[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 211 KB, 710x735, immanuel-kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19546166 No.19546166 [Reply] [Original]

How come everyone knows him, but no one reads him? How many times have I come across students of philosophy who have not even cracked open his Critique! Schopenhauer himself said that people who have not read Kant are like children and have not reached maturity. Reading Kant will cause your intellectual rebirth. Here is what Schopenhauer says.

>"It alone (reading Kant) is capable of really removing the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect... In consequence of this, the mind undergoes a fundamental undeceiving, and thereafter looks at all things in another light."

If you do not read Kant you will continue to think erroneous things (like assuming theoretical reasoning can come to the conclusion of God, which is the opinion of so-many theists these days, which reveals how desperately we are in need of Kant).

>> No.19546209

>>19546166
This mindset is cope for continentals that don't want to admit that British philosophers already solved the interesting problems. Kant is only interesting as far as Hegel was influenced by him.

>> No.19546249

>>19546209
What British philosophers?

>> No.19546267

>>19546166
>removing the inborn realism
All these skeptics curiously remember their realism when their physical safety comes into question

>> No.19546336

>>19546209
>British
>philosophers
Pick one

>> No.19546344

>>19546166
I'm reading the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics right now because I got filtered by the Critique's bulk. Kant is so autistic in his length and style of expression that it's hard not to get filtered by him. This is why no one reads Kant. They should, but there's a good reason why they don't.

>> No.19546347

Humans are mortal beings with finite time to do stuff so pending dozens of hours reading the most insufferable human in history is a hard sell.

>> No.19546415

>>19546166
Because he tried to advance knowledge beyond the limits of empiricism, invented a large number of abstract concepts and ideas, which promptly collapsed into an incoherent mess.

>> No.19546551

>>19546415
I'm reading Hume now and come on, he just took the very obvious conclusion from Hume's empiricism about the relation between impressions and mind (as receptor of it) and all the principles of the mind that make experience what it is for us.

>> No.19546559

>>19546209
> Kant
> Interesting because of H*gel
kys

>> No.19546562

>>19546336
Kant was awoken from his dogmatic slumber by one, seethe and cope faggot.

>> No.19546573

>>19546562
Hume was Scottish and the only philosopher from that grim island worth noting.

>> No.19546588

>>19546166
>like assuming theoretical reasoning can come to the conclusion of God, which is the opinion of so-many theists these days, which reveals how desperately we are in need of Kant.
Kant was Christian theist btw. That's exactly why Nietzsche hate him so much.

Read Luther.

>> No.19546614

>>19546344
Kant is very pleasant to read. It's always problem > concept > applying it > disclaimer for retards not understanding

>> No.19546627

>>19546573
>took lessons to develop an English accent
Cope and seeth c*ntinental cuck.

>> No.19546639

>>19546588
Nietzsche was deeply influenced by Kant and claimed Kant acted ‘like a fox who strays back into his cage. Yet it had been his strength and cleverness that had broken open the cage'. He just thought some of Kant's conclusions dumb and pure cope.

>> No.19546644

>>19546627
>A dog that tries to moo is now a cow.
Not how it works A*gloid.

>> No.19546651

>>19546627
You don't get Godel without Frege and you don't get Frege without Kant.


That really Russells my Hilberts.

>> No.19546668

>>19546651
Frege was an irrelevant hack who did – L I T E R A L L Y – nothing for philosophy or logic; Russel BTFOs him in literally every possible metric.

Godel was fine but too autistic to compare to Russel as well btw.

>> No.19546681

>>19546668
Proof Theory might as well be hymning Hindu Veda passages and Haikus.

>> No.19546698

>>19546668
Continental Analytic divide is fake and gay. False dichotomy. It is more of a temperament and knowledge background than any disagreement. Different characters but not really disagreeable.
Logical P*sitivists are cringy without Euler diagrams powered with Set Theory

>> No.19546727

>>19546209
should i read hegel or kant first? is hegel even worth reading

>> No.19546731

>>19546727
Only if you want to be a professional liar and cheat is Hegel worth reading, comrade.

>> No.19546752
File: 17 KB, 495x362, proxy-image (26).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19546752

HOW LONG DOES IT FUCKING TAKE TO FINISH HUME'S TREATISE AND KANT'S CRITIQUES AND PROLOGMENAS?

>> No.19546770

>>19546415
The Noumena is Kant's best takeaway that can be highlighted in an abstract of his massive tomes. It rings back to a ressurected understanding of what the early Pythagoreans had and the Buddha's early Bhikkus had about neither existing nor not existing.

