/lit/ - Literature

>>19519128
Everyone had to respond to him because of how important his works were. Sounds pretty successful to me.

>>19519166
Wrong point of view. Everyone had to respond to him because his books contain an incredible mess disguised as genius academic work. Following philosophers had to reluctantly punish him in order to save European thought.

>>19519128
>disintegrated
>refuted
>BTFO

You aren't a serious thinker.

>>The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth but sees in it simple disagreements. The bud disappears in the bursting forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly when then fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole.

>>19519309
>posts on 4chan
You aren't a serious thinker.

>>19519309
Hard problem of consciousness

See it's that easy

Kant saved philosophy from the stagnation it was in.
The West without Kant and Spinoza would be just as much as a shithole as the middle east is now.

>>19519166
>his erroneous works commanded such a presence the whole world had to put their real stuff on hold to detour just to say how wrong it is

Yeah. "Success." Like a good shitpost for all tge (You)'s, right?

>>19519340
>just as much as a shithole as the middle east is now.
Being bombed by neo-liberal hell holes does that to you.

>>19519128
Same reason why hegel is still talked about. The ugly, longwinded, and obscure germanic style allows people to give their opinions a great illusion of support. The only real reason to read kant or hegel in the modern day is to be able to more thoroughly btfo people who try to use this rhetorical trick. Though, if you are smarter, you can refine this counterstrategy by only analyzing the bases of these philosophies, and destroying them from there, which allows you to avoid reading them in full. This technique has the same force as fully reading them.

>>19519414
>>>/v/

>>19519414
This.

>>19519128
he solved a lot of shit that philosophers were fighting each other over since Plato so he is great

>>19519480
>the Absolute doesn't exist because I say so
>yes I have judged reason using my reason
>why yes of course, the subject can be limited by me, a subject
You're a poor retard, just like everyone in this board

>>19519480
He did not solve a single issue that wasn't already solved by a major philosopher.

>>19519493
Where's your absolute bro I can't find it

>>19519493
being in the eternal dispute of empiricism vs skepticism vs idealism is pretty cringe and he solved it like it or not

>>19519189
>>19519166
Husserl's entire works exists as proof that Kant was wrong, and he barely ever addressed him.
The entire school of Brentano ignored him as a principle.

>>19519128
Do you not understand how philosophy works? I swear 90% are drooling baboons.

>>19519505
He was an empiricist. Trolling about the thing-in-itself is not a trick to escape empiricism. If you deny metaphysics (for which you necessarily must adopt a metaphysical approach, thus he was wrong from the very beginning) you're a dumb empiricist. He solved nothing.

>>19519498
Basically this. Even Medieval philosophy retroactively BTFOs this dumb kraut.

>>19519128
Great take and post by someone who didn't read any of his work, nor any important work as a matter of fact.
It shows.

>>19519414
Midwit-tier cope by someone who clearly couldn't understand the texts.

>>19519563
Hahahaha
lit sucking Kant's dick is the most spectacular of all oddities

>>19519544
Epistemology but yeah

>>19519544
>a priori
>empiricism
dios mio

>>19519581
> "Hahahaha"
No comment needed

>>19519544
Proactively?

>>19519590
>a priori that only serve the purpose to know phenomena
>not empiricism
Get a load of this dumbass

>>19519572
Not at all. I'm not saying they are empty and meaningless works. I am saying they can be proven fundamentally wrong by looking (surprise surpise!) at their fundamentals, against people who use (and misuse) their wanton writing style.

>>19519606
you are just mad cuz he obliterated your gay shit Aquinas

>>19519638
>they can be proven fundamentally wrong by looking (surprise surpise!) at their fundamentals
I've read books that demolished Kant's philosophy in half a page, so this guy is essentially right.

>>19519527
>he barely addressed him
What? Have you opened Husserl's Ideas before?

>>19519527
>half of the ideen are about how he's not kantian

>>19519638
>I'm not saying they are empty and meaningless works
>>This technique has the same force as fully reading them

>>19519786
>>19519679
And that's literally the only time he does so. No references to him in his Prolegomenon, On the Passive Synthesis, Philosophy as a rigorous science, or the Meditations.

>>19519824
Yeah, one of his two, three main works is filled with references to Kant but that's just it... irrelevant!
Anyway, I thought Husserl was a super genius before reading anything by Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and seeing how they are present in his philosophy. Not saying that Husserl has no value, I think I'd agree more with him than Kant or Fichte, but the deep influence is undeniable.

