/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15009654]

How can I de-Hume and de-Kant myself? I’m so indulged in their world views that I cannot take upon metaphysical quests that so many of /lit/ are pursuing.

[Anonymous No.15009658]

read Damascius pbuh

[Anonymous No.15009663]

oh? a dekanting is needed? Sit down, friend, I'm going to tell you all about the will to power.

[Anonymous No.15009689]

Prepare for the most boring 40.000 pages of your life - you will need to read the entire nachlass to properly achieve your goal. You will emerge a better man in a few decades. Read 8 hours a day and play Pharaoh (1999) for one hour each night for optimal progression.

[Anonymous No.15010007]

>>15009654
Read René Guénon (pbuh), brother. He is the only truth.

[Anonymous No.15010877]

>>15009654
I'd recommend start with Johann Georg Hamann. Then perhaps proceed with
>>15010007
Pbuh.

The thing about these gentlemen is they don't really destroy. They just refine.
>>15009663
This is unfounded cope bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15010945]

>>15009654
Stirner.

[Anonymous No.15010965]

>>15010877
>unfounded cope
The irony of launching this critique at Nietzsche is too much

[Anonymous No.15010986]

>>15009654
>de-Hume
You could argue that the propositions of geometry are synthetic but then you would need to
>de-Kant
by arguing that geometrical propositions are analytic--no, then we would be back at the beginning--therefore you must argue that they are merely conventional (synthetic a posteriori)

[Anonymous No.15011012]

>>15009654
You mean how can you de-Hume and de-Jacobi yourself?

May I suggest de-living yourself instead you fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.15011018]

>>15010945
Stirner, apart from his ethics, has contributed nothing of worth when it comes to debating Kant or Hume.

[Anonymous No.15011132]

>>15009663
>Nietzsche
Utterly refuted by Geunon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.15011252]

>>15009689
>Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction
yikes

[Anonymous No.15011257]

>>15009654
Literally everything Kant wrote was wrong. I'm working on a book now that deals with both of them.

[Anonymous No.15011292]

>>15011252
Excellent progress! Only 39.999 and 99/100ths of a page to go!

[Anonymous No.15011459]

>>15011257
Hume has already dealt with you

[Anonymous No.15011472]

>>15011292
Sorry I was unclear, 'yikes' meant something like 'retarded' rather than 'difficult.' Husserl the best example I can think of someone with the most naive concepts and their most complex and thorough account.
E.g. for intersubjectivity we must assume their world coincides with our own. So we must presuppose the spatio-temporal objects exist independently of our experience. And these objects are 'transcendent' because of infinite manifestations.
Do you want me to explain why this is retarded?

>>15011459
bruh his starting point of change refutes his account of causation (as knowable only as a relation of ideas).

[Anonymous No.15011525]

>>15011257
Are you an academic, and if not, how are you going to get it published?

[Anonymous No.15011557]

>>15011525
Haven't decided if I'll turn part of it into a thesis first or just follow my current plan of going into HS teaching instead of academia. If the former: Normal academic shit. If the latter: Not sure yet. Idgaf about it being widely read I just want people who are interested in this stuff to know about it.

[Anonymous No.15011568]

>>15011472
>bruh his starting point of change refutes his account of causation (as knowable only as a relation of ideas).
I like it when you are being specific anon

[Anonymous No.15011610]

>>15010986
Just use Quine's arguments against analytic/synthetic distinction and pray your system doesn't collapse lmao

[Anonymous No.15011628]

I have never met anyone who considered himself a Humean who actually understood Aristotle. Their only exposure to him might be short introduction in a freshmen philosophy but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.15011706]

>>15009654
But why would you? They were correct.

