/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11311172]

if you haven't read the most sublime piece of writing mankind has ever produced then please kindly gtfo of this literature board

[Anonymous No.11311182]

I've just studies all the paralogisms and his critique on metaphysics. Quite an awesome work

[Anonymous No.11311183]

you kids are never going to come across ideas like the "synthetic unity of apperception" in those coloring books you read (probably color by number desu) so why don't you take your illiteracy to reddit please

[Anonymous No.11311187]

>>11311172
I read this as "Cringe of Pure Reason"

[Anonymous No.11311188]

>>11311182
are you absolutely a nervous wreck on account of the fact that daily hours pass and you still haven't read the first critique? what are you doing man how do you sleep at night.

[Anonymous No.11311192]

>>11311187
gtfo out this literature board you utter philistine don't you have menial labor to attend to?

[Anonymous No.11311209]

>>11311192
He's talking about the quality of the thumbnail. Three deep breaths, anon.

[Anonymous No.11311210]

Actually reading this exact edition now. The first edition is interspersed with the second edition. Should I read them both at the same time, or just focus on one for my first read through?

[Anonymous No.11311212]

>>11311172
when I read the critique i cant help but feel that he's just doing a kind of really primitive psychology incoherently mixed with a bizarre reductive metaphysics

it is modern as fuck i suppose, but it's just gay

[Anonymous No.11311215]

>>11311192
>>11311183
>>11311188
>>11311172

[Anonymous No.11311216]

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.11311229]

>>11311210
if you're not a living vat of refuse you will be reading the work multiple times so pick one and go with it.

>>11311212
dear lord. i think i can be of some use to you please follow this link >>>reddit

>>11311215
you are complete slime. you degrade humanity just by existing.

[Anonymous No.11311270]

>>11311172
here I'll summarize:
>WAAAAAAHHHHH
>I'm a massive faggot (in a cognitive sense, because physically I'm a manlet cuckgoblin) who can't get laid
>better try and obfuscate things into an insensible mess of conjectural non-opinions while aping that I know jackshit about mathematics or philosophic reasoning so that I can cope with the reality that my dicc is 3.5cm
>also, be kind to the jews, goy, they're g-d's chosen after all
>there, now that I've pissed into the punchbowl of life chad and stacy can't enjoy it either
>what's that?? chad and stacy don't give a fuck about my autistic ramblings and the few chads who took the time to peruse them have completely dismantled them??
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Honestly, you should listen to what incels have to say about anything. Also avoid the shabbos goys who shill their degenerative dogma whose only goal is to weaken Nationalism.

I would recommend instead far more seminal works of philosophy such as Culture of Critique or Siege. These works are well worth a diligent study.

[Anonymous No.11311273]

i shudder to think that there are people out there who call themselves well read and they have never even glanced at the transcendental aesthetic

[Anonymous No.11311275]

>>11311270
shouldn't listen* goddamn kike autocorrect

[Anonymous No.11311276]

i read Nick Land bruh i don't need to read Kant muh dude

[Anonymous No.11311280]

>>11311229

[Anonymous No.11311286]

>>11311270
i knew there other men of my calibre on this website. it should be pointed out though that Kant was kind of wary of the frugal folk, and thought of them as a parasitic merchant people.

[Anonymous No.11311288]

>>11311280
this *snap* shit has really, really gotten out of hand

[Anonymous No.11311295]

>>11311270
based /pol/ saves the day again.

[Anonymous No.11311300]

>>11311270
>>11311276
>>11311280
i sincerely hope that you are just pulling my tit with this sheer nonsense. you may rest assured that i have had a good laugh with you, assuming that you are only jesting, otherwise i feel genuinely sorrowful that you have humiliated yourselves for all time, irrevocably and appearing unlikely to recover. i should have offered you help if i thought the endeavor was not utterly in vain.

[Anonymous No.11311305]

>>11311288
*snap*

[Anonymous No.11311311]

>>11311300
>>11311300

[Anonymous No.11311318]

>>11311311
you are like a gnat. you are a pestilent mosquito. i bet you piss yourself while at your computer and let it soak until the smell has become unbearable.

