Why do people say Kant is difficult to understand?

[Anonymous No.14166166]

He’s repetitive and boring, but I honestly don’t see why people think he’s particularly hard to read. Am I just a brainlet who is misinterpreting him?

[Anonymous No.14166253]

How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?

[Anonymous No.14166256]

>>14166253
Wtf is that?

[Anonymous No.14166259]

>>14166256
Read an epistemology book.

[Anonymous No.14166261]

>>14166256
I thought you read Kant

[Anonymous No.14166273]

>>14166261
That’s not OP

[Anonymous No.14166296]

>>14166273
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.14166298]

>>14166253
Through our modes of experience. It’s impossible to have synthetic a priori knowledge of things in themselves.

[Anonymous No.14166300]

>>14166261
I Kant.

[Anonymous No.14166302]

>>14166298
D+. You should be able to do better if you're gonna talk shit

[Anonymous No.14166304]

>>14166296
No it isn’t. I’m OP.

[Anonymous No.14166317]

>>14166302
The fuck you want me to do? Write an academic paper? You’re probably mad because you think understanding Kant is some sort of badge of honor lmao.

[Anonymous No.14166336]

>>14166317
Nah, I just like tripping up loud-mouthed pseuds with easy gotchas. Anything is better than "modes of experience": via a faculty, via the determinations of space and time, via the essential form of experience in its accordance with the rules of synthesis, etc.

Talk shit, get hit, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14166345]

>>14166336
When was I talking shit? I’m pretty much asking for advice here. I have no clue if I’m interpreting him correctly. And fuck your pseud language lmao, you got what I meant.

[Anonymous No.14166353]

You’re definitely a brainlet if you can’t decipher the nuance of Kant.

[Anonymous No.14166362]

>>14166345
That Kant believed our experience of the world is conditioned by the subject is Kant 101, an easy fallback for pseuds who are incapable of demonstrating a deeper grasp of his system.

If you're not OP, I apologize.

[Anonymous No.14166367]

>>14166362
You literally asked me though? Ask basic questions get basic answers.

[Anonymous No.14166368]

You need to know the historical context of his writings, especially religion

[Anonymous No.14166375]

>>14166367
Stop making excuses. Either humble up and read, go do something else, or just whatever, but don't talk shit or you'll get shown up

[Anonymous No.14166379]

>>14166368
What do you suggest? Honestly just want to get into Kant but apparently undergrad philosophy students can’t stop sperging out.

[Anonymous No.14166385]

>>14166375
What the FUCK are you on about? When was I talking shit? When did you show me up? Are you a fucking schizo?

[Anonymous No.14166391]

>>14166385
I already said if you're not OP then ignore my posts, if you are you're a fucking faggot, not that difficult to follow dude goddamn

[Anonymous No.14166397]

>>14166391
You asked a basic question, I answered it. You’re angry because I wasn’t phased by your philosophize this pop quiz. I’m sorry your fragile intellect is hurt, hopefully you’ll get over it someday.

[Anonymous No.14166437]

Is masturbation against the categorical imperative? It sounds like you're using your body as a mere means to the end of pleasure instead of treating yourself as an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.14166440]

>>14166253


I’m the OP.. to answer your question they are made absolute by the removal of any contingency. There is a persistent dialectic between the world-geist and the primordial, which instills in all of us the possibility of synthetic a priori judgement.

[Anonymous No.14166446]

>>14166379
Where are you at in the critique of pure reason? I actually agree with you to some extent, though I found the transcendental deduction hard until it was over and I got it. I got stuck midway through it a couple times.
Yeah Kant isn't as hard as people say. He's not even close to being as difficult as Hegel.
Even Aristotle can be harder for me to understand. Actually worth the work too, in my opinion.
>>14166336
"Modes of experience" isn't that far off from faculty or anything else you said. Space and time could be considered modes of experience, and experience encompasses not just passive perception but spontaneous judgement, which also has modes - the types of the judgements on the table of judgements corresponding to the categories.
Why are you trying to start shit? It was a somewhat vague answer but to be precise you would have to write a lot more than necessary.

[Anonymous No.14166468]

>>14166446
OP here, thanks. I’m a little over a quarter of the way through critique.

[Anonymous No.14166469]

>>14166379
Well i am convinced the most accurate interpretation relates kant with the "rational theology" stuff going on at that time. Authors like descartes, Locke, Leibniz, newton, Rousseau. I guess you can look into their takes on religion and reason.

Hume was very critical of it e.g. his dialogues on religion, the enquiry on human understanding and many essays (i especially reccomend "on superstition and enthusiasm"). Since religion was necessarily tied to human action with "laws" derived from God's nature e.g. in Locke's philosophy and his claim that suicide is immoral because you ate God's "property". Hume just said you cant really know god at all because reason is nothing without experience and metaphysics are just beyond our capability.

