/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18770956]

A few months back there was a thread talking about zoomer philosophy majors who grew up on the internet and have acquired vast amounts of encyclopaedia-level knowledge of obscure 18th century philosophers. What I got from all this is that German idealism is making some sort of comeback in academia (in Europe at least). Can someone confirm if this is true? Seems pretty exiting and would make sense now that even normies are getting desensitized by postmodernism and turning back to romanticism.

[Anonymous No.18771352]

1. Every teenager goes through their edgy philosopher phase
2. They're not reading texts, they're watching YouTube summarization videos about those philosophers. These videos are often sponsored by Great Courses Plus

[Anonymous No.18771364]

>revival of Romanticism in Europe

That might be kind of based honestly.

[Anonymous No.18771548]

>>18771352
Yeah, take them into a room with no 'devices' and see how much they actually remember. Just because they talk about something online 5 seconds after watching a video doesn't mean they have any knowledge of the subject.
Being in lockdown hasn't helped things either. Writing argumentative essays in exams without references other than what's on the exam sheet is important.

[Anonymous No.18771569]

>>18770956
You would have more luck having them read Guénon than Schelling.

[Anonymous No.18771591]

>>18771569
Are we still doing the Guenon meme? Can we please move on to someone else? I'm ready for a new writer to be spammed on the board?

[Anonymous No.18771609]

>>18771591
Guénon (PBUH) is not a meme.

[Anonymous No.18771617]

>>18771364
a revival that lasts for 6 months until it gets killed off by the next fad

[Anonymous No.18771717]

>>18770956
There is in a sense a German idealism renaissance but the problem is that the people that get into them aren't spending the same effort getting into anyone else. And as >>18771352 said they might be reading texts. It's funny that people always seem to read the literature for which there is abundant easy to access commentary, i.e. blogs and videos. Which is the case with German idealism. Nobody discusses Sartre's Being and Nothingness or much of the more arcane analytic metaphysics and philosophy of language by contrast because there's nobody to tell them what it means. Instead they inconspicuously end up reading Plotinus or Heidegger or something that seems deep (not saying it isn't, but by "seems" I mean it also has the reputation very visibly so they learn about it fast) but has been talked about to death by others. I mean for all the German Idealism people the fact /lit/ and most people haven't read Hume closely is tragic, since Hume influenced Jacobi and Hamann with regards to their fideism, and has a lot in common with Kant's transcendental idealism, as recognized by loads of famous Kant scholars like Norman Kemp Smith, Henry Allison, Paul Guyer, and so forth. There's a Robert Paul Wolff article on it I'd recommend. So people as usual gravitate for what's commonly trodden ground, it's not coincidental that they're not treading new ground, they don't actually have the capacity to do so or they would have done so. I love German idealism but I really despair at the fact people just aren't more adventurous with what they read, who they explore.

[Anonymous No.18771738]

>>18771717
sounds like you need to make youtube videos about German idealism. You could be the PewDiePie of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18771780]

>>18770956
>What I got from all this is that German idealism is making some sort of comeback in academia (in Europe at least).
There is a circle of neo-Shelling grads and academics around Iain Hamilton Grant (or influenced by him) in the UK. They've been publishing a lot of secondary lit recently under the "New Perspectives in Ontology" imprint:
https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/series-new-perspectives-in-ontology

Many of the authors have other Schelling lit under different publishers too.

[Anonymous No.18771796]

>>18771717
>Nobody discusses Sartre's Being and Nothingness
good

Plotinus leads to Timaeus, which leads to Schelling, and Böhme - which leads to Hegel

Heidegger leads to Schelling, Hölderlin, Schleiermacher, von Yorck, Eckhart

while Sartre leads to being a pseud sitting at a cafe, or perhaps Fredric Jameson or some shit

>the more arcane analytic metaphysics and philosophy of language by contrast because there's nobody to tell them what it means
omg MODAL METAPHYSICS and CONDITIONALS WOOOW

[Anonymous No.18771811]

>>18770956
>grew up on the internet
>vast amounts of encyclopaedia-level knowledge
this is why they'll fail

knowledge without bounds just leads to shit

[Anonymous No.18771856]

>>18771780
Which is why, as I suspected, >>18771352 is incorrect, or at least is not TOTALLY correct. Some of these people are, in fact, reading texts and offering new perspectives on them. If actual literature comes out of this we could be in for some interesting times ahead.

[Anonymous No.18771992]

>>18771796
How can you be so proud as to broadcast that you are a pseud who hasn't read what he's dismissing like that? Why are you coincidentally reading only things everyone's read and talked about? Come on, tread new ground.

[Anonymous No.18772184]

>>18771856
Also worth mentioning is Jason M. Wirth in the U.S. who has published a number of recent neo-Schelling works, most with SUNY who also publish critical edition translations.
>Schelling's Practice of the Wild: Time, Art, Imagination
>The Barbarian Principle: Merleau-Ponty, Schelling, and the Question of Nature
>The Conspiracy of Life: Meditations on Schelling and His Time
>Schelling Now: Contemporary Readings

[Anonymous No.18772201]

>>18771364
>Romanticism
literally more cringe then enlightenment rationalism

[Anonymous No.18772268]

>>18770956
Speaking for the anglosphere, the general drift of academia seems to be analytic. Philosophy of language, philosophy of science, cognitive science, political philosophy.

But German idealism certainly has a hold, however, it's hard to tell if that really outpaces ancient philosophy, or if it exists which is the same reason - it's enjoyable, it's one of the best phases philosophy has had. Kant is an intellectual titan and his descendants are full of diverse and exciting ideas that are generally validating to the philosophical temperament.

German idealism has gripped academia in the past. Bertrand Russell and his movement was a reaction against German idealism (Britain's version of it, at least) which dominated academia at the time. This wasn't very long ago, and I like to think this is a passing phenomenon.

So I'd like to say yes. I'm a grad student, I see a surprising amount of people who are moving towards German idealism. I am at least, and my best professor right now has been making a lot of suspicious pro-Kant remarks.

Regardless, I don't think postmodernism has much of a grip anywhere. I don't even know any postmodernists, just a couple people who sort of liked Foucault.

[Anonymous No.18772280]

>>18771811
his brain broke from a physical condition he inherited from his father, philosophy was a source of happiness for Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18772303]

>>18772268
The recent trend with continentals seems to be to draw on analytic philosophy and German idealism both for new inspiration. Funny how that works.

[Anonymous No.18772342]

>>18770956
I am not surprised since modern philosophy has never been able to surpass or escape Kant

[Anonymous No.18772399]

im a zoomer its more like a shitton of surface level knowledge with little understanding, none of my friends read they just watch video essays and look at instagram posts about the things theyre interested in

[Anonymous No.18773214]

>>18771352
>>18771548
>>18772399
I'm not talking about zoomers who play Fortnite and have watched a couple School of Life videos on Hegel. I mean upper class oxbridge kids who not only have read the usual suspects but also Maimon, Hülsen, Lotze, Trendelenburg, Vorländer, etc.

[Anonymous No.18773350]

>>18773214
take your meds

[Anonymous No.18773357]

>>18772399
All your friends sound like they'd have been peasants and farm hands back in the day.

[Anonymous No.18773366]

>>18770956
If I spend ten years studying philosophy, and ten years writing it, would I be enlightened or just as confused as everyone else?

[Anonymous No.18773428]

>>18773366
youd be better off studying history and primary source literature.

[Anonymous No.18773447]

Unfortunately a lot of the German idealists were still christcucks so some of the potential of this new generation will be pacified by them; just like the idealists, clinging on to that.

[Anonymous No.18773462]

>>18773447
This, German idealism is L*theran Christshit cope with being refuted by Kant (PBUH) and Schopenhauer (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.18773490]

>>18773214
I was in such a thread but I feel it was longer ago.
To my knowledge the best you get is kids who hyper focus on Neo-kantians, german idealist who read all the important thinkers of 1790-1940s (which then simply include Maimon, Schulze, Reinhold, Jacobi, etc. but nothing truly esoteric that they cant find referenced by one of the main idealists), or cringe analytics who read all the post wittgenstein till early 90s trash.

[Anonymous No.18773518]

>>18770956
Do you think this will actually happen if you keep making threads about it? Such a bizarre notion; I don't know where you even get it from.

[Anonymous No.18773531]

>>18773462
>y'kno, the thing in itself bro, the thing we can't know about according to Kant right? its WILL bro, WILL. just trust me bro, its will. I got arguments too, like, look at yourself - youre a body but also will, can you feel it? so like, just take that and then it also applies to like, rocks and plants and water, and like air bro - no, not taking questions right now - and that means that the WILL is like, in everything man and also the thing in itself
Thanks Schopenhauer, very cool.

[Anonymous No.18773537]

>>18773366
Depends on how much you like it. If you spent ten years studying one philosopher, and ten years writing about them, you would have a very gratifying experience. But I think that goes for a lot of things that have an element of craft to them.
Final resolution isn't likely in philosophy, but you resolve a lot of things on the way to the confrontation with this. The rest of the world rapidly becomes simpler and there will be beauty, excitement, and joy in the process of learning philosophy. It won't hurt you.

[Anonymous No.18773538]

No, they do not exist. And you are a retard if you think they are smart just because they name drop some author from a few hundred years ago or went to Oxbridge. Those places are full of idiots. Philosophy is not meant for young people, and many great philosophers of the past have actually stated this.

[Anonymous No.18773584]

>>18770956
Anyone got a link to that thread?