[Anonymous No.15011785]

>>15011628
Is there something in Aristotle that most are missing in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.15012859]

>>15009654
idk maybe read the guys who literally followed Kant. Jsut a hunch though xD
>>15009689
underrated

[Anonymous No.15013713]

>>15011557
Tell us where Kant is wrong before you waste your time writing that drivel

[Anonymous No.15013750]

>>15009654
Hegel

[Anonymous No.15014010]

>>15013713
Go fuck yourself.
I’ll match the haste of Kant’s assertions with the speed of my criticisms. The order of relations of appearance is a form which is given a posteriori but must be a priori. Intuition takes place only insofar as the object is given to us. Our capacity for representation is sensibility, which therefore supplies our intuitions. “These intuitions are thought through the understanding, and from the understanding there arise concept.” A representation is pure if nothing of it belongs to sensation. Therefore pure forms are sensible intuition in general.
That they must be a priori is troublesome, for aren’t what we talk about as pure intuitions necessarily concepts? He would say no, these are discursive expressions of what is responsible. But isn’t there an essential gap? Space is said to be a pure intuition for “one can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it.” Go ahead and try, but even an imagined empty space will bear particular qualities such as colour (most of the time blackness). He may respond that I have taken the source of attributes which is distinct from them and am challenging this pure intuition with a concept.
But to talk of a source of attributes distinct from them is indignant abstraction.* (Go to the end if you don’t know what this means). His attempt to demonstrate it’s a priority is but an exercise in the creation of a fiction of the mind. Space remains a concept, Kant’s space has no existence (a source which is distinct) and so cannot be postulated through this method. Of time he says “we can quite well take every appearance from time.” Need I repeat the procedure? Of these ‘a priori’ things we have no means of thinking/feeling/knowing that they are transcendental. I won’t go into it now, but we can know forms of sensible intuition in general, but there’s nothing ‘pure’ about them.

[Anonymous No.15014015]

>>15014010
*Let’s clarify that the terms experience and existence can be bafflingly treated as separate. But what pertains the substance of both when the concept is called to mind? We don’t have a God’s-eye-view in employing the concept existence, it’s bound by the logos of all thought. Our knowledge of existence is restricted to experience. Using the word to describe a thing never experienced is smuggling vapid conceptions with the airs of an otherwise meaningful concept’s name. Think ‘esse is percepi’ here (developed greatly in Schopenhauer’s ‘the world is my representation’). About Berkeley’s case against Locke on abstract general ideas Hume that it was “one of greatest and most valuable discoveries that has been made of late years in the republic of letters.” To think that there is an idea unperceived is abstraction, like the mind framing to itself the idea of colour absent extension. An abstract idea is formed by abstracting a quality or mode of things from those with which it is united. A general idea is the holding a several particular ideas in mind and the sense of the likeness-difference among them. An abstract idea is something like a definition (for which there is no signification, e.g. the definition of triangle describe right-angle and isosceles, but no triangle is at once right-angle and isosceles). Here’s a tautology for you: Existence is. Abstract general ideas are what Locke called “fictions and contrivances of the mind, that carry difficulty with them.”
Basically Kant tries to abstract qualities of existence which are necessarily united. His method of proof is appealing to their implicit non-necessity of being so bound. These appeals are ridiculous. And so while pure intuitions are conceptually possible, they are unknowable. He’s looking for the source that “must” be there. There’s an essential gap.
Don't come at me with some gay phil of language shit, I can defend how I'm treating concepts.

[Anonymous No.15014131]

>>15009654
This based man saw himself as the only legitimate successor of Hume and Kant and yet he discovered what the metaphysical thing-in-itself actually is (and it's quite close to what Plato and the Buddha thought).

[Anonymous No.15014189]

>>15014131
>This based man saw himself as the only legitimate successor of Hume and Kant
True, and with very good reason.
>and yet he discovered what the metaphysical thing-in-itself actually is
Wrong, re-read the first chapter to Book 2. He never said he discovered what the thing-in-itself is.
>(and it's quite close to what Plato and the Buddha thought).
Bruh wtf are you talking about. Schop calls Plato divine as he and Kant are getting at the noumena. When Schop uses Ideas he's explicitly using them in a refined way post-third man argument. Buddha borrows from Hinduism, and it's here that he agrees with their account (although there's disagreement internally) of maya and brahman/atman. I don't remember a dialogue where Plato argued for that. They just both recognise an appearance/substance distinction (I'm being loose with words here).

