. I'm not denying their results, and I'm not a luddite, I simply think their methods are arrogant and it breeds a very specific kind of person and mindset.

>>15390188
Thanks anon, you seem very down to earth. That's basically what I've been doing so I'll just continue letting my interest and the development of my thought guide me (and I think I'm coming to a point where I know I need to read coplestons and some of the harder source material to break through to a much deeper understanding)

>>15390146
>hegel
Opinion discarded

>>15393411
>calculus is no longer in use in physics?
Not what I said. Learn to read.
>I think you'd be surprised.
I have friends who are quite into math, and I had a phase where I was also quite into math. Mathematicians read the classics.

>>15392101
At least I understand kant better than most people despite never having read the source material. I independently came to the realization of the phenomena-noumena distinction (idealism) without any real knowledge of philosophy when I was meditating on some implications of findings in computational neuroscience. This realization profoundly changed how I perceived metaphysical problems (thougg at the time I didnt even know they were "metaphysical" per se). I didnt have any words for the concepts at the time, so I combed through wiki articles until I stumbled upon kant, who had realised the same thing and based his whole philosophy upon it. Reading more into texts about kants philosophy, I found that I'd already come to many of the same conclusions, so I figured reading much of the source material wouldnt really be that important, since I'd already internalized the idealism mode of thinking.

>>15390148
right, Adler calls this the difference between reading for understanding and reading for information. Only one actually makes you smarter

>>15393614
Kant wasn't an idealist. His phenomena-noumena distinction has nothing to do with idealism.

>>15393614
I've read a lot of stupid, delusional, pretentious bullshit on this site but this might just take the cake.

>>15394130
nigger yes it does

>>15393348
You are making zero sense, probably because you don't know what secondary lit. is. Secondary lit. is commentary on what thinker X believed, which is what you allegedly despise. Otherwise, if it's a summary, it sacrifices the nuance of the original material or else chews your food for you (another thing you allegedly dislike). Seeing a philosophy through the lens of another is rarely worth doing, and when it is, it generally becomes something new and primary itself (e.g. Marx's interpretation of Hegel, Kripke's interpretation of Witty). The most prominent example in the field is Bertrand Russell's "History." It is clear that he does not understand Kant at all, and anyone who thinks they have earned understanding of Kant via Russell is cheated out of one of the most important philosophers of all time. Russell's bastardized ideas are not worth learning or discussing. Sadly, many such people have reached that false understanding because of Russell.

It's a bit rich for you to tilt at some anti-science windmill when all of the hard sciences (physics, biology, astronomy, geology, and arguably chemistry) were first studied by "philosophers" — indeed, Socrates was accused of practicing natural philosophy: "studying the things above heaven and under the Earth." Many of the early moderns made huge advances in optics, color theory, and mathematics (Leibniz invented calculus, for chrissakes). But yes, many modern scientists have been taught to disdain philosophy and I don't hold them in high regard. I have studied neurobiology under a militant determinist who doesn't seem to realize that the scientific method relies on free will. I have also studied advanced mathematics with people who are quite content to talk about the (non-/)existence of numbers and the epistemological status of mathematical and logical truths. So if you're taking about black science man or Bill Nye caricatures of scientists who do not know the limits of their discipline, then you are right to assume that I disrespect them. But not all scientists are like that, and it certainly is far from a historical truth that they should be.

>>15390121
I'm unsure if an interview would be more informative than a video essay. Off the cuff chatter can go the wrong way.
Do you have a reference for a really good interview (good not just because it explains the character/persona of the thinker)

>>15390146
I don't recall the Master really being on the winning end in Hegel

>>15390121
At that point just read the damn primary sources. It's not that hard. It will be very time consuming, but if you really try you can understand it.

>>15394130
>Kant wasn't an idealist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
You’re retarded

>>15394151
Why