Kant

[Anonymous No.16180553]

Kant solved philosophy.
Hegel supposedly tied together the loose ends but this is how Kant designed it. Leaving the interpreter to start doing philosophy. We're all supposed our own Hegel. Ironically Nietzche created a dogmatic eternal return to Hegel by attempting to write an undogmatic self expression but ended just being a rant against daddy issues.
That being said, why do you still read Hegel and Nietzche?

[Anonymous No.16180569]

>>16180553
I imagine one day I'll hear an achievement unlocked blip and all those pages will be worth it

[Anonymous No.16180577]

>>16180553
>why do you still read Hegel and Nietzsche?
Nietzsche was a rightful heir to Schopenhauer who was a rightful heir to Kant, Hegel was a charlatan but it's important to be familiar with his writings to realize how wrong you can get when you stray from the main line which proceeds from Kant through Schopie to Neetch

[Anonymous No.16180584]

>>16180553
Pleb here. Do I start with Kant or do I go straight to Nietzsche? I know edgy normies over-blew Nietzsche's ideology to fit their degenerate life choices.

[Anonymous No.16180589]

>>16180577
Nietzsche is in complete opposition to Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.16180598]

>>16180584
don't start with Kant, start with the Greeks and then make your way up to Kant. read Plato and Aristotle, ignore medieval christcuck philosophy, then read Descartes and Hume. you'll be more or less ready to wrestle with Kant

[Anonymous No.16180608]

>>16180598
I'm already done with Plato and Aris"I fuck kids"totle.
I love Plato's idealism, I wonder how Kant differs from him.

[Anonymous No.16180680]

>>16180577
>Hegel was a charlatan
he had a philosophical mind to which no other mind was equal in the history of western philosophical tradition

[Anonymous No.16180707]

>>16180608
>Aris"I fuck kids"totle.
Whoops I confused Aristotle with Socrates.

[Anonymous No.16180719]

>>16180680

Hegel: I ain't gotta do shit. All these thinkers before me did all the work.

Hegelians: Hegel was the pinnacle of hellenic thought

[Anonymous No.16180746]

Kant didn't really say anything original though

[Anonymous No.16180754]

>>16180719
my father is an unironic marxist and actually believes kant is a copletely irrelevant "beginner" when it comes to philosophy and one only needs to read hegel to understand all of phlisophy(or at least all which is relevant); he of course didn't even read much beyond excerpts of hegel. He's a reson for why I will never go into STEM(he's a theoretical physicist btw)

[Anonymous No.16180759]

>>16180754
*philosophy

[Anonymous No.16180761]

>>16180608
If you liked Plato, you will probably like Kant. Make sure to read Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume and maybe Berkeley before Kant (may seem like a lot but the major works are only like 100 pages long so it shouldn't take very long).

[Anonymous No.16180771]

>>16180589
Yes but actually no.

[Anonymous No.16180775]

>>16180608
>>16180761
Kant is the exact opposite of Plato. If you like Plato you should hate Kant.

[Anonymous No.16180776]

>>16180608
>I love Plato's idealism
Then you don't understand what idealism means

[Anonymous No.16180786]

>>16180608
Do NOT ignore medieval philosophy. At least read Boetius, Augustine, Aquinas, Abelardus, Scotus, Ockham.

Then you will be able to understand Descartes, since he qas heavily influenced by the scholastics.

Also, once you understand that Plato'sand Aristotle's disagreements were refined through neoplatonism and the realism-nominalism debate, you will be able to put the dichotomy between Cartesian dualism, Kantian (monism) and Leibnizian pluralism in a whole new light.

Which is necessary if you want to be able to get Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein but also Derrida, Foucault and Lacan.

[Anonymous No.16180789]

>>16180754
Studying Hegel is worth it, more so than Heidegger or Nietzsche.. that does not mean you need to become an ardent follower, just study.

[Anonymous No.16180834]

>>16180786
This isn't true at all. Descartes is so easily understood because of his break with the Medieval tradition, you really don't need any background at all in philosophy to read Meditations since the text eliminates all pre-supposition through the skeptical method. I personally can't think of a single element of Cartesian dualism that would be difficult to grasp for a first time reader without any background in Medieval philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16180844]

>>16180775
Kant was a Platonist himself for a while. And obviously Transc. Idealism is very different from Platonic philosophy, the way that Kant totally turns your world upside down is imo similar to the feeling you get when you first read the Dialogues. I wasn't insinuating that the two share the same positions or anything, just that if one enjoys Plato I assume that reading Kant will be stimulating.

[Anonymous No.16181168]

>>16180553
>Nietzche created a dogmatic eternal return to Hegel
>reading Kant, but not Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who properly followed up on Kant (unlike Hegel)
You don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.16181182]

>>16180553
Cunt lol

[Anonymous No.16181237]

>>16180553
Heidegger considered Kant's critique to be more of an ontological affirming rather than a purely epistomological reducing as is often thought. What he says does this, and makes it obvious in Kant's system, is his use of imagination in it as a thing.

At the least Heidegger continued Kant.

[Anonymous No.16181595]

Is that quote real? I thought Kants biggest achievement was justifying a priori synthetic knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16181607]

>>16180786
I read the Confessions and while I saw certain points of philosophy the work itself didnt seem philosophical in intent. What are Augustines more accessible and introductory hard philosophy books.

[Anonymous No.16181624]

>>16181237

Seems obvious. Isn't that also where the ethical duty comes from? Ontological affirming?

[Anonymous No.16181637]

>>16181237
>>At the least Heidegger continued Kant.
they are both arm chair philosophers who never did what they preached

[Anonymous No.16181683]

>categorical imperative
>perpetual peace
lmao

[Anonymous No.16181690]

>>16180553
Well, Kant actually destroyed philosophy and did what the Sophists never had the knowledge to accomplish themselves; he reduced philosophy to experience. After Kant, only analytic philosophy has any real validity, which is fine, but shows that philosophy is broken coming into the 21st century, so it can't inform civic society like we imagined in the late 20th century that it would. All we got for trying to make philosophy guide civic society was post-modernism, which is just an influential school of Sophism.

[Anonymous No.16181714]

>>16181690
>After Kant, only analytic philosophy has any real validity
How on earth can you say this? If you understood Kant like Schopenhauer did, there is no going backwards before Kant, which the analytics tried doing. They are just reminiscing on older attitudes and problems, not actually philosophizing.

[Anonymous No.16181720]

>>16180844
Kant is an Aristotelian.

[Anonymous No.16182017]

>>16181168

Isn't the master/slave Hegel? Isn't everyone stuck up N's ass about master/slave when the whole point is not to be?

[Anonymous No.16182136]

>>16182017
Hegel's dialectical bullshit has little to do with Nietzsche and his ideas. Read Kant -> Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche for the more accurate understanding.

[Anonymous No.16182231]

>>16180746
this, he's just a more convoluted version of Descartes, Leibniz, Cudworth, et al.

[Anonymous No.16182383]

>i can only gain knowledge through intellect, or i can only have knowledge when im aware
Isnt all this obvious

[Anonymous No.16182815]

>>16181720
No he isn't, Transcendental Idealism is totally incompatible with Aristotle's epistemology. Kant himself never identified as an Aristotelian. Aristotle is a direct empirical realist,almost a nominalist whereas Kant is a firm Conceptualist/indirect realist.