/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11682344]

Is he the only philosopher to ever effectively refute Kant?

[Anonymous No.11682353]

>>11682344
Try Kevin McDonald and Jordan Peterson instead, cuck

[Anonymous No.11682757]

>>11682353
>reading juden peterstein
Johnstone’s actually redpilled about JQ and HBD. Beautiful prose too.

[Anonymous No.11682781]

>>11682344

[Anonymous No.11682813]

>>11682781
>This book sets out from a counterintuitive premise: the “mystical shell” of Hegel's system proves to be its most “rational kernel.” Hegel's radicalism is located precisely at the point where his thought seems to regress most. Most current readings try to update Hegel's thought by pruning back his grandiose claims to “absolute knowing.” Comay and Ruda invert this deflationary gesture by inflating what seems to be most trivial: the absolute is grasped only in the minutiae of its most mundane appearances. Reading Hegel without presupposition, without eliminating anything in advance or making any decision about what is essential and what is inessential, what is living and what is dead, they explore his presentation of the absolute to the letter.

>The Dash is organized around a pair of seemingly innocuous details. Hegel punctuates strangely. He ends the Phenomenology of Spirit with a dash, and he begins the Science of Logic with a dash. This distinctive punctuation reveals an ambiguity at the heart of absolute knowing. The dash combines hesitation and acceleration. Its orientation is simultaneously retrospective and prospective. It both holds back and propels. It severs and connects. It demurs and insists. It interrupts and prolongs. It generates nonsequiturs and produces explanations. It leads in all directions: continuation, deviation, meaningless termination. This challenges every cliché about the Hegelian dialectic as a machine of uninterrupted teleological progress. The dialectical movement is, rather, structured by intermittency, interruption, hesitation, blockage, abruption, and random, unpredictable change—a rhythm that displays all the vicissitudes of the Freudian drive.

hm, interesting. have you read this, anon?

[Anonymous No.11682840]

>>11682813
>reading this much into "-"

[Anonymous No.11682864]

>>11682813
Dude, all of Ruda's work (including his collaborations) are based

[Anonymous No.11682910]

>he thinks kant can be refuted

[Anonymous No.11683213]

>>11682344
He never effectively did anything.

But he sure could vomit out words.

[Anonymous No.11683265]

>>11682344
Kant actually never succesfully refuted Hume.

Gravy Dave is still the king.

[Anonymous No.11683276]

>>11683265
what are the odds that hume will be /lit/'s next favorite philosopher?

[Anonymous No.11683313]

>>11682344
Heidegger was one that did that.

[Anonymous No.11683322]

>>11683276
i've been humeposting for years on here and i get zero fucking replies to hume related posts

Hume is in my mind the best general thinker that has ever existed except maybe Socrates, as depicted by Plato. He doesn't touch on a number of topics that interest me, but on what he does talk about he is pure gold.

[Anonymous No.11683332]

>>11683322
i've never read him seriously. if you started a thread on him tho and put in some good quotes and things tho for a kind of introduction people might be interested.

no doubt you've done this many times before tho, i feel kind of stupid giving you advice if you've been on this board for years. but it is interesting, even in deleuze's last book he has a section on hume. if there's anyone who can free us from the current reign of terror it's your boy anon.

[Anonymous No.11683351]

>>11683332
Im not like some Hume scholar, it's just whenever I read his stuff i am almost shocked someone could be that clearminded.

A good collection for him is his four dissertations, which are on The natural history of religion, The Passions, Tragedy, The standard of taste.

This is easily comprehensible stuff, on a variety of interesting topics.

His masterpieces are worth reading as well of course but that is an actual effort that has to be put in.

I should also mention that my basic dispositions make me innately opposed to how Hume thinks, i have all sorts of religious stuff percolating in me in confusing ways, but reading Hume is like a counter to all that. My mind is divided between a strange ambiguous understanding of reality that is in flux as i search about, and then a very HUmelike, stable, ordered understanding.

[Anonymous No.11683396]

>>11683351
well, thanks for sharing that, anyways. at least i have a good sense of who i might want to look into next (especially if i want to post some smug images to the rabid deleuze fans who have taken over the board).

thanks also for the recommendations.

[Anonymous No.11684039]

[Anonymous No.11684209]

>>11682353
First post, cringe post.

[Anonymous No.11684251]

>>11682353

>Try Kevin McDonald and Jordan Peterson instead, cuck

Didn't Jordan Peterson have a literal Twitter meltdown over McDonald publically btfoing him on the JQ?

[Anonymous No.11684269]

>>11682813
wish these people were in the starting room from phantom menace but had no lightsabers to escape

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.11684273]

>>11682813
>ambiguity at the heart of absolute
Moronic nonsense

[Anonymous No.11684648]

>>11682813
A great book, almost finished with it. Whether or not you buy it, it's infinitely more interesting than left Hegelian tripe

[Anonymous No.11684684]

>>11683396
>rabid deleuze fans

It's just one asshole spamming shitposts. Like the Kevin McFuck guy.

[Anonymous No.11684697]

>>11682813
good grief what a load of flatulent nonsense

[Anonymous No.11685244]

>>11682353
kek, peterson dosen't understand Kant

[Anonymous No.11685625]

He is literally the only real philosopher in history. Of course he refuted such a hack like Kant

[Anonymous No.11685642]

>>11684697
what are you doing on a literature board?

[Anonymous No.11685780]

>>11682344
No, Kant was effectively refuted long before Deleuze was born.

[Anonymous No.11685823]

>>11685780
Kant was refuted long before Kant was born

[Anonymous No.11685827]

>>11685823
based Neoplatonist poster

[Anonymous No.11685828]

>>11683322
His ethics are, quite honestly, a bit poorly-developed for me. I like the notion that moral judgments stem from sympathy (whether out of approbation or disapprobation), yet I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that, by extension, moral judgments are purely emotive. He seems to reject the idea that reason plays any part in our moral judgments and, perhaps, this means that moral judgments cannot be incorrect or incorrect?

Or does he contend that one can have a 'correct' emotional response and, thereby, a 'correct' moral judgment to a situation?

[Anonymous No.11685842]

>>11685828
incorrect or correct* (for that last part)

[Anonymous No.11686192]

>>11683396
Deleuze liked Hume.

[Anonymous No.11686198]

>>11682910
>he doesn't know about Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.11686257]

>>11686198
LOL

[Anonymous No.11686261]

>>11682344
How did he refute Kant?

[Anonymous No.11686334]

>>11686261
Eh.. rhizomes and territories... and organs!

[Anonymous No.11686537]

>>11682813
No clarity. It's philosophical purple prose for poseurs.

[Anonymous No.11687589]

bump~

[Anonymous No.11687918]

>>11685828
>He seems to reject the idea that reason plays any part in our moral judgments and, perhaps, this means that moral judgments cannot be incorrect or incorrect?
Hume's fork states that all truths are either analytical (true by their definition) or empirical (true by observation). Moral claims aren't analytical, and Hume argues that they can't be empirical either. (I remember his example was that fratricide is considered immoral, but that empirically there isn't a significant difference between that and an animal or a tree killing their progenitor despite the fact that we don't consider the latter morally significant). So yeah, IIRC, Hume's position on morals is that they purely consist of how we respond emotionally to stuff.

[Anonymous No.11689316]

>>11682757
How did that guy write that if he died 14 years ago?