[Anonymous No.18773587]

>>18773531
yup, I don't see any problems with that position

[Anonymous No.18773589]

>>18773538
>Philosophy is not meant for young people, and many great philosophers of the past have actually stated this.
this is interesting, any quotes? also fucking keked at the guy in the upper left corner

[Anonymous No.18773613]

>>18773531
You know that that's not his argument. We experience volition in our inner sense, but what precisely determines volition? In a proto-psychonalytic feat he shows that volition has its root in the unconscious, the noumenon of the inner sense. The metaphysical argument aside (which you evidently didn't grasp) his focus on the unconscious was the reason Freud and Jung studied him so closely and always cited him as a primary influence.

[Anonymous No.18773617]

>>18770956
Idealism is not coming back in Europe. Philosophy is pretty shit here. Not even marxism has the alure it had.

[Anonymous No.18773665]

>>18773613
It is only fitting that Jung and Freud should consider him a primary influence (in Freud's case it has has more to do with not wanting to admit that he plagiarized Nietzsche - sounds much better to let yourself be "inspired" by Schopenhauer rather than copying entire passages of Nietzsche almost letter to letter - especially in the germanophone intelligentsia of the early 20th century), since Schopenhauer is a better psychologist than he is a metaphysician.

Now, I've tried this talk many, many times with Schopenhauerfags. I present my faceitious reconstruction of him, which isn't even strictly facetious in the argument from analogy - it is that piss poor - and I am told I don't understand it. My position is that there is nothing to understand. Now, I'd usually ask my interlocutor to give his own reconstruction, but I am always, always met with empty posturing about it being 2deep4me in such cases, so I'll try a different approach.

Tell me which paragraphs in WWR and the Fourfold Root gives the most convincing rendition of the argument.

[Anonymous No.18773699]

>>18770956
>What I got from all this is that German idealism is making some sort of comeback in academia (in Europe at least)
There's a pendulum, it goes back and forth on realism and romanticism.

[Anonymous No.18773701]

>>18771717
>abundant of easy access commentary
LMAO what? Maybe for Kant and Hegel, but for the actual German Idealists (Schelling, Holderlin, Fichte, Novalis, etc...) there is almost nothing. Seriously go to youtube and try to find a good succinct commentary on either Fichte or Schelling and get back to me, there isn't one. Shit, even scholarly commentaries are lacking for guys like Fichte. I mean we don't even have his later work translated into English yet, much less being read by random teens from 4chan. As regards to Heidegger and Plotinus. Who exactly reads either of them anymore? There are a few Neoplatonist niche threads every now and then, but again Plotinus is fairly fringe and someone who actually reads and can understand Neoplatonism is far rarer than a basic bitch analtard. Btw Robert Wolff is fucking dogshit for Kant interpretation (I would know, I fell for this Jew's tricks during my first foray into CoPR).
>commonly trod ground
bro... come on. German Idealism is not "commonly trod ground" and there are far more people who have read Hume than Schelling, even on this board.
This whole post reeks of fucking pseudery tbqh, I wouldn't be surprised if you just finished reading Kant last month and LARP as if you have ever touched Hegel or Schelling in your life in order to seem like some sort of intelligent poster.

[Anonymous No.18773714]

>>18773613
Jung also cited Schelling and Hegel as predecessors of psychology and ideas about the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.18773718]

>>18773701
>There are a few Neoplatonist niche threads every now and then
They always get moved to /his/ and die, it's considered off-topic for some reason or you'd probably see more of them.

[Anonymous No.18773723]

>>18773214
>not reading Boehme, Paracelsus, Eckhart, Tauler, Franck, etc...
Yeah, they won't understand Hegel for shit.

[Anonymous No.18773725]

*saves german idealism*

[Anonymous No.18773855]

>>18773701
Dude. There's a reason I said blogs not just videos. There are definitely many blogs that discuss German idealism. And yes people don't read Hume, they pretend to and if they do read him, everybody who does reads the Enquiry, and then deeply misunderstands it, but most people don't actually even read it, certainly not as a prerequisite to them meme the guy or pretend they understand him. They don't read the Treatise for sure, it is three books, I guarantee most people have no idea about his geometric views or views on the passions which are just two things the Treatise discusses which nobody knows about. I also didn't say to read RPW for Kant, I said he has an article on the Hume similarities which is useful, but I already said there's other Kant scholars who say the same thing. If you want a book-length treatment by someone who isnt Wolff then read Henry Allison's Custom and Reason in Hume. I did paid research on Hume before, and found out these things, so my knowledge of Hume's Treatise is not superficial. Have you even read Hume's Treatise? In fact have you read the other things I mentioned? Sartre's Being and Nothingness? The analytic stuff? I've read Schelling's System of Transcendental Idealism and took a whole graduate class on Hegel's Science of Logic and two on Kant's Critique, I've read Fichte's Science of Knowledge as well, and also parts of two Fichte commentaries/summaries, one was a library book I borrowed from the 1890s and was my introduction to Fichte. I don't think I'm the larper here. You can say you've read German idealists but you prove my point even if you have, assuming you haven't read the people I've read who aren't discussed more. I try to read people that aren't discussed much whereas others avoid them. But you'd be wrong to think I haven't read German idealism works. Just because everyone pretends to know Hume (or for example Sartre) and knows their intro writings or worse, what people parrot about them, doesn't mean they've actually read their main and most difficult works, which are in fact very underrated compared to the German idealists, simply for the fact that, luckily for those guys, and for Heidegger and Plotinus, people into them actually read their difficult works and discuss them endlessly. But nobody really does that with Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Scholars do it with Hume but outside of the Hume studies people it's not popular with autodidacts on the internet. You know that. You have to be the larper pseud to think you can't find German idealist autodidacts on the internet when they're in no limited supply even just on /lit/, but also off 4chan, if you go to discord, reddit, youtube, or blogs, where all the pseud autodidacts hang out, German idealism is NOT unheard of. If you don't know this it's probably for the better but you're still a pseud for not knowing. Means you don't even know the German idealist presence online and think yourself to walk a lonelier path than you actually do.

[Anonymous No.18773936]

>>18773665
I consider myself the primary 'Schopenhauerfag' as I've been the one responsible for shilling him for years, but this was my first to encounter your cute facetiousness. I will give you a brief reconstruction of "The World as Will", and passages supporting the argument. I will suppose Kant's argument in the Transcendental Aesthetic, which Schopenhauer builds up on.

The first premise is the correlative co-existence of the transcendental subject and object. A subject could never exist without an object, and an object never without a subject. So, the existence of a subject always entails an object of which the subject is a subject of (Here he is prefiguring the Brentano and Husserl's idea of intentional consciosness; consciousness is always a conscioness of *something*, and a subject is always a subject of an object).
>Being subject means exactly the same thing as having an object, and being object means just the same as being known by the subject. In precisely the same manner, with an object *determined in any way*, the subject also is at once assumed as *knowing in just such a way*. To this extent it is immaterial whether I say that objects have such and such special and inherent determinations, or that the subject knows in such and such ways. It is immaterial whether I say that objects are divisible into such and such classes, or that such and such different powers of knowledge are peculiar to the subject.' (WWR Payne's translation, vol. 2, 209-210)

Next, an inward experience (inner sense), and an outward experience (outer intuition) of the world is immediately given to us. Of course, the experience we have of ourselves is of a different sort that we have of other things. We are given to ourselves directly, but others are given to us indirectly.
>A subjective and an objective existence, a being for self and a being for others, a consciousness of one's own self and a consciousness of other things, are in truth given to us immediately, and the two are given in such a fundamentally different way that no other difference compares with this. About himself everyone knows directly, about everything else only very indirectly. This is the fact and the problem. (Ibid. 192)

(1/?)

[Anonymous No.18773940]

>>18773665
On the objective side, we see matter constantly changing form. Matter and causality is the same thing; as we said above, anything objective has a subjective correlate. The subjective correlate of matter is the a priori law of causality, the objective correlate of causality is matter (This influenced Einstein's idea matter being equivalent to energy)
>With the concept of matter we think of what is still left of bodies when we divest them of their form and of all their specific qualities, a residue which, precisely on this account, must be one and the same in all bodies ... If, then, we disregard these forms and qualities, all that is left is mere activity in general, pure acting as such, causality itself, objectively conceived, thus the reflection of our own understanding, the outwardly projected image of its sole function, and matter is throughout pure causality; its essence is action in general (The Fourfold Roots 118)
>The subjective correlative of matter or of causality, for the two are one and the same, is the understanding, and it is nothing more than this. To know causality is the sole function of the understanding, its only power, and it is a great power embracing much, manifold in its application, and yet unmistakable in its identity throughout all its manifestations. Conversely, all causality, hence all matter, and consequently the whole of reality, is only for the understanding, through the understanding, in the understanding (WWR vol. 1 Payne 11)

On the subjective side, we realize that we are aware of ourselves in two different senses; we are aware of ourselves as experiencing subjects, but we are also aware of ourselves as objects. That is, we aren't only a consciousness, but we have a body too. It is important to realize we as subjects do not *cause* the body to move. Causality, as we said above, is restricted to the material world; Rather, the experience of ourselves as subjects and as subjects are two different senses of the same thing. My willing to raise my hand up is the same as the physical hand of my body going up. To sum, we are aware of ourselves as volition (the subject that wills the hand to go up), and as the body (the hand which goes up).
>The act of will and the action of the body are not two different states objectively known, connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in the relation of cause and effect;
but are one and the same thing, though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly, and then in perception for the understanding. The action of the body is nothing but the act of will objectified, i.e. translated into perception. (WWR Payne's translation, vol. 1, 100)

(2/?)

