/lit/ - Literature

Probably not that abnormal for academia tbqh

>>4394457

Not fucked at all if you at least understand the basic concepts involved in what he's doing, and have used your time well to explore other thinkers.

>>4394467
Say I deal with Leibniz a lot.

>>4394457

Surely that depends on whether your thesis has anything to do with Kant?

>>4394457


who needs to read philosophers when you can just read heideggers lecture courses on historical philosophy.

>>4394552
>anything to do with Kant

Can we still write something in philosophy that doesn't, in some way, has to do with Kant?

>>4394457
It seems that not at all.
I was surprised when the head of the department of philosophy in my university said that he didn't finished the critiques. He has only read some parts in detail and the ones related to his work (wich is ethics).

It seems that not at all.
I was surprised when the department of philosophy in my university said that he didn't finished the critiques. He has only read some parts in detail and the ones related to his work (which is ethics).

Kant is the final boss of life, no worries.

Have you read the Prolegomena as least? At the very least read the Transcendental Aesthetic.

lol at the captcha

you should consider killing yourself

>>4394607
You Kant do that.

>>4394607
>Can we still write something in philosophy that doesn't, in some way, has to do with Kant?

yes. what a stupid question

>>4394812
lol what the fuck, he's watching you OP

Kant confirmed for Santa Claus

Well I've got a bachelor's in philosophy and I barely read anything. I did however attend every course I could and constantly listenes to conferences and the like while playing videogames. I'm not saying I'm proud of this approach, but these days spending hours reading difficult works, that require constant focus and thinking, seems impossible. Oh look a funny cat video, I'd better click on related videos until I end up on a wikipedia page about whale bladders.

Ranting aside, you can find out plenty about Kant from the main websites like Stanford and the others + wikipedia. Cambridge companion type books are good as well since they're pretty clear most of the time and they very much have to be when discussing Kant due to his great influence.

>>4394840
your experience is somewhat common for all undergrads these days. you lack the ability to concentrate or put any meaningful effort in to anything.

>>4394915
It's true. Personally I've only really developed the ability to concentrate on shit since I've graduated. I wish I could have had the focus then that I have now.

>>4394840
>tfw you find yourself reading about Angolan cuisine at five in the morning

>>4394915

>Found a way to do what you did, but more relaxed
>Y-YOU MUST BE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!

I mean, holy hell, /lit/. Half of the time while reading philosophy I'm just mentally screaming at the book "Get to the damn point you were trying to make!" There really is a lot of unnecessary text in a lot of philosophy. I guarantee you The Republic could be shortened to about five paragraphs and still retain most of the legitimate and important points.

>>4394950
nah tho

Kant is overrated, man. Forget about Europe, aufkärung, all this rationality based on the individual, all this emancipation of the individual


come to the 3rd world post-structuralist philosphy, the future is here (disregard the extreme Modernism of this phrase)

>>4394457
Probably in the same position as a ton of masters students. If you aren't planning on working with his stuff I don't see why you need anything other than a basic understanding. He is a massively important figure, but as long as you can understand his influence and basic concepts, why do you need to have read every word of every critique? I've personally just read Pure Reason and plan to read Practical at some point in the near future, but I don't think I would be losing sleep if I hadn't.

>>4394457
Kant write really really simple stuff in a really long and annoying way.

You will be able to bullshit your way trough anything by googling summary of his books.

>>4394821
That's not a real answer though. Name a work of contemporary philosophy that could exist without Kant.

>>4396014
First tell us what do you mean by 'work'. If you mean peer-reviewed academic articles within philosophy journals, then there are tons that have no, and require none, of the Kantian roots.

>>4396024
like?

>>4396026
Your mere doubting of this fact just shows your ignorance of contemporary academic philosophy.

And I won't satisfy the burden of proof, because I refuse to shove such obvious and well known things down your throat.

>>4395004
>Implying post-structuralism isn't mainly defended by Americans reading French theorists

>>4396037
why the fuck would you even reply then?

let me tell you my reasoning:
contemporary analytic philosophy, as it started with Russel, Frege, Wittgenstein, would not be possible without Kant.
contemporary continental philosophy, as it ran down from Hegel, Dilthey, Husserl, Heidegger and Wittgenstein, could not be possible without Kant.
contemporary pragmatic philosophy, as started with James, Peirce, Dewey, could not be possible without Kant.

>>4396040
you're good at putting names in rows. can i learn to do that to?

>>4396047
You're bad at making conversation.
Can I put a reactionfile in too?

>>4396040
Frege's technical work and invention of modern logic initiated a ton of work in semantics, logic and mathematics: Russell's On Denoting, the work of Wittgenstein, etc. subsequent analytic philosophers, logicians and mathematicians that have little to no roots in Kant.

Your reasoning is too primitive; alternatively, I can reason: If Thales (considered by many as "the first philosopher") didn't exist there would be no subsequent, original philosophies; which is, well, flat out wrong.

>>4394840
why do this kind of people study philpsophy?

>last semester
>accidentally enter philosophy lecture
>expect brilliant people
>everyone is a fucking idiot
>fedoras, party girls and hipsters

it is like they havent ever studied philosophy and they take the course because "muh expanding horizons" "so intellectual" "muh creative writting"

>>4395004
>implying the future is "political correctness and self-entitlement: the circlejerk"
>not writting essays against postmodernism
>not developing a postmarxist situationist praxis to fight the postmodernist scum

>>4396074
Frege's logic and semantics relies on the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements.

