/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20201157]

Where is the 21st century Critique of Pure Reason? Why is it that nobody nowadays is producing anything on a level even close to this? Are you really going to tell me that a bunch of long-dead white European men had more insight and clarity of thought than anyone in our modern world that's fully connected with plenty of educated people from a variety of backgrounds?

I just wonder what's going on.

[Anonymous No.20201162]

>>20201157
Sam Harris is the modern day Kant

[Anonymous No.20201167]

>>20201157
>re you really going to tell me that a bunch of long-dead white European men had more insight and clarity of thought than anyone in our modern world
Why anon, yes, I am.

[Anonymous No.20201169]

>>20201157
Yeah. Were in a new dark ages. Why do you think academics changed the name to middle ages; they weren't comfortable with how similar we are now to Europe after the decline and fall.

[Anonymous No.20201190]

>>20201157
Where's the Leibniz of our age? Where's the Berkeley of our age? Our Pascal? Our William of Ockham?

Aristocratic education is dead so people are a fraction of what they could be. Standards have collapsed, mechanistic materialism became the new religion, and rational thinking is taboo. Strange how it all happened simultaneously with the fall of Christianity, and we were left with midwits like Nietzsche, Marx, and feminists.

[Anonymous No.20201193]

>>20201190
1800s saw an unprecedented decline in religion, not really the best example to use.

[Anonymous No.20201244]

>>20201193
1800s were vastly inferior to 1700s

[Anonymous No.20201262]

>>20201193
>1800s saw an unprecedented decline in religion
Not really. 99% of the population in western countries were still Christian and went to Church regularly.

[Anonymous No.20201267]

>>20201162
>>20201167
>>20201169
>>20201190
>>20201193
>>20201244
>>20201262

[Anonymous No.20201270]

>>20201157
video games, delivery, internet porn.. they didn't even have radio back then. thinking abt shit was a universal pasttime. now thinking doesn't pay bills. youtube and twitch and insta and stock trading does

[Anonymous No.20201274]

We get a book of COPR magnitude once every 600 years on average

[Anonymous No.20201277]

>>20201270
They had plenty of means of entertainment, there are plenty of people who barely need to work, and many more whose work is just "thinking about things". Nothing in your justification made sense.

[Anonymous No.20201288]

>>20201267
You really devoured that book

[Anonymous No.20201318]

>>20201274
What are the CPR-tier books of past ages?

[Anonymous No.20201335]

>>20201157
Is this pseud bait? Regurgitating what Kant or Hegel said is all contemporary philosphers do.

[Anonymous No.20201351]

>>20201157
Yeah. The CPR ended philosophy and there is nothing that is ever going to come close. Our job now is provide clarity to Kant's doctrines.

[Anonymous No.20201355]

>>20201162
thanks i puked

[Anonymous No.20201366]

>>20201157
Maybe actually start reading the works of modern philosophers so you can find out.

[Anonymous No.20201371]

>>20201277
First of all, my comment wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. But your comment is even more bullshit.
>plenty of means of entertainment
like what? You can only listen to music so much.
Strolling?
>there are plenty of people who barely need to work
And for those, I have already mentioned video games, movies, porn... Better means of entertainment means people are less likely to strive for accomplishing things that are fullfilling in other less immediate, material ways

Having other means of entertainment available means spending less time reading and thinking about stuff which means less quality. There I have replied to your last point.

If you look at reality, and stop trying to make everything into some pretentious theoretical account of stuff, see what people spend their time nowadays on: snapchat, twitch, tiktok... And you'll see that I'm right.

[Anonymous No.20201378]

>>20201371
You're such a coomer your brain is completely fried.

[Anonymous No.20201380]

>>20201190
>Aristocratic education is dead so people are a fraction of what they could be. Standards have collapsed, mechanistic materialism became the new religion, and rational thinking is taboo
Lmao, you're just a complacent retard that would rather seethe about muh decline of christianity, aristocracy and other spooks rather than engage with the modern currents of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20201381]

>>20201366
What's a modern work comparable to Critique of Pure Reason?