[Anonymous No.18773945]

>>18773665
It is possible for volition, as we define it, not to be accompanied with consciousness. Consciousness and volition are distinct - volition does not entail consciousness.
>The will, considered purely in itself, is devoid of knowledge, and is only a blind, irresistible urge, as we see it appear in inorganic and vegetable nature, and in their laws, and also in the vegetative part of our own life. (WWR vol. 1, Payne, 275)
>It appears as a blind urge and as a striving devoid of knowledge in the whole of inorganic nature, in all the original forces. It is the business of physics and chemistry to look for these forces and to become acquainted with their laws. (Ibid 149)

Everything we see in the objective world as a phenomena of some unknown noumenon, and everything we experience in our subjective inner sense is also a phenomena of the noumenon. In the phenomena we observe that there exist many objects - things are separanted, but as per Kant's argument, the noumenon cannot be divided, but one and undivided.
>Free from all plurality, although its phenomena in time and space are innumerable. It is itself one, yet not as an object is one, for the unity of an object is known only in contrast to possible plurality. Again, [it] is one not as a concept is one, for a concept originates only through abstraction from plurality; but it is one as that which lies outside time and space, outside the principium individuationis, that is to say, outside the possibility of plurality. (WWR vol.1 Payne 113)

(3/?)

[Anonymous No.18773951]

>>18773665
This means that if we somehow manage to "peak" at the noumenon in only one object, we have seen it all, since the noumenon is an undivided whole. But where could we find such a thing? Precisely in ourselves. Our inner sense is "determined" (not causally) by our unconscious willing.
>To make the matter clear, let us compare our consciousness to a sheet of water of some depth. Then the distinctly conscious ideas are merely the surface; on the other hand the mass of the water is the indistinct, the feelings, the after-sensation of perceptions and intuitions and what is experienced in general. . . Now this mass of the whole consciousness is more or less, in proportion to intellectual liveliness, in constant motion, and the clear pictures of the imagination, or the distinct, conscious ideas expressed in words, and the resolves of the will are what comes to the surface in consequence of this motion. The whole process of our thinking and resolving seldom lies on the surface, that is to say, seldom consists of a concatenation of clearly conceived judgments; although we aspire to this, in order to be able to give an account of it to ourselves and others. But usually the rumination of material from outside, by which it is recast into ideas, takes place in the obscure depths of the mind. This rumination goes on almost as unconsciously as the conversion of nourishment into the humours and substance of the body. Hence it is that we are often unable to give any account of the origin of our deepest thoughts; they are the offspring of our mysterious inner being. Judgments, sudden flashes of thought, resolves, rise from those depths unexpectedly and to our own astonishment ... Consciousness is the mere surface of our mind, and of this, as of the globe, we do not know the interior but only the crust. (WWR2 135)
(4/?)

[Anonymous No.18773952]

>>18773665
We were able to find out that it was this hidden willing that shaped the whole of our inner life. We found out that, our true hidden nature is willing.
>Without the object, without the representation, I am not knowing subject but mere, blind will; in just the same way, without me as subject of knowledge, the thing known is not object, but mere will, blind impulse. In itself, that is to say outside the representation, this will is one and the same with mine; only in the world as representation, the form of which is always at least subject and object, are we separated out as known and knowing individual. As soon as knowledge, the world as representation, is abolished, nothing in general is left but mere will, blind impulse. (WWR 1, 180)

We can see that the true nature of ourselves, the "I-in-myself" is the will.
>The will as the thing-in-itself, constitutes the inner, true, and indestructible nature of man; yet in itself it is without consciousness. (WWR2 201)

As we said above, the thing in itself is undifferentiated and one. Since we had a glimpse of it in ourselves, it follows that the the world in itself, *as it appears to us * is the Will.
>Accordingly, even after this last and extreme step, the question may still be raised what that will, which manifests itself in the world and as the world, is ultimately and absolutely in itself; in other words, what it is, quite apart from the fact that it manifests itself as will, or in general appears, that is to say, is known in general. This question can never be answered, because, as I have said, being known, of itself, contradicts being-in-itself, and everything that is known is as such only phenomenon. But the possibility of this question shows that the thing-in-itself, which we know most immediately in the will, may have, entirely outside all possible phenomenon, determinations, qualities, and modes of existence which for us are absolutely unknowable and incomprehensible, and which then remain as the inner nature of the thing-in-itself. (WWR2 197)

(5/5)

It took a lot of time. I hope you were worth it.

[Anonymous No.18773962]

>>18773714
Perhaps, but he emphasized Schopenhauer, and not without reason. In addition to the concept of the unconscious, Jung owes Schopenhauer the concept of libido, intuition, and the revival of Platonism.

[Anonymous No.18774028]

>>18773538
>>18773589
He won't give you any citations because it's nonsense. Most of the philosophers we study were prodigies, including Kant, but his Critical Period just overshadows everything he did previously.
Most all of them started writing landmark works before they even hit their mid-twenties

[Anonymous No.18774029]

>>18773214
>upper class oxbridge kids
are the kids playing fortnite

[Anonymous No.18774040]

>>18773855
Buddy, I don't give a fuck about Sartre nor do I care that you read Sartre/Hume. My main point is that you are creating a problem where there isn't one. More people read Hume than Fichte/Schelling. As if superficiality of exposure was a factor, when 90% of people who DO end up reading German Idealism read it in an even more superficial manner than they do Hume or Analytic philosophy. I cannot comprehend how you came to the conclusion that Hume/Sartre are more obscure (this doesn't mean they are good) than Fichte lol, I have never met a single person outside of specified academic fields that has actually read through more than excerpts of Fichte. Your posts really just sound like an excuse to tell random internet users about your recent forays into Hume and Sartre. Again, why should anyone give a fuck? All of your posts amount to you giving off reasons why you think that Hume or whatever is super esoteric shit that you have discovered in depth. Like, your upset that people aren't reading the same philosophers as you, or is this just a facade you constructed in order to amp yourself up on 4chan? I would be shocked to find out that you ever went to Grad School, this post reads like it was written by a attention seeking 20 year old.

[Anonymous No.18774086]

man you guys are really missing out simply by not knowing german.
Holy shit, some of the complaints itt seem made up from a german uni student point of view.

[Anonymous No.18774089]

For someone who has encyclopaedia / wikipedia surfing internet coomer tier knowledge, where would he go about diving into philosophy, coming up with good essay topics and writing them outside of formal education? The decent thing about formal studies is that at least someone grades your essays / gives you feedback + convo with other students, a diy approach you don't really get that.

[Anonymous No.18774108]

>>18774086
Which complaints?

[Anonymous No.18774250]

>>18774040
>I have never met a single person outside of specified academic fields that has actually read through more than excerpts of Fichte.
Which just means you just don't know what's going on the internet, like I said, you think you walk a lonelier path than you really do. Also I hate to repeat myself about Sartre and Hume. I know people read them (and claim to know them without reading them) but it's very surface intro stuff. Nobody reads Being and Nothingness and the main people reading Hume's Treatise are academics, not autodidacts.
>Again, why should anyone give a fuck?
They're examples, I don't mind what people read, I just think a lot of people don't branch out. Like you said, you don't give a fuck about such and such philosophers, that's the root of the problem. I want to "give a fuck" about every philosopher there is if it takes the rest 70 years of my life to learn them. People are so shortsighted and just follow previously-trodden paths and that is absolutely worth criticizing.
>I would be shocked to find out that you ever went to Grad School, this post reads like it was written by a attention seeking 20 year old.
Honestly you're the one who doesn't sound like a grad student, which maybe you're not, I don't know, but you'd be better off as one, because you're being really dumb right now. I'm saying it's sad people don't tread new ground. How's that a problem? How's that self-centered to say? You're desperately trying to twist that into "Wow you're so self-centered." Apparently if someone critiques a trend, that must mean they want attention in your eyes. I'm giving examples of a lifestyle I want to live that I think you guys should too. I don't hate German idealism I love it in fact. But yes, I want to read more than just that, and I do think it's bad that so many people stop at some topic that's already well known. Instead of taking the moral of that, you've done two things. First: attack philosophers and act like the fact you "don't care" about them means you never have to read them. Which you're fine to do, but I'll definitely reserve the right to see that as a character flaw, because it objectively is. Second: actively present German idealism as super underground. There's levels to this. Compared to surface introductory Hume/Sartre yes they're """"underground"""". I'm not making that comparison you idiot. I'm talking about Hume's Treatise and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, as examples. Again, go to all those spaces I mentioned and see if people show up who know German idealism, vs those two books I'm citing, and by and large there are many more German idealist autodidacts and students alike. That's not a diss on German idealism because I too like German idealism. But you're being really dense and stubborn if you think it's not easy to find more German idealist autodidacts and students. Even on freaking /lit/, German idealism is popular, everybody knows Fichte here.

[Anonymous No.18774261]

>>18774089
The biggest obstacle is purely whether you are going to spend hours and hours and hours carefully reading all these texts. Most people within and outside uni are not going to do that, it's practically a full time job

[Anonymous No.18774283]

I’m sorry bros but I think I might be retarded because I can’t understand what you guys really mean when you refer to German idealism. I tried googling but I still don’t get it.

Could someone help a microcephaly anon out? Thank you.

[Anonymous No.18774287]

>>18774283
German Idealism: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. Sometimes Kant and Schopenhauer are also included in the label.

[Anonymous No.18774295]

>>18774287
Thanks but I don’t get the Idealism part. What makes them idealist? Talking about geists??

[Anonymous No.18774300]

>>18774295
Le world is le mind EXCEPT-

[Anonymous No.18774306]

>>18774295
It's starts with Kant saying that objects and matter are only representations and not objective in themselves. It ends with Hegel saying the world is the Absolute Spirit or something, or alternatively it ends with Schopenhauer saying the world as representation is the universal cosmic Will.

