/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11375718]

Nobody would willingly read this man. you're pretentious and a brainless if you actually do.

[Anonymous No.11375730]

>p-pretentious

brainlet bingo card center square

[Anonymous No.11375735]

>>11375730
Hey man I read Kant, my intentions are all that matter... golly gee I'm a good person, blah blah blah blah blah

[Anonymous No.11375739]

>>11375718
my philosphy professor was a kant specialist. when she would lecture on the grounding the metaphysics of morals in class, i felt like kantian ethics just made sense. then i got home and realized I didn't really understand anything. got a b in the end. kant is big gay.

[Anonymous No.11375745]

>>11375718
Why? Which philosopher would you prefer to read?

[Anonymous No.11375746]

>>11375745
jordan b peterson

[Anonymous No.11375749]

>>11375746
the patricians choice truly

[Anonymous No.11375750]

>>11375745
Plato, Nietzsche, Montaigne, Augustine, Pascal, Emerson, de Spinoza, Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11375752]

>>11375745

[Anonymous No.11375753]

>>11375750
Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11375754]

>>11375750
>Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11375755]

>>11375750
>>11375753
You can't really accept even half those philosophers' ideas together

[Anonymous No.11375756]

>>11375755
So? Only an idiot takes in a full ideology

[Anonymous No.11375758]

>>11375750
Unless you're mostly just interested in the history of philosophy (for which Kant is essential) I can't imagine how you'd reconcile Plato and Nietzsche, or Nietzsche and Augustine, or really Nietzsche and anybody else.

[Anonymous No.11375759]

>>11375735
Ah, another case of only knowing Kant's moral philosophy

[Anonymous No.11375763]

>>11375758
>only read philosophers you can reconcile

nigger fucking what

[Anonymous No.11375766]

>>11375758
What?

[Anonymous No.11375768]

>>11375763
Do you ever read anything more contemporary?

[Anonymous No.11375770]

>>11375768
I'm not the guy youre asking. if you're interested in philosophy you'd read everyone you can get your hands on, from Aristotle to Zizek

[Anonymous No.11375771]

Ta-Nehshi Coates is my favorite philosopher

[Anonymous No.11375774]

>>11375770
False

[Anonymous No.11375777]

>>11375774
ok

[Anonymous No.11375783]

>>11375756
>>11375763
So you enjoy reading contradictory philosophies and respect wildly disagreeing philosophers, yet get buttmad at Kant, one of the most important theorists who ever lived?

[Anonymous No.11375788]

>>11375783
im not the op you tard. anyone whose afraid of contradiction shouldn't be reading philosophy

[Anonymous No.11375803]

>>11375771

[Anonymous No.11375849]

I don't read him for the same reason I've never watched Fight Club. Growing up it's always the worst sort of mouthbreathers that constantly talked about the movie and kept telling me that I had to watch it and I wanted nothing to do with them. Now when I talk about philosophy those same sort of people keep telling me I have to read Kant. I suspect they don't even know what Kant has to say about anything that isn't found in a 3 minute Youtube video because they're utterly incapable of explaining their reasoning after telling me "Kant totally refutes this and that" and acting like they've won a point.

[Anonymous No.11375852]

>>11375718
>a brainless
Sure, OP.

[Anonymous No.11375854]

>>11375739
Who is she? Always love reading a Kant specialist.

[Anonymous No.11375875]

>>11375745
Aristotle and Plato, Averroes too he makes a great defense of previous works.

[Anonymous No.11375887]

>>11375849
You might as well skip out on Plato too, because most of the people who namedrop him are "mouthbreathers" as well. He's still one of the most important thinkers ever, whether people are faggots are not, and if you refuse to read him for a reason like that then you're the "mouthbreather." There's a reason everybody says you have to read him, and it's the same reason you have to read Plato, Aristotle or Descartes if you're interested in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11375888]

>>11375718
>tfw just started the transcendental dialectic today

can't WAIT to see cucks who try to apply the ideas of reason transcendentally get blown the fuck out

HAIL CRITIQUE FUCK SOPHISM!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11375890]

>>11375849
>I don't want to be smart
>because people are fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.11375893]

>>11375854
Kant on Practical Life: From Duty to History (Cambridge University Press; 2013;
paperback 2015)

[Anonymous No.11375894]

>>11375887
>t. haven't read Plato
Plato is a great introduction.

[Anonymous No.11375897]

>>11375887
I have never had anyone appeal to Plato in an argument let alone refuse to explain why they're appealing to Plato. Kantians are an entirely different breed.

[Anonymous No.11375907]

>>11375897
>I have never had anyone appeal to Plato in an argument let alone refuse to explain why they're appealing to Plato
Let me be the first, he can make you understand how obnoxious smartasses are plain assholes authoritarians and he makes you see their treacheries.

Thank The Republic.

[Anonymous No.11375915]

>>11375907
If you actually wanted to make an example it should be relevant to the conversation. You're just talking random shit.

[Anonymous No.11375919]

>>11375915
I provided an example, be specific on what you claim is random.

