/lit/ - Literature

You need essential background knowledge. Also I'm not a fan of Pluhar. He tries to make it easier for plebs but my opinion is that he just makes Kant more unclear. Read Meiklejohn if you are a beginner or even better Müllers translation available from Penguin.

>>23589411
Philosophy is unironically a cope, and the farther it gets from expressly human matters the more retarded and useless it is. Now throw out any book on metaphysics or epistemology

>>23589466

>>23589476
>kantposter
bro what even is your endgame?

>>23589411
1) stop reading translations
2) use secondary sources
3) make sure you're caught up on the history of philosophy

>>23589481
I just want to share kantian gospel.

>>23589476
That's not a very good response. But hey if the obvious and foundational issues with Kant's project, that expose it and anything like it as mere mental masturbation, aren't enough to shake you of your autism then who am I to judge

>>23589481
There was a time when Kantposter still posted. There is no way to know if he is still here or has moved on.

I'm getting filtered by the title.

Does he mean he's critique'ing "Pure Reason" or is he using "Pure Reason" to critique.

The problem with Kant is that he assumes that the world outside the self is basically a sea of sense-data, then the mind comes in and "chops it up" into unities. This is the unspoken assumption. But he gets it backwards because a thing must be a thing in order to exist, which means that it must be a unity. He thinks of sense data as like "matter" and then the structures inside of our mind are the "form" that makes it intelligible, but it's exactly the reverse. I don't think it's too unfair to say this line of thinking goes back to the sophists: "man is the measure of all things, of the things that are that they are, of the things that are not that they are not," as Protagoras said. Sounds profound but it's really senseless. It is US who are measured by the things external to ourselves. It is the world that determines our knowledge and what we experience, not the other way around. Kant is just like all the other modern philosophers in that he begins from a position of radical skepticism then weaves a world-view out of his own self like some sort of disgusting spider. Swift said that true philosophers are more like bees, they go into the world rather than doubting that anything outside the self exists. Also on an unrelated but perhaps not completely irrelevant note Kantians are the most annoying demographic on /lit/ and Lord knows the competition is steep.

>>23589518

In other words, he's a solipsist?

>>23589509
both actually. pure reason critiquing itself. meta-cognitive metaphysics.

>>23589518
>The problem with Kant is that he assumes that the world outside the self is basically a sea of sense-data,
no he doesn't. the sense-data is still phenomenal, still dependent on the subject they appear to.

>>23589518
>He thinks of sense data as like "matter" and then the structures inside of our mind are the "form" that makes it intelligible,
You scholastics are really one trick ponies, huh

>>23589543
that's literally Kants position too tho.

>>23589476
Metaphysics is not deep.
>>23589411
It's not worth reading it. There are much more interesting and deep subjects.

>>23589583
>Metaphysics is not deep.
Then what is?

>>23589605
Quantum physics

>>23589605
A subject is deep if and only if it opens the door to many other subjects, and provides surprising/innovative ways to answer naturally arising questions that were asked before the subject was invented, as well as posing new interesting problems in the subject itself.
An example of deep subjects:
Number theory, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology.

>>23589611
ok so metaphysics then

>>23589611
Those subjects make me go zzzzzzzzz, for me it’s history and literature over those any day of the week, you can keep your little games with numbers

>>23589411
>>23589518
TL;DR: Kant: "Man has eyes, therefore he cannot see. Man has ears, therefore he cannot hear."

>>23589583
Metaphysics studies the deepest, most primary structures of reality. By definition it is the science that is most removed from sense and the deepest subject. It's deeper than math, even, because it deals with questions like "what are numbers?"

>>23589617
Metaphysics refers to the incredibly shallow subject of philosophy in which philosophers attempt to give the big picture of how the universe works, commonly in an unstructured, unfalsifiable way. Metaphysicians have no surprising results, when on the rare occasion they provide proofs, they are trivial and the results are boring, they do not connect to any other subject. It's simply a subject where navel gazers and narcissistic sociopaths turn to when they can't do math (structured thought).

>>23589647
"What are numbers" is not a deep question. You don't know what deep is, and your mistake is one so often repeated by bad thinkers throughout history, that resulted in countless wasted hours and nonsensical disputes. As such, I don't blame you. However, I implore you study some math.

>>23589650
>incredibly shallow subject of philosophy
>attempt to give the big picture of how the universe works
imagine being this much of a npc bugman

>>23589647
To prove to me that metaphysics is a deep subject, provide me with some examples of some questions I could've thought of myself without knowing any metaphysics, which the novel methods in metaphysics are able to answer in a surprising and nonobvious way. I'll eagerly await your answer.

>>23589661
>To prove to me that metaphysics is a deep subject
you first need eyes to see brainlet

>>23589658
Refer to my post on what deepness means. Pondering about the universe doesn't make you deep. Literally every sub-100 IQ prole who's ever taken LSD or looked at the stars has wondered about how the universe works. That doesn't make any of their thoughts deep. Deep = fruitful. If a study doesn't bring any cool, surprising and innovative results, it's not deep. Simple as that.

>>23589525
no. transcendental idealist.

>>23589671
>Deep = fruitful.
smfh

>>23589680
Yes, I understand, your navel is deep to. But continuously looking it at doesn't achieve anything. It's not actually deep in the philosophical sense.

>>23589703
>But continuously looking it at doesn't achieve anything.
kek he doesn't know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel_gazing?wprov=sfti1

>>23589710
>literally advocating for navel gazing as a deep activity
My job here is done.

>>23589680
If by "fruitful" you mean useful then I would deny that it is fruitful, so would any other metaphysician worthy of the name. I can put it like this, "You know that there is such a thing as medicine?"
"Yes."
"And is medicine good?"
"Yes"
"Well the shoe is good for protecting feet; the knife is good for cutting; and what is medicine good for?"
"What else but health?"
"So health too is a good?"
"Yes"
"And what is health good for?"
"Nothing, anon, it is good for its own sake."
"This may or may not be. But for the argument let us grant that this is so. What about medicine? Is it good for its own sake?"
"Why yes of course."
"So you would take medicine even if it did not produce health?"
"Well... no, I guess I wouldn't."
"So why is medicine good? Is it good for any other reason than that it is productive of health?"
"I agree."
"But health is good in itself?"
"Yes."
"So we have not one but TWO goods, one that is good in itself, and another that is good for the sake of something else?"
"Yes."
"And which is the greater good? Is it health or medicine?"
"Clearly it is health."
"And health is good for nothing else?"
"Yes."
"But if it is good for nothing, is it not useless?"
"I agree."
"So the useless good is actually the greater good because it is an end of the lesser good?"
"Yes."
"Well my friend metaphysics is just like that. It is the highest knowledge, higher not only than productive sciences, but higher even than the abstract ones, because it rules them all. And it is the most useless science, and if was not useless, it would not be the best science, as it is."