[Anonymous No.18774313]

>>18774295
Kant (and Schopenhauer) are transcendental idealists. Kant believes that much of what we can think is actually provided to experience by ourselves, not the world, hence idealism. Fichte is a subjective idealist who makes everything depend on us, completely. Schelling is an absolute idealist who at least at one point believed everything stems from the pre-thetic (prior to the subject/object distinction) absolute. Hegel defines his absolute idealism in the Science of Logic as a sort of dependence of everything on the Idea. But bear in mind the Idea, for Hegel, exists at the end of history: everything is "ideal" in that it is less-than-real, dependent on that future Idea, but it will become increasingly more real as it develops in its direction.
>tl;dr
In a sense they all use different meanings of "idealism," but they share the usual broader meaning of "reality is mostly or totally dependent on a greater more fundamental reality" which is either ourselves, or the literal "Idea" (hence idealism).

[Anonymous No.18774319]

>>18774086
Agreed. No one who takes philosophy seriously should be monolingual.

[Anonymous No.18774324]

>>18771738
https://m.youtube.com/user/0ThouArtThat0
already exists

[Anonymous No.18774361]

>>18774250
>>18774040
>>18773855
>>18773701
>>18771717
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.18774448]

>>18774300
>>18774306
>>18774313
Thank you very much my friends.

[Anonymous No.18774506]

How is German Idealism not just a precursor to post-modernism? The whole project is one where modernity, specifically in the form of having that subject-object rift, is a problematic to be doubted and overcome. GI is just the dogmatic or "critical" path while Nietzscheanism is the alternative.

[Anonymous No.18774526]

>>18774506
In another thread months ago I defended the thesis that Hegel spawned postmodernism, but a H*gelian kept saying I don't understand Hegel without addressing my argument

[Anonymous No.18774538]

>>18774526
The thesis itself is trivial. Hegel could obviously be a major source of pomo without being "post-modernist" himself. Indeed, the whole historicist bent of post-modernism probably owes itself to his influence more than most major thinkers.

[Anonymous No.18774570]

>>18770956
>idealism is making some sort of comeback in academia (in Europe at least). Can someone confirm if this is true?
It's not.

[Anonymous No.18774893]

>>18770956
Encyclopedia-level is actually quite shallow. I don't see anything in particular to write home about that.

[Anonymous No.18774978]

>>18774893
>t. never read a Kant or Hegel terminology encyclopedia

[Anonymous No.18775124]

German idealism has been rehabilitated for a long time even in Anglosphere academia. Hegel was a dirty word except in France for a long time, where he was idiosyncratically studied, and if you read Hegel many people would assume you were a Marxist or something, but already by the '60s interest Hegel had become a respectable subject of study again, and in the '70s Charles Taylor released his big English book Hegel which launched a lot of study.

From there Hegel studies branched into a few things: non-metaphysical Hegelians like Hartmann, which nobody really is anymore, except in the Anglosphere the Pittsburgh school (offshoots of Wilfred Sellars' analytic pragmatism), which combined pragmatism and "Hegel" (really just using Hegel as a major representative of German idealist historicist/hermeneutical methods) to create a kind of social philosophy of language and intersubjectivity, in dialogue with other recent trends in analytic philosophy in this direction (later Wittgenstein, ordinary language philosophy). Most of it is terrible, Brandom for example, and has little to do with Hegel proper, but it is influential for some reason.

And of course analytics always studied Kant, just in weird stereotyped ways, because their knowledge of Kant was being strained through the Vienna positivists (who were old neo-Kantians who had actually read Kant at some point at least), creating Anglosphere analytics who used things like "the synthetic-analytic distinction" or even wrote dissertations on aspects of Kant's thought while having questionable mastery of his ideas and especially his milieu.

Then there were great revivals in the '80s and '90s of study of the romantics and their milieu, which gradually became a flood until they were simply respectable subjects. You would get weird looks back in the day if you wanted to write your dissertation on Fichte but now nobody cares if you want to write it on a subset of a sub-problem in Kant that Fichte was responding to.

Throughout all of this there have been rare philosophers like Sellars who simply knew their stuff the way you should, i.e. they read it, and read about it and its intellectual genesis.

[Anonymous No.18775133]

>>18775124
>Seems pretty exiting and would make sense now that even normies are getting desensitized by postmodernism and turning back to romanticism.
Don't get too excited. There isn't anything like a counter-attack against postmodernism in the academy. Not even because "postmodernism" is dominant, either, it's much worse than that: there are no such things a counter-attacks anymore. There are pretentious "turns" and "movements" that last 5 or 10 years, like the "embodied turn" or the "carceral turn," and if you have the privilege of being in the adult daycare centre that is an academic department you too can have the INSIDE SCOOP on the latest asinine "turn" that people on /lit/ will be talking about as if it's new in 1.5 years, and mediocre undergrads and self-important rich kids at Columbia will be preening themselves over writing a BA (and an MA they paid for) about.

That is what would really need to be overthrown for academia to be exciting or interesting, the stagnation itself, not any one reigning ideology or outlook. Postmodernism doesn't dominate academia intellectually, like it did in the. '60s and even into the late '80s, where people attach themselves to different thinkers and movements (like deconstruction in the '80s for example) and may face at least some small professional consequences for it. There isn't even the excitement of being excluded from a conference anymore. Your epic new approach isn't going to get your paper rejected from Mind, or provoke polemics. That doesn't exist, unless you do something un-PC and become a bete noire in your university, in which case your peers and colleagues won't attack you intellectually in print, other professors from 50 departments unrelated to your specialty will just write an "open letter" demanding you be fired. The whole thing is a professionalisation track with cul-de-sacs for every breed and brand of mediocrity. Postmodernism dominates every track in the sense that everybody, even the people who seem to claim otherwise, is instinctively and a priori relativist, intersubjective, pragmatist, and above all, careerist and visionless. The people who study the most romantic of the romantics implicitly share all their fundamental views with the people who study pragmatism.

Don't go into academia if you are expecting a life of the mind and cataclysmic face-offs between opposed paradigms etc. All the cataclysms are over, and in hindsight all the best ones were tempests in teapots anyway. Nobody studies Fichte or Merleau-Ponty because they have a bone to pick with the establishment. The establishment is completely homogeneous, like every other bourgeois sphere of thought it has subverted the possibility of conflict itself into canned sub-conflicts, like people scrambling to be in on the latest "turn" (why? so they can appear trendy, compete for prestige, and get a job).

[Anonymous No.18775137]

>>18775133
I think it's at the beginning of Heidegger's lectures on Holderlin's Ister that he says something in the spirit of, "let us pray the 'Holderlin revival' spoken about lately never happens; the worst thing that could happen to Holderlin is that he gets 'revived' by the decrepit bourgeois academy." The academy is "turning to" romanticism the way it studies anything else: scrambling to appear novel in an intellectual setting where true novelty has been made structurally impossible, pretending to be breaking new ground while really never leaving home. Any turn to romanticism is just another way to bear out the foregone conclusions of postmodern relativism and liberal progressivism. The bourgeois academy will never abandon its pluralistic secularism for example, so it can't ever seriously engage with religion, but it CAN try to appear edgy by talking about the "reenchantment of the world" as if it's taking it seriously - right up to the point that it has to shit or get off the pot, but by then you've already read the shitty book and maybe given the hack a job. It's death by a thousand cuts as a thousand specialists in Schelling get hired, in some unconscious hope that there is a "Schelling turn" and something is actually going to happen for a change, the intellectual structure of the environment might itself change for a change, and then nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.18775179]

>>18774283
Do the readings before you come to class

[Anonymous No.18775500]

>>18770956
We might also see a smaller revival in academic theology/Aristotelianism/Neoplatonism due to similar yet smaller-scale trends

[Anonymous No.18776126]

>>18773701
>German Idealism is not "commonly trod ground"
It's one of the most trodded grounds there is.

>Who exactly reads either of them anymore?
Heidegger is one of the most popular philosophers there's stuff being published about him all the time, standalone Heidegger courses in universities that don't even focus in a similar area of philosophy

>go to youtube and try to find a good succinct commentary
LOL
you mad that there aren't any german idealism tiktoks, you fucking baby?

[Anonymous No.18776379]

>>18773537
Very thoughtful anon

[Anonymous No.18776443]

>>18776126
It is not one of the most commonly trod grounds... German Idealism is a pretty exit level philosophical milieu. I mean, are we really comparing the popularity of Hume and Sartre to Schelling and Fichte. I don't want to hear the argument that the former are read superficially, as if the same isn't true of the latter. When German Idealism threads to pop up here, they usually descend into idiotic memeing (if its Hegel especially) or die off after a few nice effortposts. I have never come across a good Fichte thread, in fact the only two I have even seen were filled with idiotic shitposting. Hume gets more attention than Fichte/Schelling here, and Hegel is read in a far more superficial manner than even Sartre. I don't know why you guys are acting like people are compartmentalizing their knowledge to German Idealists en masse, most of the people who actually read Hegel or Schelling also read a ton of other philosophers (but obviously with a degree of specialization which can be found in literally any area of knowledge).

Succinct as in not diverting the lecture with retarded off-topic and irrelevant information, not as in extremely short.

>>18774250
My main point is that you are throwing a tantrum regarding a literal non-problem that you invented (why you choose this to be upset about idk). Show me where you find hordes of zoomers who are hyper-focused on Hegel to the complete detriment of their knowledge of other philosophers. Just because you find something valuable in Sartre doesn't mean that he is actually some hidden gem that everybody else has just so happened to ignore. I myself don't pay much attention to him because I think his philosophy pales in comparison to Deleuze, Bataille or Derrida and I'd rather spend my finite time reading things that I actually find interesting, as I'm sure the people you are "criticizing" are likewise doing. Also, I never presented German Idealism as super underground lol. I merely mentioned that Fichte's later shit is virtually unknown in the Anglosphere, and acting like "everyone here knows Fichte" is fucking retarded. Using your two useless fucking books as the measure of obscure knowledge is pedantic and vain. Of course there are going to be more German Idealism students since there are like 7 big thinkers associated with the school, each with numerous major works, as opposed to the very limited set you laid out in comparison. I could ask why there are so many Hume spastic as opposed to Proclus or Boehme readers, in fact I should have just re-written your entire post replacing your selections with equally ambiguous thinkers and then arbitrarily selecting some movement and kvetching that my guys are less read.