>>19519907
Take it from him.
> "I have learnt incomparably more from Hume than from Kant. I possessed the deepest antipathy against Kant, and he has not (if I judge rightly) influenced me at all".
Letter to Metzger, 1919

>>19519606
Hahahahahahahaha you are actually fucking stupid. How can the Transcendental (Conditions of EXPERIENCE) be derived from Experience (that which it is conditioning???? The problem with Kant is that he has no explanation for the Transcendental field. He cannot possibly be categorized as an Empiricist since he seeks the conditions for experience outside of experience. Have you even read him or are you just parroting some moronic Neo-Kantian?

>>19519964
He can say whatever he wants, but there is no discussion that his system was deeply influenced by German Idealists. The antipathy is obvious when Kant posits the dualism of thing in itself and phenomenon whereas Husserl rejects this (and here I side with Husserl).

>>19519606
dude read Hume, empiricism tells you are not even yourself without the impressions from phenomena

>>19519987
Why, anon? Are neo-Kantians empiricists?

>>19519605
>Proactively?

>>19520071
Ig it depends on the viewpoint

Any of you girls wanna get a bite to eat? add my discord

>>19519444
but where is the lie?

>>19519572
more like german idealism authors were midwits

>>19520004
His adoption of the German idealist language happens between 1910-1915, in part at Natorp's insistence. Dont read too much German idealist influences in him.

>>19520213
Read the Cartesian Meditations. The influence is still there.

>>19519987
>>19520049
You either think there is something more beyond what you sense, or you only consider phenomena as valid. There is not a middle way. Kant stupidly tried to put himself on that alleged middle way (and the fact itself that he supposed there could be a middle way is nothing but METAPHYSICAL REASONING) and he failed, but you are so retarded that you believe he didn't. Sorry guys, kantian criticism is a meme and has been ridiculed by so many people that you are the ones who need to read more. Good starting point: Claude Tresmontant.

This is not to mention the absoute idiocy, pretentiousness and fallacy to repute yourself able to judge the activity of the Subject while being you yourself the Subject. Finding the limits of Reason with Reason is the same as wanting to fix a broken instrument with the same broken instrument. But this is really hard to get, I know, and I don't expect monkeys on an imageboard to understand this point.

>>19519309
Nice quote, one of my favorites.
>>19519324
I dont think he claimed to be.

>>19519414
>Though, if you are smarter, you can refine this counterstrategy by only analyzing the bases of these philosophies, and destroying them from there, which allows you to avoid reading them in full. This technique has the same force as fully reading them.
This is what I do with the Bible. Just asking why a perfect being needs to create anything btfos Christianity.

>>19520237
I think that is kind of reductive. The potential problem of judging things with a likely faulty faculty of judgement is kinda a basic point that's all together a well focused upon subject in Kant.

>>19520274
>Just asking why a perfect being needs to create anything btfos Christianity
And just asking what is our ultimate origin btfos Kant.

>>19520274
>>19519414
Cant you do that with most anything tho? deconstruction is like the basis of all analysis from Socrates since.

Then it gets into the argument of vague ontologies.

>>19520071
Literally all things on this pyramid are legittament.

>>19520071
That pyramid is anglosaxon bullshit at its finest, but fuck it, I laughed and saved it for future reference.

>>19520237
You are stupid and never read a single page of Kant. No point in talking to you.

>>19520380

>>19519309
>History moves in one direction without cycles
>Always growth, never destruction
You sound like a "progressive" dumbass.
True progress is made through conflict as well, in fact that's arguably the only way to increase quality rather than quantity.

>>19520382
You are an idiot.

>>19520463
>History moves in one direction without cycles.
I agree with this statement.
And you seem to mistake progress to be "more engoodening" rather than simply a statement of iterativity.

A progression of a story does not imply a happy ending. Destruction itself is a form of growth. there is no backwards, it always moves forwards.

>>19519309
I know where this from!

>>19520743
Your definition of progress is meaningless and might as well just be "the flow of time".

>>19519351
A non-shithole can bomb back.

>>19521456
9/11.

>>19519128
>5' 2
LOL

>>19521483
Ok so they have no right to complain then

>>19521484
You have something against manlets? Are you being heightist?

>>19521495
Yes

>>19521324
...Doesnt seem like you object to it. I wasnt stating it as the alternate of something just that progression is simply x followed by y followed by z. Thats not meaningless, thats what it is

>>19521506
I'm telling mom

>>19519340
>shitnoza
reddit

>>19519128
because he disintegrating virtually all philosophy before him and the core of his thought extended over humanties and sciences

you simply can't do philosophy today without Kant, even if you ultmately disagree with him

>>19522088
We're using different definitions of the word, but few would consider your examples to be "progression" in any meaningful sense.