/lit/ - Literature

>>23444894

>>23444894
>If I make complete abstraction of the content of cognition, objectively considered, all cognition is, from a subjective point of view, either historical or rational. Historical cognition is cognitio ex datis, rational, cognitio ex principiis. Whatever may be the original source of a cognition, it is, in relation to the person who possesses it, merely historical, if he knows only what has been given him from another quarter, whether that knowledge was communicated by direct experience or by instruction. Thus the Person who has learned a system of philosophy—say the Wolfian—although he has a perfect knowledge of all the principles, definitions, and arguments in that philosophy, as well as of the divisions that have been made of the system, possesses really no more than an historical knowledge of the Wolfian system; he knows only what has been told him, his judgements are only those which he has received from his teachers. Dispute the validity of a definition, and he is completely at a loss to find another. He has formed his mind on another's; but the imitative faculty is not the productive. His knowledge has not been drawn from reason; and although, objectively considered, it is rational knowledge, subjectively, it is merely historical. He has learned this or that philosophy and is merely a plaster cast of a living man. Rational cognitions which are objective, that is, which have their source in reason, can be so termed from a subjective point of view, only when they have been drawn by the individual himself from the sources of reason, that is, from principles; and it is in this way alone that criticism, or even the rejection of what has been already learned, can spring up in the mind.
Look for principles. Reason on your own from principles. Don't just learn the conclusions of the text; understand the reasons and reasoning behind the conclusions.

Look up syllabi from philosophy classes, and work your way through them.

>>23444894
An understanding of logic is important but really you just need to expose yourself to a lot of context. There are some philosophers that try to start from ground zero but they still existed in an intellectual climate. The more you read and the better you understand they're context the more quickly you will be able to pick up on what someone is saying. I also highly recommend plato .stanford .edu as an overview of whatever field takes your interest. People shit on Russell with good reason but his history of philosophy might be a fun way to get the broad (if very biased) picture if you have absolutely no idea where to start.

>>23444894
You're too retarded.

It's so fucking hard to even understand what they're saying half the time. It seems like they're trying to write as verbosely as possible, as if to give their work credence. I'm a little into Kant and my head hurts man, just establishing the transcendental aesthetic of space was hard enough. Boy I had to read that about 5 times, and turns out it was a pretty straight forward thing in the end. Fuck my life. I envy you smartbois

>>23444941
I know that anon. That's why I'm trying to improve.

just skip all pretentious incoherent babble that is most of Western "philosophy" and move straight to Ayn Rand who was the only relevant philosopher in history

>>23444894

>>23444996
Back in my day, bait used to be interesting.

>>23444894
If you want to understand Kant I'd recommend reading Descartes' Meditations first, then encyclopedia articles (for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) on Locke and Leibniz, and finally Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding before reading the Critique. They are all short texts and reading them all will take you less time than reading the Critique just once. Also Kant basically answer questions raised by those philosophers so reading them first will provide valuable context. Alternatively you could read Schopenhauer who is good at vulgarizing Kantian ideas or encyclopedia articles on Kant himself. There's also the Kant's Prolegomena which summarize the content of the Critique.

Here's a good site for primary sources:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/

Good luck.

>>23444974
Philosophers are dealing with conceptually difficult subjects, and this sometimes means they need they need to write in ways that aren't naturally clear. On top of that, some of them just aren't great writers either. Not understanding it at first is fine as it takes practice to read these things.
Now, the best way to handle it is to do what I said earlier (>>23444916). You can just google "x syllabus", and you'll find a number of them immediately. While you won't have access to the lectures, these syllabi provide you with two things that are very helpful. The first is a systematic way to approaching the text, and the second is that they come with a list of secondary sources that will help make the text clearer.

>>23444894
If you serious do this guide it helped me a lot and I'm a midwit. I didn't even finish Locke because some cunt stole my bag in the trainstation, the fuck is probably well acquainted with fundamentals of empiricism

>>23444894

>>23444974
The self-improvement is a meme meme was designed, refined, and curated specifically for this.