>>23589720
be on your merry way little big brain.

>>23589650
>>23589611
retard

>>23589783
Hit a nerve huh

>>23589647
>Metaphysics is the science that...
Metaphysics is not science, retard. By definition even. Sigh.

>>23589809
>Metaphysics is not science
read more

>inb4 IT JUST ISN'T OK!!!

Read lectures on Metaphysics first and then proglomena. It will then make more sense. I also read Lebniz, Berkley and Baumgarten (really liked that one) and I then got value from the first critique. It is definitely doable don't let the pretentious counts from 4chan make you feel like a midwit. They are intellectually posturing and don't read enough as they should to justify it.

>>23589655
Loud child

>>23589813
Name a single proposition in metaphysics that doesn't have an obvious answer but which the newly developed methods in metaphysics have been able to answer.

>>23589822
*cunts

>>23589824
Clueless pseud.

>>23589825
>Name a single proposition in metaphysics that doesn't have an obvious answer
>proposition
>answer
and he thinks he doesn't need philosophy baka propositions don't need answers, questions need answers.

>>23589836
Answer in this context means the answer to whether or not the proposition is true. Way to nitpick.

>it's another thread where some redditor engineering undergrad decides to take on "all of philosophy/metaphysics/religion" by posting "Math is better" repeatedly
Do we go all the way to bump limit giving him examples of how the greatest mathematicians of all time were metaphysically inclined, or do we just ignore him

>>23589852
>still not a single example of a deep result in metaphysics, despite repeated queries.

>>23589809
You think science = body of empirical, falsifiable knowledge. But in the older usage any body of knowledge is a science. The fact that you can't recognize any knowledge besides empirical, falsifiable, natural science is bizarre.

>>23589852
The separation of math from philosophy is bizarre when you think about it. People act like math is some kind of hidden language to the universe, aside from "human-made" philosophy, which if you're familiar with Kant's critiques is kind of silly.

>>23589866
Math is structured thought, no more, no less. Arrow's theorem is math, even though it has to do with voting and nothing to do with numbers per se.

>>23589859
It's too stupid to answer. It would be like if I said "name a single deep result of physics. I'll be waiting." Your reaction would be "this guy is just posting weak bait." If you mean, "name some problem in metaphysics that's absolutely solved to everyone's satisfaction" - there isn't a single one.

>>23589859
Try reading a book some time. This, or N.R. Hanson's Patterns of Discovery, or Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, or simply Thomas Kuhn would be a good idea. You could start with the The Essential Tension's essay on the origins of the thesis of conservation of energy.

>>23589848
>how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
>write a whole groundbreaking book giving the answer
>retards conveniently ignore it
>"bro prove it prove metaphysics is real"
mfw

>>23589874
>Math is structured thought, no more, no less
Another disgusting spider makes an appearance. "There are two birds over there, now there are three because another one came along." "NOOO THAT'S ONLY A STRUCTURED THOUGHT REEEEEE"

>>23589862
this

>>23589411

You need to read it in the original German.

>>23589887
Do you know how fucking hard it is to learn Kant-level German?

>>23589878
>>how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
You mean like tautologies, e.g. "X is true if X is true" for all X? Why would it not be possible? Seems like a pointless and time-wasting question to ask. Might pose the same question about anything, like "how is it possible that 2+2=4" or "how is it possible that grass is green". It's not even clear what the question is getting at and what the answer would possibly look at. Would you like to explain what makes it relevant?

>>23589895
>You mean like tautologies
smfh so hard right now at these levels of smug prideful ignorance

If you genuinely cared to engage I would be able to provide you with examples of genuinely deep and interesting questions in mathematics in contrast to a lot of questions in metaphysics. But nobody asks.

>>23589902
Why would anyone want an uppity undergrad's opinion of some shit he got a B+ in?

>>23589903
I've never studied philosophy. I thought that was already clear from the context but apparently not.

>>23589889
>>23589887
Ahahahhahahahahha
I LOVE THIS GODFORSAKEN PLACE

>>23589906
Your mandatory math class for your javascript major was meant. I'm glad you developed such an appreciation for the infinite mathematical beauty of the cosmos and so on and so on.

>>23589911
I can guarantee you that I know more math than you.

>>23589902
>The questions: whether the world has a beginning and a limit to its extension in space; whether there exists anywhere, or perhaps, in my own thinking Self, an indivisible and indestructible unity—or whether nothing but what is divisible and transitory exists; whether I am a free agent, or, like other beings, am bound in the chains of nature and fate; whether, finally, there is a supreme cause of the world, or all our thought and speculation must end with nature and the order of external things—are questions for the solution of which the mathematician would willingly exchange his whole science; for in it there is no satisfaction for the highest aspirations and most ardent desires of humanity.

>>23589788
I mean, the greatest scientists were guided by their personal metaphysical inquiries (Galileo, Kepler, Newton), many deal with the deeper aspect of science as in its foundations and its operations (Lakatos, Reichenbach); not to mention epistemology is intertwined with both metaphysical inquiries and science cannot be established before basic reasoning concerning these epistemological issues.

>>23589923
And what answers does Kant provide to these questions? Let me guess: he doesn't.
Specifically I'm interested in the infiniteness of the diameter of space and his reasoning for it.

>>23589895
Hasn't read the critique... math is an apriori synthetic judgement according to Kant you ducking raped monkey

>>23589411
Brother man I got filtered by the Prolegomena

>>23589946
>Specifically I'm interested in the infiniteness of the diameter of space and his reasoning for it.
Space is in your mind.

>>23589951
Literally all the best programmers, mathematicians of today would be "filtered" by prolegomena because it's just 18th century vintageslop. Don't feel bad about it.

>>23589951
one run-on sentence at a time my bro

>>23589958
Not true. Space will continue to exist after I die.