[Anonymous No.20201385]

>>20201318
The Enneads is one of them

[Anonymous No.20201390]

>>20201381
Less than Nothing by Zizek

[Anonymous No.20201394]

>>20201381
My book was considered similar to a modern day Prince, we're almost there

[Anonymous No.20201395]

>>20201378
And that's why you failed to reply to anything I said and I'm supposed to take you at your word that you obviously can provide an adequate reply but choose not to because you're better than that?
Ok, numbnut.

[Anonymous No.20201406]

>>20201335
Name one book from the 21st book of the same size, scale, and complexity.

[Anonymous No.20201408]

>>20201381

[Anonymous No.20201410]

>>20201406
Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy

[Anonymous No.20201411]

>>20201157
>what is cognitive science

[Anonymous No.20201467]

>>20201380
Engage with what? Retards arguing about what is or isn't qualia? Or other retards who've already presupposed that efficient causes are the only causes asserting that there are no other causes and therefore no free will? No thanks.

[Anonymous No.20201469]

>>20201380
>modern currents of philosophy.
Like?

[Anonymous No.20201517]

>>20201410
>The Process of Systematic Grounding as an Idealized form of the Practice of Systematic Grounding
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.20201529]

>>20201410
What makes it comparable to Kant's critique?

[Anonymous No.20201594]

>>20201371
Board and card games still existed back in the day, along with all social entertainment.

[Anonymous No.20201612]

>>20201594
The social entertainment of attending a ball if you're well-off. Carry on, you might succeed in making a decent argument how fucking pictures moving on a screen which you can pirate isn't more engrossing and attention grabbing than anything available to people hundreds of years go

[Anonymous No.20201614]

>>20201157
>Where is the 21st century Critique of Pure Reason?
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-metacritique-of-reason/
"The Eliminativist, in other words, pulls a Kant on Kant and demands what amounts to a metacritique of reason.
The fact is, short of this accounting of metacognitive resources and precautions, the Intentionalist has no way of knowing whether or not they’re simply a ‘Stage-Two Dogmatist,’ whether their ‘clarity,’ like the specious clarity of the Dogmatist, isn’t simply the product of neglect—a kind of metacognitive illusion in effect. For the Eliminativist, the transcendental (whatever its guise) is a metacognitive artifact. For them, the obvious problems the Intentionalist faces—the supernaturalism of their posits, the underdetermination of their theories, the lack of decisive practical applications—are all symptomatic of inquiry gone wrong. "

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-ptolemaic-restoration-object-oriented-whatevery-and-kants-copernican-revolution/
"If it is the case that the sciences more or less monopolize theoretical cognition, then the most reasonable way for reason to critique reason is via the sciences. The problem confronting Kant, however, was nothing less than the problem confronting all inquiries into cognition until very recently: the technical and theoretical intractability of the brain. So Kant was forced to rely on theoretical reason absent the methodologies of natural science. In other words, he was forced to conceive critique as more philosophy, and this presumably, is why his project ultimately failed."

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/zizek-hollywood-and-the-disenchantment-of-continental-philosophy/
"Sure, one might argue, Kant may have been wrong about the transcendental, but surely his great insight was to glimpse the transcendental as such. But this is precisely what BBT and medial neglect allows us to explain: the way the informatic and heuristic constraints on metacognition produce the asymptotic–acausal or ‘bottomless’–structure of conscious experience. The ‘transcendental’ on this view is a kind of ‘perspectival illusion,’ a hallucinatory artifact of the way information pertaining to the limits of any momentary conscious experience can only be integrated in subsequent moments of conscious experience.
Kant’s genius, his discovery, or at least what enabled his account to appeal to the metacognitive intuitions of so many across the ages, lay in making-explicit the occluded medial axis of consciousness, the fact that some kind of orthogonal functionality (neural, we now know) haunts empirical experience. Of course Hume had already guessed as much, but lacking the systematic, dogmatic impulse of his Prussian successor, he had glimpsed only murk and confusion, and a self that could only be chased into the oblivion of the ‘merely verbal’ by honest self-reflection."

[Anonymous No.20201635]

>>20201614
This is all really cringe and the authors do not understand Kant.

[Anonymous No.20201643]

>>20201635
I would not have said that, you're about to get Bakk'd by his /lit/ minions.

