[ 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: 36 KB, 400x567, immanuel-kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15532630 No.15532630 [Reply] [Original]

How do you read Kant?

>> No.15532645

>>15532630
With the eyes, but I heard that blind people read with the hands

>> No.15532707

>>15532645
do blind people have the same categories as people who were born with sight?

>> No.15532712

>>15532630
more like KUNT

>> No.15532745

>>15532630
You simply understand that his Noumena/Phenomena is basically a sophisticated ripoff of Plato's forms and don't bother.

>> No.15532808

serious question: I'm already very sympathetic to something like Kantian epistemology. would I get anything out of schlogging through the CoPR? I have the impression that he's outdated in a way most great philosophy isn't; reconciling Newton, Euclid, Aristotelian logic, and Hume was an admirable task in his day, but now 3/4 of those things are irrelevant.

for a modem innatist, is Kant still useful? or just a long winded badly written museum piece? Kant bros pls advise.

>> No.15533124

>>15532630
*chuckles* one page at a time brother, one page at a time.

>> No.15533147

>>15532630
by keeping in mind that he was refuted by Guenon and only has worth anymore as something to read if one wants to understand the historical development of modern western philosophy, but he should under no circumstances be taken seriously

>> No.15533554

>>15532745
t. hasn't read Kant (or Plato, so it seems)

>> No.15533586

>>15532808
Trying to figure out which 3 of those 4 is irrelevant
Newton is still used and taught, it's still a good model even though general relativity is more accurate.
Euclid is obviously still relevant.
Aristotelian logic and Hume I guess you could argue are irrelevant but again, they're still taught and studied.

>> No.15533646

>>15533586
>all of physics post-Einstein
>non-Euclidian geometry
>formal logic

>> No.15533677

>>15532808
He and Hegel are still deeply influential and deeply relevant both as works on their own and to the current field of academic philosophy.
However he is, like Hegel and like many other German philosophers, is an absolute autist that tried to make a whole water tight systematic framework, which of course didnt work, and so parts of it are outdated or wrong. read it with good secondary literature, and/or follow some lectures on it (there are few very good ones on youtube)

>> No.15533683

>>15533646
Have you ever taken a physics course? You learn Newtonian physics way before General Relativity.
The existence of non-Euclidian geometry doesn't render Euclidian geometry irrelevant, Euclidian geometry is still more relevant than non-Euclidian geometry.

>> No.15533731

>>15533683
can't tell if you're misunderstanding me on purpose or not. I don't mean that Aristotle, Newton, and Euclid have somehow become wrong since Kant's day, but that they're all radically incomplete in ways he couldn't have accounted for and which (I suspect) might render a lot of the CoPR outdated and irrelevant.

>> No.15533769

Nice thread to what for, deserves a bump.

>> No.15533780
File: 1.77 MB, 415x415, 1524423171632.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15533780

>>15532630

>> No.15533801
File: 289 KB, 1024x652, 1578741582420.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15533801

>>15533683
>non-Euclidian geometry
AHHHHHHHH SAVE ME NIGGERMAN

>> No.15533807

>>15532630
only after reading everything that came before him, of course

>> No.15533838

>>15533731

the critique is not outdated or irrelevant. No one has refuted Kant

>> No.15534016

>>15532712
Based

>> No.15534019

if you cant read kant on the shitter youre never gonna make it. how's that for synthetic a priori judgments bitch

>> No.15534345

>>15534019
Kek

>> No.15534471

>>15532630
that isnt kant

>> No.15534534

>>15533646
>non-Euclidean geometry
t. massive brainlet lmao. This is essentially equivalent to saying that the discovery of the complex plane made counting numbers irrelevant. Euclidean geometry is more relevant than non-Euclidean in almost every practical context, and, as the definition of non-Euclidean geometry is a geometry in which at least one of Euclid's five postulates is not true, most non-Euclidean geometries end up essentially being extensions or variations of Euclid's original framework.

>> No.15534714

>>15533838
Hume did by accident, because Kant is only a poor attempt at a refutation of Hume.

>> No.15534816

>>15532630
>How do you read Kant?

What, do you mean to say that you... Kan't?
heh

>> No.15534833

>>15532745
>t. watched a rap video on philosophy once.

>> No.15535389

>>15534019
Based