/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19616472]

Is he the only German philosopher that isn't trash?

[Anonymous No.19616487]

>>19616472
Uh, no. Leibniz, Marx, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Frege, Stirner, Bauer, Feuerbach, Schelling, Fichte off the top of my head.

[Anonymous No.19616491]

>>19616487
>Leibniz, Marx, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Frege, Stirner, Bauer, Feuerbach, Schelling,
All bad

[Anonymous No.19616493]

>>19616487
Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.19616507]

>>19616487
Could’ve stopped at Leibniz

[Anonymous No.19616573]

If your conception of the the most important philosophical tradition since classical Athens is that it's trash then I don't know what you could consider to be 'good' philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19616580]

>>19616487
I agree with you but the 'uh, no.' makes me want to punch you in your faggot face

[Anonymous No.19616600]

>>19616580
Completely uncalled for, freak

[Anonymous No.19616615]

>>19616580
'Faggot face' is a lame usage of alliteration, had you used it against me? Heh! - I'd have left you a bruised and broken mess, whining for the dumb cunt that pushed you from her smelly crack.

[Anonymous No.19616623]

>>19616600
Are you a woman or something?

[Anonymous No.19616628]

>>19616623
No
Your anger at tiny little things is very feminine, so fuck off bitch

[Anonymous No.19616636]

>>19616628
Kill yourself nigger

[Anonymous No.19616641]

>>19616636
Kill yourself nigger

[Anonymous No.19616667]

>>19616636
>>19616641
Kill yourselves niggers

[Anonymous No.19616678]

>>19616667
>>19616641
>>19616636
good morning niggers

[Anonymous No.19616697]

>>19616487
>>19616491
>>19616493
>>19616507
>>19616573
>>19616580
>>19616600
>>19616615
>>19616623
>>19616628
>>19616636
>>19616641
>>19616667
>>19616678
good morning sirs
having great day

yours,
rajesh

[Anonymous No.19616699]

[Anonymous No.19616702]

>>19616699
I don't think he was a philosopher, none of his ideas were new

[Anonymous No.19616712]

>Ctrl+F Novalis
>No results found.

[Anonymous No.19616714]

>>19616699
Not to mention his ideas were not good

[Anonymous No.19616716]

>>19616712
I actually don't know much about him
I'll look him up

[Anonymous No.19616773]

>>19616714

[Anonymous No.19616916]

>>19616472
He's mediocre at best. I hate Schopenhauer's pessimism but he is the best I have read from that country.

[Anonymous No.19616941]

Yeah, he’s based. Compare, Black Sabbath:

Well I don't want no preacher telling me about the god in the sky
No I don't want no one to tell me where I'm gonna go when I die
I want to live my life with no people telling me what to do
I just believe in myself, 'cause no one else is true

Kant:
If I have a book that understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay -- others will easily undertake the irksome work for me. That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex) -- quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone.

[Anonymous No.19618075]

>>19616916
How can you like Schopenhauer and dislike Kant? Kant is by far the biggest influence in Schoppy's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19618124]

>>19616712
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.19618198]

>>19618075
They probably like the ways in which he diverges from Kant. This really isn't that hard.

[Anonymous No.19618570]

>>19616941
So paying someone to do something for you = immaturity? I'll be honest, I don't think this idea is very smart. He could have used a better example of being docile or being cattle.

[Anonymous No.19618654]

>>19618570
The point is not the commercial exchange but the substitution of your intellect for another’s. Which btw might be a good practice for you.

[Anonymous No.19618715]

>>19618654
Well he's basically fucking criticizing the market because people pay people to do stuff for them. No one ever is forced to do anything when it comes to choosing whether or not to listen to what a book, doctor, or pastor says, it's only from authority and the social system you are told what to do. Everything else is voluntary. Kant would have never gotten into philosophy if he didn't read the books of some of his contemporaries, and no one who reads those books takes 100% of it as being absolutely true.

[Anonymous No.19618858]

>>19616472
Bump

[Anonymous No.19619269]

>kant
>not trash
The guy single handedly created the modern mess.
The only philosopher to advocate the destruction of reality.
Because you have eyes, you cannot see the real world. Because you have ears, you cannot hear the real sounds.

[Anonymous No.19619279]

>>19619269
Based and Ayn Randpilled

[Anonymous No.19619859]

>>19618715
It's been four hours and he still hasn't replied. I guessed he realized the error in his ways.