Metaphysics is the highest sort of knowledge a person can aspire to - knowledge of being itself, not this being or that being, or this kind of being or the other, but reality at the highest level of generality. And it's pretty damned difficult, not only because it's extremely abstract, but also because its subject matter is something that we take for granted. If true ontology was like the sun, we're like bats who fly away from it and toward the particulars, because this is what we're naturally fitted toward. Most people only ever think about particulars; some ascend to a higher level of abstraction and become mathematicians, physicists, etc; and a very few take a stab at ontology. Because it's so abstract, and because our minds naturally turn away from it, it's difficult and controversial. There are 0 solved problems in metaphysics if by "solved" you mean "everyone agrees on this point." But that doesn't mean it's valueless, it simply follows from the nature of the subject. It's a mark of its superiority to the empirical sciences, not inferiority. It'd be like if there was a high mountain, and people would try to climb it, and were never heard from again, and you couldn't even be sure (standing apart as an observer) whether anyone had ever reached the summit, and your response was "fuck that mountain bro I'm just gonna walk to the bodega. Everyone can do that, that's what makes it valuable. Climbing that beautiful, scary peak is just a waste of time. I can buy candy at the bodega. Have any of those mountaineers got any candy?" It might be hard, and you probably won't succeed, but if you care about knowledge it's the only thing you can do. I'm also not willing to concede that these metaphysical problems aren't solved... most metaphysicians wouldn't concede that. Kant is a great example of how to fail at metaphysics because he begins from ridiculous premises and then (surprise) manages to draw ridiculous conclusions.

>>23589946
If you were more familiar with "metaphysics" maybe you'd have the reading comprehension to understand that Kant is not in fact making arguments about the "diameter" of real space but is analyzing the concept of space, as we use it to explain physical events in our experience. The question then becomes what relationship our ideal, presupposed notion of space corresponds to "real space," or to whatever is really out there in the world.

Kant was in part responding to a larger discourse on the nature and existence of space ("void") that goes back to the ancients, a discourse which became controversial because one of the founding fathers of modern science and greatest champions of the use of mathematical method in natural science, Descartes, had a radically different conception of space (namely, denying its real existence) from another modern founder of science and another of the greatest mathematicians of all time, Newton. Newton made conflicting metaphysical and epistemological claims about the extent to which he was merely "saving the phenomena" by still positing qualitates occultae (like force, but also point-like "atoms" and "void") in his work.

In the 19th century, after a brief moment of extremely vulgar materialism, neo-Kantians like Mach, Helmholtz, and du Bois-Reymond took up Kant's line of reasoning to again argue that we can't have any certainty regarding the connection between our representations and reality. These debates were directly influential on Einstein who read them (and Schopenhauer, who makes very similar points) growing up.

>>23589962
>Space will continue to exist after I die.
>makes an uncritical metaphysical assertion
prove it

>>23589975
You don't even know who I am, and yet you claim space will cease to exist after I die (which could happen sooner than you die). If that's not retarded, I don't know what is.

>>23589991
ok but prove it tho

/lit/ has all sorts of philosophasters. There are a bunch of midwit Platonists, some cathbro Thomists, a couple of Aristotelians, existentialists, a smattering of Hegelians, that one Hindu/Evola guy, etc. I've had enjoyable and enlightening discussions/arguments with all of them. The only class of /lit/ pseuds who are truly insufferable dogmatists are the Kantians. They just repeat the same tired points over and over again and if you push back even a tiny bit you will find that they cannot defend themselves and in fact barely understand their own position.

>>23589973
There happens to be an extremely interesting field of research partly based on Mach's interpretations of inertia, which may or may not have discovered a way to raise or lower the speed of light in a local medium. Would you say that the existence of "FTL" travel would have implications on Kant's thought?

>>23589991
>yet you claim space will cease to exist after I die
he didn't. he said it's in your mind.

>>23589994
Plenty of people have died in your lifetime and space didn't disappear. Therefore since there's nothing to indicate that I'm special in this way, there's no reason to believe that space will disappear after I die too.

>>23590001
Woah are you saying.. it's all in my mind? That's kinda deep bro... Pass me the bong.

>>23590005
ok but prove it tho.

>>23590009
>>23590007
You are a joke. The definition of navel gazing. Not a single thing you've said ITT was insightful or deep in any meaningful sense.

>>23590005
Maybe for a pleb like you but as for a cultured patrician like myself schooled in Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer you can be assured space will cease to exist once I die. Screencap this please.

>>23590007
Ikr

>>23590016
kek

>>23590013
Come back when you actually finish reading the Critique.

Another day another Kant thread.

>>23589827
I like the idea of pretentious counts on 4chan a lot more

>>23590040
Freiherr Friedrich Wilhelm Traugott Kantposter von Kantsheim

>>23589964
>Kant is a great example of how to fail at metaphysics because he begins from ridiculous premises and then (surprise) manages to draw ridiculous conclusions.
>ridiculous premises
like what?

>>23589994
You can't prove that space will exist after you die. The idea that the world outside the self is real and subsistent is a precondition for knowing anything at all. "Well if you can't prove it, how can you know it's true?" Because not everything is known by proof via something prior, some things are starting-points of proof, and these cannot be proved or else you have an infinite regress and all knowledge turns out to be impossible. There are a few basic, common-sensical notions that are necessary for anything else to be known. Here's a selection:
1) The world is real
2) We do have knowledge of things in the world
3) The objects of knowledge are things in the world, not phantasms in our brains
4) Causality is real
These are all self-evident but modern philosophers like Kant (also Hume, Descartes, etc) start out by doubting one or all of these propositions. And they think they're being really clever because they'll say "but how can I KNOW that the world is real?? What if the world just started right now and all my memories are false???? If apple seeds have always, when sprouted, produced apple trees in the past... how can I possibly KNOW that this will always be the case???! How do I know I even HAVE a body?!" and so on. You have to reject unhealthy skepticism to have any sort of healthy metaphysics.

>>23590059
>You can't prove that space will exist after you die. The idea that the world outside the self is real and subsistent is a precondition for knowing anything at all
Agreed. My point was just to get the STEMtard to realize self-awareness that he's bad metaphysician.

>>23590059
>What if the world just started right now and all my memories are false????
if only you knew...

>The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in space, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories...The Boltzmann brain gained new relevance around 2002, when some cosmologists started to become concerned that, in many theories about the universe, human brains are vastly more likely to arise from random fluctuations; this leads to the conclusion that, statistically, humans are likely to be wrong about their memories of the past and in fact are Boltzmann brains. When applied to more recent theories about the multiverse, Boltzmann brain arguments are part of the unsolved measure problem of cosmology.