[Anonymous No.18776506]

>>18775133
>>18775137
Frighteningly competent, incredibly on point.
have a (you)

[Anonymous No.18776755]

>>18776443
>I myself don't pay much attention to him because I think his philosophy pales in comparison to Deleuze, Bataille or Derrida and I'd rather spend my finite time reading things that I actually find interesting
You seriously should read Being and Nothingness. It is way closer to the people you like than you realize, it's definitely closer to them than it is to your own preconception of Sartre. Your prejudices are showing very obviously. I know I won't change your mind, but whatever. You are a really immature young philosopher. I find it funny because you found some delight earlier in the conversation trying to profile me as a pseud.
>I have never come across a good Fichte thread, in fact the only two I have even seen were filled with idiotic shitposting.
Not only are you a pseud about philosophy but also about the board and (as we established earlier) the whole internet. Lurk more. I've made many Fichte effortposts myself. I've had many great discussions about Fichte on this board before and I've seen others contribute a great deal. By the same lights, the Hume threads here suck greatly. Which is why I used that as my example. There aren't even Being and Nothingness threads. Everyone repeats the same prejudice you have against Sartre. He's not just "Woah, angst...deep" like you think, and that book in particular is very indebted to Hegel and Husserl and Heidegger and is a work of ontology and phenomenology that goes on longer than Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit does. There's no better way to make a fool out of someone on /lit/ than telling them Being and Nothingness is worth reading. People are incredibly prejudiced about someone to the point they make up their minds about a book they haven't read which is totally different from what they think it is. Nothing I've written is a "tantrum" either.

[Anonymous No.18776792]

>>18776755
>Sartre is similar to Deleuze
Bro Deleuze outright rejects Sartre lol (I legit just read the part in Logique de Sens where Deleuze critiques Sartre/Husserl), they aren't similar at all. And I have 0 clue as to what the connection with Being and Nothing could be with Bataille (like lol?). Regarding the Fichte threads, sure there are a few good effort posts but by and large any time one pops up it is filled with casuals who read the Jena Wissenschaftslerhe once and think they are hot shit.

[Anonymous No.18776843]

>>18771352
>>18773214
I know the exact thread you're talking about I was the OP of that thread and there was one autist like what you're talking about in there. You're right there is a number teens with academic level knowledge on German Idealism. Down to the most obscure of the obscure philosophers and writing papers about them. The people in this thread don't know what they're talking about. I can't tell you much about it because I was the guy asking about it.

[Anonymous No.18776921]

>>18776843
My god this is cringe beyond any imaginable level. What the fuck are you talking about? Show me one of those papers. Show me where are the epic zoomers "with academic level knowledge on German Idealism".

Either you're mentally retarded and easily impressed by any asshole on the internet name-dropping or you're a deluded and narcissistic zoomer yourself. Being a part of that generation myself, I can't tell you most of the knowledge people like us gather it's completely and absolutely superficial. It consists of repetition of the most basic and retarded formulas like "hmm hegel was an idealist bc he wrote about the geist which means spirit and that's like, a non-physical entity, sounds based" (which is pretty much the substance of what I've seen written here on Hegel or german idealism, not even kidding). Zoomers will read plato stanford dictionary, remember some disjointed set of biographical anecdotes, common points about the philosophy of the author himself, and think that's having a deep knowledge of the matter (which, considering the average educational level of zoomers, probably is).

The other day I heard an old philosophy college professor (I'm not american btw) saying that he couldn't believe how dumber were the new generations of students. They don't grab books, they don't finish books. Gone are the days were a curious teenager would read the whole of Kant's critique just because he was bored. There's no boredom in our generation, and there's no effort in anything that we do, nor deepness in our reflections. We are like the fantasized creatures of Hume's Enquiry that live their life as mere spectators of fleeting impressions, from which they gather no knowledge at all whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.18776930]

>>18776921
So many typos
I can tell you* instead of I can't

[Anonymous No.18777143]

>>18776921
I'm a zoomer and I read the Critique at 17, not saying I understood it an "Academic" level but I'm sure there are guys smarter than me out there who have even more extensive knowledge on the subject. That being said, zoomers ARE generally stupid as fuck and I have yet to meet anyone else irl who gave a shit about philosophy before the age of 20.

[Anonymous No.18777331]

>>18773537
wholesome wisdom thank you anon

[Anonymous No.18777738]

>>18774526
While it might be true that hegel had an influence (via obscurantism, for example), hegel believed in truth and was still practicing metaphysics derived a priori, which is antithetical to postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.18777756]

>>18776921
This is true but also pessimistic. Zoomers have a few people set up to be genius-tier if they keep their heads straight and continue to be upset at the general mediocrity of our time, and the mediocrity of one of the new generation inspires the excellence of his superior. Literature like the German Romantics and Idealists are a good area of intellectual influence in light of the typical dross zoomers are exposed to; its a miracle they consume this at all. So they are superficial and possess less depth for the time being, I am just as guilty, but I sit in a room alone with my eyes closed and feel a greatness must live somewhere, if not how could I possess the eye for it? Why do I yearn and dream of myself and those of my age continuing the progression of that beautiful Mind which has reared us? This is who we are, useless effortposting which nevertheless shall culminate in an adult articulation in likely ten years time. I am happy to be here with you now, anons.

[Anonymous No.18778870]

>>18776921
Hey, 19 year old Zoom Zoom here. I've successfully read practically the entire works of Kant, Schelling, Fichte and Schopenhauer in the span of a year and a half. I was not at all under the impression that German Idealism is some niche sub-sector of philosophy, personally, it's the only school of thought I've been able to actually intellectually engage with. It's most likely due to the fact that I don't allow myself to have a merely superficial grasp on anything that I'm attempting to comprehend. Having a cursory understanding of something makes me feel cheap.

[Anonymous No.18779037]

If all you 17 year old and 19 year old zoomers really have read and understand German idealism so well, why aren't any of you going to be at PhD programs when you turn 21? What's going on here? Are you really as smart as you say?

[Anonymous No.18779108]

>>18779037
I want to eventually. At the moment I'm doing absolutely nothing, other than reading. I'm not claiming to be intelligent either, just stating that I've read a lot of German Idealism and wasn't aware of the fact that it's apparently a niche school of thought according the Anon's ITT. /lit/ always discusses Kant and Schop, just not much of Schelling and Fichte.

[Anonymous No.18779158]

>>18779108
You're right and the other anon (or anons) are just not in the know. Anyway all being said, I do genuinely want to wish you the best of luck actually, you probably deserve it with the effort you're putting.

[Anonymous No.18779277]

>>18770956
>implying it won't be German idealism crossed with poststructuralism among other things

[Anonymous No.18779293]

>>18772268
Zizek/ Pippen (Brandom too I guess) are the two pronged attack on both sides breaking the philosophy establishment wide open to to other perspectives. They can't be denied.

[Anonymous No.18779406]

>>18776443
>German Idealism is a pretty exit level philosophical milieu
Exit level?? You learn about it as an undergrad. It's literally standard, as well as fashionable. Kant is everywhere. Hegel is everywhere. Popular contemporary work consists of a lot of droning about Hegel and Kant.

Fichte and Schelling are less popular. Maybe that's your whole point. They've always been less popular. I don't think that means a lot. Your point, I suppose, might be that it's not 'really' German Idealism if we're not actually attending to each individual involved. Sure. But the same goes for every other phase of philosophy. The standard track is [presocratic overview] -> Plato -> Aristotle -> -> -> Descartes ->-> Hume -> Kant -> things chosen on the basis of that school's inclination. It was Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, William James for my undergrad.

> most of the people who actually read Hegel or Schelling also read a ton of other philosophers
They are difficult to access. That goes for many philosophers. There are ways of dealing with this. You still have even history/polisci kids and pomos "reading Hegel", it's one of the only philosophers you'll hear them talk about. It's utterly fashionable

>I mean, are we really comparing the popularity of Hume and Sartre to Schelling and Fichte.
Hume is considered more pivotal to more areas of philosophy. Including German Idealism, via Kant, who is LITERALLY THE ONLY REASON WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUME.

>Hegel is read in a far more superficial manner than even Sartre
That's because he's harder than Sartre. He's also assigned more than Sartre. Sartre has never even come up in a philosophy class for me.

[Anonymous No.18780093]

>>18775137
>>18775133
based post

[Anonymous No.18780190]

>>18779108
Didn't mean Kant or Fichte as some obscure philosophers and only used Schelling to symbolise German idealism. What I meant was kids who have not only read Reinhold, Schleiermacher, Hamann and Jacobi but also many forgotten German thinkers like Lotze, Helmholtz, Vorländer, Trendelenburg and Herbart for example.

[Anonymous No.18780265]

>>18780190
>kids who have not only read Reinhold, Schleiermacher, Hamann and Jacobi but also many forgotten German thinkers like Lotze, Helmholtz, Vorländer, Trendelenburg and Herbart
The fuck? Where do you even see this. Link a blog, video, anything please. Most grad students don't read Lotze or even Reinhold outside of small excerpts useful for understanding other thinkers. But apparently there are 'kids' reading this plus Hegel/Schelling, and understanding it? Lmao get the fuck outta here. I cannot believe /lit/ is either falling for this bait or feeding into the delusions of some retarded teen who is autodidactically studying obscure German philosophers without even comprehending them. This whole thread seems like it was made by a straight up attention seeking narcissistic zoomer, baiting for compliments through the surrogate of the mysterious autodidact teenage Idealists.