[Anonymous No.19619888]

>>19619269
He never denied reality.
He never advocated for pure idealism, only transcendental idealism. He was one of the biggest advocaters of reason.
The guys that came after him are the ones that denied reality, like Nietzsche did.

[Anonymous No.19620231]

>>19616472
Kant *is* trash

[Anonymous No.19620243]

>>19619269
do your eyes see all the color spectrum? or your ears hear all waves of sound?

[Anonymous No.19620631]

>>19616697
a very good morning to you sir rajesh

[Anonymous No.19620656]

>>19620243
how do you know about the color spectrum and soundwaves that fall outside the human range of hearing? how come physics has been able to determine relationships between space and time when kant argued that they were purely categories of the mind which must be take at face value as a condition for the possibility of and a limit of all possible human knowledge of spacial and temporal being?

[Anonymous No.19621120]

>>19616487
Freud

[Anonymous No.19621133]

>>19616472
>Despising Herr Schoppy
The Charlatan was pretty based too. Also, Habermas, considering people who are still alive.

[Anonymous No.19621274]

>>19620656
Astoundingly powerful argument brother, I had never considered before that consensus in theoretical physics is presuppositional to any rational thought.8GM0H

[Anonymous No.19622000]

>>19616712
based magical idealist

[Anonymous No.19623568]

>>19621274
when a philosophy makes what it believes are timeless metaphysical claims about the boundaries of possible knowledge it's kinda embarassing when those boundaries turn out not to exist

[Anonymous No.19623605]

>>19616472
Arendt is cool.

[Anonymous No.19623630]

>>19616916
Why do you dislike Kant?

[Anonymous No.19623698]

>>19616699
Nice try, he's Austrian

[Anonymous No.19623724]

>>19623698
I bet North and South Koreans are different ethnicities to you as well.

[Anonymous No.19623729]

>>19621120
Adler > Freud

[Anonymous No.19623736]

>>19616487
>Marx
>Benjamin
>Horkheimer
>Adorno
Not German

[Anonymous No.19623738]

>>19616472
Kant lived in Königsberg, modern day Kalingrad Russia. That's even East of Poland. You wouldn't argue Prussia=Germany now, would you? And you wouldn't justify Hitler invading Poland either.
Most America think Austrians are Germans too, you gotta draw one line or the other.

[Anonymous No.19623854]

>>19616472
the guy who ruined philosophy? no. i would not rate him very highly

[Anonymous No.19623858]

>>19616472
Kant, Leibniz, and Schopy are the only good ones. Everything else to come from the Teutonic brute is sophistry and dangerous insanity, the absolute worst that humanity has to offer.

[Anonymous No.19623934]

>>19616472
>tp
>tf

[Anonymous No.19623972]

He is trash

[Anonymous No.19624353]

>>19622000
Share your knowledge of Novalis wise anon cutie

[Anonymous No.19624358]

>>19623738
Ok but is she a kantian? That's all i need to know.

[Anonymous No.19624433]

>>19616941
Could you sauce me up on this one, brother? This sentiment resonates with me and I'd like to read further. Might even play that Sabbath track simultaneously for added effect.

[Anonymous No.19624481]

>>19624358
No, she isn't.
But pic related is.

[Anonymous No.19626035]

>>19616472
>>19616487
You forgot Martin Luther

[Anonymous No.19626388]

>>19624481
Seriously tho. Who is she and does she really read Kant? I just want a qt gf who will talk Kant with me while smoking cigarettes after having hot kinky sex.

[Anonymous No.19627533]

>>19616487
Marx is not a philosopher and post-Feuerbach philosophers are all trash

[Anonymous No.19627569]

>>19616487
>marx

[Anonymous No.19627573]

>>19616699
>>19616702
You're right he was a student of Kemal and Mussolini but his sheer spirit and force of will made him into something far greater.

[Anonymous No.19627588]

>>19623738
>And you wouldn't justify Hitler invading Poland either.
lol wrong faggot.

[Anonymous No.19627594]

>>19616472

[Anonymous No.19627623]

>>19616472
>German

Chinese.

