Start with Kant!

[Anonymous No.16842174]

>start with the Greeks
What's the use? Besides almost nobody (including those who tell you to) has actually done it.
Instead start with Kant, especially Critique of Pure Reason. It's not and easy read but it's clear and (if you know your definitions, which isn't hard 'cause Kant keeps repeating them all the times) im no way confusion at all. Kant solves almost all questions on metaphysics, epistemology and phenomenology, including those believed to be modern.
There was never a greater mind than Kant (just ignore bis ethics).

[Anonymous No.16842183]

>>16842174
nice non /lit/ related pic

[Anonymous No.16842204]

eva is one of my favorites . love me those vampire girls

[Anonymous No.16842205]

>>16842174
Start with Deleuze, then go back to Kant a year later for historical context.

[Anonymous No.16842244]

I'd start with her can't

OP fell victim to one of the classic blunders: Never post a picture of a woman who is more interesting than your subject matter. Also never shimmy into a land war in asia.

[Anonymous No.16842402]

>>16842244
Don't care if people start a discussion in this thread. It's just about spreading the message.

[Anonymous No.16842534]

(You) need to start with the greeks to have formed yourself and be ready mentally to consider actually pertinent matter.
It is true though that Philosophy really only truly starts with Kant and then near every erstwhile philosophy is then obsolete.

[Anonymous No.16842573]

>>16842534
In what why does reading the Greeks form you? You don't need them to read Kant

[Anonymous No.16842619]

>>16842573
Not directly for Kant (since really only a rudimentary understanding of Platos ideas and Aristotles' categories are even just mentioned in CopR), but you would definitely want to read Descartes, Hume, Berkley, leibniz for Kant and to follow their philosophical rigor or method a well formed mind is necessary.
If you can achieve that without the Greeks, fine, but I doubt the other media you will use to educate yourself will be actually superior to simply reading greeks.
Plus knwoing Heraclit, Parmenides, stoics, epicureans is also going to be useful for reading philosophy after Kant (and with the last two even for Kant himself) since they are often used at least as a refrence if not as a foundation for new thought.
>In what why does reading the Greeks form you
you actually learn to think properly and independantly; this is beyond obvious.

[Anonymous No.16842654]

>>16842174
>What's the use? Besides almost nobody (including those who tell you to) has actually done it.
I've done it/I'm doing it.
START WITH THE GREEKS!!!!

[Anonymous No.16842680]

>>16842174
Kant was refuted by Guenon

[Anonymous No.16842714]

>>16842174
Holy fuck i love eva

[Anonymous No.16842717]

>>16842680
How?

[Anonymous No.16842720]

>>16842174
kant was a brainlet

[Anonymous No.16842735]

>>16842619
>I doubt the other media you will use to educate yourself will be actually superior to simply reading greeks.
Other Media? Just read the source material.

[Anonymous No.16842741]

>>16842714
Ikr

[Anonymous No.16842764]

>>16842619
>you actually learn to think properly and independantly
Something you definetively achieve by reading Kant

[Anonymous No.16842767]

>>16842174
in which movies does this whore show her tits?

[Anonymous No.16842774]

>>16842720
>hasn't actually read him

[Anonymous No.16842779]

>>16842174
I loved her puffy nipples in The Dreamers. Later movies she lost the puffy nipples. Why bros?

[Anonymous No.16842783]

>>16842767
The Dreamers. There is actually a while sex scene (I think eben more than one). Also in many other films, just use Google.

[Anonymous No.16842795]

>>16842717

>Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an 'empty space' is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant's too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask 'whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space' is a question that has absolutely no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.

- ريني غينون

[Anonymous No.16842798]

>>16842779
she was no longer a young 20 y/o with perky tits and puffy nips

[Anonymous No.16842836]

>>16842795
>doesn't even know that Kant proved space is a thing in itselve but a mere form of the human mind in which it perceives things.
>Probably hasn't even read him and if clearly didn't understand anything

[Anonymous No.16842852]

Someone here ever been to cunt strasse?, Berlin

[Anonymous No.16842859]

>>16842774
>the mind is split into 3 parts w those split even farther
>where does the third split come from
>the absence of the other two
>where does metaphysics start kant
>why from the individual
>what about any axioms the individual takes
>why we can't know

[Anonymous No.16842862]

>>16842174
You really didn't need a thotpic to start this discussion. Fuck kant

[Anonymous No.16842873]

>>16842852
I probably have

[Anonymous No.16842875]

>>16842852
>tfw ywn live on Kantstraße
why even live

[Anonymous No.16842882]

>>16842174
Kant was a spiritual semite, who was a retard and wrong about everything.