[Anonymous No.20201772]

>>20201614
I have studied philosophy on a graduate level and this is word salad

[Anonymous No.20201802]

>>20201772
>I have studied philosophy on a graduate level
The person who wrote that on his blog, have studied philosophy on a PhD level.

>and this is word salad
It says a lot about your "education".

[Anonymous No.20202364]

>>20201157
>>20201190
>>20201381
In all honesty, you people asking these questions can't find modern Kants because you don't look, you don't even know how to look, and if it stared you in the face you wouldn't know how to recognize it. Your idea of Kant depends on what you've been told by cultural osmosis.
>>20201614
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Scott_Bakker This is your guy by the way, just so everyone else knows.

[Anonymous No.20202367]

>>20201772
What was your dissertation on?

[Anonymous No.20202372]

>>20202364
Ok enlightened genius, summarize some interesting points from this great PhD dropout and fantasy writer

[Anonymous No.20202485]

Zizek's Less Than Nothing is seriously revelatory. It's a shame people who haven't read Hegel are incapable of seeing past the meme and grasp ontological incompleteness.

[Anonymous No.20202516]

>>20201380
>other spooks
>Modern currents of philosophy
the other anon is indead retarded and made a poor naritivisation, but you imply the later isnt inundated with “spooks” of their own kind.
>>20201190
Wittgenstein. Godel. Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.20202530]

>>20202516
Midwit

[Anonymous No.20202540]

>>20202530
very intellectual post anon.

[Anonymous No.20202546]

>>20202372
I'm not a supporter of this Bakker fellow, I was posting the Wikipedia link precisely so people could make fun of him if they wanted

[Anonymous No.20202550]

>>20202372
>summarize some interesting points from this great PhD dropout

[Anonymous No.20202557]

>>20202372

[Anonymous No.20202559]

>>20202516
>Godel
Made some great contributions but his ideas about God are flimsy and I say this as a theist. Besides that he didn't really develop a big comprehensive system, there are better analytic candidates who have.
>Wittgenstein
Early Wittgenstein sort of made something akin to a system but it's very barebones and also pretty wrong, owing to its aphoristic nature a lot of the reasoning isn't explained either which is a weakness. Later Wittgenstein was anti-systematic.
>Heidegger
This is the only one of the three that fits, as he was systematic and comprehensive. I say that neutrally, because I'm not a Heideggerian, but I respect the system-building.

[Anonymous No.20202565]

>>20202550
>>20202557
Why not just study actual PhD-earning philosophers and their works instead of this guy?

[Anonymous No.20202570]

>>20202565
Midwit

[Anonymous No.20202574]

>>20202570
Midwit

[Anonymous No.20202577]

>>20201371
>video games
>fulfilling in other less immediate, material ways
if we're talking about games that focus on online multiplayer (fortnite, wow, lol etc.) or almost literal skinner boxes (diablo 2, gacha shit etc.) then yes
outside of that? you're wrong
same goes for movies, you're right only if we consider capeshit etc.

[Anonymous No.20202585]

>>20202565
>Why not just study actual PhD-earning philosophers
Because his eintire point is that PhD-earning philosophers are obsolete.

[Anonymous No.20202602]

>>20202585
>what failing your phd does to a mf

[Anonymous No.20202605]

>>20201612
I am pretty sure it's not as engrossing to anyone who isn't a recluse, but I do not deny they're not the same entertainment. Merely that if you were already rich enough to sit around and think, you still had plenty of options at leisure.

[Anonymous No.20202616]

>>20202585
Wow, definitely never heard that one a thousand times before...

[Anonymous No.20202637]

>>20201267
based and samuel johnson pilled

[Anonymous No.20202638]

>>20202602
About the productive role of ignorance/neglect on cognition?
https://www.academia.edu/31152366/On_Alien_Philosophy

About the physical nature of aporias?
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/paradox-as-cognitive-illusion/

[Anonymous No.20202643]

>>20202638
meant to this one >>20202616

[Anonymous No.20202696]

>>20202557
Even though this appears to work on a surface level, I also think this entirely ignores almost all of philosophy without acknowledgement and doesn't address epistemology at all in any meaningful way.
Basically what he's done here is explain how we could come up with statements that don't rationally explain anything, which isn't necessarily needed in the first place, as that has been continually addressed and re-addressed for thousands of years, he's missed the point- humans can make irrational statements, big deal, this affects very little fundamentally. If this is his "most challenging whirlpool" then he's missing a lot.

