/lit/ - Literature

>>20390553
To make yourself appear intelligent

A necessity, to become erudite. Along with the Phenomenology of Spirit.

>>20390553
to criticize pure reason

1-10 how easy is it to read this book anon?

>>20390635
2

>>20390553
It reorients cognition in such a way that it serves as a purgative for dogmatic thinking. You should read the CPR to experience this profound shift in consciousness. There are also secondary benefits, however:
>Makes you look intelligent (to the unintelligent)
>It's a fun read (if you're autistic)
>Historical context

>>20390711
ok, I'll read it

>>20390553
Probably among the top 5 phisolophers in history

>>20390615
>Along with the Phenomenology of Spirit.
Nah, you can skip that shit.

>>20390620
You blew my mind. I wasn't even aware the book was about criticizing pure reason.

>>20390635
1

>>20390553
Because it's right about literally everything.

>>20390553
You started off as a naive empiricist and read Locke to inform your views.
You proceeded onto Hume, who blackpilled you on how much how senses can really tell us about the world with his skepticism.
You land on Kant, who bloomerpills you with his German idealism.
You are now a wise and happy man.

>>20392756
non-euclidean geometry

To understand the concept of logic, knowledge, the senses, perception, and the underlying nature of reality itself and its relationship with human cognition

>>20390635
10/10 difficulty if you're a pleb that didn't start with the Greeks.
Probably a 2 or 3 only if you read Aristotle's Organon and a basic knowledge of Hume's ideas.

its a very important book to philosophy but it is also dry and tedious

>>20392773
You started off as a naive atomist and read Democritus to inform your views.
You proceeded onto Plato, who blackpilled you on how much how senses can really tell us about the world with his skepticism.
You land on Aristotle, who bloomerpills you with his Aristotelian hylomorphism
You are now a wise and happy man.

>>20392773
>>20392756
Then you land on Husserl's phenomenology, which criticizes the "thing-in-itself" misconception. Then you finally get a clear understanding of objectivity and stop denying factual existences + being

>went to Catholic uni and they deliberately don't teach Kant
>read Kant genuinely and realize that the Catholics don't have an argument against him that doesn't end up affirming Luther and Sola Fide
This is basically why.

>>20390553
its chad tier

>>20393111
Isn't this the Ingarden interpretation of phenomenology and not the mature Husserl's?

>>20393227
Feser systematically debunks Kant

>>20390635
>>20392850
CPR was unironically the first philosophy book I tried to read. I wanted to get into philosophy and he was the most famous philosopher I had heard of. I got about 100 pages into the CPR before I quit due to lack of interest. That part I read was actually very understandable. He plainly states the problem, why it's a problem, and what his solution is. He can be a bit difficult to read but I have read much much worse writers than him now particularly in the postmodern social sciences. Part of the reason I quit after 100 pages was because I got the general idea of transcendental idealism but didn't have the interest to pursue it further. I do want to go back to it at some point.

>>20393506
Genuinely curious as to how. I know of Feser but have not engaged with his work. Doesn't he basically try to disconnect the cosmological argument from the ontological argument?

>>20390553
I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION 3 WEEKS AGO AND I GOT BANNED

FUCK JANNIES

>>20390553
It's the most closest thing to an agnostic bible.

>>20391620
It actually isnt

>>20390553
If there is such a thing as a critique of pure reason, then every thinking being should read it as a means to become more intelligent.

>>20390553
They shouldn’t. It’s a waste of time.

>>20390553
As preparation for this book

>>20390553
none should

>>20390553
Kantianism is peak cuck morality

>>20392858
is it true that modern philosophy was just a rehash of classical philosophy?

>>20393111
Trips of Primary Truth.

>>20397288
Nietzsche was literally an incel and a cuck

>>20395786
More like in preparation for this book.

It arms you with the needed tools to dismantle any argument that comes your way

>>20390553
They shouldn't.

there is no real distinction between appearances and things in themselves, for all that we see is appearance and not the thing in itself. how can one perceive things as they are in themselves within the limitations of human cognition?

>>20390553
1. Without reading and understanding it, you will remain a dilettante and be unable to understand the full significance of any post-Kantian philosopher
2. Kant's love of symmetricality, organization, and harmonization are infectious. His conscientiousness will raise your own thinking to a higher level of operation.
3. Aside from the above, to make fun of people who haven't read Kant

>>20390553
You shouldn't. It's brain poison.

>>20393547
>>20390644
>>20391804
>>20392850
If this book was easy to you, you didn't understand it.

>>20400899
You can't, that's sorta one of the main points of the book.

Studying this book (or just the introduction and the first few chapters alone) is one of the best ways to understand how to read philosophy. Reading it in German the first time I felt that it was surprisingly well written and that the arguments are relatively simple and relatable, but the thing is that there's so much meaning that you miss out on if you don't think critically about what he's saying. I literally just came back from a 8-hour-long class discussing only chapters 3-7 which is just a couple of pages and I was in awe when I realized how much I missed on my first reading. Ofc this is easier said than done when you're not in university and don't have a guiding authority.
When you approach it like any other book you'll think to yourself "Ah, makes sense I guess" but that's foolish - this book teaches you to read and think critically, which is key in philosophy. If you flip through the pages and just subconsciously nod to whatever he's saying then you may have finished the book but you have not read it in any meaningful way. I'd say this is one of the philosophical works that will test how serious you are about this field. As for the content itself, it still remains incredibly important especially to understand science in and of itself (most stemfags will deny this because they're only trained to follow a bunch of laws whose metaphysics and transcendental reasoning they've never been taught to comprehend in college and thus do not see any reason to learn about philosophy in general - they're like robots in a sense that they can only respond to certain commands that are given to them but not think outside of that realm - there are fortunately neo-kantian scientists that prove them wrong).