[Anonymous No.11311319]

>>11311172
I read the Bible every morning and evening, for your knowing.

[Anonymous No.11311329]

>Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant BTFO. Now read some real philosophy

[Anonymous No.11311385]

>>11311329
How did this brainlet become so famous? Whose dick did she suck to secure her place in the canon?

[Anonymous No.11311392]

>>11311385
people genuinely like her books a lot

[Anonymous No.11311422]

currently trying to Read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Took me almost a week to finish and understand the first section, the shortest part

[Anonymous No.11311423]

>>11311172
Do you honestly believe people on this board have read the transcendental deduction of the categories?

Nobody on this site have the brains to do so (except me of course). At the most they have read his moral philosophy, and not even the second critique, just the Groundwork.

[Anonymous No.11311428]

>>11311423
>thinking it's some sort of herculean feat to read Kant
120IQ midwit detected

[Anonymous No.11311453]

>>11311428
A child could read him, but understanding his system is definetely one of the harder things a philosopher has to do.

[Anonymous No.11312334]

>>11311172
>They actually fell for the platonism meme

[Anonymous No.11312575]

>>11311453
Philosophy isn’t about ”systems”, you STEM-autist

[Anonymous No.11312596]

>>11311172
It's definitely not sublime, but it was necessary. I'll settle with you on "beautiful."

[Anonymous No.11312605]

>>11311172
>if you haven't read the most sublime piece of writing mankind has ever produced then please kindly gtfo of this literature board
Seems like you've posted the wrong picture, friend

[Anonymous No.11312861]

>>11311172
TLDR: you can't know the truth because your knowledge is based on prior subjective experiences.
Saved you the read and a hell of a lot of bullshit definitions

[Anonymous No.11312867]

>>11311172
>talks about Kant
>says writing is sublime
Now go read the third critique and you'll learn not to misuse his terms. Sublime is for the feeling you get of the sheer magnitude of nature, it is fear-inducing but then pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.11312868]

>>11312861
Not even close. You sound like a Randian.

[Anonymous No.11312877]

>>11312575
Yes it is and it doesn’t matter what Nietzsche may have said

[Anonymous No.11312885]

>>11312861
so you didn't even read the first three pages, gotcha.

[Anonymous No.11312886]

>>11312575
mannnnnn, philsophy is about kicking backkkk anddd readdinnnggg something profound woah

[Anonymous No.11312966]

>>11311270
based

[Anonymous No.11312971]

>>11311305
Lmao

[Anonymous No.11312976]

>>11312605
based

[Anonymous No.11313014]

>>11311329
>i am too dumb to understand kant, thus he's evil
kant utterly btfo

[Anonymous No.11313141]

>>11311172
How do we know noumena exist if existence is a category and categories can only be applied to phenomenal objects?

[Anonymous No.11313160]

>>11311172

[Anonymous No.11313905]

>>11313160
Schuon is just making the same baseless claims that led to the necessity of the critical philosophy in the first place. He's throwing around the terms "Absolute" and "Intellect" without really questioning where these terms are coming from. It's the whole, "if there's something limited there must be something unlimited, and now let me string together a series of unrelated claims and call the whole mess God".

[Anonymous No.11314228]

>>11313160
It is unbelieveable that schooner thinks he is making arguments the moderns would not have been well aware of seeing as how they were all scooped in the very system he describes

[Anonymous No.11314244]

Pretentious garbage

[Anonymous No.11314316]

>>11311288
blame jidf

[Anonymous No.11314343]

>>11311428
>120IQ midwit detected
*snap*

[Anonymous No.11314355]

>>11314244
>singlehandedly affect the course of philosophy as well as every science
>some anon on 4chan thinks its garbage
Unbelievably pseud

[Anonymous No.11314465]

Is the Meiklejohn translation readable or do I have to get the expensive one?

[Anonymous No.11315801]

>>11314355

>singlehandedly affect the course of philosophy as well as every science

lmao no