/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12722988]

Is it true that he explains Kant better than Kant explains Kant?

[Anonymous No.12723002]

bump

[Anonymous No.12723062]

>>12722988
Schopenhauer is a much clearer writer and I do think he did a great job of explaining and critiquing Kants works. But in truth it's almost impossible to know with exact detail what Kant meant about a lot of stuff because he was very vague about a lot of stuff, defined terms in his own ways, contradicted himself, etc. I spent several years studying Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. The best way to really understand Kant is to read at least two or three summaries of his works by different authors, shouldn't take long. Also read A history of philosophy series by Copleston volume 1 to 6 so that you understand the basic context, which would take a while but would be worth it if you're into philosophy. Then buy "A Kant Dictionary by Howard Caygill" and read Kants books, referencing the dictionary whenever you don't understand wtf Kant is talking about or get stuck. If you do this you are guaranteed to know his works about as clearly as is reasonably possible without becoming an outright scholar in the subject. Then compare your knowledge to Schopenhauer's interpretations of Kant.

[Anonymous No.12723072]

>>12723062
>supplements

[Anonymous No.12723106]

>>12723072
I guess you could read almost two thousand years worth of original texts in philosophy, from the Ancient Greeks all the way up to Kant. If you want to spend the next ten years studying all that philosophy before you get to Kant, by all means, do that. But I wonder if you would need to read it in Latin, Greek and German. Probably need to study those languages before you get started. Good luck anon.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12723115]

>>12722988
He Kan’t

[Anonymous No.12723139]

>>12723106
God tier reply.

How necessary is Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.12723147]

>>12723115
back to >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.12723154]

>>12723139
You absolutely need to understand Aristotle, at least a summary for fucks sake, otherwise you will read through Kants work like a drooling retard.

[Anonymous No.12723155]

In order to add to it in the way he did I reckon he had a more than decent understanding, and like the first poster mentioned barring German autism in the way they write (not necessarily a bad thing) Schopenhauer is not the tenth the obscurantinist and his contemporaries

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12723159]

>>12723147
I Kan’t

I’m from /lit/

[Anonymous No.12723392]

>>12722988
He doesn't explain Kant, he amends him. That's why he recommends you read Kant first.