>>23590005
>space will exist after I die
>because OTHER PEOPLE have died

>>23590084
If your attempt to show how Kant is full of original ideas and deep results is to ask me how I know anything outside of me is real, you've failed the task. It was your time to talk and you provided nothing but platitudes and pointless questions. No results, nothing surprising or interesting. You've failed.

>>23590059
>>23590084
Btw, by "the world outside the self" I do not mean the phenomenal world if waking sense experience.

>>23590103
>Kant is full of original ideas and deep results
All the greatest physicists of the 19th and 20th centuries thought so, all the founders of modern philosophy of physics and mathematics also thought so

Are you really this unaware of the extent to which EVERYBODY read and reacted to Kant? Every scientist seeking epistemological clarity, including Einstein, nearly every major mathematician

>>23590103
>If your attempt to show how Kant is full of original ideas and deep results is to ask me how I know anything outside of me is real
it wasn't

>>23590114
>All the greatest physicists of the 19th and 20th centuries thought so, all the founders of modern philosophy of physics and mathematics also thought so
Even if that were the case (it's not), you were unable to provide any deep or surprising results of Kant ITT despite repeated queries.

>>23590114
Jung read Kant. Schrödinger read Kant. Brouwer read Kant. Frege read Kant. Einstein read Kant. Bohr read Kant. Heisenberg read Kant.

>>23590123
I'm not that anon but you do know that Kant had a massive impact during the French Revolution? Its not that guy's job to spoon-feed you, you mathematicians are starting to sound like plebs.

>>23590059
>You have to reject unhealthy skepticism to have any sort of healthy metaphysics.
not simply reject, but actually refute, like the German idealists did.

>>23590139
I'll accept that he might have been worth reading at the time given how retarded people were back then and he could've been marginally smarter than them. However, I've yet to see a single reason why anyone should be reading him today, apart from vintageslop indulgence.

>>23590123
>Space and time are subjective forms inherent in the human mind
>"THAT'S NOT DEEP!!!"
You can lead a horse to water...

>>23590150
>>Space and time are subjective forms inherent in the human mind
Explain how this is not meaningless drivel.

>>23590139
Expand on Kant and French Revolution, if anything, I'd say both had equally massive influence from same source.

>>23590148
>how retarded people were back then
pseud coping levels off the charts

>>23590156
It's objectively true though. They didn't have the tools for thinking that we have now. They believed in religion, ghosts divine authority, didn't know what rigorous math was, etc. I could go on and on. Nowadays we are much better at detecting bullshit.

>>23590148
OK you're retarded, why engage with philosophy at all if that's the case? I read Kant because of the intricacies of his ideas and the self awareness. I also wanted to read Hegel (you do know the undeniable impact of Hegel right? On Marx and such)
It was his response to Descarte "I think therefore I am" Kant replied with "I think" which he then brilliantly extrapolated. This doesn't seem like much but it led the way forward for consciousness. Which the German Idealists lost their shit for. They would be smarter than you but don't worry you might be smarter like someone like Nietzche but not as driven.

>>23590163
Sweet summer child. This whole time I've been speaking with a literal idiot.

>>23590154
Dude, you are clueless about philosophy, you are clueless about the history of science and what great scientists and thinkers thought. You don't know how Newton propunded absolute space and relative space, with the problem of the former not being experimentally proved, only by logical deductions, besides the problem of its being a substance. Space as a form of intuition provides both for the relativeness of space and its absoluteness at the same time. It is a way of dealing with the conception of space, which has been dealt by most thinkers and scientists, and in the exact same way.

>>23590155
His morality system the categorical imperative shifted the focus of morality from something external and dogmatic to something within (doing your duty, evaluating the situation yourself with maxims and such) People initially found it refreshing according to Pinkard

>>23590172
I can prove that every number that's equal 1 mod 4 is a sum of two squares. What can you prove?

>>23590179
Every prime*

>>23590179
deep. real deep. life changing even.

>>23590179
I not only can but am proving that you are an utter retard who doesn't know what metaphysics, philosophy and science are.

>>23590174
This was a thing already in classical times with Platonism, Stoicism, no? Also, Hobbes makes the divide between State-law and private, personal beliefs.

>>23590143
I've never read any of the German idealists. Tell me more anon.

>>23590207
The deontological system of Kant was still impactful. That's like saying Jesus wasn't impactful in his teachings because some of it sounded reminiscent of stoics and the New Testament isn't impactful because some early Church fathers were jacking off to platonism

>>23590228
You are right. During the French Revolution Kant's philosophy was very influential, viz. Schiller, the German Romantics. I was led to misinterpret your post as saying that Kant provided a lot of impact for the Revolution, which is not the case.

>>23589742
Holy Cringe

>>23589809
>>23589813
>>23589862
Well, metaphysics is philosophy, and philosophy is not considered science as such, so the sigh of the first anon is understandable. Perhaps this view is European: do Americans consider philosophy one of the sciences?

In general, I'd say philosophical questions cease to be philosophical when a system of answers is constructed - then philosophy becomes science.

>all these Kantians holding up Kant as the consummate metaphysician when he quite literally destroys the possibility of metaphysics

>>23590143
"To prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not."

>>23591570
>In general, I'd say philosophical questions cease to be philosophical when a system of answers is constructed - then philosophy becomes science.
Knowledge in the natural sciences is constantly being revised too, radically revised even. So by that metric natural science is not science either. The Pythagoreans were so enamored with math they thought that everything was made of numbers which sounds incredible to us. Moderns who are so enamored with natural science that they think nothing but natural science even qualifies as knowledge are similarly batty.

>>23591419
The buffoon amuses others, the ironical man amuses himself.

>>23591652
>Metaphysics, as here represented, is the only science which admits of completion—and with little labour, if it is united, in a short time; so that nothing will be left to future generations except the task of illustrating and applying it didactically.

>We come now to metaphysics, a purely speculative science, which occupies a completely isolated position and is entirely independent of the teachings of experience. It deals with mere conceptions—not, like mathematics, with conceptions applied to intuition—and in it, reason is the pupil of itself alone. It is the oldest of the sciences, and would still survive, even if all the rest were swallowed up in the abyss of an all-destroying barbarism.

>That metaphysical science has hitherto remained in so vacillating a state of uncertainty and contradiction, is only to be attributed to the fact that this great problem [how are synthetic a priori judgements possible] and perhaps even the difference between analytical and synthetical judgments, did not sooner suggest itself to philosophers. Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of the science of metaphysics.