[Anonymous No.11375937]

>>11375888
There is not even one alternative to Kant

[Anonymous No.11375942]

>>11375919
Even if we suppose your example is pertinent what exactly does it prove? That Kantian fanboys can argue the same way with other philosophers when they think they're proving somebody wrong?

[Anonymous No.11375948]

>>11375942
Proves words can be deceptive and you mustn't stay with the first idea.

[Anonymous No.11375951]

>>11375893
That is an awfully long and peculiar name for a woman to have but I'll be sure to check out her work.

[Anonymous No.11375963]

>>11375948
I can't have a conversation with you because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11375966]

>>11375963
Ok bait. Bye.

[Anonymous No.11375968]

>>11375951
sorry i forgot to mention i am big gay as well; her name is kristi sweet and i thot a book rec would be cool

[Anonymous No.11375973]

>>11375968
Sorry to hear big gay guy. I found her name alright. Have you read this? I might look up her CV later to see what else she has published that is of interest.

[Anonymous No.11375984]

>>11375973
fuck no, guy. i ain't payin for no book that ain't on the syllabus.

[Anonymous No.11375991]

>>11375750
>He doesn't know how much Kant influenced Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11376005]

>>11375984
Damn son. What was on the syllabus? I want to learn more on Kant.

[Anonymous No.11376006]

>>11375755
>I only read what confirms my beliefs

[Anonymous No.11376016]

>>11376005
i'm having a hard time finding the syllabus, sorry; i took the course over a year ago :-(

[Anonymous No.11376024]

>>11376016
Ahh. RIP. Post latter if the thread is still live or you happen to find it soon :/ I wish more profs would just post their syllabus materials online for everyone to access.

[Anonymous No.11376158]

>>11375718
>Nobody would willingly read this man
I ordered the first volume of his collected works yesterday, try and stop me.

[Anonymous No.11376197]

>>11375718

Nope. Kant is the threshold outside of which pseuds like you will be forever stuck. Beyond that threshold, the true philosophers and intellectuals of this world are having wonderful conversations, sitting in comfortable armchair while smoking pipes of wonderful

[Anonymous No.11376204]

>>11376197
kant is overrated and sterilized philosophy with his autistic emphasis on epistemology and denial of the classical intellectual intuition. thank god for hegel

[Anonymous No.11376217]

>>11375718
>Nobody would willingly read this
retarded thing to say

[Anonymous No.11376291]

I still without getting why /lit/ hate him so much.

[Anonymous No.11376924]

>>11375758
Yoooooooo, this is the dumbest thing i ever read haha

[Anonymous No.11376946]

>>113762915
Critique of Pure Reason is far beyond the grasp of the shit-covered brainlets that clog up 99.99% of this board. That includes me.

[Anonymous No.11376954]

>>11376197
True philosophers and intellectuals sound pretty insufferable then.

[Anonymous No.11376962]

>>11375758
>
>>11375758
How about just reconcile Nietzche period? Oh wait, that's not the point is it.

[Anonymous No.11376971]

>>11376291

because he's too complicated for the teenagers here to understand, so they'd rather posture and call him a fag than actually read him.

>>11376204
yeah gee wonder why a philosopher would be interested in problem of knowledge, least of all because of the historical situation between rationalism and empiricism

[Anonymous No.11376980]

>>11376954
They really are.

[Anonymous No.11376993]

>>11375887
Yet everyone who says you have to read Plato and Aristotle never insists on you reading Sextus or Democritus or even Epicurus. The foundation of philosophies which don't suit their ends are usually entirely dismissed or minimised to general understandings. Yet, these philosophers underpin every system of modern philosophy either merely because of their encounter with other philosophers who are the precursors to people Descartes or Kant or Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11376996]

[Anonymous No.11377060]

Anyone have a link to the thread where anon did a good job summarizing Kant for a brainlet?

Pic related

[Anonymous No.11377069]

>>11376971
yeah gee wonder why other philosophers might get a little tired of the obsession with this problem that has helped transform what is supposed to be path to wisdom into glorified propositional sudoku

kant is not a brainlet by any means but that doesn't mean he's everyone's philosophy daddy, we're allowed to not get sucked into the same problematic he did. his antimonies are bunk anyways, this fixation with what thought can prove only within its self-defined boundaries is honestly a fear of the irrational and unquantifiable. kant can't think the mystical negation/coincidence of opposites, so no wonder his droid brain gets fuckin fried trying to contemplate God, freedom and the soul. Does God exist or not? He neither does nor does not. put that in your pipe and smoke it you prussian autist. oh wow you mean to say the way I process experience is pre-determined by the properties that make me up? Protagoras had an intimation of this 2,500 years ago (albeit at the collective level of humanity). everyone thinks Kant threw open the windows of the subject and blah blah blah when he actually started tying the noose, and based Hegel tried to salvage something of God out of his distinction between representation and the thing-itself but ended up locking the absolute within the same horizon Kant had already begun to build.

also the dude never left his home town and I detect no real struggle or pathos in him which always has a sterilizing effect. but these are the more typical /lit/ brainlet ad hom criticisms which is why I saved them for last

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Jacobi did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.11377090]

>>11377069
>gee
Shut up you stupid twat.

