/lit/ - Literature

Your license plate has been stolen and captured by Batman. Please report the theft to your local AUTHORITY.

Anyone who renders ideas partakes of the universal; individual such rendition entails personalization; by putting one's own "spin" on it, throughout the entire process of conceptualization, one knows that it has not been woven in one's style by anyone else.

Any person who excels at anything does so in selfconscious relation to the work/s of his/her affined contemporary, and preceding, eminences, necessarily creating what he/she creates because it has not been conceived —or, if conceived, not conceptualized— by the others; this is how the realization of telos progresses.

>>21012020
Then why is e.g. Kant so bad at expressing his thoughts that he's constantly being misunderstood by his readers?

>>21012677
Kant wrote the pure reason critique to meet a deadline he explicitly stated he didn't care about the reader and understood his writings would be difficult if not impossible to truly understand

>>21012677
Who the hell misunderstands Kant? Nietzsche and Hegel are misunderstood, but rarely Kant. Kant also isn’t hard to understand if you don’t suck at reading.

>>21012727
So what was kants position? Go ahead and explain

>>21012828
There is an a priori structure of knowledge we should articulate before trying to do metaphysics. It consists of pure forms of aesthetic knowledge, formal categories of understanding and pure concepts. Any type of metaphysics that ignores our conditions of knowledge should be, then discarded as unfounded dogmatics.

>>21012846
And? What else? There's alot more that that the a priori/a postiroi argument as well as his primary thesis that you're not saying

>>21012828
1. You can’t know the thing in itself because everything has to be converted to your categories before you can perceive it
2. Something is transcendental if it is the pure form of thinking or perceiving abstracted of all concept
3. The transcendental categories of sensible intuition are space and time and everything we receive empirically is in the form of space and time
3. There are are also twelve transcendental categories of thinking that everything we think of has to conform to
4. Causality is an apriori truth because it is based on time and the categories of thinking
5. It is impossible to determine a priori whether god exist or whether other metaphysical ideas are true because our a priori proofs only tell us about how we think, and not about how the thing in itself is.
>>21012901
Most of the cpr is just working out the transcendental logic, it is all detail that you dob’t have to have a full grasp of to understand him

>>21012901
I'm not trying to write a book on him, you asked for Kant's position and not his whole theory of knowledge you dumb rat

>>21012927
>abstracted of all concept
Content* not concept

>>21012020
>Each and every person has just as valid philosophical ideas as the great thinkers.
This makes little to no sense. Each and every person is not a thinker as such. Most people are not nearly as contemplative as the few who spend their time simply reading people like Plato and Schopenhauer. How can they be anywhere near the authors themselves?

>>21012020
lol. bullshit

Common people's philosophy is like a set of the same two or three little hamster wheels of thought that you can predict from their temperament and background alone, and it's usually inconsistent with itself.

What you might mean, at best, is that common people have wisdom about how to navigate life and its various arts. Sure, that's true. But they're not giving you anything interesting in the way of higher order philosophy. I don't think you've grasped what makes the great works "profound" at all, I think you just find it elevating and gratifying to stand up to the "elite", act like you know better, and use this perceived power to be a defender of the people. What a feeling that must be. You should join the avengers

>>21012727
? Kant has extremely varied interpretive traditions at even the highest level of scholarship. He is misunderstood generally, because he is hard, you're full of shit. I thought he wasn't that hard the first time I read him too, then I grew up and read him again.

I can ask you basic questions about Kant and you won't be able to answer without copying from wikipedia, guaranteed.

>>21012928
I'm trying to get your position on his take regarding consciousness. The priori shit is surface level at best, his deduction regarding consciousness however is where Im trying to understand

>>21012927
Do you recommend I move away from CPR? It's quite dense and very difficult to really grasp even with a philosophy background

>>21012964
I really enjoyed reading this, could you articulate more on the basis of profoundness? Specifically regarding consciousness, I myself have noted that many people (in today's modern society of technology) are more in tune to some aberration of consciousness rules they believe to be given to them by culture, memes even (as dark as that sounds) but that they refuse to truly look into themselves regarding their fellow species, most would rather wax poetic about a dying dog over a dying child and that's fact. Do you think that this is a determinate fact? That we can change this? That it's possible to change a person from this?

>>21012653
What a terrible take.

>>21012992
I’ve not even read the whole thing, just read the introduction and the transcendental aesthetic to the cpr and then the prolegomena to any future metaphysic if you just want the gist of it and not to be an expert

>>21013183


It is the truth, regardless of what you feel about it.

>>21012020
Horseshit have buddha-nature, but still horseshit

>>21012971
Difference is Kant is confusing in the details while people disagree on the entire main message of other philosophers.

>>21012020
>Great philosophical works are great because of how comprehensive they are, how thoroughly they treat their subject, and how well written they are.
You touch on an important topic here. But you take you side too far, and end up with retarded ideas like these:

>It is NOT that the ideas are any more profound or important then the ideas of the everyday common person. Each and every person has just as valid philosophical ideas as the great thinkers.
All in all this is almost certainly the result of your own inability to understand these ideas, and that means see their uniqueness and how this situates them in their context, such as the 'Western canon'. In reality it would not be possible for these thinkers to be so comprehensive, thorough and well written in their articulation if the 'ideas', to speak abstractly, were not of superordinate worth. Especially so in respect to the articulation (otherwise we would not be able to speak about ideas separately).