>goes on to demonstrate how synthetic a priori judgements are possible

He literally made metaphysics into a strict science.

>>23591570
and they turned philosophy into science

>But by far the greatest difficulty lies undoubtedly in the subject itself. The latest school [German Idealism] has expressly characterized its philosophy as an ESOTERIC SCIENCE [emphasis added], which would at all times remain confined to the narrow circle of the initiated; yea more, which is also intended to be solely confined to them, inasmuch as what constitutes it philosophy is, that it does not lay aside the veil which is impervious to the eye of the unitiated-- its scientific garb.
- Chalybäus

>>23589411
Read in college for and advanced ethics class but didn’t understand it. Now that I’ve read some philosophy, gonna try again soon.

>>23591677
>He literally made metaphysics into a strict science.
By denying that metaphysical speculation about the world outside the self was even possible. So this is an argument about words, I'm aware that Kant called himself a metaphysician and that you could refer to what he was doing as 'metaphysics' after a fashion. But it's also true that he destroyed metaphysics as traditionally conceived, i.e. as really answering questions about ontology, theology, etc, it's the whole point of his system. He thought traditional metaphysics was bankrupt but didn't like the radical conclusions of the empiricists so he surely saw himself as somehow "rescuing" metaphysics, but he was more truly part of the intellectual movement that tries to destroy it.

Aristotle: I see a duck.
Reasonable person: Not really, you're wearing sunglasses so what you see isn't quite what the duck really is.
Kant: ALL YOU SEE IS SUNGLASSES

>>23591699
>he was more truly part of the intellectual movement that tries to destroy it.

>No one, it is true, will be able to boast that he knows that there is a God and a future life; for, if he knows this, he is just the man whom I have long wished to find.
- Canon of Pure Reason

>Our Critique would be an investigation utterly superfluous, if there existed a possibility of proving a priori, that all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, as such, therefore, possess the inseparable attribute of personality, and are conscious of their existence apart from and unconnected with matter. For we should thus have taken a step beyond the world of sense, and have penetrated into the sphere of noumena; and in this case the right could not be denied us of extending our knowledge in this sphere, of establishing ourselves, and, under a favouring star, appropriating to ourselves possessions in it.

He wasn't trying to destroy it, and he didn't; he just wanted it to be self-aware and critical of it's principles. He went in the right direction opened the path for German idealism which was the logical consequence and heir of his Critical Idealism. His only failure was that he himself did not go far enough (although perhaps he did but had to refrain from explicitly expressing it for reasons of prudence).

>>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, IT CONSTITUTES THE BASE and THE STARTING POINT of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently FOR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one MUST turn to that preceding exposition.

>>23591727
>Reasonable person: Not really, you're wearing sunglasses so what you see isn't quite what the duck really is
That's not a reasonable position. A reasonable person would say ok you see a duck.

>>23591727
>>23591741
>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.

>it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.

>>23591737
I say "Kant destroyed metaphysical in the sense that he rejecte the possibility of objective knowledge about ontology or God," and you respond with a quote where he says it's impossible to know that there is a God. Then you give us a quote claiming that it is impossible to prove "a priori" that "all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances" - this isn't something you prove a priori, the unity of the personality is self-evident. As for the question of whether we "are conscious of [our] existence apart from and unconnected with matter", it depends on what you mean by "existing apart", "unconnected", and "matter". But to me what makes human reason immaterial is simply the fact that it can contemplate things apart from their matter, i.e. our thoughts aren't merely a series of images. Take Descartes' example of the chiliagon - you can contemplate a chiliagon but you couldn't imagine one even if you tried. Unfortunately we're probably speaking different languages, practically, and my response will seem annoying or like it's missing the point, which is also how your responses seem to me. But you're definitely not doing much for your case that Kant was a metaphysician as opposed to the destroyer of metaphysics. There's a difference between being critical of the principles of reason and simply destroying reason as commonly understood with skeptical presuppositions. You end by pointing out how important Kant was to the German Idealists - why should any of us care? I'm not a German Idealist. But this quote is rather nice for the point I'm making:

>Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth
That destroys metaphysics as I understand it.

>>23591767
>destroyed metaphysical
sorry lol

>>23591747
This is why /lit/ Kantians are annoying. They hurl quotes at you, they never have a real discussion, and they're smug.

>>23591767
This idea that he killed metaphysics in the traditional sense only results from a superficial reading of Kant. When you have mastered the system you realize the direction he was headed in.

>The EXOTERIC teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which by itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought.
-Hegel

When you have mastered the system you know the ESOTERIC teaching.

>A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
- Kant, CPR 2nd Preface

And further, he himself went inward to find objective truth with respect to the outward in his Opus Postumum where transitioned from metaphysical foundations of natural science to a priori knowledge of absolute reality by means of his transcendental method. German. idealism is not a school opposed to Kant, it is CONTINUOUS with Kant. German idealism is the esoteric tradition of the Kantian school, it IS the Kantian system brought to its necessary conclusion.

>when we compare the thoughts that an author expresses about a subject, in ordinary speech as well as in writing, it is not at all unusual to find that we understand him even better than he understood himself, since he may not have determined his concept sufficiently and hence sometimes spoke, or even thought, contrary to his own intention”
-KrV A 314/B 370, tr. 396

>>23591778
There are no kantians, only avatarfags which behave as you might expect.

>>23591778
You know it's literally all one dude right? He's been shilling esoteric Kant theory on here for years. I do admire his commitment thoughever. I wouldn't even call him a Kantian in the normal sense he claims Kant's denial higher cognitive faculties independent of sense experience was just trolling the normies and he actually had developed intellectual intuition. Honestly, his viewpoint is starting to grow on me though I still consider rather fringe and would reject outright if it was ever brough up in real life.

>>23591810
>A philosophical system cannot come forward armed at all points like a mathematical treatise, and hence it may be quite possible to take objection to particular passages, while the organic structure of the system, considered as a unity, has no danger to apprehend. But few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system. By confining the view to particular passages, taking these out of their connection and comparing them with one another, it is easy to pick out apparent contradictions, especially in a work written with any freedom of style. These contradictions place the work in an unfavourable light in the eyes of those who rely on the judgement of others, but are easily reconciled by those who have mastered the idea of the whole.
That's true enough. I'd say the same in defense of my own favorite philosophers. Wish you had the patience to explain more about what you really mean. You'll say "just read more Kant and Hegel and Fichte and Schelling you lazy cunt" but I'm too busy with Simplicius and Averroes and Aquinas. Also I really could explain what I think about them (and others) and would enjoy doing so but you don't seem to be inclined to do the same for Kant. That's disappointing. OR if you actually do feel like having that kind of discussion - pretend you're talking to someone from the middle ages. How would you defend Kantian esotericism to such a person and make it intelligible? How would you respond to the sorts of objections that you already know I'm going to raise?

