/lit/ - Literature

>>17296791
I hoped Kant would spook me out but I got filtered.

>>17296791
Why?

Who do I need to read before Kant?

>>17296808
i have barely read a few pages of the Transcendental Aesthetic about space and time and it is already full of compelling writings about how these things are built in "stages", and must be built in otherwise we could not intuit objects or the sequence of events. We can imagine time or space without events or objects, but not the other way.

>>17296843
A long line of philosophers. Start with the Greeks, psued.

>>17296843
I think Bishop Berkeley is a good read. It's more or less the same, but more readable in my opinion

>>17296851
>built in
built-in*, as in an inherent part of our minds.

>>17296852
He said nothing to warrant such a bitchy reply. Fuck off, faggot.

>>17296867
Asking the question, "Who do I need to read before X," already shows a severe lack of preparedness for the reading to come.
I'm sorry you feel empathy for charlatans who want a cheat sheet so they can just say they've read the Critiques.

>>17296910
Right, because in people who aren't "pseuds" preparedness precedes reading said material. kys

>>17296791
Kant is so fucking kino. Any recommendations for writers who hold are on his level or higher?

>>17296791
Schopenhauer explains the essence of and perfects Kant in a much more pleasing and concise way in the first part of WAWAR.

>>17296980
>the necessarily unknowable noumenon is actually ur will bro lmao

>>17296851
Did you just jump into Kant's work have you taken a class on him or read subsequent authors that have explicated his works? Or even something like SEP/IEP?

>>17296952
Schopenhauer my guy.

>>17297007
Yes.

>>17296860
Kant tried very hard to correct the comparisons between himself and Berkeley, a review claiming they were the same motivated some of the revisions the second edition of the first critique. Kant claims there is a given "thing-in-itself" which produces intuitions, while Berkeley denies any givens

>>17297036
>>17297007
I like Schopy's idea about how the will is some metaphysical force that drives living beings in their endeavors, but i feel like he's taking it a bit far saying that will is the thing in itself.

>>17297043
Yes, i know that. But both make arguments that it is all a creation of our minds, which for me was a new way of thinking and took some reflection to understand. I think it's a worthy read even if he is different from Kant in that regard.

>>17296791
Kant spooks you? Kant seems much less spooky than so many other philosophers. For Kant, the idea of God is still useful (even if as only a judgement of practical and not pure reason), not to mention the kingdom of ends, etc. Are you just talking about the first critique?

>>17298476
Yes I am talking about the critique of pure reason. What other philosophers are spooky?

>>17298483
Deleuze

>>17296952
There can be no other. No one else can DEDUCE like him.

>>17298483
if it helps, Kant thought that was just part of his larger system. Not quite sure what's spooking you, this anon may be onto something >>17298555 since Deleuze's departure is at Kant/Hegel. I still can't quite tell what you find scary about Kant, whether its his skeptic side or his intense, rigorous side. If its the former, go for Nietzsche, and if its the latter, go for the analytics

>>17297043
>>17296860
Why is Kant more respected than other idealists if they said almost the same thing? I've heard so many people critique idealism ranging, for example analytical philosophers (especially Bertrand Rusell). And yet Kant is universally respected among philosophers. Is his transcendental idealism that good? Does noumenon patch up the glaring holes in subjective idealism?

>>17298594
WE MUST INTUIT ADDITIONAL CONCEPTIONS

kant just tried to cope with radical skepticism like everyone else in the time and he failed. but hegel is seriously scary. its barely philosophical, he reads like a grimoire. and the implications. oh the implications...

>>17296852
Learn how to spell "pseud" before you talk down to others, you fucking chimp.

>>17298953
>and the implications. oh the implications...
what do you mean?

>>17298953
based

>>17296791
Kant gave me one of the only existential "crises" of my adult life, the result of which was immanent recognition of the reality of the Soul. Very spooky indeed.

>>17298911
Autistic rigor.

>>17296910
>charlatans
What? Anon was simply asking whether there are certain prerequisite philosophers that he need's to read to fully grasp Kant, he's not claiming to know anything about philosophy so the 'charlatan' was unwarranted. I sincerely hope that entire post was ironic.

>>17297007
Don't engage in conjecture. Schopenhauer claims that as the thing-in-itself is unknowable to us, it can only be that which the Will is - utterly inexplicable, lying outside of the apriori forms of time and space, therefore not available to us as representation nor through our apprehensive capabilities.

>>17296867
actually just kys