>> No.19546782

>>19546639
Source of the quote? It is true Nietzsche follows after Kant very closely, in his writing on causality, appearance, ontology, etc. Also his big ideas of will to power and eternal return are basically variations on the transcendental ideas.

>> No.19546790

>>19546639
Reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Ball busting Tortoise and premature ejaculating Achilles (originally not profanely sexualized)

>> No.19546793

>>19546782
Gay Science 335

>> No.19546802

>>19546793
And that's why I was sexualizing the tortoise

>> No.19546817

>>19546639
Thus spoke Zarathustra is a parody of the Lutheran Bible from which Kant took so much influence, remember that Kant was a Lutheran pietist and almost everything he wrote was in honor of Luther and his parents, you can even look for the relationships between the Protestant ethic and the categorical imperative within that Christian denomination. When Nietzsche was writing against piety, he was actually writing against Kant, almost all of Nietzsche's books are attacks on Plato and Kant. Nietzsche even famously characterized Kant as a "catastrophic spider" because he took him to have insinuated an essentially Christian morality into the secular German philosophical tradition.

>> No.19546883

>>19546651
You also don't get Schrodinger without Schopenhauer

>> No.19547320

>>19546752
few weeks for hume and a year or so for kant

>> No.19547447

>>19546817
Nietzsche's Sigma Male imperative

>> No.19547452

>>19546644
British != English
You retarded Yank.

>> No.19547463

>>19547452
Books on helping me understand your God forsaken usury island?

>> No.19547598

>>19547320
Isn’t one month for each critique enough? Practical Reason is like 200 pages.

>> No.19547834

>>19547598
critique of pure reason will take you several months, the rest will take a month or so like you said. Kant actually doesn't stay hard to understand once you get familiar with his lingo. with Hegel understanding his lingo doesnt really help.

>> No.19549310

>>19546817
Nietzsche was a faggot

>> No.19549405

Not only I have read Kant, I have also surpassed him.
I have never read Schopenhauer though, but fro what I hear he seems to have been a genuine idiot.
>(like assuming theoretical reasoning can come to the conclusion of God, which is the opinion of so-many theists these days, which reveals how desperately we are in need of Kant).
Kant's arguments against the ontological argu,ent is so faulty it's not even funny. The two main problems are that 1) the phenomena/noumena distinction is untenable (which means that the WHOLE transcendental dialectic section in the first critique is bunk) and 2) it is simply not true that existence is not a predicate (with this claim Kant kust proved that his philosophy was not able to grasp the notion of "fictitious concept" for example).

>> No.19549410

>>19546817
Kant never went to church in the last 50 years of his life, and he almost never read the Bible.

>> No.19549414

>>19547834
I disagree, I think what you said about Kant can be applied to Hegel too. The Phenomenology is the hard book, but once you're done with it the rest is a cakewalk in comparison (even the Science of Logic, although it will probably take you more than one month since it is so long)

>> No.19549423

>>19546166
>How come everyone knows him, but no one reads him
Because his books are as unreadable in German as they are in English, in short he sucks as a writer.

>> No.19549430

>>19546562
HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.19549497

>>19549423
You're a weakling. The hard part of the first critique (the Analytics section) is like 150-200 pages long, and if you understand that literally everything else Kant wrote will come easy.
When people complain about Kant being hard you can rest assured that they're retards who cannot even work over 200 pages. Embarassing

>> No.19549508

>>19546166
I'm far beyond Kant in my understanding of the mind and reality

>> No.19549511

>>19546817
>Kant was a Lutheran pietist and almost everything he wrote was in honor of Luther and his parents
Fucking nietzschean brain dead pseudoscholars need to kill themselves. so retarded. Nietzsche's sociology tier "critiques" make me want to claw mine and your eyes out

>> No.19549625

>>19549405
>Kant's arguments against the ontological argu,ent is so faulty it's not even funny
the ontological/cosmological argument tries to prove that God's existence is a necessity, but Kant said this was wrong because the existence of anything is not actually logically necessary (because its not a real predicate), and can be conceived as non-existing without contradiction. What do you think?

>> No.19549638
File: 217 KB, 680x778, 1602877714909.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19549638

>>19546166
Read Him in High Dutch or stop reading entirely

>> No.19549651

>>19549511
Don't know exactly what that anon meant about Kant and Luther, but what do you think is wrong with Nietzsche?

>> No.19549708

>>19549625
What does Kant say about, say, the unmoved mover? How is that first cause not necessary (and necessarily outside that which is caused)?