Kant tried to mediate and have both universal ethical laws but without surpassing human capacity of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14166470]

>>14166437
Absolutely not. Cooming is part of the categorical imperative, interpreted correctly. You don't accomplish anything by masturbating. The coomer doesn't coom for pleasure, they coom because they have to, it's their nature to coom. Since it's a completely purposeless activity, it's the opposite of using yourself as a mere means.

[Anonymous No.14166472]

>>14166446
That guy is not OP, I am. I think the guy talking shit is also pretending to be the OP to start fake arguments.

To reply to the meat of your post, you make some great points but overall your presentation belies the touch of an amateur. I found myself moved neither higher nor lower by reading your post, but overall you are doing a great job. I really am proud of you, you have been on a good path lately.

[Anonymous No.14166473]

>>14166446
It's a perfectly fine answer I'd never shit on anyone for, but I wrongly assumed arrogance where there was none. For that I apologize.

These philosophers take work. Anyone who thinks Kant is easy skimmed the Transcendental Deduction. He really isn't THAT bad - line-by-line he's perfectly comprehensible, the system starts to coalesce despite itself, but if you asked me to draw it out and put the figurative synthesis here and the productive/reprodutive imagination there, the pure ideas of the understanding over here and the pure schemas and schematisms of the understanding over there... it's rough going for anyone who isn't a Kant scholar.

[Anonymous No.14166478]

>>14166472
You're an odd one.

[Anonymous No.14166479]

>>14166472
Lmao fuck off dude. Wipe the Cheetos off your shirt, you lost an Internet fight. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.14166483]

>>14166440
Based

[Anonymous No.14166487]

>>14166437
kant was retarded

[Anonymous No.14166491]

>>14166479
I didn’t eat any cheetos, I was not in a fight. There’s a fake OP who is trying to argue about the categorical imperative being burdened with metaphysical crosstalk, and I didn’t condone it.

I did not eat Cheetos, first of all

[Anonymous No.14166498]

>>14166491
Now I’m confused

[Anonymous No.14166503]

>>14166473
I think maybe “you” just don’t get it...

These concepts can be mapped out with the proper tools, for the layman.

[Anonymous No.14166509]

>>14166491
I'm the OP. Please disregard this post, he is trying to hijack my thread

[Anonymous No.14166511]

im OP, AMA

[Anonymous No.14166514]

kant is very difficult to read... i cant help but think that people who say kant is easy to understand have either only read the prolegomena and maybe the transcendental aesthetic, or have a very entry level understanding of kant. it is true, some of his works are extremely clear. the prolegomena is clear, the groundworks for the metaphysics of morals is clear, and the early parts of the first critique are, for the most part, very clear and neat. but things get extremely messy as the first critique goes on, especially if one pays attentions to the precise definitions he tries to give, one sees that he often elides earlier distinctions he makes in quite confusing conceptual moves. its pretty easy to find quotes in the critique which completely contradict each other.. not to mention the differences between version A and B of the text... even in the very introduction of the critique kant gives a very different definition of the transcendental in the two respective versions.. which are we to use? which is better? which is more accurate? even disregarding the chaos that ensues in the later parts of the first critique, another difficulty with kant is trying to fit this all into the larger image of his project.. what is all this culminating in? of course he does not make this any easier at all with the third critique where he elides so so many earlier distinctions.. of course it is easy to get a surface level familiarity with kant and the broad strokes of his philosophy but the details are endlessly confusing.. in a lot of ways I think this makes kant more difficult than the german idealists that follow him

[Anonymous No.14166517]

>>14166509
this is not the OP i can tell from analysis of the real OP’s writing patterns

[Anonymous No.14166518]

>>14166166
What the fuck happened here

[Anonymous No.14166525]

>>14166518
reddit happened

[Anonymous No.14166528]

>>14166514
Notice how this guy does not actually address a single of Kanye’s axioms? A massive post with no information, this is why people say this kinds of thing about Elias Kant.

[Anonymous No.14166538]

Fuck this I’m OP and I’m nuking this thread.

[Anonymous No.14166550]

>>14166336
OP here.. thought about what you said here and realized you’re right. I was being aggressive, and I asked for it. I guess I didn’t want to admit it then.

Thanks, man. I’d be proud to call you my father.

[Anonymous No.14166553]

>46 posts
>11 posters

[Anonymous No.14166568]

>>14166550
Lmao such an ebic troll XD.

[Anonymous No.14166580]

>>14166568
Time to go to bed, child.

[Anonymous No.14166878]

>>14166166
Because he is difficult to read.