[Anonymous No.11377099]

>>11377060
>summarizing Kant
That's Where You're Wrong Kiddo

[Anonymous No.11377141]

>>11377069
>is honestly a fear of the irrational and unquantifiable

umm no sweaty actually quantity is only one facet of the understanding, do you think the transcendental unifying function of the imagination is "quantifiable?" think again kid

kant can't think the mystical negation/coincidence of opposites

umm yea except he specifically allows for the coincidence of opposites by raising intuition back to its proper place, unlike the rationalist metaphysicians who could admit no coincidence of opposites because they attempted to think things only through rational conceptions??? read the amphiboly

>Does God exist or not? He neither does nor does not. put that in your pipe and smoke it you prussian autist.

lmao wtf do u even KNOW what Kant said about god's existence? shaking-my-damn-head

>also the dude never left his home town and I detect no real struggle or pathos in him which always has a sterilizing effect. but these are the more typical /lit/ brainlet ad hom criticisms which is why I saved them for last

actually he was a virgin which gives you incredible powers.

[Anonymous No.11377145]

>>11377069

jesus christ what the fuck are you talking about.

do you read philosophy? honestly. that's a very serious question.

getting "sucked into the same problematic he did" is precisely what dozens of philosophers did after him.

being and time would have never been written had the transcendental aesthetic never been written. heidegger himself admits that in kant and the problem of metaphysics. that's a fucking metaphysical solution to an epistemological problem.

husserl spent much of ideas 1&2 rewriting the categories of experience, and phenomenology itself is a largely epistemological question stemming directly out of the kantian picture. there is tons of work being done now on the kant-husserl connection, like from julia jansen over at KU. there's no doubt that merleau-ponty was also greatly influenced by kant's transcendental idealism, even if he came to heavy criticize it by phenomenology of perception. you don't think phenomenology attempts to solve a kantian problem directly, namely the relationship between sensuality and knowledge? what the fuck do you call the intuition of ideal essences?

henri bergson likewise "got sucked into the same problematic" as he did by producing tons of work directly related to internal time consciousness. kant's influence is palpable in duration and simultaneity.

what did bachelard call his philosophy of repose? oh yeah, the contrast between scientific rationalism and the "free play of the imagination." ever read the fucking third critique? wonder what kant has to say about aesthetic reflection. thankfully he wrote a whole fucking book on the matter.

foucault's discussion of the archeology of epistemology is fully analogous with kant's account of a distributive justice and its parts. did foucault also "get sucked into the same problematic"?

"kant can't think the mystical" -- no shit, he heavily criticized swedenborg for decades for making constant and critical metaphysical mistakes. if you have a critique here, especially after reading the Religion and not merely just regurgitating Hegel, please feel free to expound.

do you really think that kant did nothing but talk about knowledge, the soul, and god?

[Anonymous No.11377202]

>>11377145
Its called schitzophrenia
>we're allowed to not get sucked into the same problematic he did
+problematic =/= noun (verbiage confusion)
>Does God exist or not? He neither does nor does not
+repetitive language
> Protagoras had an intimation of this 2,500 years ago (albeit at the collective level of humanity).
>Individual had (idea held collectively by many)
+difficulties with social ideas and coherent thought

[Anonymous No.11377258]

>>11375718
I didnt read the whole thing, but critique of pure reason was really solid from what i read. Not sure why all the hate

[Anonymous No.11377284]

>>11377258
because OP is just repeating postmodernism hip-critique

[Anonymous No.11377311]

>>11377141
>>11377145
I don't mind the /lit/ attitude when it's backed up by the appropriate erudition. I got nothing to say to you guys. Gj

[Anonymous No.11377324]

>>11377069
Modern philosophy was a mistake

[Anonymous No.11377474]

>>11375991
This. Schiller, who expanded on Kant's aesthetics, also influenced Nietzsche significantly. Though Nietzsche is at odds with Kantian philosophy at a fundamental level.

[Anonymous No.11377737]

>>11375718
I like kant. I read him regularly. Really a fan of his persistence and curiosity towards proving if anything can be known; one of the few Philosphers that is IMO actually responsible in that manner. Sure his shit exhaustive but at least he didnt put out half-hashed ideas.
That being said would he have been diagnosed with autism or OCD? The afformentioned exhaustive attention to detail was.....not normal; not to mention all the weird shit people said about him as a social individual. Wish he had a little journal like kierkegaard (oops i like him too)

[Anonymous No.11377799]

>>11377737

>lived a life dedicated to his ideas and moral purity, one of philosophy's most courageous, ingenious, and tenacious thinkers
>"did he have autism?"

[Anonymous No.11377823]

>>11377202
was this intended to make you look retarded?

[Anonymous No.11377837]

>>11375718
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11377920]

>>11375783
Yes.