[Anonymous No.16842888]

>>16842174
Suspicious digits deny the factualness of this post.

[Anonymous No.16842891]

>>16842888
Based trips of denial

[Anonymous No.16842893]

>>16842888

[Anonymous No.16842902]

>>16842795
>it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions
That's basically what Kant said, je proves space is a condition for the perception of the world.
>whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space
That's not the antinomy. Either it is translated wrong or this retard just didn,t understand. Kant doesn't use the words "limited weithin space", a precise translation would be "limited (eingeschlossen) in terms of time (der Zeit nach)"

[Anonymous No.16842908]

>>16842859
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.16842921]

>>16842888

what are those called again? lazy eights?

[Anonymous No.16843678]

>>16842174
Kant never gives clear and precise definitions and even then they keep changing
His attempt at rigour and clarity fail because he continuously attempts to reassert his previous points.

All that said, Kant is the starting point for any philosophy after him, and is a great place to start.

[Anonymous No.16843883]

>>16843678
>Kant never gives clear and precise definitions and even then they keep changing
>His attempt at rigour and clarity fail because he continuously attempts to reassert his previous points.

Any examples of this?

[Anonymous No.16843901]

>>16843883
Noumena.

[Anonymous No.16843907]

>>16842174
Why is Eva Green so spooky looking? /tv/ could not answer this question to suffice my vice, so I’m thinking the gentlemen of /lit/ should have a chance to prove their superiority

[Anonymous No.16843957]

>>16843901
Could you pls be more specific. In which was are his definitions conflicting wird each other.

[Anonymous No.16843985]

>>16843957
Schopenhauer explains in "World as Will and Representation." Kant's definition of noumena mixes up two definitions (the thoughts of things and the actual things). I'd recommend that book for a more precise explanation.

[Anonymous No.16843991]

>>16843985
thinking kant doesnt understand the difference between the thoughts of things and the actual things is the most insane, poor reading of Kant ive ever heard; i cant even imagine betraying your lack of knowledge of kant in a more heavyhanded way

[Anonymous No.16844011]

>>16843907
she hasn't read Stirner. It's all in the eyes

[Anonymous No.16844019]

>>16843991
Very aggressive! My intention is not to fully explain his beliefs about Kant, merely to recommend someone who criticized Kant for these kinds of things. I can't hope to properly explain Schopenhauer's views on the matter; I'm only trying to shortly summarize them. Read the actual book if you want to criticize the ideas.

[Anonymous No.16844047]

>>16844019
im sorry anon im on a shitposting spree, i didnt even read what you were replying to. ill be nicer

[Anonymous No.16844056]

>>16843991
>>16843985
*the thoughts of things itselve and things itselve
Justing adding context

[Anonymous No.16844061]

>>16842908
How is that bait?

[Anonymous No.16844067]

>>16843907
Read up Feme fatal

[Anonymous No.16844073]

>>16842174
Fuck off I just bought Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics

[Anonymous No.16844080]

>>16844061
Nothing of what you write made any sense in this context

[Anonymous No.16844085]

>>16844073
Political philosophy is mostly stupid anyway

[Anonymous No.16844087]

>>16842908

[Anonymous No.16844096]

>>16844080
He did a 3 part split and he split imagination and his metaphysics is idealism. It's concerned w the individual and only references space and time in regards to the person's ability to understand reality.

[Anonymous No.16844098]

>>16844019
Well actually I was going to read Schopenhauer anyway. By the way, Schopes himself praised the clarity and presiceness of Kants writing

[Anonymous No.16844107]

>>16842795
گنون*

[Anonymous No.16844119]

>>16844098
For then sure. Idealism is crap

[Anonymous No.16844136]

>>16844087
People imagining things would be part 1, he calls it the inner sense or "inner view" (innere Anschauung)

[Anonymous No.16844164]

>>16844096

Putting you're incoherent points into a sentence doesn't make your critique more understandable.

