/lit/ - Literature

>>23739202
The first Kritik is from his 50s anon, you can make it

>>23739210
wut?

>>23739226
Kant 1724
Kritik der reinen Vernunft 1781

just sayin' ... keep going!

>>23739254
ok

>>23739202
>If there is still work to be done then no work was done.

>>23739299
wut?

Is it only one anon on here that reads Kant or are there other anons too?

>>23739342
I do

>>23739347
why do you read him?

>>23739202

>>23739455
huh?

>>23739458

who?

How do I read this and not feel retarded

>>23739383
I like philosophy

>>23739530
but why him specifically?

>>23739485
with time my friend. with time.

>>23739485
Try reading who influenced him first

I really like this song called Sleepwalker by akiura. check it out frens.

) We can only know phenomena, not things-in-themselves.
2) These phenomena are structured by our minds.
3) If all we can know is mind-dependent, and we have no access to a mind-independent reality, it's more parsimonious to consider consciousness as fundamental.
4) The apparent duality of subject and object in our experience can be understood as arising within consciousness itself, rather than reflecting an ontological dualism (rejection of subject-object duality).

>>23739202
Nobody on this board has actually read the first Critique, but if anyone has, he didn't understand it, but if he understood it, he's likely over the age of 50 and has never had any pussy.

>>23739543
Cos he is important? If your question was why do I like him a lot, it is because he reshaped my entire outlook on the world. He retroactively made Plato make complete sense as well. His ethical framework is rudimentary but in broad strokes correct.

>>23739820
>He retroactively made Plato make complete sense as well.
how?

Kant is a pseud. Next.

>>23739832
thnx for bump

>>23739202
midwit who thought noumena requires no evidence to be presumed true

>>23739827
The prerequisites of the mind, made me realize that the theory of forms is correct. Where the fuck are numbers?

>>23739875
That's his entire point though, we don't know.

>>23739820
I can't think of anything of significance from plato other than an interesting window into ancient greek law and social structure. I feel like the only reason he is prominent is because a lot of his teachings were used to justify various aspects of christianity throughout the middle ages.

>>23739896
this, Plato had zero relevance to philosophical thought besides carrying water for Christians.

>>23739883
numbers are human created abstractions that label and organize arbitrary divisions of materials and concepts. there is no "four", never has been, never will be, a form of "four" isn't floating around in some ether realm, and plato was a charlatan who organized the teachings of someone who wouldn't write into writing.

>>23739896
>I can't think of anything of significance from plato other than an interesting window into ancient greek law and social structure.
smfh so hard

>>23739919
I mean, teach me. pretty sure I sat through every single surviving work on librivox that I didn't read myself while working. all I remember about the guy is that he came off as a pseud but had loads of good(though unintended) anthropological material. I didn't get that impression from aristotle or xenophon for example. what did he lay down that we still consider relevant today as far as philosophy goes?

>>23739913
Maths is just logic anon, does logic also not exist?

>>23739485
Read Russel's History of Western Philosophy first as an overview.

>>23739827
I can't speak for the other anon but Kant delineates practical reality in the CPR and his points on this technically still stand, if anything they are now considered normative by and large even amongst some of the disciplines he was criticizing in the work itself. You may just want to read Kant.

>>23739202
1781 first edition > 1787 second edition by far and large. You don't know what you're missing out on. The second edition is castrated in comparison.

>>23739485
You don't, it's written in extremely pretentious and bad style (it was critiqued for this when it came out) and hinges on the retarded idea that "you don't experiences things bro, you just experience experiences of things."

His main disciples immediately radically altered his philosophy because it's retarded even not covered in obscurantism.

>>23740743
>written in extremely pretentious and bad style
>wanting style over substance in philosophy of all types of literature

>you don't experiences things bro, you just experience experiences of things
>implying that's wrong in any way
Peak /lit/wit. Stick to gender studies.

>>23740787
Dude, everything is an epiphenomena. Come over to my place so I can prove the impossibility of consent with you.

>>23740743
>"you don't experiences things bro, you just experience experiences of things."
Kant is actually saying:
>you can't (Kant lol) know if you experience things or just experience experiences things
and no matter how much this makes you faggots seethe, you cannot refute it.