[Anonymous No.15014251]

>>15014189
I was rather concerned with introducing him to OP appealingly rather than being pedantically correct. But from what I remember, he does in fact say what the thing-in-itself is, but only insofar as it appears to us, meaning that to other sorts of consciousnesses it might appear differently. Regarding Plato, I was referring to his Unwritten Doctrines and his The One and The Infinite Dyad, not his ideas.

[Anonymous No.15014256]

>>15011132
not even close

[Anonymous No.15014298]

>>15014251
my bad cob
I posted >>15014010
and I was pretty surprised to find that Schopenhauer's essential arguments are air-fucking-tight if you provide an empirical response to Hume, the proof of causation leads into his account of act of will beautifully. Everything the guy has ever said that I disagree with is his Kantian approach. E.g. In his division between Intellectual and Empirical character, and his account of inner-nature. But completely reform-able.

[Anonymous No.15014315]

>>15009654
that's jacobi

[Anonymous No.15014385]

>De-Hume
Wilfrid Sellars - Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind
>De-Kant
Donald Davidson - Essays on Truth and Interpretation & Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective

[Anonymous No.15015300]

bump

[Anonymous No.15015318]

>>15009654
>>15015300
Fall in love with a girl who loves to quote Hume and Kant, have long walks and interesting philosophical conversations, have ice cream on a park bench together, say that you like her, get rejected because she's a lesbian.
I'm not a fan of Western philosophy anymore. Eastern is the way.

[Anonymous No.15015321]

>>15009654
Don't read continental buffons, read the two dogmas of empirism by Quine

[Anonymous No.15015323]

>>15015318
Pleb. She rejected you because you hadn't mastered Kant's Nachlass already.

[Anonymous No.15015538]

>>15015321
>Hume
>continental

[Anonymous No.15015724]

>>15014010
Space and time are not a pure intuitions because they are necessary or universal, but because universal development is incomplete. A concept requires clear limits. Perception of space and time is a precondition for perceiving anything of space or time. They are dimensional substances. At the end of Kant's Aristotelian universe, maybe they will be able to be concepts.

[Anonymous No.15015741]

>>15015538
Yes he's continental, anything before Frege and that it's origin is neither the US nor the UK, is continental

[Anonymous No.15015964]

>>15015318
i know that feel
waiting to meet another interesting woman

[Anonymous No.15016002]

>>15015724
I didn't say that to be a pure intuition means "necessary or universal." See, I stuck to Kant's language so you could read my position and have it make sense. I don't know what you're on about.
What does universal development mean?
What do you mean by clear limits? As ideas? As definitions?
Your use of the term 'precondition' is bizarre if not qualified.
>dimensional substances
Look, change for example is a form of sensible intuition in general (not time), but it is not known a priori or 'purely.'
>Kant's Aristotelian universe
bro I can't read your mind, there's so much that's unclear in what you just said.

[Anonymous No.15016368]

>>15015741
Isn't Hume Scottish?

[Anonymous No.15016552]

>>15016368
I think he's saying Hume did capital-C Continental philosophy not that he was from the continent.

[Anonymous No.15016880]

>>15015321
Two Dogmas is at most a very specific refutation of a linguist form of Kantianism.

[Anonymous No.15016929]

>>15009654
>Kant is keeping me from metaphysics
>Kant's whole project is to enable metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15016960]

>>15010877
>This is unfounded cope bullshit.
what? lol

[Anonymous No.15016965]

>>15015321
two dogmas is just a language problem, it's not that analytic truths don't exist it's that they lend themselves poorly to translation, or at least can't be sufficiently explained or justified in language.

