[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 166 KB, 946x1342, kant_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10772597 No.10772597 [Reply] [Original]

Was he the last great philosopher?

>> No.10772627

What is the problem with you guys?
Why are you so obsessed with starting threads like:
>is he the most based?
>who's better, X or Y?
>X is the best book ever written amirite?
Don't you have your own opinion and you want to adopt one from /lit/? If you want to discuus a certain writer of philosopher, why don't you just say:
>Immanuel Kant thread
and give some useful information about him or ask some questions about this person?
It's like all writers to you are just some poremon cards and you need to find out which one is stronger.

>> No.10772640

>>10772627
> or ask some questions about this person
Obviously I mean constructive questions. Not the bait or dumb kinds.

>> No.10772653

Heidegger was, not Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi.

>> No.10772698

>>10772640
>In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising. This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is the regional system of this struggle.

>> No.10772703

>>10772698
fuck, wrong thread

>> No.10772714

>>10772653
This is now a Jacobi thread.
Discuss how noumena don't make sense and attempt to resolve German Idealism but not really.

>> No.10772733

>>10772714

>attempt to resolve German Idealism

ya need schelling for that, dawg

>> No.10772847
File: 371 KB, 500x500, last ned (3).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10772847

Will there ever be a great philosopher again?

>> No.10772866
File: 146 KB, 554x467, Kant-2-554x467.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10772866

>>10772597
fake painting

this is what kant actually looked like

>> No.10772869

>>10772597
No, actually that would be Jordan Peterson.

>> No.10772878

>>10772869
Let's see how many bite.

>> No.10773036

Ayer?

>> No.10773077

>>10772866
Certainly, he never changed throughout the years

>> No.10773216

>>10772714
The noumenon question isn't interesting, and Kant's philosophy holds firmly even when you take out the thing-in-itself. Jacobi did catch Kant in that, by stating the content of our intuitions is given by us being affected from without, Kant employs a category to a noumenon, precisely what he set out to say you can't do. But if you replace thing-in-itself with what is simply "given" to us then his philosopy doesn't suffer for it.

More interesting is Jacobi's concept of reason, halfway borrowed from Hamann. Jacobi believed that what rationalism called "reason" was actually an abstraction of our capacity for understanding. He believed that reason was the capacity, not to comprehend the explanatory conditions of things, but to perceive them. And the fact that we do perceive them is a mystery. Our ordinary experience is what Jacobi meant by the "natural faith of reason"

>> No.10773288

Where to start with my man Jacobi?

>> No.10773312

>>10772627
My philosopher dad could beat up your philosopher dad

>> No.10774970

>>10772597

>> No.10775641

Kanye West

>> No.10775710

>>10772597
Yeah, all worthwile philosophical reflection ended in the 1700's, anon........ dummy

>>10772627
It's because everyone here is a teen pseud who larps as *cultured* but never actually reads or engages seriously with the topics discussed beyond wikipedia, these thinkers really are just pokemon cards in this place. Get out while you can.

>> No.10776136

>>10772866
He remotely looks like Frederick the Great.

>>10772597
He was one of the first. Hume was older than him I think so this makes him not the first.

>> No.10776164

>>10772597
If you read Kant, you can ignore pretty much every other "true" philosopher (i don't count rhetoricians), since Kant's philosophies on life are both useful, uplifting, and empowers the mind and will.

He's the last philosopher who's actually done anything for philosophy. All the others since him are just self-involved, angry, existentialists who question more than they answer, and offer no actual solutions to philosophical issues, but beyond that they're also hypocrites.