>> No.19549735

>>19549651
nietzsche is fine when he's talking about your existential existence, and he was a novel thinker. But his megalomanic arch-contrarianism spoils his entire ouvre. He comes up with the most deranged shit reminiscent of frankfurt school tier social criticism. The Antichrist for example, is horribly disappointing because it's 1% genuine criticism of christianity and 99% him building up his ridiculous personal mythology and vomiting out the highest imaginable form of pseudointellectual social criticism so that every retard who reads him thinks they are a genius for understand and they come to places like this spout off his crap day after day exactly like marxists who get indoctrinated into marx's mythology about labor theory of value and the bourgeoisie and capitalism and proletariat and immediately eat it up like the naive children they always are. it's infuriating. Nietzsche is the source of the absurd extrahistorical speculation about Kant being a devout lutheran with "theologian blood."

>> No.19549747

>>19549735
which, by the way, he thinks is an actual legitimate criticism of Kant. He thinks that finding out the motivation for why believe in things is equivalent to deboonking whatever it is they believe in. massive and classic red flag for a pseud because they think they are very clever after they've managed to reduce people like kant to desperate theologians, they get to think they're better than everyone for rising above the naive and one dimensional motivations they apply to them

>> No.19549776

>>19549735
Kant was raised by pietists and he affirmed his attacks against reason was to make room for faith, his ethics need God. But do you have a direct quote of Nietzsche's extrahistorical speculation about Kant? Maybe the problem is not Nietzsche himself, but nietzscheans. Anyhow, most of what he claims about Christianity, of course is taken in his perspective and thus rendered inferior, but I mean, he is aware of the shift of consciousness Christianity provoked in human history, a change from ancient forms of society to this new one, and this is still fundamental to our own age and its social consciousness. I could extend myself much longer about, for example, how this christian consciousness is subverted into a satanic worry with minorities, oppressed people.

>> No.19549827

>>19546817
God this is such an awful 'critique'. Literally the same causal fallacy as "we should discredit America because it was inspired by racists".

>> No.19549869

>>19549625
I've already answered in 2) I think. Kant has no notion of "fictitious concepts", insofar as his logic is not equipped to deal with concepts that are meant to be explicitly fictitious (e.g. the concept of "Achilles", or the concept of "Trojan War, as it is described in Homer's Iliad", which are concept that would not denote any actual object in the world even if there were to be something that possessed all the non-modal determinations of those concepts).

I'll add another somewhat related bit: Kant's logical claim cannot be trusted, insofar as he has not given a legitimate metaphysical deduction of his categories (I would even argue that he literally cannot give any such deduction, but this would be another different point). He says that for his argument to work, it must be proved with absolute certainity that the table of categories must be complete, and that this completeness cannot be proven by induction, e.g. by giving a list and challenging readers to find more categories (as Hegel did when noticed that "quantity", "quality", "relation" and "modality" where categories themselves) or reduce at least one category to another (as Schopenhauer did, when he brought the number of categories down to 10). Too bad that this is exactly what he does. The table of categories is derived from the table of forms of judgements, but no metaphysical deduction is offered for this table: in fact Kant ends up trying to prove its validity by challenghing his readers to find any mistake in it. Oddly enough, Kant's a priori concepts of pure intellect have no a priori foundation (in fact it has an a posteriori foundation, since its validity is grounded om the contingent fact of other speakers not having managed yet to find any mistake in it).

>> No.19549901

>>19549708
To Kant the unmoved mover cannot be proved from the principle of causality because it has no meaning outside the cosmos. The conceptual impossibility of infinite causes (which is pretty much the crux of the argument) is according to Kant no grounds for supposing an uncaused cause, as not only is this principle of impossibility assumed a priori, and not only is it being extended outside of the senses despite that, but here a mere concept (infinite regression) is being used to prove an objective and actual unifying force underlying all reality. To sum, a Concept is being used to prove a Being, which Kant believes is wrong because, as "concepts without intuition are empty", we have no intuitions regarding God or the first cause because this is out of our senses.

>> No.19549903

>>19546166
replace Kant with Aristotle (inb4 "muh realism" - daily reminder Aristotle states more than once that, "in a sense, mind is all that is real") and you've got a point. Kant is the poor man's (or more accurately, the workman's Aristotle, see Nietzsche) Aristotle.

>> No.19549989

Because Kant is too hard for people.

>> No.19550012

>>19549903
>see Nietzsche
Post the quote or the extract

>> No.19550039

>>19550012
I can't be bothered finding it, it's the one where he analyzes Kant's philosophy, specifically his architectonic categories, based on the fact that his family heritage was one of craftsmen and labourers. Gay Science somewhere