We might not be footnotes to Thales, but we sure are footnotes to Plato.

>>4396081

As a general rule, the utter fuckwits in philosophy classes are about 10x louder than the quiet, patient students who are there to tackle difficult questions and discover insights they hadn't considered before.

>mfw taking philosophy of mind this year and that 1 dickhead that thinks he's a genius because he read Descartes over the summer

>>4396097
>Frege's logic and semantics relies on the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements.
Mildly -- in the way he showed that Kant was incorrect regarding arithmetic and analytical truths being synthetic -- but not wholly so regarding the bulk of his other work. Care to elaborate more on this?

>We might not be footnotes to Thales, but we sure are footnotes to Plato.
That's not what I said. I said that not all philosophies have their theoretical/conceptual roots in some particular, archetypical thinker in some distant past. Another counterexample: eastern philosophies.

>>4396118
>Kant was incorrect regarding arithmetic and analytical truths being synthetic
I do not understand this sentence. Kant never said that analytic truths were synthetic. Or did you mean that Frege showed arithmetic truths to be synthetic, rather than analytic?

>>4396106
>>mfw taking philosophy of mind this year and that 1 dickhead that thinks he's a genius because he read Descartes over the summer

Pro-tip: That's you

>>4396118
>eastern philosophies
depends on how far east you go

>reading any philosophy at all after 322 BC

>>4396118
>eastern philosophies
>shoehorning strange thought into the greco-abrahamitic concept of philosophy
>being an intellectual imperialist
>2013

>>4396285

Let's face it: Eastern philosophy is savage and irrelevant.

>reading a book in eastern philosophy canon
>book is purported to be written a million years BC
>it has thirty different titles, which in practical terms means pronouncing the each of words in the title a single syllable differently
>preface
>translator's introduction
>new translator's introduction condemning the 1946 translator's introduction
>moon rune cheat sheet
>introduction
>read translator's introduction
>translator is invariably at pains to point out that the work is not the collection of thought of a single person, but actually just a load of different people and that it's not actually meant to be read as a book or anything, just a collection of tooltips for bored rulers
>spends several paragraphs emphasizing that the person purported to be the guy who originally wrote the book but actually didn't, he just happened to be the guy that all this fan fiction is derived from, wrote it during a civil war. Always a civil war.
>every single concept in the book is argued to possibly mean twenty different things depending on who they think wrote it at the time and what contemporary scholars are nitpicking about

>>4396286
The adults are talking, whitey.

>>4396314
>a million year BC

>>4396320
>implying he doesn't kind of have a point

>>4396314
>eastern philosophy
>philosophy

Sorry everyone I meant "religion studies"

>>4396118

>counterexample: eastern philosophies

Who are Laozi, Buddha, Confucius, Dogen, Zhuangzi, the writers of the Upanishads, etc.

Not a great counterpoint because most eastern philosophies are derived from archetypal thinkers or group of thinkers.

>>4396256
Sorry, what I meant was that Frege showed that Kant was incorrect regarding arithmetic being synthetic. I shouldn't not have mentioned anything about analytical truths.

>>4396387
You're misinterpreting me. I had a different point in mind. He originally said that contemporary philosophy wouldn't exist without Kant's philosophy. Meaning, no contemporary philosophy is without Kantian roots. I mentioned Frege, the minority of whose work indeed reflects on Kantian philosophy, but then there are his original contributions, having nothing of Kant in them: his technical work like that of Begriffsschrift and his seminal, philosophical essays which, if put on a scale, outweighs the book that he wrote about the foundations of arithmetic -- the book where he talks about Kant's philosophy in detail. Contemporary, at least and as far as I know, analytic philosophy has had similar, original contributions as that of Frege, and continues to be so. So, my mentioning of eastern philosophies is a counterexample regarding originality; that eastern doctrines have no roots in Plato *or* Kant.

>>4394457
Any advice for someone thinking about getting a terminal MA in philosophy and then a PhD?

Anything you wish you read while still an undergrad?
Languages to learn?
Work ethic changes?
How do you take notes while reading?
How did you choose what programs to apply to and go to?

Also, what would you recommend for getting into Leibniz? Nothing by him was assigned in my 16th and 17th century philosophy class.

>>4396724
So, that doesn't invalidate the point that in order to do Frege, we need Kant. Might not be necessary, but it is a contingent truth in our world.

>>4399107
Sort of to expand: Kant's intellectualization of the modern subject, is what conditions the thought of someone like Frege that we can formulate a formal language that would take us, without failure, to truth. Wende zum Subjekt and all that.

>>4398376
>Also, what would you recommend for getting into Leibniz?
There's a somewhat good inrtoduction to Leibniz by a B. Mates. You could also turn to Dewey's book on Leibniz' new essays on Locke. As for an actual Leibniz text, his Disccours on Metaphysics is pretty accessible.

You'll be fuck anyway if you're from America.

Good luck looking for a job and paying your college debts.

>>4396355
>implying you know a shit about eastern philosophy
>implying you know ashit about greek phil.

>>4399532
assuming this anyone here is ameripleb