[Anonymous No.20202719]

>>20202638
He's presuming quite a lot for someone attempting to acknowledge physical limitation of mental capacity.

[Anonymous No.20202729]

>>20202696
>this entirely ignores almost all of philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_systems
Cognitive psychology and neuroscience ignore almost all of philosophy, yes. And it is the problem of philosophy >>20202585 - because philosophy is garbage now.

>he's missed the point- humans can make irrational statements, big deal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality

No, you. The point is: humans are machines.
And the bulk of philosophy, that tries to explain the normative via the normative, is garbage by default. Your cognitive toolkit ignores neglect.

[Anonymous No.20202753]

>>20202696
>doesn't address epistemology at all in any meaningful way
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/the-knowledge-of-wisdom-paradox/
"We’ve evolved to solve environments using as little information as possible. This means we’ve evolved to solve environments ignoring as much information as possible. This means we’ve evolved to take as much of our environments for granted as possible. This means evolution has encoded an extraordinary amount of implicit knowledge into our cognitive systems. You could say that each and every one of us constitutes a kind of solution to an ‘evolutionary frame problem.’
Thus the ‘Knowledge of Wisdom Paradox.’ The more explicit knowledge we accumulate, the more we can environmentally intervene. The more we environmentally intervene, the more we change the taken-for-granted backgrounds. The more we change taken-for-granted backgrounds, the less reliable our implicit knowledge becomes.
In other words, the more robust/reliable our explicit knowledge tends to become, the less robust/reliable our implicit knowledge tends to become."

[Anonymous No.20202993]

>>20201157
I haven't finished writing it. Though I won't claim to reach the sublime heights which Kant achieved, I hope, at the very least, to put forth an effort in the Spenglarian strain which will reach into those same heights and point a belated finger toward that most celebrated and simultaneously hated sage, and thus if not for my own gain then to validate to my contemporaries the importance of such a robust and sacred work as the Critique of Pure Reason, and thus to give unto Kant a praise most admirable, thus do I hope and pray on most penitent knees, that our Lord and our God may seem this most insufficient work to be a modest contribution of that science which hitherto remains even now in total misunderstanding: that science of the soul, which Kant in his surgical wisdom did contribute such a large part. Such do I hope, that Kant, turning in his grave, my deign to smile upon my endeavour, and thus make it all the worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.20203089]

>>20202729
>Humans are machines
Thus speaks the Causalist, unable to see beyond his own nose. I love him nonetheless for it, insofar as the mirror that is Causality is Necessary, but insofar as he ignores that which is non-causal, that which is, so to speak, A Prioiri, I must throw into him that most unspeakable of insults: FOOL, that cannot see, all in Life doth come from thee, thus you live in Relativity. You serve a higher Destiny, Machines are BREEDS. Built by Man to forsee the future unto which you bleed. And bleed you will, for all is free to be a seam in that great surgery in the sky, DER WACHSEIN.

[Anonymous No.20203515]

>>20201162
Top tier bait actually made me mad for a second

[Anonymous No.20203669]

>>20201408
Bravo. Amen.

[Anonymous No.20203680]

>>20201411
ctrl+f "Douglas Hofstader"
>0 results
It's like none of you nikayas even went into the STEM floors of your libraries.
Almost every math book you could read for joy is written by St Doug of Hoff und Stead

[Anonymous No.20203689]

>>20201267
a very smart dog ate your homework

[Anonymous No.20203704]

Claude Shannon uber alles

[Anonymous No.20203768]

>>20201318
The list is kinda:
Plato's Ouvre
Aristotle's Ouvre
Augustine
Descartes meditations
Kants 1'st critique
Hegel's Phenomenology

Each of these works created a new horizon of thought which ate up all thought after it - everything in the period after these works is just pure cope all discussion returns to it: Nowadays the saying goes at conferences "Yeah yeah, Hegel always wins"

[Anonymous No.20203796]

>>20203768
you were never at any "conferences" lol

[Anonymous No.20203800]