[Anonymous No.16844229]

>>16844136
>>16844164
You're not saying anything. What I said was true

[Anonymous No.16844245]

>>16844229
Well, there is nothing to be true.

[Anonymous No.16844253]

>>16844245
Did he split his mind view into 3 parts with splits on the imagination part?

[Anonymous No.16844266]

>>16844253
??? There is intellect and then there are senses. To imagine something would be the inner sense, activated by the intellect. What the hell are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16844300]

>>16844266
So understanding -- imagination -- senses. I'm talking about this >>16844087

[Anonymous No.16844308]

Just start with White Fragility. All that other stuff is gobbledygook

[Anonymous No.16844319]

>>16844300
Again: Imagination is part of senses. He splits senses into outer sense (what you see) and inner sense (what you imagine)

[Anonymous No.16844456]

>>16844319
It says it's not completely decided. It's not clear

[Anonymous No.16844500]

>>16842619
Johnnie?

[Anonymous No.16844531]

>>16844500
La gente esta muy loca wat thu fack?

[Anonymous No.16844601]

>>16844456
Any text evidence from CPR to prove this?

[Anonymous No.16844613]

>>16844601
Sure see A120 per the image

[Anonymous No.16844765]

>>16844613
Looked it up. It's completly clear. Imagination (like I said here >>16844266 )
is the process of the intellect affecting the inner sense. It's not an own province of the mind.

[Anonymous No.16844897]

>>16842795
guenon was a kantian

[Anonymous No.16844929]

>>16844266
intellect is a sense like the the 5 usual ones
rationalists hate to hear this tho.

[Anonymous No.16844933]

imagine being worse than twitter

[Anonymous No.16844938]

>>16844933
https://youtu.be/fgerL96Df_Y

[Anonymous No.16844940]

>>16842795
Holy... based...

[Anonymous No.16844950]

>>16842795
brainlet

[Anonymous No.16844957]

>>16844929
No it isn't. IT's the ability to have sensations. Thoughts aren't sensations.

[Anonymous No.16844965]

>>16844897
Well, that would explain why nothing written there contradicts Kant

[Anonymous No.16844970]

>>16842619
>you actually learn to think properly and independantly; this is beyond obvious.
The anon you're replying to asked a fairly clearcut question. In what way does reading the Greeks "form" your mind? You wrote a paragraph addressing everything but his question. What is the mechanism responsible for "forming" your mind when reading the Greeks? Why does reading the Greeks do this undefined process better than reading anyone else? What's the metric for a formed mind? How do you know when your mind is formed and independent? Isn't being directed towards a specific work to learn "independence" (the same work everyone else is "independently" directed towards) kind of like fighting for peace? Fucking for war?

[Anonymous No.16844986]

The truth is you can start anywhere. As long as you seriously attempt to understand what you’re reading, you’ll eventually have to look things up fill in the gaps and eventually read the works of previous authors to understand fully.
I started with contemporary analytical philosophy of mind then went back to Kant, then to his predecessors and then to the Greeks (although I’d read bits of Plato and Aristotle).
The goal is understanding, not to tick authors off your /lit/-approved reading list.

[Anonymous No.16844993]

>>16844986
By starting with Kant you will warte less time by reading bs

[Anonymous No.16844998]

>>16844993
If you view reading Plato as wasting time, you're probably in the wrong business. What happened to the joy of learning?

[Anonymous No.16845009]

>>16844998
I didn't refer to Plato, I mean yeah he wrote lots of metaphysical nonsense (at lest from what I know from second hand source, haven't actually read him) but you can surely take something out of it. I was referring to writers like Hegel.

[Anonymous No.16845429]

>>16842174
Immanuel Kant and its consequences were a disaster for philosophy and metaphysics.
Start with the book by Régis Jolivet, it is much more practical

[Anonymous No.16845485]

>>16845429
>Immanuel Kant and its consequences were a disaster for philosophy and metaphysics.
Why? Have you actually read him?