>>23740743
Kant was retarded, true.

>>23739485
Do an introductionary philosophy course first

>>23740743
>"you don't experiences things bro, you just experience experiences of things."
This is true though, your experience of a thing is different from my experience of a thing

>>23739485
Read the Prolegomena first. The first critique is too autistic and even Kant realised this.

>>23739254
Thanks for the motivation anon

>>23739485
Lectures of Metaphysics
Progolomena
First Critique
Also read Schopenhauer Will and Representation vol 1 as he critiques Kant and makes it easier in a way Kant should have done

>>23740787
this. Kant's prose is precise af and clear if you are not a midwit.

>>23742868
That the Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason is a meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena:

>although a mere sketch PRECEDING the Critique of Pure Reason would be UNINTELLIGIBLE, UNRELIABLE, and USELESS, it is all the more useful as a SEQUEL. For so we are able to grasp the whole, to examine in detail the chief points of importance in the science, and to improve in many respects our exposition, as compared with the first execution of the work.

>>23739654
Kant is not an extreme subjectivist, but an objective idealist (all is one intelligence) who presented an exoterically incomplete system as a suggestive push towards its completion by each individual student of the system. He leaves the esoteric teaching as an exercise to the reader. The subjective 'I' is an expression of an infinite objective 'I' which is one and the same in all its expressions, including each subjective 'I', and therefore the intellect of each and every subjective 'I' is commensurate with the nature of this Absolute. Consequently, transcendental philosophy in its apparent inquiry into the necessary conditions of subjective experience and what knowledge can be derived therefrom, is at once also a microcosmic investigation mirroring the necessary conditions of the one objective spirit and the objective knowledge derived therefrom. The esoteric doctrine does not stop at subjectivity, but uses subjectivity as a means for the finite intellect to understand the infinite intellect, the Absolute.

I LIKE CHOPIN

>>23742905
>noooo you have to read it in this order or ill have a melty
No one cares, fag. You spam this shit in every kant thread.

>>23743602
because it's true brainlet

>>23742982
The esoteric teaching was the implied suggestion towards THE COMPLETE A PRIORI DERIVATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PHYSICS. There is, in truth, no difference between a priori and a posteriori KNOWLEDGE, only between the pure and empirical METHODS of ATTAINING that knowledge. What empirical scientists are slowly and painfully arriving at by the hard teacher of experience, metaphysicians have known since time immemorial.

>>23743634
Prove it. Show how reading the CPR first is easier and helps the average first-time reader understand the arguments better than reading the Prolegomena like everyone has been doing since it got fucking published.
Otherwise all you're doing is taking Kant out of context by claiming his statement that the Prolegomena doesn't replace the CPR or serve as a preface to it as a statement that some kind of hyperborean knowledge of evropean vril will be revealed to those who read the CPR first. At the end of the day, the object is to understand the arguments at hand, not circlejerk over which way to arrive there is more kvlt or whatever the fuck.

>>23743654
>Show how reading the CPR first is easier and helps the average first-time reader understand the arguments better than reading the Prolegomena
Neither is meant for the first time reader smoothbrain

>These Prolegomena are destined for the use, not of pupils, but of future teachers, and even the latter should not expect that they will be serviceable for the systematic exposition of a ready-made science, but merely for the discovery of the science itself.
Literal first sentence of the prolegomena.

>>23743662
Yeah that's cool bro, enjoy your circlejerk thread #582052. Maybe one day you'll write something worth seriously replying to.

>>23743665
>Maybe one day you'll write something worth seriously replying to.
you too

>>23743649
posted it again award

>It begins to be a real trouble for me, always to use the cautious language of reason. Why should I, too, not be allowed to talk in academical style? This exempts the writer as well as the reader from thinking, which, after all, sooner or later must lead only to annoying indecision. Thus "it is as good as demonstrated," or, to be explicit, "it could easily be proved," or still better, "it will be proved" I don't know where or when, that the human soul also in this life forms an indissoluble communion with all immaterial natures of the spirit-world, that, alternately, it acts upon and receives impressions from that world of which nevertheless it is not conscious while it is still man and as long as everything is in proper condition.
materialistbros....