>>23591831
>Wish you had the patience to explain more about what you really mean.
Sorry anon nothing personel. Like the other anon said I've been at this for years, and I'm burnt out from the times I did go all out and explain. 4chan is just a shitty medium for this sort of thing but at the same time it's the only place you can exchange fringe ideas without getting downvoted or unliked to oblivion. Now I just throw out hints and glimpses of the sanctum sanctorum for those with eyes to see. I also recommend books and, of course, drop quotes from my extensive readings relevent to any metaphysical question. But, it's hard to just discuss a topic with someone without getting into a serious correspondence where we have both read the texts and can reasonably discuss them since we at least have a common base knowledge, otherwise I have to spoonfeed every anon who debates me to get on my level (most haven't even read the critique, or at best skimmed through it) only for them to dissappear back into the abyss of anonymity. It really is just not worth it, unless I recognize the signs of a similar knowledge base. That's why I rarely seriously engage and have adopted my now infamous posting method. That and also if you are reading texts from a different school of thought there is the issue of different terminology for sometimes the same idea that results in purely verbal disputes unless you beforehand go through the brutal activity of establishing terminological correspondence and fuck that, people get paid to do that.

>>23589518
Interesting post. I don't know if you know this, but Deleuze literally compares Kant to a spider in one of his lectures. He mentions how if you rip off a spider's leg, it starts to create strange webs because his coordinates are all off.

>>23591877
So did Nietzsche but for different reasons. The image goes back to Jonathan Swift's Battle of the Books.
>>23591869
Fair enough, I get it.
>it's the only place you can exchange fringe ideas without getting downvoted or unliked to oblivion.
This is true. You can also assume a position you only half-way believe and see what happens when you try to argue for it. As shitty as /lit/ is it's the best site out there for philosophical debate. I did at one time create a plebbit account but the results were discouraging - massive waves of downvotes for posts that were (dare I say it) well-researched and interesting but went against the consensus atheist/relativist/etc views. Also asinine objections, which you see here too, but at least you don't end up quiet-banned by the shitheads le downvoting you.

>>23589889
It's not hard, it just takes time
t. ESL

>>23591869
There is nothing wrong with this, the CPR is still a monumental filtration system for most readers and a considerable number of favored philosophers discussed on here were hostile towards Kant.

>>23589411
Stop reading meme books by pseud retards then?

>>23591937
>the CPR is still a monumental filtration system for most readers
You could say the same for almost any philosopher. The only ones I have personal experience with that are more or less easy readin' are Locke, Hume, and Plato - the first two because they're retarded and their ideas are simple, the last because he masked his more profound ideas under a cloak of simple dialectic. But pretty near any other philosopher you can name is going to be a bitch to read especially if you're not used to reading philosophy.

>>23589481

Newfag here
When reading Critique, is it better to read with notes and periodic reflection, or simply charge through and comprehend the closest thing to the whole firmament he is trying to convey. Normally I do the former, but I’m leaning towards the latter, due to his preference for the “organic whole”.
I have a good understanding of philosophy as a whole, and know the place of everything in the canon, even if I haven’t studied each specifically.

Picrel of glorious Monads.

>>23592018
Wrong person.
Meant to reference
>>23589489

>>23592018
>simply charge through and comprehend the closest thing to the whole firmament he is trying to convey. Normally I do the former, but I’m leaning towards the latter, due to his preference for the “organic whole”.
yes you are leaning correctly

>>23592018
>When reading Critique, is it better to read with notes and periodic reflection, or simply charge through and comprehend the closest thing to the whole firmament he is trying to convey. Normally I do the former, but I’m leaning towards the latter, due to his preference for the “organic whole”.
Sometimes I'll read very slowly and try to understand every paragraph before I go to the next one; sometimes I plough through and only understand a portion of it then read it over a few more times; usually I'll do a mix of both. What's important is that one way or another you read it often enough and carefully enough to understand it. People talk about rereading in fiction, when I reread most fiction I just notice more flaws. But with philosophy you do have to read the same thing many times and the best philosophy you can reread throughout your life dozens of times and still get something new from it.

>>23592030
>>23592049
Thank you.
I think I shall plough through (at least a chapter at once), then go back over any details I’ve missed at some later date with the aid of bookmarks (but no notes). I’m not so much interested in a close analysis (at least initially) as a general understanding, so I think I shall save the re reading for after the ploughing through. The point about getting something new upon re-reading is a good one, as I suppose I can always come back and still get enough new material to be interested.
Slow reading isn’t a bad idea, I think I shall refrain from rereading too much on the first go and from taking notes.

>>23592010
Depending on the country where your initial naturalization process occurred Locke is basically ingrained into a fair number of people without them even realizing it. Hume can take years to fully digest, and to possess a workable instantiation requires a fair amount of discipline. Otherwise I would say your point has merit.

>we can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch causes
>therefore causality don't exist in the world but is simply a priori structure of consciousness by which we order a reality in which there are no causes
OK Kant

>we can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch causes
>therefore causality doesn't exist in the world but is an a priori structure of consciousness by which we order a reality in which there aren't really any causes at all
OK Kant

>>23592140
bro you got horribly filtered. He actually proves the empirical reality of causality in nature, i.e., in your experience of the natural world.

>>23592151
you got horribly filtered. He actually proves the empirical reality of causality in nature, i.e., in your experience of the natural world.

>>23592158
>experience of the natural world
You're the one who got filtered. The experience of the natural world is not the same as the noumenal and Kant saw cause and effect as being real only for us and in our minds, just as I said briefly above.

"This solution rescues the a priori origin of the pure concepts of the understanding and the validity of the general laws of nature as laws of the understanding, in such a way that their use is limited only to experience, because their possibility has its ground merely in the relation of the understanding to experience, however, not in such a way that they are derived from experience, but that experience is derived from them." - Prolegomena

>>23592211
>Kant saw cause and effect as being real only for us and in our minds
not just us but for all rational self-conscious identities. it is objective in the sense that each and every such mind must necessarily present the objective world of nature as causally determined. you were filtered.

