[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 154 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14771090 No.14771090 [Reply] [Original]

So do I have to read the critiques in order? I am only interested in the Critique of Judgement so can I just skip to that?

>> No.14771110
File: 1.05 MB, 2500x1844, 1581957880454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14771110

>I dont want to read the entire works of the most influential philosopher, nay man, who has ever lived

>> No.14771120

No, you need the first critique to understand the 3rd. You can skip the second. Read the Prolegomena, CoPR, Groundwork and then go to the CoJ. That's a barebones approach to Kant and should take you around 6 months of in depth study assuming you read around 20-30 pages a day.

>> No.14771125

>>14771120
Is the third critique even worth reading when we have Schopie's aesthetics?

>> No.14771182

>>14771125
Yes. It helps you understand Schopenhauer and Schelling. Also the 3rd Critique tackles not only Aesthetics but Teleology, both are quite integral to the completion of Kant's system. I suppose if you really don't care for Kant you could just read the first Critique, but I think that getting his full system down is pretty essential.

>> No.14771207

If you really only care about the third critique you could probably just read a secondary source on it. Zammito's Genesis or Richards' Romantic Conception probably. It's hard to read the third critique, it's a lot of work before you get to the "good bits" that everybody wants (the teleological aspects like >>14771182 says, as well as the discussions of genius) and that influenced the romantics so much. If you are bored by Kant and don't already know his basic thesis and architectonic you will probably get filtered quick.

>> No.14771697

>>14771207
Can you recommend books that explain first and second critiques. I just want to understand kant before getting into schopenhauer and nietzsche. Thanks

>> No.14771711

>>14771120
good approach

>> No.14771746

>>14771697
Beiser is the best scholar of German idealism but I forget how much he actually explains Kant. Fate of Reason I think starts AFTER Kant. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism is mostly concerned with post-Kantians as well, and I remember it assuming a fairly high level of acquaintance with German idealism, but you could look there first. The first few chapters should be on Kant.

I'm not sure about general books on Kant. Maybe Cassirer's biography? I am forgetting something obvious so I'll try to remember and come back and recommend it if I can.

>> No.14771793

>>14771746
Thank you fren :)

>> No.14771862

Maybe a stupid question, but what edition/translation for Critique of Pure Reason should I use? Is there a chart of pros and cons or something?

>> No.14771915
File: 17 KB, 500x336, 7842EFF6-8D16-40ED-B0DF-739E798126D5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14771915

>>14771090
>ask parents for CoPR
>they get me a shitty study guide for it instead of the actual book

>> No.14772007

>>14771862
pluhar

>> No.14772146

>>14771120
You could read the groundwork as an introduction to Kant. The prolegomena is optional for beginning CoPR but puts you on the right path and gives a taste of Kant’s styling.

>> No.14772180

>>14771915
Appreciate your parents' attempt to make you happy, go hug your mom right now

>>14771862
Cambridge, Guyer is the standard that literally every college course will use for the next 50-100 years

If you have some super special hipster reason to read one of the others go for it, but don't listen to hipster faggots trying to seem like they have some inside scoop on Kant translations, Guyer is very good

>> No.14772225

>>14771090

I watched a video on Kant by philosophytube on YouTube. Apparently Kant is a racist so don't bother with him.

>> No.14772326

>>14772146
I disagree, I think a lot of the ideas in the Critique are essential to understanding the main thrust of Kant's ethics presented in the Groundwork.

>> No.14772329

>>14772225
Wasn’t that his complaint with Heidegger?

>> No.14773001

>>14772225
Bait

>> No.14773045

>>14773001
He is right about Kant being racist though. I am still trying to reconcile his cosmopolitanism with the terrible things he said.

>> No.14774322

>>14773045
>racism
>terrible

>> No.14774373

>>14772329
>>14773045
Isn’t it strange that all these intelligent and influential figures happened to have a disdain for coloureds? It’s almost as if blacks in the 1700’s were as intolerable as today’s.

>> No.14774890
File: 273 KB, 629x577, 1581829036567.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14774890

>>14772225
Racism is objectively correct due to some humans legitimately being different, in some senses superior due to the circumstance in which they evolved, Example; Europeans born in cold and shitty environment, they become the world leading powers, why you may ask? Because adversity breeds innovation, Africans evolved to live in their warm and rich environment by becoming better at reaping what it offers which is why they are inferior, their coddled living in their nice environment.
They have not mentally evolved past hunter gatherer homo sapien mentality, evident in their primitive and impulsive behavior patterns combined with their inherently low IQ

>> No.14775119

>>14774373
Kant literally never met a non-white person in his life, his only source on these people were, lol, colonizers' travel diaries. I assume the same could be said of most pre-1900 intellectuals.
>>14774890
This is not even pseudo-science, it's so dumb it hurts

>> No.14775560

>>14771090
Isn't this guy a racist? why would I ever read the words of someone obviously clouded in his own bubble.

>> No.14775920

>>14771915
Appreciate your parents more.

>> No.14776581

Bump