[Anonymous No.18780743]

>>18780190
Why are they reading Lotze and Herbart anyway? Those guys are not really doing what Fichte/Schelling/Hegel are doing, so reading them is more like reading Bolzano, Frege, the Brentano school, or stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.18780762]

>>18779406
>Aristotle -> -> -> Descartes -
What's up with this anyway? Why dont we learn at the least like Plotinus and Aquinas? There should be a whole section on scholastics really

[Anonymous No.18780777]

>>18780190
hmm. I read all of the former, but none of the latter. Are there even english translations? Besides Herbart

[Anonymous No.18780833]

>>18775133
>The establishment is completely homogeneous, like every other bourgeois sphere of thought it has subverted the possibility of conflict itself into canned sub-conflicts, like people scrambling to be in on the latest "turn" (why? so they can appear trendy, compete for prestige, and get a job).
Feels bad man

[Anonymous No.18780865]

>>18780833
How so? Isn't idealism about forging your own way to the divine? Would be much worse if academia and institutions promised salvation instead of being what they are - socialization enterprises.
Quit being defeatist, meme honourably and the Urgrund shall answer clearing the next stage of the work.

[Anonymous No.18781058]

>>18780777
there are definitely great secondary texts by Beiser

[Anonymous No.18781087]

>>18780777
Yes anon they're in this book.

[Anonymous No.18781359]

>>18771717
>>18773855
>>18774250
>>18776755
>>18779406
maybe I just find this difficult to believe because I had an entire class on Sartre where we read through the entirety of Being and Nothingness and discussed Nausea and sections from the Critique of Dialectical Reason

[Anonymous No.18781360]

>>18781359
Are you French?

[Anonymous No.18781403]

>>18781360
No

[Anonymous No.18781478]

>>18781087
I was reading this bool a while ago, but stopped to read italian grammar. Are you a native? What do you think of it? I really liked and from the few pages I read, without annotations, without much effort, I felt it was pretty good. Been intending to read it again and actually put a bit more of effort into learning german.

[Anonymous No.18781738]

>>18780762
Not much of a point. Plotinus is just a hardcore Platonist, and the scholastics are just hardcore Aristotelians. If you've read the requisite Plato and Aristotle, then there is no point.

[Anonymous No.18781796]

>>18779037
>going to university for philosophy

[Anonymous No.18781873]

>>18781738
Come on. There is so much in Plato that not even the exegetic tradition of late platonists can exhaust it. Not to mention scholarly works on the agrapha dogmata which is an essential issue in order to understand Plato profoundly.

[Anonymous No.18781910]

>>18771548
That's not such a big deal though, ability to memorize the exact phrasing is less important than absorbing the ideas themselves. If zoomers are able to acquire a grounding in someone like Kierkegaard for example then I think it'll be pretty powerful in their development

[Anonymous No.18781918]

>>18781359
What do you find difficult to believe?

[Anonymous No.18781956]

>>18774526
I haven't read of word of Hegel but surely if we're blaming Foucalt primarily for at least the popular adoption of philosophical postmodernism we should be blaming Nietzsche first and foremost since it was Foucault taking the genealogy of history and running off the cliff with it?

Please don't make me have to read Hegel, I can't stand the thought of it

[Anonymous No.18781964]

>>18781738
The scholastics have an entirely different metaphysical frame because it's based around a creator God

[Anonymous No.18781993]

>>18781964
Elaborate on that?

[Anonymous No.18782030]

>>18781956
That's like blaming the Church Fathers for Jonestown.

[Anonymous No.18782060]

>>18781993
With Aquinas God is being and the highest principle but Aristotle subordinates being to substance which he says causes being

[Anonymous No.18782078]

>>18782030
Not really, unless I've badly misunderstood Foucault's central-ish premise is that Nietzsche's genealogy of morals is correct and that what we consider to be normal and good, or sane for example, is actually just a reflection of a disguised master morality from "the powerful".

I'm a fair bit out of my element as I've never actually read any Foucault, just people characterizing his arguments second hand.
>>18782060
Oh I see what you mean now.

[Anonymous No.18782163]

>>18781956
Hegel subjectivizes Kant's idealism by removing the-thing-itself (its only link to "reality" and the only thing preventing the world to be fully subjective) thereby the world becomes only the ideal, or as Hegel calls, the spirit. You can work out the road from this hidden subjectivism (which Hegel and his lapdogs try to deny) to Nietzsche's perspectivism.

[Anonymous No.18782198]

>>18774526
It's really weird to say someone or other spawned postmodernism because you can draw the line in all sorts of places. You could say Nietzsche started it because he says metaphysics is superfluous and recommends being poetic and that all poets are liars and things like that. You could say Saussure started it with his semiotics. You could say the American pragmatists started it. You could say it started all the way back with Kant's transcendental idealism, or even Hume's suspicions about all sorts of taken-for-granted knowledge. Going further back, Protagoras' relativism and Gorgias' nihilism are very much in line with postmodernism. Hegel is not very proto-postmodern at all honestly.

[Anonymous No.18782220]

>>18782198
Obviously the "tradition" goes back to Protagoras, but due to the Platonist polemics there hadn't been any sophist for centuries, that is, until the "clumsy charlatan" appeared.

[Anonymous No.18782414]

>>18774526
>>18782163
>I don't understand Hegel
yeah you don't

Kant's critique and his Copernican revolution contains the seed of "postmodernism" (a word that I'm not using in a derogatory way), at least moreso than Hegel - who revived metaphysics, and the orientation towards the Absolute.

Nietzsche was immensly influenced by Kant for this reason - he just skips the Ding-an-sich and embraces the phenomenon by applying a Kantian critique to language (metaphor).

While Hegel gave rise to chiefly Modernist philosophical movements like Marxism and Fascism. The whole idea of historical progress through the development of reason and Geist is explicit in Hegel, not Kant.

Another forerunner of postmodernism is Kierkegaard, who privileged the individual, the unique and the singular in direct opposition to Hegel and his universal conceptions of Reason, State and History.

[Anonymous No.18782532]

>>18782163
I don't know man, I think you might be reaching. That's hardly unique to Hegel, you could draw the same thread to Plato's ideal form, no?

[Anonymous No.18782536]

>>18782414
>t. H*gelian dog
Kant's idealism did not contain anything more sceptical than Hume's, and he is much more closer to empiricists like Locke (and in fact ideality of time and space is an extension of Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities) than anything H*gel and his lackeys every spewed. The start of subjectivism was with H*gel (and continued by Nietzsche, Heidegger and the French) and brought with it the greatest embarrassment in the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18782553]

>>18782532
Platonism is exactly the opposite of subjectivism. For Plato forms exist in themselves, regardless of the observes, and are the ultimate reality. For Hegel nothing exists but the geist. He is more similar to Protagoras and his "man is the measure of all things" relativity as I said above.

[Anonymous No.18782564]

>>18782414
>Another forerunner of postmodernism is Kierkegaard
In the sense that existentialism as a whole is a precursor to postmodernism but I take serious issue with the idea that Kierkegaard somehow contributed to postmodernism. His privileging the individual as you put it comes straight from the Bible.

[Anonymous No.18782600]

>>18782553
Right but in absence of the ability to directly perceive objective reality the existence it's not a huge step to go from "all observations are not true reflections of ultimate reality" to "there is no ultimate reality" if you reject the existence of the sacred space. I'm not trying to say Plato was subjective, that's almost self evidently untrue as you said. I'm trying to say something more like his ideas create their own antithesis and if you develop that idea meaningfully then you get something that looks a lot like subjective reality, especially if you're looking at it from the purely materialist perspective that's fashionable these days. I apologize for my inarticulateness, I'm somewhere in the zone of proximal development right now

[Anonymous No.18782625]

>>18782536
>H*gel
Seems like you have a personal stake in the issue. Categorically disliking 'postmodernism' or 'subjectivism' is a bit lazy as well.

>subjectivism
>Nietzsche and Heidegger
lol

You should probably read up on them a bit, especially their critique of historicism which means they end up philosophically diametrical to Hegel

>>18782564
A lot of postmodernist thinkers (Lyotard, Derrida, Blanchot for example) take the Bible very seriously and develop their arguments for apophatic theology, atheology or whatever with the help of it. The Bible is also a good source of critique against onto-theology in the Heideggerian tradition.

[Anonymous No.18782641]

>>18781918
That Sartre isn't discussed at any decent university. By the way you have been talking about the kind of student you're exposed to, it sounds like you went to a low calibre institution

[Anonymous No.18782655]

PoMo is for controlled opposition plebs, even prominent lefty intellectuals like Chomsky say it’s trivial truths made nebulous by flowery language, the current academic fad is absurdism and analytic phil

[Anonymous No.18782668]

>>18782625
Wait, are we saying the bible is a precursor to postmodernism now because I'm starting to think I don't know what postmodernism is if that's the case. Religion is the grandest grand narrative I can imagine.

Unless we're getting into Christianity containing the seeds of its own destruction by elevating logos to the highest virtue which in turn created the scientific method, the materialist perspective and the death of God in which case we're just back at Nietzsche being the significant precursor to postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.18782675]

>>18782641
Sartre is done at Cambridge, Durham UCL, etc, top Anglo unis, although it’s generally accepted that he isn’t as popular as Kant, Hegel, or the Frankfurt school dudes.

Sartre is definitely hyper relevant in 20th century modules tho lol, saying he isn’t discussed is probably a deliberate lie

[Anonymous No.18782677]

>>18782625
I have read quite a lot of Nietzsche and Heidegger. The latter is a subjectivist in disguise. It doesn't matter that he says there is no subject/object; he says we/Dasein already possess the knowledge of Being pre-ontologically, and saying the task of philosophy as a hermeneutic of this pre-ontological knowledge, thereby making this knowledge entirely dependent on Dasein,. For him again "man is the measure of all things", since he only wants to interpret the way man already knows Being, and not Being is in itself. This is why Husserl said Heidegger is more of an anthropologist than philosopher. I don't think I need to explain how Nietzsche is a subjectivist as it is fully evident to anyone who reads him.
>Categorically disliking 'postmodernism' or 'subjectivism' is a bit lazy as well.
They are diseases of the soul, and not ideas deserving of attention.