>>20203768
>Descartes meditations
lol
>Hegel's Phenomenology
lol

Just because some idiots thought they were good and wasted their time with them doesn't mean they're on the CPR level

[Anonymous No.20204103]

>>20203796
Seethe
>>20203800
Kant is about as important as Descartes if not less important. Kant reproduces the dualist problems which Descartes shares, res extensa and res cogitans, noumena and phenomena, which Spinoza and Leibniz, and, Fichte and Schelling alike tried to go beyond furthermore Hegel's phenomenology creates the problems with freedom which existentialism and much of french thought tries to deal with. Neither Descartes, Kant nor Hegel are important because they're particularly right but because their system created the frame for much future discussion.

[Anonymous No.20204127]

>>20204103 to continue
Kant's writing though not as bad as Rawls' a theory of justice is a garbled mess. Descartes on the other hand is an amazing writer.

[Anonymous No.20205587]

>>20201162
Ohhhnononono

[Anonymous No.20205691]

>>20203768
Schopenhauer Gang here to ask if you forgot someone or if you're simply retarded

[Anonymous No.20205705]

>>20205691
incels need not apply

[Anonymous No.20205730]

>>20201157

[Anonymous No.20205740]

>>20205730

[Anonymous No.20205741]

>>20205730
>>20205740
Do you like Iain McGilchrist, Master and Emissary?

[Anonymous No.20205746]

>>20205740

[Anonymous No.20205755]

>>20205741
Never read

[Anonymous No.20205767]

>>20201157
Take a look
It's in a book
Reading Rainbooooooow

[Anonymous No.20205776]

>>20201162
Suicide-tier post

[Anonymous No.20206015]

The Frankfurt school solved Kant. I haven’t even read either but I know this to be true because it makes chuds seethe.

[Anonymous No.20206142]

>>20201529
it's crap by a humanist

[Anonymous No.20206259]

>>20205691
My list above isn't about my favourite philosophers, Hegel is more influential than schopie.

[Anonymous No.20206265]

>>20203768
>Augustine instead of Aquinas
Yikes, you never read either of them have you?

[Anonymous No.20206271]

>>20203768
It's mind boggling that you put Augustine there instead of Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.20206278]

>>20206271
He never read the stuff he listed, he's a pseud

[Anonymous No.20206280]

>>20206015
Based and I’m saying that as someone who has actually read them

[Anonymous No.20206290]

>>20206280
Explain Kant's transcedental deduction in your own words

[Anonymous No.20206292]

>>20201157
>Why is it that nobody nowadays is producing anything on a level even close to this?
because philosophy ended with Hegel and Feuerbach. there's nothing left to write, the only thing left to do is the revolution

[Anonymous No.20206305]

>>20206292

[Anonymous No.20206311]

>>20206290
The explanation of the manner in which concepts can a priori refer to objects

[Anonymous No.20206319]

>>20206311
How can concepts refer to objects a priori?

[Anonymous No.20206336]

>>20206319
He doesn't know, that's the assertion. He only tries to explain the manner in which it supposedly occurs. He asserts that all empirical knowledge and experience has to imply concepts of objects in general (a priori), because, according to him, experience is an object and therefore requires an object to be presupposed for there to be any experience.

[Anonymous No.20206345]

>>20206336
>He only tries to explain the manner in which it supposedly occurs.
So how does it occur? Just explain transcendental deduction of the pure apprehension of judgement in your own words. From the terminology you've used so far, it sounds like you just googled somet stuff online. What kind of concepts?

[Anonymous No.20206352]

>>20206345
>So how does it occur?
The deduction? I just gave you the basic outline of how it occurs. What did you not understand? It's the same way the intuition can have an object a priori, because it is supposedly the basis for all experience that we know of.
>What kind of concepts?
The categories.

[Anonymous No.20206378]

>>20206352
>What did you not understand?
Your terminology is nonsensical. "experience is an object" What are you talking about? What do you think an object is? What's a transcendental object? Experience is empirical cognition, and empirical cognition determines an object through perceptions. You can't say "experience is an object." That's not how any of this works. Experience is not an object, it's a cognition of objects through perception.

You haven't demonstrated you read anything. How do humans know themselves? Can you explain pure apprehension of judgement?