[Anonymous No.19627677]

>>19627573
>but his sheer spirit and force of will made him into something far greater.
well that's fucking wrong
his charisma got him to where he wanted to go but his spirit of will failed him when he needed it most

[Anonymous No.19629268]

>>19626388
Yeah, she's a philosophy student in my Uni. Her name is Leonie, but I won't say more now for reasons of privacy

[Anonymous No.19629319]

>>19616472
Well, technically he was born Austrian, but Husserl destroyed Kant.

[Anonymous No.19629344]

>>19629319
how so?

[Anonymous No.19629419]

>>19618715
>>19619859
No it’s not about the market, reread my reply. And so what if it’s voluntary? That doesn’t change anything about his criticism. If you choose to substitute your intellect for another’s, it is probably more blame-worthy than if you have no choice. So what that he read other people’s books? The point of the quote is to say that coming to your own conclusions and not deferring to authority is the mark of intellectual maturity.

Why do you think anything you wrote proves Kant wrong and why are you focusing so terribly on the “so long as I can pay” part—it’s clearly a dash of irony. You’re not a good reader and you’re a worse thinker. You should keep deferring to intellectual authorities. Start by deferring to Kant.

[Anonymous No.19629479]

>>19629419
You should defer to kant.
Intelectual maturity not defering.

Please delete your bookmark for this page and takenyour woman logic with you.

[Anonymous No.19629486]

>>19629479
I am telling you that you are not intellectually mature.

[Anonymous No.19629520]

>>19629344
Husserl rejects the undifferentiated manifold, and the idea that percepts are synthesized from "sense data". The latter is seen as ex post facto extraction from what is originally given to consciousness as already partially structured and unified, if obscurely (this was later confirmed by empirical cognitive science). In other words, rather than having two determinates, "sensibility" and "manifold" interacting, Husserl insists that all determinacy is only forged in the act of perception itsel. No determinates can be presented as "interacting" prior to it, dissolving the question of whether the content of perception "pre-exists" in reality, or is generated by mind. This aspect of perception, which apprehends idealities as immediate unities, Husserl terms categorical intuition, and together with eidetic variation, which shapes concepts into definitional maturity, it forms the process of ideation. Thus, Husserl sails between the Scylla of passive reception of impressions à la Hume, and the Charybdis of German idealist "construction of reality" by the mind.

Categorical intuition releases Husserl from the need to keep perhaps the most implausible part of Kantian picture, the forever immutable a priori categories and forms of intuition. But it is not the intellectual intuition of Spinoza and Fichte, it captures invariances of sensuous experience, not "glimpses" of things in themselves. But with it Husserl can be more generous on what is almost a vanishing point in Kant, the unknowable X. The transcendence, as Husserl calls it, is that content of consciousness that "points beyond" consciousness itself, given to it as not its own but foreign, subject to pre-cognitive awareness as the "raw matter" of sensuous experience. The limited creative ability to perceive wholes, however weak and partial, ability that Kant denied us completely as "intellectus archetypus", allowed Husserl to remove some of the other-worldliness surrounding Kantian "supersensible substrate of experience", although as for Kant it remains beyond the reach of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19629533]

>>19627569
He *is* a good philosopher.
t. /pol/fag

[Anonymous No.19629579]

>>19629268
Damn. A man can dream. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.19629624]

>>19616472

Do I have to read Hume beforehand? I'm like 30 pages in his treatise on human nature or whatever it's called

[Anonymous No.19630160]

>>19619269
noumena are just plato's forms and phenomena are the shadows in the cave. Whitehead was right. All is contained in the works of plato.

[Anonymous No.19630180]

>>19619269
>guy who complains about 'le modernity' is a retard.
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.19630208]

>>19630160
What I love about Kant is his fucking Prussian precision. At first it comes across as obscurity but with familiarity it becomes clear as fuck, almost like, dare I say, intellectual intuition. Then if you go back and read the pre-Kantian philosophers and rephrase them in Kantian terminology their writings are so fucking clear.

[Anonymous No.19631108]

>>19623605
Hello, CIA

[Anonymous No.19631830]

>>19629520
Where in the Husserlian corpus is this? How does this manifest in Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.19631896]

>>19616487
glaring omission of Heidegger, and trust me, we all know why. ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.19632561]

>>19630160
Lmao. Go read kant before embarassing yourself like this

[Anonymous No.19632674]

Every philospher ever is just Plato or trying to be anti-Plato. Only Heidegger and Nietzsche are trying to light a new spark in Plato's looming shadow.