>>23592234
You're repeating yourself and you aren't answering my point. I say "Kant relegated causality to the mind", and you say "reeeee it's still objective in the sense that it is in the mind and that's how we understand the world!" You're just using words like "objective", "experience", and "nature" in a Kantian sense (which is exactly what I'm attacking) and then insisting that this means he defended causality as something real (which he didn't, unless you think a structure of our consciousness is the only thing that is real, which seems to be your gist).

Aristotle said that if your opponent is reduced to babbling, i.e. saying the same thing over and over again, that means you've won.

>>23592286
>I say "Kant relegated causality to the mind", and you say "reeeee it's still objective in the sense that it is in the mind and that's how we understand the world!"
Yes exactly-- except you are overlooking the obvious answer: It's ALL MIND.

>unless you think a structure of our consciousness is the only thing that is real, which seems to be your gist
Except you are not understanding. Since everything is consciousness everything accords with these "structures", i.e., they are objective because consciousness is objective.

>>23592307
>Yes exactly-- except you are overlooking the obvious answer: It's ALL MIND.
I don't buy what you're selling, kid.

>>23592429
As in you refuse to accept, or you fail to understand?

>>23592453
Look I admire your gumption and passion, really I do. But your entire worldview derives ultimately not from Hegel or Kant but this fat bastard right here.
>How can I know a cause? All there are are associations of events. One thing and another, where's the causality?
And the sane response runs something like this:
"A cause, properly understood, is an explanation of something. Of course we don't perceive causes any more than we perceive the number two. But they are both part of the world outside the mind. If things outside the mind weren't truly caused in themselves then they would be unexplainable, which means they would be irrational, which means they couldn't exist in the first place. And by the way causes properly understood are simultaneous with their effects, not one thing and then another."

The unhealthy response is what Kant did.

>>23591662
Exactly my point. So thanks for agreeing?

>>23592606
>If things outside the mind weren't truly caused in themselves then they would be unexplainable, which means they would be irrational, which means they couldn't exist in the first place.
Does not follow.

>>23592625
So everything is mind or the world outside the mind exists? You're not being clever when you make these non sequitur one-liners.

>>23592626
Show me a round square or a tulip that can breathe fire. "Oh man the world is so deep bro who are you to say it's rational?" It's not a legitimate argument it's an emotional one. You hear the world is rational and you think of Spock and nasty scientists and the arrogance of thinking that we can know everything and all things will make sense to us but that isn't what people like me mean at all.

>>23592625
>cont'd response to you
If what you mean is something like "the world actually is rational, not the world of Hume" of course we agree; but if you go from that to "the world must BE mind" - no, like I said this train of thought can ultimately be traced back to Kant's taking Hume seriously in the first place.

>>23592631
>>23592641
Bruh I was cringing at how your argument was presented not the argument itself. The fact you failed to realize this and took it so personally demonstrates a lack of intellectual faculties: As expected from a Kant poster :^)

I would even go to the point of saying that all being is caused by thought (not our thought) probably for very similar reasons to those that lead you to say that the world actually is mind. But stone is really distinct from the ground it rests on and neither of them are minds or parts of mind even if they are caused by a mind.

>>23592652
Na I just thought you were responding to
>>23592606
My intellectual faculties are second to none pal they just weren't being actualized at that moment.

>>23592659
>Na I just thought you were responding to
Seems like you trust your senses a little too much to provide an accurate portrayal of true reality. Kuh kuh kuh A little kant joke ifyk

>>23591570
american use of the word "science" is generally reserved for fields using the experimental method (so physics, biology, and psychology all count, but not math or philosophy)

>>23592631
There is no world outside mind. The world is mind. The essence of the human mind is identical with objective reality.

>>23592691
>The essence of the human mind is identical with objective reality.
That's exactly what Plotinus said

>reading Kants lectures on metaphysics
>Gets stumped by this passage on the first lecture, kinda get it the core argument but not what all of it

Now normally I would just assume keep reading but I decided to ask Chatgpt for its take on it

>Reason and Understanding: For Kant, “spirit” refers to the rational and intellectual faculty within humans. It encompasses our ability to think, reason, and have self-awareness.

>Idealistic World: Kant refers to an “idealistic world,” which signifies a world where our understanding and reason play a central role. This world is governed by the laws of our minds, not just by external, physical laws.

>Spirits without Bodies: The key idea is that spirits could exist and function without bodies. If this were possible, the “idealistic world” would be “better” because it would be more efficient, allowing spirits to achieve their ends directly through thought and reason, without the limitations of physical embodiment.

>The paragraph suddenly makes perfect sense. Thanks CHAT4gpt!

OKAY now how the heck was I supposed to know 'spirit' refers to the rational and intellectual faculty??? Please don't tell me I have to read everything he refers to toooo :/

>>23592656
They are both essentially configurations of mind-stuff.

>>23592695
>as objectively considered there can only be one human Reason, so there cannot be many Philosophies; in other words, there is ONLY ONE TRUE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY founded upon principles, however variously and however contradictorily men may have philosophized over one and the same proposition.

>>23592709
Love you Kantbro <3 One of these days I'm going to write a massive paraphrase of De Anima informed by all the best ancient commentaries and you'll love it.

>>23589647
>Metaphysics studies the deepest, most primary structures of reality
That's physics. Metaphysics is really just a form of epistemology, seeking to understand what it means for things to be real.
>It's deeper than math, even, because it deals with questions like "what are numbers?"
That's just (abstract) algebra, which is an introductory course for math undergrads.

>>23592687
This. Being a science does not mean it is necessarily an important academic discipline, either. Psychology and even social sciences like sociology can count as sciences, but they're not respected like mathematics or chemistry.

>>23589518
>He thinks of sense data as like "matter" and then the structures inside of our mind are the "form" that makes it intelligible, but it's exactly the reverse
He's right, though.
>X exists, this is the "matter"
>I see X, my mind constructs its "form" based on its perception of the "matter"
This is perfectly reasonable.

>It is US who are measured by the things external to ourselves
We can measure and be measured, anon. But insofar as our knowledge is concerned, it ultimately belongs to us (or else it would not be "our" knowledge but some other thing's).

>It is the world that determines our knowledge
We know what we know. It's up to us to create our own knowledge out of our experiences.
>and what we experience
This isn't controversial, though. God determines what we experience, and Kant and other philosophers developed their beliefs knowing that.

