/lit/ - Literature

What do you mean a thing in itself? A thing is always itself! A thing can't not be itself!

>>18625079
Well, TJ """Henry""" Yoshi, hear me out. A thing actually has two states to it: The first, is when it is subject to the senses, and the second is when it is not. The former is called a "phenomenon", as the physiological characteristics of your limited senses create an experience of the thing that is particular to you, while the latter, "the thing-in-itself", is the thing's existential state that is independent of any entity's experience of it. Now, if we map out reality according to this model of sense-object, you'll find that the human mind essentially creates a parallel version of the universe within itself, and nothing you know is as it truly is independent of you.

Is the Penguin translation for Critique good?

>>18625155
Which one?

>>18625155
Can't call myself an expert on different translstions, but Penguin supposedly reprints an old, out of copyright translation i.e. shit

You really can't afford to misunderstand a work this critical to philosophy.The /lit/ philosophy project (just google it) provides a reading order for the near entirety of western philosophy, and relevantly for you, comes with recommended editions for every work it covers. Check it out, its a great resource and should be shilled more

>>18625418
It recommends the penguin edition lmao

oheistuote

>>18625155
Get the Hackett one

>translations

>>18626561
ok hans

>>18625443
This feels like a bad guide to philosophy and at best a good guide to understanding the development of science in relation to magic. The fact it is recommending the Penguin Kant is actually a really really bad sign.

>>18625418
>The /lit/ philosophy project
it's unfinished, all the good contemporary stuff is missing.

>>18628030
Oh shit, is it actually that bad? I was about to use the charts on the wiki for reference too:
https://4chanlit.fandom.com/wiki/Charts#Philosophy

>>18628030
>This feels like a bad guide to philosophy and at best a good guide to understanding the development of science in relation to magic

these are the same thing

>>18628048
They (the magic and science secondary literature) sound like interesting books but that's just thousands of pages blocking you from reading pretty simple and/or more-important primary sources on philosophy. Feels cumbersome and wrongheaded. I don't have a problem with the Bacon, Pascal, or Kant, but that image is also weird because it seems to suggest you can go from Bacon/Pascal to Kant without even listing the very important (more important than Bacon or Pascal) philosophers that existed in the time period before Kant, the bare minimum are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. This is actually pretty common knowledge not just on /lit/ but in philosophy courses, history of philosophy books, and just about everywhere. Read those guys before Kant and don't force yourself to read medieval magic and science unless you want to.

>>18628096
Oh, phew, you had me worried for a sec. No they do include all of those guys in the chart preceding it:

>>18628113
I do still recommend you focus yourself on the chief primary works instead of getting bogged down with some secondary works that aren't even commentaries on the philosophers, just my advice.

>>18628154
Noted, thanks!

>>18625443
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/4chanlit/images/f/fa/Philosophy_Project_1.pdf/

>>18628085
Either meant as a witty ironic quip, or you're a deranged esoterictard (less likely), whatever it be: educate yourself (be it on comedy or philosophy)

>>18628312
lol imagine reading all of these books so that you can pretend to be smart

>>18625045
>>18625079
>>18625146
Quality posts.

Why can't their be two things in themselves? We've talked about the difficulty of classifying smell in Kant's philosophy, but what if that's just part of another thing in itself?

>>18629398
I mean, that's you m9, you can just read them to learn for yourself if you are really interested.

>>18630126
Why smell specifically?

>>18628113
>>18625443
Wtf is this? I said the /lit/ philosophy project. Copy the words "lit philosophy project", paste them into google, and click on the first result. Its a google doc

>>18630928
Actually here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>18630126
>but what if that's just part of another thing in itself?
Because it makes no sense to posit two distinct unknowns when the unknown is fundamentally unknown. The thing-in-itself can't be considered singular, dual or multiple. It's not meant to be determinate at all.

>>18630126
Unity and plurality come with the categories of our mind, so it doesn't make sense to ask whether the thing in itself is one or two.