[Anonymous No.18782700]

>>18782677
>They are diseases of the soul, and not ideas deserving of attention.
That seems a little reductive.

[Anonymous No.18782701]

>>18782600
I understand what you mean. This is precisely the leap Hegel takes from Kant by removing the-thing-in-itself. Kant is not a subjectivist because he posits the thing-in-itself, but once you remove that, as Hegel does, the world becomes only unfounded phenomena with no true reality. This is what I'm blaming Hegel for.

[Anonymous No.18782712]

>>18782700
Not at all. All forms of subjectivism, relativism, and sophistry (and they are all the same thing) must be done with in exactly the same way Platonists got rid of the sophists.

[Anonymous No.18782728]

>>18782668
Sorry for barging in on this conversation but this is something I have been thinking lately. Christianity is not the child or ressentment as Nietzsche thought, but its mother. We can see the mark Christianity left on human consciousness (revelation of scapegoat mechanism - that is, consciousness of the victim, an individualist force). This branched off in various different, opposite, directions, marxism, today’s id politics and intersectionality (don’t want divert much but what is happening today with science, pandemic, vaccines, death and life itself, leeching off christian values in order to impose and extend political power, inflaming oppositions - those in favor of global rule, those against it). Does it not say something about the dialectics of will and the process of revelation of the Spirit?

[Anonymous No.18782738]

>>18782675
I can't tell if you're agreeing with what I'm saying (that I find it difficult to believe that Sartre isn't discussed at any decent universities) or you think I'm the one who doesn't think Sartre isn't discussed

[Anonymous No.18782745]

>>18782701
Right, I think I'm getting it now. Thanks for that.
>>18782712
Then you run into some problems pretty quickly because our current model of physics is highly subjective. Concepts like space and time are testably relativist, in fact they're only different things from our own point of view. How can you develop anything resembling a based model of philosophy that doesn't account for innate subjectivity of reality without detaching it from reality entirely, making it both practically useless and, although internally consistent, ironically entirely subjective?

[Anonymous No.18782754]

>>18782668
>Religion is the grandest grand narrative I can imagine.
It doesn't have to be, Vattimo has his "weak faith", and the notion of religion is extremely relevant for a lot of 'postmodernists' (Kearney, Caputo, Gadamer and so on). The death of faith/religion/god is also a kind of faith in the end.

What we're saying is that 'postmodernism' uses religion qua religion (NOT philosophy) in order to critique certain trends philosophy, 'metaphysics', 'onto-theology'.

The modernist mistake is thinking that there's a clear difference between faith-reason, or that the Bible is just homogenous "grand narrative"

[Anonymous No.18782762]

>>18782641
In your post where you replied to four of my posts, the fifth one isn't me but another anon. Sartre came up in one of my earliest philosophy classes. I also ended up reading Being and Nothingness myself because one of my professors here mentioned he took a class on it in his youth. I'm not going to pretend it's not taught anywhere, you'll have to take that up to the other anon.

[Anonymous No.18782771]

>>18782728
I'm not sure I follow, can you rephrase? Christianity (which the fusion of Greco-Roman philosophy with its roots in the Sumerian tradition and the Semitic traditions) is the root of Western civilization which means there's almost no Western philosophy you can't trace to Christianity either by direct inspiration or through attempted refutation. If that's what you're saying then I agree.

[Anonymous No.18782779]

>>18782745
>How can you develop anything resembling a based model of philosophy that doesn't account for innate subjectivity of reality without detaching it from reality entirely, making it both practically useless and, although internally consistent, ironically entirely subjective?
Very simply: transcendental idealism. The world as we experience it (and especially time and space) are subjective representations of the true reality.

[Anonymous No.18782831]

>>18782754
I fundamentally disagree with this definition of the death of God. It's not so much a kind of faith as it is the demolishing of the capacity to experience a spiritual component of reality. The Bible IS a grand narrative because it's the foundation of the West.
>>18782779
You and I have very different definitions of simple. How is that meaningfully distinct from relativism if we're incapable of perceiving true reality? How do you even define true reality in the abstract?

[Anonymous No.18782845]

>>18782771
I was just getting at the idea about Christianity’s giving space for its own subversion and “removal” through consciousness of victimage, seeing this is the case with marxism, today’s politics and the materialism based on christian moral. But it also makes sense that everything can only emerge from it, positive or not.

[Anonymous No.18782894]

>>18782845
Yeah, I think that's a fair point. An interesting rabbithole to go down is Jung's take on the schisms, specifically the Protestants, and the role of the various sects in the development of Western ideals. Jung being Jung it starts to really feel like some sort of divine plan where there are hundreds of flavours to appeal to every kind of person and it's all drawing people in to a sacred shared and universal truth. Of course then you get into the shadow of that which you've touched on a little.

[Anonymous No.18782931]

>>18782894
Good recommendation, didn’t know Jung could provide fruitful examinations about this. But as for the hegelian Spirit and dialectics, do you think it can express this idea as well?

[Anonymous No.18782932]

>>18782831
There are ways of getting to know the thing-in-itself without needing to empirically experience it. One such way is pure mysticism and esotericism. But that does not matter for physics; what matters is the acknowledgement that there is a common, shared reality founding every experience.

[Anonymous No.18782945]

>>18770956
Three names
1. Robert Brandom
2. Sebastian Rödl
And most importantly 3. Irad Kimhi

[Anonymous No.18782949]

>>18782677
>It doesn't matter... Dasein possess the knowledge of Being
>knowledge
You're a shitty reader then, and you read Dreyfus, not Heidegger. Use the word understanding.
>Being is in itself
Why are you forcing Kantian concepts where they don't belong? You're hypostatizing Being into a substance or an "entity", which is exactly what Heidegger warns you about. There's nothing "beyond" the ϕαινόμενον for Heidegger's phenomenological method.

You're revealing yourself as a hopeless anglo who reads everything through the lens of epistemology and Kantian schemas. Try § 7 in SZ again.

Nietzsche denies the existence of a subject, subject as identity.

[Anonymous No.18782961]

>>18782931
No fucking idea, man, I don't understand Hegel at all. Maybe someone else ITT can give us that perspective.
>pure mysticism and esotericism
Elaborate on that? There's some historical context of that in alchemy as I recall but the eventual product of that was the scientific method which just takes us in circles.

[Anonymous No.18782967]

>>18782961
>>18782932
Forgot to link

[Anonymous No.18782975]

>>18782949
I don't even know what § 7 in SZ is

[Anonymous No.18783042]

>>18782949
>Dreyfus
I don't read commentaries as my first reading, and especially not Dreyfus', which is highly reductive. Address the argument instead of throwing accusations.
>Use the word understanding.
I did not read it in English. I don't care what each term translates into. You sufficiently grasped my meaning.
>Why are you forcing Kantian concepts where they don't belong?
Because I don't want to fall into subjectivism?
>You're hypostatizing Being into a substance or an "entity"
Not at all. What I take issue with is not his saying that Being is ontological rather than ontical; it is that it is that his way of enquiry into Being is dependent on Dasein, making it subjectivist.
>You're revealing yourself as a hopeless anglo
Kek you couldn't be more wrong.
>Nietzsche denies the existence of a subject, subject as identity.
I am criticizing his "theory of knowledge" (if it can't be called that). I don't care what he calls it: perspectivism is subjectivism.

[Anonymous No.18783049]

>>18771992
seethe

[Anonymous No.18783080]

>>18782961
>Elaborate on that?
In mysticism and esotericism you try to bypass the material world "raising" your state of consciousness via asceticism. If you accept transcendental idealism, the way you experience the world is dependent on how your mind and your senses represent the world. This makes it possible, theoretically, that other sorts of experiences which have no use of time and space are possible only with modifications of how the mind experiences the world.

[Anonymous No.18783090]

>>18783080
Wow this is embarrassing anon. Kantians really can't into esotericism lmfao, read some Boehme or something bro.

[Anonymous No.18783110]

>>18783090
>Kantians really can't into esotericism
Of course they can. What I said is close to Schopenhauer's view of esotericism. If you have an argument, tell it instead of crying like a woman.

[Anonymous No.18783114]

I'm really glad I don't know what the fuck any of you are talking about because this seems like a gigantic waste of time!

[Anonymous No.18783174]

>>18783080
I'm going to be real, that sounds like a load of non sense.

[Anonymous No.18783201]

>>18783174
Do you mean that it doesn't follow from transcendental idealism? Or whether that it does but transcendental idealism doesn't make sense? At any rate, these are difficult things to grasp and can't be properly communicated in a few lines on image boards

[Anonymous No.18783214]

>>18783114
This is what happens when men under 30 are allowed to study philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18783219]

>>18783214
>meanwhile Plato as a teenager was following Socrates everywhere

[Anonymous No.18783223]

>>18783201
I mean that the ability to develop your perception to exist outside of space and time without first being disassembled in a nuclear accident and reforming yourself over several months into a glowing blue ubermensch seems a little far fetched to me.

[Anonymous No.18783226]

>>18783219
Socrates didn't really exist, anon

[Anonymous No.18783230]

>>18783042
>I did not read it in English.
Nobody would use the word "knowledge" to recapitulate main points if they've read Heidegger - as if he's some epistemologist.

>Because I don't want to fall into subjectivism?
You can accuse Heidegger for relativism, fine, but subjectivism is incoherent when applied to Heidegger because it's pure present-at-handedness.