[Anonymous No.20206379]

>>20206378
> Experience is empirical cognition, and empirical cognition determines an object through perceptions.
Not him but spouting stuff like this is how you get laughed out of philosophy 101

[Anonymous No.20206391]

>>20206379
And saying experience is an object is how you demonstrate you never read a word from Kant and just skimmed Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.20206451]

>>20206378
>. "experience is an object" What are you talking about?
I'm quoting Kant. This is how I know you're an idiot.
>[These concepts, i.e. the object] must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experience [because they form the experience]
>Concepts of objects thus underlie all empirical knowledge as its a priori condition, because empirical knowledge is knowledge of an object
> and empirical cognition determines an object through perceptions.
Never said otherwise. But empirical cognition can't exist without the object being a priori necessary, or so Kant asserts.
>Can you explain pure apprehension of judgement?
I can explain the synthesis of the apprehension, but I don't recall Kant ever using the term apprehension in the way you've used it. Point me to the page number where he describes it and maybe it will jog my memory, but I don't think he ever used the term in that way. But I think it's time for you to do some explaining.

[Anonymous No.20206472]

>>20206451
>I'm quoting Kant. This is how I know you're an idiot.
Where in your quotes does Kant say that experience is an object?

[Anonymous No.20206500]

>>20206472
Literally in the quote I just gave, because all experience is treated as an object, thereby making the transcendental object a necessary condition of experience. This is literally the basic foundation of the transcendental deduction lmao. Paragraph 14 of the Transcendental Analytic:
>Objects in general thus underlie all empirical knowledge as its a priori condition, and the objective validity of the categories, as a priori concepts, rests on this very fact that through them alone is experience possible.

[Anonymous No.20206516]

>>20206500
???
>[These concepts, i.e. the object] must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experience [because they form the experience]
This says that the concepts are the A PRIORI CONDITIONS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE, not that experience is an object. Do you not understand this? For experience to be possible, certain conditions need to be met. These conditions are the pure categories. Do you think this means that pure categories are experience?
>Objects in general thus underlie all empirical knowledge as its a priori condition, and the objective validity of the categories, as a priori concepts, rests on this very fact that through them alone is experience possible.
This says that objects enable empirical knowledge by providing the a priori foundation and validity of categories that allow experience to take place.

How can you read this and think experience is an object? What's the point of reading if you can't comprehend?

[Anonymous No.20206539]

>>20206271
I didn't know if I should Augustine or Aquinas but I chose Augustine since his notions of sin and grace rings through so much of the thought of the middle ages and the reformation.

Again, Plotinus is great - is he as historically important as Augustine though?

[Anonymous No.20206540]

>>20206516
>For experience to be possible, certain conditions need to be met.
Which is that experience is an object. If experience were not an object, there would be no experience. If you'd like, I could rephrase it to the way Kant uses it, ie "object of experience" or "possible object of experience." It actually makes no difference and you are obsessing over semantics.
>Do you think this means that pure categories are experience?
No, because the categories are not a feature of experience, they underlie experience. Experience itself is the basic object of all actual cognition (what you call empirical cognition), which is why Kant is forced to presuppose the transcendental object in order to logically justify the categories.
>This says that objects enable empirical knowledge
It says that objects are empirical knowledge at the fundamental level.

[Anonymous No.20206545]

>>20206500
You should have noticed long ago that the guy you’re arguing with has a learning disability, you’re wasting your time bro

[Anonymous No.20206547]

>>20206539
>is he as historically important as Augustine though?
Almost all of Augustine's theology is from Plotinus or the different Neoplatonists he was involved with. Everything that is questionable in it comes straight from Christianity. And so much of Augustine's work is not even philosophical strictly speaking, meanwhile you have Germans more than a millennium later like Hegel who focus, relatively speaking, on Plotinus and leave Augustine in the dirt.

[Anonymous No.20206555]

>>20206540
>Which is that experience is an object.
Show me where Kant says experience is an object.
>"object of experience"
Wait why do you rephrase it the way Kant uses it? Just use your definition. "objects of objects" because experience is an object, no?

[Anonymous No.20206564]

>>20205691
He is an interesting thing. But why even read him when you can read actual eastoid phil?