>>23589518
Basically, Kant takes Aristotle's model of the mind, keeps most of the nouns and verbs, brackets away the object and the question of the object-as-a-unity, and then problematizes Aristotle's koine aisthesis ("common sense", what coordinates and repackages the disparate sensible forms into a unity).
>He thinks of sense data as like "matter" and then the structures inside of our mind are the "form" that makes it intelligible, but it's exactly the reverse
It's not entirely false, in that that is correct, but the Copernican Revolution's attempt to remain agnostic about "what's out there" undermines the basis for the possibility of intelligibility in the first place. So, that's my critique, but I think we're in agreement about what's wrong with kant.
>Kantians are the most annoying demographic on /lit/
No, for me it's the Heideggerians because most of them are stereotypical "chuds" who only read Being & Time (and no other philosopher) because they want to be based and redpilled like le ebic Nazi. For what it's worth, I am redpilled on the JQ and all that, but treating such an important philosopher on such frivolous grounds should be criminal because it lowers the quality of discourse on him. He's an endgame philosopher, especially if you like studying the Greeks, so it's damn shame that he gets relegated to such a meme status.

>>23589411
>>23589518
He's not primarily after an epistemology-- rather to recover Metaphysics, ontology, from skepticism and empircism. The presence of being is apodictically certain, particular noumenal discretions of things as negatively determined as against the whole was a step short and a commonplace.

>>23589485
this.
don't be afraid to google a sentence or a word you don't get. the greeks after all did philosophy by talking with each others not being.

>>23589889
I've been learning for a year. I think I'll be there in 6 months' time. I'm now able to read simple modern novels, and a little bit of Schopenhauer with extensive help from my dictionary

>>23589411
Maybe try the Prolegomena first. There are probably no more than thirty contemporary scholars who actually understand every word of the first Critique -- amid millions of pseuds (as we repeatedly see on /lit/, even reading comprehension of banter posts is generally very poor).

>>23589742
No philosopher would respond that health is good in itself.
>Divine Command Theorist: Health is good because God told us to care for our bodies, as we were made in His image.
>Deontologist: Health is good because it better enables us to enact our will.
>Utilitarian: Health is good because it increases pleasure and reduces pain.
>Egoist: Health is good because it prolongs my life, and I am the measure of all things.
>Long-termist: health is good because it empowers me to BREED.
>Acceleartionist: health is good because it makes my body more useful to capital.
and so on.

>>23593936
Or maybe change the aim away from "understanding every word". I read OPs edition of CPR. and I think I mostly get it. Do I understand everything? Of course not. Kant's Induction is especially hairy, but I can always reread it or watch lectures if I want more clarity.

>>23594171
>No philosopher would respond that health is good in itself.
Yeah, because they're idiots. Health is good by definition. But philososhitters have to be pedantic and sniff their own farts and they think it makes them so clever when they play these stupid word games. And I'm sure someone is going to try arguing definitions to get some retarded "gotcha", or they would've been more likely had I not written this last sentence as such foolishness is so expected of them.

>>23594278
>Health is good by definition.
Plotinus disagrees.
Yknow the guy that everybody likes?
Yeah he disagrees with you.

Happiness
6
> For instance, health and freedom from pain; which of these has any great charm? As long as we possess them, we set no store upon them.
>Anything which, present, has no charm and adds nothing to happiness, which when lacking is desired because of the presence of an annoying opposite, may reasonably be called a necessity but not a Good.

>>23594278
>Health is good by definition.
How do you know that’s the right definition? And how do you know that “freely performing natural functions” is good?

like mathematics you need the definitions to make sense of the arguments. Essentially metaphysics is just an individual's reaction to a 2000 year conversation, adopting and adding onto certain notions while deemphasizing others. Start with the greeks

>>23595048
it sounds so funny when you put it that way but it's true.

>>23589411
I would not bother reading german lit as an english speaker. The language just translates in a way that makes it horrible to read. Maybe find a book analyzing it by an english author.

>>23595063
>The language just translates in a way that makes it horrible to read.
I sadly had to realize this the hardway.

>>23589411
I don't get the issue with cliff note reading and re-reading. You don't have to agonizingly try to catch everything in a difficult text on your own the first read-through.

>>23593936
>as we repeatedly see on /lit/, even reading comprehension of banter posts is generally very poor
one of my pet peeves about /lit/, desu, ngl. I wonder how certain folks here can read the directions on a cereal box, let alone kant.

>>23593936
>There are probably no more than thirty contemporary scholars who actually understand every word of the first Critique
gonna need a source on that.

>>23589411
Can some anon please explain, how is it possible to get filtered by philosophy? Is OP just r-slurred? Or is it a matter of expectation?
As a slow reader in general, I'm completely unbothered by slowly reading Kant, page by page. It's not that it's particularly difficult, just slower than reading fiction.
There's literally nothing else to be filtered by. The arguments are all right there and laid out logically.

>>23592697
Not to shit on you, but is this bait? If you've interacted with any amount of philosophy before, you would've come across the word "spirit" used precisely in the way Chat GPT defined it. That's basic terminology. I guess if this is your first time reading philosophy, the world might seem confusing... but at least now you know.

>>23595151
>Can some anon please explain, how is it possible to get filtered by philosophy
translation-damaged syntax and semantic mismatch between the author and actual as opposed to the intended audience. He didn't write it with us plebs in mind.

>>23595063
Kant and Schopenhauer are perfectly readable in French. Would recommend, especially the latter.

>>23589411
I love these threads because I get to watch all you retarded groypers pretend like you read anything other than Breitbart headlines lmao

>>23595433
>Breitbart
Holy shit, is it still 2016?
Anyway, /pol/ is three doors down.

I'm just going to read secondary material and skip the primary sources going forward. Why waste a colossal amount of time and effort when you just read a few secondary resources and get basically the same information. While you're champing away at the archaic, egregiously verbose prose I'll be will ascending into the ether of knowledge.

Later homos

>>23595452
bye felicia

>>23589411
It really isn’t that difficult if you don’t need to know it perfectly. You’re not going to get tested on it. Read Copleston, Schopenhauer, Gardiner, other such thinkers to fill in holes in your knowledge. There is at least one lecture series on youtube by a world renowned Kant scholar giving a full recapitulation of his works in around 7 lectures or so. No sane person - including philosophy students - got their understanding of Kant entirely from reading the Critique. Unlike other philosophers it’s just inherent to Kant’s style to be best read with copious secondary assistance, don’t make it an ego problem.