[Anonymous No.16845595]

>>16842174
>What's the use?
It's as if you haven't read Aristotle and Plato. You read Plato for the wonderful prose and because he dealt with almost every big question pertaining to our existence, our foundations of society etc., and you read Aristotle, even though he's absolutely awful to read like Kant and Hegel are, for those rare moments of sheer brilliance that he's known and appreciated for. Not to mention that the way he writes is how philosophy is *expected* to be written, something Kant was later to be blamed as well. Fuck Aristotle and fuck Kant, philosophy should have been written like Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16845600]

>>16845009
People that call Hegel bs a) haven't read him and b) don't understand him. It's easy to dismiss him out of the gate and find his way of writing obtuse and not worth the agony of trying and getting down to business, but once his writings start opening up to you, he actually has a lot to teach you.

[Anonymous No.16845601]

>>16843907
Vaguely racoonish eyes.
Not sure if makeup or her natural coloring

[Anonymous No.16845620]

>>16843907
You know, I have spent time pondering the subject for years now, and with my recent acquired attraction for Siouxsie (the OG goth queen), I have to say it's because both her and Eva are the peak examples of the feminine mystique at work and just how hot that truly is. In every sense of the word, those two are strange and don't conform to our conventional ideas of what is seen to be attractive and what isn't.

[Anonymous No.16845632]

>>16845600
Tell me, what does he have to teach?

[Anonymous No.16845636]

>>16845632
http://htmlgiant.com/random/the-beginners-guide-to-hegel/

[Anonymous No.16845660]

>>16845595
>because he dealt with almost every big question pertaining to our existence,
And does he give proper answers?

>those rare moments of sheer brilliance that he's known and appreciated for.
Any examples?

>Fuck Aristotle and fuck Kant, philosophy should have been written like Nietzsche.
Why?

[Anonymous No.16845667]

>>16845636
I'll definetively read it. Can you give me any profound insights you take knowledge of by reading him now?

[Anonymous No.16845711]

>>16842174
ok, but only because Eva Green says it

[Anonymous No.16845715]

>>16845601
It is makeup. Google ‘Eva Green no makeup’
She’s a lot more normal looking without

[Anonymous No.16845720]

>>16845660
>And does he give proper answers?
Does he need to? Yes he does, but read him and see for yourself if he does for you specifically.

>Any examples
Well, he says in The Nicomachean Ethics that you need to figure out the good happinesses that bring you joy, and to avoid the bad ones so as to not feel miserable, and that that's what ethics are about. Note that he didn't say that you need to do things that *are* considered good, so it's hell of a claim. And that's something that we take for granted way too much and something that spoke to me, personally. As well as him saying that we are "confused" whenever we lose track in life. Stuff like that, not to mention he went into detail about A LOT of things (physics, metaphysics, mused on art etc.) and was quite different from Plato in his approach to doing philosophy and just thinking in general.

>Why?
Have you read them? Despite how great and influential they are, they are so dry and boring to fucking read, holy shit.

>>16845667
I don't care to elaborate because it's more personal than anything so see no point in doing so, but once you get around Hegel's way of writing and start *getting* him, he's still a pain to read but it's well worth it for segments like this:

"Death - if we wish so to name that unreality - is the most terrible thing there is and to uphold the work of death is the task which demands the greatest strength. Impotent beauty hates this awareness, because understanding makes this demand of beauty, a requirement which beauty cannot fulfill. Now, the life of Spirit is not that life which is frightened of death, and spares itself destruction, but that life which assumes death and lives with it. Spirit attains its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment. It is not that (prodigious) power by being the Positive that turns away from the Negative, as when we say of something: this is nothing or (this is) false and, having (thus) disposed of it, pass from there to something else; no, Spirit is that power only to the degree in which it contemplates the Negative face to face (and) dwells with it. This prolonged sojourn is the magical force which transposes the negative into given-Being."

[Anonymous No.16845892]

>>16842174
I subscribe to everything you say about Kant, but some Plato and Aristotle sure cannot be that bad to add - especially because Platonic ontology can really help to understand what kind of entities the categories are.

[Anonymous No.16845990]

>>16842174

[Anonymous No.16846011]

>>16845990

[Anonymous No.16846044]

>>16845990
>>16846011
Is this dialectic?

[Anonymous No.16846052]

>>16846044

[Anonymous No.16846069]

>>16846011

[Anonymous No.16846115]

>>16846069