[Anonymous No.15016972]

>>15011472
>Do you want me to explain why this is retarded?
I sure do.

[Anonymous No.15016998]

>>15016965
Revision: Quine things analytic truths are just a mechanic of a self referencing language system that only goes as far as appealing to the system's own arbitrary form, but the analytic relation is still a distinct kind of relation regardless of the range or certainty of its application

Any object of cognition has contents. Assessing the contents is analysis. Even if analysis is imperfect, it is still distinct from drawing connections between objects.

[Anonymous No.15017002]

Did someones life in here really changed after reading shit tons of philosophy books? I just can't believe that some mere human could enlight me on some universal truth with a book. Please refute me, I really want to believe in all of this.

[Anonymous No.15017014]

>>15017002
my life changes after each philosophy book

>I just can't believe that some mere human could enlight me on some universal truth with a book. Please refute me, I really want to believe in all of this.
The fact that you're here with a concept of something you don't know anything about
signals one thing you might end up learning from philosophy

[Anonymous No.15017030]

>>15017002
It might change your life. The really good stuff is the smartest people ever explaining their views on the most complex ideas and problems in an elegant and easy to understand way. The thing is that you have to meet them half way. If you haven't experienced what they're talking about you won't get it, so you also have to lead a full and interesting life to know about the experiences they are describing. You'll definitely get some of it though so it is worth reading. And it is pretty great, the stuff that I do understand feels like someone read my mind and explained my own thoughts back to me better that I understand them

[Anonymous No.15017038]

>>15017014
Yes, we change everytime. But I'm talking about DRAMASTICAL changes. How did it made you happier or improved your life?

>The fact that you're here with a concept of something you don't know anything about
signals one thing you might end up learning from philosophy
Until someone from another school of thought contradict you.

[Anonymous No.15017106]

>>15009689
>and play Pharaoh (1999) for one hour each night
Hello, dangerously based department?

[Anonymous No.15017112]

>>15017038
No, that's what I mean. Pretty much every time I read a work of philosophy I walk away feeling like I got really lucky that I read that particular thing for the particular revelations it gave me. Sometimes it's indirect or even metaphorical, like Leibniz's picture of the universe isn't something I agree with, but did a lot for me with the way I look at things.

>How did it made you happier or improved your life?
I'm admittedly too lazy to explain that and to be honest with you I don't really care for defending philosophy to people. I've gotten a lot out of it but if someone isn't interested in looking into it I don't really give a fuck, but I'll tell you you look stupid for trying to characterize it before looking into it. This is the fundamental difference between people who study philosophy and people who don't... People who don't are full of confident judgments about things they have no familiarity with and have given no thought to and it looks insane to me.

>Until someone from another school of thought contradict you.
Not remotely an issue. No "school of thought" is even consistent in that way, all philosophers disagree and you're meant to disagree with everyone. Some people have a hard time understanding how that isn't an issue. That's the very thing you don't get to understand without studying philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15017173]

>>15017112
>This is the fundamental difference between people who study philosophy
So the fundamental difference is to have familiarity with those philosophic terms so you can make judgments with more credibility? I thought you didn't cared about defending philosophy.

>you look stupid for trying to characterize
No. I just asked questions here.

>People who don't are full of confident judgments about things they have no familiarity with
Don't you believe that there are people who are wiser than you and have a better understanding of reality and yet never touched a philosophy book?

[Anonymous No.15017189]

>>15014010
Look man, I don't mean to be discouraging, but this isn't worth writing on. Anything of value in your Critique has already been said. Are you in grad school? Have you studied Kant at higher academic levels before? I recommend you talk to a prof before wasting your time with such a naive project.

[Anonymous No.15017210]

>>15009654

Philosphy is a matter of taste.
You have a bad taste.
That is nothing someone can heal you from.
You just have a bad taste.

t. thomist masterrace