[Anonymous No.20206574]

>>20206555
>Show me where Kant says experience is an object.
Show me where Kant uses the phrase pure apprehension of judgement.
>"objects of objects"
All objects exist within experience, so yes, objects within objects, or rather objects within the object.

[Anonymous No.20206602]

>>20206574
>Show me where Kant uses the phrase pure apprehension of judgement.
He doesn't.
>All objects exist within experience, so yes, objects within objects, or rather objects within the object.
Well, I'm afraid this is not Kant. For Kant, experience is what determines objects, not an object itself.

[Anonymous No.20206636]

>>20206564
Because he offers a unique take on those ideas, evolved almost exclusively on the shoulders of the western philosophic tradition.

[Anonymous No.20206929]

>>20201190
They're in hard sciences.

[Anonymous No.20206934]

>>20206636
I know he is interesting and original, but if you were to put his philosophy in the "biggest gamechanger" list, then he would have an easy replacement in some big name eastern philosopher. He is just not that big as an influence as Hegel. Even if just for affecting politics of all shades, Hegel is a bigger influence on the world,

[Anonymous No.20207017]

>>20201406
Absolute state of lit, read a journal on philosophy if you want to stay up to date with what is going on if you actually care.

[Anonymous No.20207036]

>>20201162
https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/796025058422452224

[Anonymous No.20207782]

>>20207036
Genius

[Anonymous No.20208089]

Fredric Jameson, specifically his cultural logic of postmodernism book.

[Anonymous No.20208280]

>>20208089
via wikipedia
>For Jameson, postmodernism is a forced but highly permeating field, given that cultures are formed through mass media ("mass culture"). This so-called mass culture indirectly forces us to shape our ideologies and brings us under the influence of media culture—a process that Jameson calls hegemony. This hegemony however has nothing to do with the postcolonial idea of colonization; rather it is a form of hegemony in the postmodern world, where media and capitalism play the most significant role in colonizing people's thoughts and ways of life.
>Jameson argues that postmodernism is the age of the end of traditional ideologies. The ending of traditional ideologies can be seen through new wave of the aesthetic productions. He uses architecture and painting as examples. For instance, he draws out the differences between mindsets of modernism and postmodernism by comparing Van Gogh's “Peasant Shoes” with Andy Warhol's “Diamond Dust Shoes”.
>For Jameson, postmodernism, as mass-culture driven by capitalism, pervades every aspect of our daily lives. Whether we want it or not, we imbibe it. This in turn makes it a "popular" culture of the masses.
sounds neat

[Anonymous No.20208825]

>>20206547
Yeah but you could say a lot of that with Kant and Hume, still Kant is the horizon.

[Anonymous No.20209379]

>>20205767
Based Lewis fan. Probably not a 21st century Kant, besides he died by 2001, but still one of the most influential and systematic metaphysicians in recent times.

[Anonymous No.20210912]

bump

[Anonymous No.20210969]

>>20201157
Because anyone who cares about high level ontology and making progress works in STEM, not philosophy

[Anonymous No.20211332]

>>20206934
I'm not the anon who wants him in the influences list. I just defend him against the claim that he could be replaced with an easterner philosopher.

[Anonymous No.20211529]

>Why hasn't a work from the last 22 years been produced which is as influential as this one, from 241 years ago?
Mystery.
Also this: >>20207017 and to a lesser extent this: >>20210969

[Anonymous No.20211540]

>>20211529
>>20207017
>journal on philosophy

[Anonymous No.20211571]

>>20201190
Don't pretend like you've read Marx you gay retard

[Anonymous No.20211574]

>>20211540
You're right, I concede. Your s*ijacks are far more insightful.

[Anonymous No.20211583]

>>20211574
I have to read philosophy journals regularly, and they're 90% garbage. The only people who glorify them are people who have no idea about contemporary academic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20211593]

>>20211583
Cool what about the other 10% fucktard?

[Anonymous No.20211599]

>>20211583
I'll actually agree with that. About 80-90% of any group of people suck. Doesn't make the thing (in itself lel) bad.

[Anonymous No.20211620]

>>20211593
They're mostly mediocre, nowhere close to Kant's level, which is what the thread is about.