>Not at all.
Yes you are, you're making Being and ("Being in itself") into beings (Can I have knowledge of or encounter this being? Is this being dependent on some other being? Can we have this being without that being?). The question and inquiry of Being is dependent on Dasein because Dasein is the kind of being that can ask those questions, but Being, which isn't a "THING"/"ENTITY", is better understood in terms of "Lichtung" where Being reveals itself - this is not a "in itself" that is going on in relationship to subjects, but something that takes place in history and enables Dasein (a kind of being) to understand itself.

>perspectivism is subjectivism.
You're still conflating subject with identity if you can't keep these two apart - Nietzsche doesn't accept the difference between the doer and the deed.

[Anonymous No.18783241]

>>18783230
>Nietzsche doesn't accept the difference between the doer and the deed
I'm not sure I understand what you mean

[Anonymous No.18783243]

>>18783223
The issue then is transcendental idealism. Once you become convinced that the space and time we experience are not real in themselves, but are only constructs of the mind, then it would be more palatable to think experiences without space and time is possible. Maybe read more of Kant? Unless you already have arguments against him.

[Anonymous No.18783253]

>>18783226
Lies.

[Anonymous No.18783302]

>>18783243
It's not so much they're not real as their not different things. From our limited subjective perspective trying to comment on the meaning of a song by seeing how it vibrates water surfaces. If the current model of point particles is anywhere approaching accurate then at a certain speed unattainable by mass all events are concurrent which is only possible if causality both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. It's not that these things are constructs of the mind but that the mind is unable to construct a framework for them. Kant may have had some impressive ideas but anyone who makes claims about objective reality without accounting for physical relativity is describing shadows on a cave wall.

[Anonymous No.18783320]

>>18783302
>their not different things
Lmao. I guess I'm reaching the limits of my abilities here. I'd love to hear your response but I think I'm tapped out.

[Anonymous No.18783327]

>>18783219
Yes and look what it did to Plato

[Anonymous No.18783363]

>>18783230
>"knowledge"
I did not mean explicit conceptual knowledge, but rather implicit knowledge, or as you said Understanding. At any rate you are splitting hairs.
>You can accuse Heidegger for relativism, fine, but subjectivism is incoherent when applied to Heidegger
Relativism is subjectivism as far as this discussion is concerned. I mean subject as the transcendental subject of knowledge. It has nothing to do with presence-at-hand.
>Yes you are, you're making Being and ("Being in itself") into beings
Again, not at all. I agree with his ontic/ontological distinction. You cannot encounter Being as an entity just as you cannot encounter the thing-in-itself as an entity. What I take issue with is that he says Being must be equal to the pre-ontological """understanding""" (as you insist) of Dasein. Whereas the pre-ontological understanding, as you admitted, is entirely relative and arbitrary. Arbitrary to and only dependent on the possessor/subject of this understanding (or as he insists, dAsEiN), which is what makes it subjectivist.
>Nietzsche
Nietzsche also makes knowledge dependent on the transcendental subject of knowledge, which he calls perspective. The terminology itself is not so much important as the fact that it makes knowledge arbitrary.

At any rate, anon, you do not make a good interlocutor. I'll end the discussion here unless you say something important.

[Anonymous No.18783417]

>>18783302
It's always a good idea to consider what natural sciences say when we are doing philosophy, but the important fact is that philosophy precedes natural science. The question of the reality or ideality of time and space requires us to suspend our judgment about the reality of the material world before we answer the question. By presupposing physics, we would be presupposing materialism, and therefore presupposing our answer, which would contradict transcendental idealism. But as I said, the question of the reality or ideality time and space must precede physics.

[Anonymous No.18783662]

>>18783363
>I mean subject as the transcendental subject of knowledge. It has nothing to do with presence-at-hand.
Yes it does, this is constituting Being in terms of presence (BEING IS DEPENDENT ON THE SUBJECT'S KNOWLEDGE THAT IS PRESENT-AT-HAND), which is subjectivism

>What I take issue with is that he says Being must be equal to the pre-ontological """understanding""" (as you insist) of Dasein
Nowhere does he do this, pre-ontological understanding is non-thematic, non-explicit and isn't even a full contribution to the Seinsfrage - this is like saying that pre-ontological understanding fully constitutes what Dasein is, which is false. Also, these "thrown" understandings by Dasein are the exact opposite of "arbitrary" because they literally structure Dasein's orientation in the world.

>Arbitrary to and only dependent on the possessor/subject of this understanding (or as he insists, dAsEiN), which is what makes it subjectivist.
Now you're making understanding into some abstract (present-at-hand) object divorced from Dasein that needs to be correctly related to some other being (the structure of the world presumably) if it wants to be safeguarded from being "arbitrary". It's completely delusional how you can wilfully misread Heidegger like this just because you want to.

But sure, ignore Lichtung, the generality of Dasein, language, hermeneutics, phenomenological destruction, his philosophy of history, and all the other things that makes Heidegger an extremely anti-humanist, anti-subjectivist thinker. You've already made your mind up in your crusade against Heidegger, subjectivism and the "bad guys" in history of philosophy.

>transcendental subject of knowledge
Stop talking kantianese, you're constantly blurring the vocabularies of philosophers. But so, to what arbiter do you propose Nietzsche should conform his "theory of knowledge" to if not the perspective? Are you afraid Nietzsche doesn't pay enough attention to "truth" or "objectivity"? There's no "true knowledge" to relate to. It's funny how you missed the whole point that N wants to hammer into the reader.

[Anonymous No.18783892]

>>18783417
And there's the problem, objectivity can only be ascertained through the scientific method because it defines the rules of the "shared space" which is apart from consciousness. The conscious space is not shared and therefore is subjective. The scientific method has shown us that the shared space is sufficiently complex that it is or might as well be subjective and any retreat out of the shared space into the conscious space is a retreat into the evolved tool used to navigate a functionally subjective universe.

This is the crux of the death of God, the objective fulfillment of the progress of logos to the highest possible value has demolished the framework of non-materialist perspectives as subjective and therefore of being relative. You can't say philosophy precedes natural science because natural science is the study of the dimensions in which philosophy operates. If you don't operate within those bounds you're essentially playing language games in a domain detached from reality and any conclusions you derive may be incredibly interesting but can never be "true". It's like when they plug negative energy into Einstein's equations to prove faster-than-light travel is possible, it's really interesting but if negative energy doesn't exist (and we've found no evidence it does) then it tells us nothing about the nature of the universe and is fundamentally no more true than the right answer in a crossword.

[Anonymous No.18783945]

>>18783892
This. The DoG isn't a Christian specific problem otherwise you'd be able to say that God isn't real but the ideas are good so we're going to act like he is and the wheels will keep turning, it's a philosophical timebomb that negates *in principle* any philosophical movement that isn't based in the laws of the natural world.

Perhaps Kant still has value in the task of reconstructing the "shared space" but given he was so heavily influenced by Christian theology and therefore had his legs cut out from under him by the DoG first principle negation you're going to struggle to do that in less than a three part volume.

Kant doesn't have the answer to the death of God because he didn't even know to ask the right question.

[Anonymous No.18784065]

>>18770956
This was already happening in the early and mid 90s with Schelling through Andrew Bowie as well as SUNY press.

Also be warned that the return of idealism is not at all a movement against postmodernism; rather its most active defenders tend to be postmodernists i.e. Slavoj Zizek's synthesis of Marxism, Lacan psychoanalysis and Hegelian-Schellingian dialectical and unconscious theories.

[Anonymous No.18784268]

>>18783363
Have you even read the Nietzsche lectures by Heidegger? This is a painful mis-reading of Being and Time and you would realize it the second you read any of his less well known works. Heidegger explicitly talks about Nietzsche's subjectivism in the fourth volume as well.

[Anonymous No.18784390]

>>18772280
>philosophy was a source of happiness for Nietzsche
Is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.18784842]

>>18782655
>Chomsky
He's part of that fad cause of the anglo he is.

[Anonymous No.18784895]

>>18774086
this literally. It's impossible to talk to people about anything idealism, German philosophy when those people have no clue about German language and have not even made the effort to learn the central terms in German and look at the passages they cite in German.
It's almost as if they speak about a different philosopher and philosophy. This is somewhat hyperbally but they way I've seen Hegel laid out in English compared to German, Kant in English compared to German, Heidegger in English compared to German; even someone like Wittgenstein who's been so co-opted by Anglos that people in Germany rather read the English translation to participate in the dialogue, sounds rather different in German.

[Anonymous No.18784924]

>>18784895
ok apart from some very specific words which will be informed about in notes, what does one lose? will you tell us about *style* in kant, hegel, fichte? come the fuck on

[Anonymous No.18784948]

>begin Heidies' Question Concerning Technology
>36 page translator preface
>paragraph long footnotes all throughout the actual work just in case the reader didn't bother with the preface

[Anonymous No.18786141]

>>18783945
>>18783892
Gabriel Catren has solved this, see his contribution to 'The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism':
>Outland Empire: Prolegomena to Speculative Absolutism
https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/gabriel-catren-outland-empire.pdf

And his solution using quantum mechanics (Catren is a physicist) to solve Kant in Collapse V
>A Throw of the Quantum Dice Will Never Overturn the Copernican Revolution
https://www.urbanomic.com/chapter/collapse-v-gabriel-catren-a-throw-of-the-quantum-dice-will-never-overturn-the-copernican-revolution/

His book is coming out later this year:
https://www.urbanomic.com/book/pleromatica/

[Anonymous No.18786176]

>>18781478
Haven't started yet

[Anonymous No.18786279]

>>18786141
Hi Catren

[Anonymous No.18787239]

>>18786279
He's a frog mate, no speeka de englaise