>>23739202
A guy saying that space and time are a priori...
still number one philosopher of all time...
===> SCANDAL

>>23744382
ok prove it's not

>>23744470
proof what ? That space and time are real ?
Well... Kants best argument for that they are not is that Euclid geometry wouldn't be universal and necessary... now we have Einstein geometry where the shortest distance between two points can be a curved line not a straight one... so his legendary proof was falsified by Einstein... besides that it is obvious that space and time are not a priori for nothing could ever happen without any space or time... so everything would just happen in our heads if they where a priori...

Anyone interested in a weekly reading club for the First Critique can join here >>23739202
I look forward it, and I hope some of you would like to come along as well.

>>23745545
goddamnit how did I mess that up. I meant >>23745458

>>23745095
>Einstein has not — as you sometimes hear — given the lie to Kant’s deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a large step towards its accomplishment.
Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter (1967)

>I have already explained in the preface to the first edition, that my philosophy is founded on that of Kant, and therefore presupposes a thorough knowledge of it. I repeat this here. For Kant's teaching produces in the mind of everyone who has comprehended it a fundamental change which is so great that it may be regarded as an intellectual new-birth. It alone is able really to remove the inborn realism which proceeds from the original character of the intellect, which neither Berkeley nor Malebranche succeed in doing, for they remain too much in the universal, while Kant goes into the particular, and indeed in a way that is quite unexampled both before and after him, and which has quite a peculiar, and, we might say, immediate effect upon the mind in consequence of which it undergoes a complete undeception, and forthwith looks at all things in another light. Only in this way can any one become susceptible to the more positive expositions which I have to give. On the other hand, he who has not mastered the Kantian philosophy, whatever else he may have studied, is, as it were, in a state of innocence; that is to say, he remains in the grasp of that natural and childish realism in which we are all born, and which fits us for everything possible, with the single exception of philosophy.

>thread about to die
Kant let that happen

>>23739485

This lecture helped.

https://youtu.be/V0UKj32lRAI?si=WZMJ8ZUBJKZgQSOo

It's pretty valuable stuff if you want to understand the machinery behind this clockface of the modern world. He invented the thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea that informed Hegel. That dialectic informed Marx, so he could convince the goyim Kabbalism is secular and scientific, helping him to destroy the world. I'll never apologize for being '/pol/'. This isn't even /pol/ anyways. Marxism IS Kabbalism.

Wait what were we talking about? Kant?

>>23745095
>now we have Einstein geometry where the shortest distance between two points can be a curved line not a straight one
This is the biggest pile of pseud slop there is besides maybe quantum mechanics. 'Oh bro now we know Euclid was le wrong', no, we've just created a new math that reflects the way space actually works. It's no threat to Euclidean geometry as such. Every philosophy thread some jackass makes this argument and then some other jackass, if not the same one, starts babbling about quantum physics.

>>23743665
>enjoy your circlejerk thread #582052.
It's just one guy arguing with himself so it's more like masturbation than a circlejerk. I don't know how he finds time to read Kant when he spends so much of every day making jerkoff threads on /lit/.

>>23746423
>>23748568
I dont get what Schrödinger means here...
But only because he is Schrödinger doesn't mean he can not make any mistakes... I think this is one

It really is a threat to Euclid geometry...
Not only have we created a new math but space itself is actually working like that... you said it...

>>23749184
You can go with Hilbert if you want.

>>23742982
>Kant is not an extreme subjectivist, but an objective idealist (all is one intelligence) who presented an exoterically incomplete system as a suggestive push towards its completion by each individual student of the system. He leaves the esoteric teaching as an exercise to the reader
This statement always makes me cackle. It feels like it was thought up by an 18 year old first year philosophy student. There is something so naive and pitiful about it.

>>23749665
>t. doesn't know about the esoteric doctrine

>>23748568
Kant incorporated elements of Epicurean scepticism as part of his notion of apprehension. This is to say that even excluding subsequent developments parts of Euclid can be subjected to this and I don't just mean parallel lines but also some polygon derivations. The 5th postulate is something that we perceive but no proof has ever been provided for it.

>>23749184
>I dont get what Schrödinger means here
That's probably because you didn't actually read Kant before you started talking out of you ass.