ETERNAL REMINDER

[Anonymous No.22365578]

Read it today. Take notes. Share.

[Anonymous No.22365589]

>>22365578
>”eternal”
>violently debunked from every possible angle within 100 years of its publication
lol. lmao even.

[Anonymous No.22365601]

>>22365578
Schopenhauer and Kant are each other's pre-requisite. Read the WaWR before the CoPR, then read the WaWR again mentally.

[Anonymous No.22365608]

>>22365589
seethe and cope all you want. I will post this every day forever.

[Anonymous No.22365613]

>>22365589
INB4 Kant is retard durrr
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through it

[Anonymous No.22365620]

>>22365613
lmao what a narcissist. He said this so that he could dismiss any criticisms of his book. The only guy he said understood it was the guy who literally parroted his exact words. Now hundreds of years later you are carrying on his dogmatic legacy.

[Anonymous No.22365623]

INB4 but muh Hegel
>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently FOR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one MUST turn to that preceding exposition.

I like Hegel by the way; the most Kantian of Kantians

Gott mit uns

[Anonymous No.22365627]

>>22365623
>the most Kantian of Kantians
Lol, halfwit

[Anonymous No.22365635]

>>22365623
>the most Kantian of Kantians
Why do you suck Kant’s dick and then contradict his whole philosophy? Ever since you made your first post about autism you’ve been shitting on Kant’s grave lmao. Hopefully one day you will start shitting on hegel’s too, then you might learn some real philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22365637]

>>22365620
>He said this so that he could dismiss any criticisms of his book.
objectively false and demonstrably refutable. see his extensive correspondence you attentionlet critiqueskimmer.

[Anonymous No.22365640]

>>22365627
>>22365635
>t. have not even read kant nor hegel
tsk tsk tsk

[Anonymous No.22365641]

>>22365578
i don’t care what you’re posting about. all spamniggers are cringe faggots

[Anonymous No.22365648]

>>22365641
don't care

[Anonymous No.22365652]

>>22365648
NTA, but do you mind telling us what motivates you to post this thread so often?

[Anonymous No.22365664]

>>22365652
too many people talk about Kant without reading him hence my encouraging everyone one to read it.

[Anonymous No.22365677]

>>22365652
He has autism
>>/lit/thread/21013496
He would have been a tranny or chris chan with skightly different circumstances

[Anonymous No.22365681]

>>22365589
But he's still extremely important today

[Anonymous No.22365687]

>>22365681
Refuted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Next.

[Anonymous No.22365695]

Western philosophy had devolved far too far up its own ass by Kant's day to be useful for anything but thought stimulation. There's no point to read beyond Aurelius, the Gitas, the Bible, and the Dao De Jing, and letting your own spirit guide you to the truth. Letters fail us far before the point that this overwrought baroque nonsense was printed.

[Anonymous No.22365699]

>>22365664
Reading is not the same as understanding. You can force them to read him, but their conscious effort to understand is beyond your control.

[Anonymous No.22365714]

>>22365699
Yes, but you need to read first. Wat.

[Anonymous No.22365716]

>>22365699
I agree anon you are right, but my hope is that for the few elect that may actually heed my call, that may go full kantmaxxers and assist me in my crusade on /lit/ against the legion kantpseuds and kantopposers.

[Anonymous No.22365740]

>>22365714
This kind of deliberate misunderstanding is exactly what I'm talking about.

>>22365716
I'm sorry anon, but I think you're delusional.

[Anonymous No.22365754]

>>22365740
>deliberate misunderstanding
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.22365773]

>>22365740
>I'm sorry anon, but I think you're delusional.
it's ok. I've overcome my need for approbation from others. My only goal is to preach the gospel of Kant.

[Anonymous No.22366257]

>a judgement one may call the given conceptions logical matter (for the judgement), the relation of these to each other (by means of the copula), the form of the judgement.

here we see the hegelian fetus in it's early stages

[Anonymous No.22366283]

>Now here we would at once remark that Kant s philosophy has a threefold relation to that of his predecessors. First, as we have just seen, to the philosophy of Locke, confirming and extending it; secondly, to that of Hume, correcting and making use of it, a relation which is most distinctly ex pressed in the " Prolegomena " (that most beautiful and comprehensible of all Kant s important writings, which is far too little read, for it facilitates immensely the study of his philosophy); thirdly, a decidedly polemical and de structive relation to the Leibnitz-Wolfian philosophy. All three systems ought to be known before one proceeds
alright bros do don't forget to read Locke, Hume, and Leibnitz too

[Anonymous No.22366294]

>>22365578
was blud alive when the book cover looked like that? did family know he looked like Mr. Burns up in here?

[Anonymous No.22367219]

>>22365601
Unironically did exactly this. I was scratching my head half of the time in the Appendix but I grasped enough to get it. Best way to introduce someone to Kant to be honest.

[Anonymous No.22367223]

>>22365687
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are literally Kantians.

[Anonymous No.22367228]

>>22365578
This is my favorite thread <3

[Anonymous No.22367402]

>>22365578
Separation of form and matter...
Why? Why did he do it. He gives no good argument to why form is separated from matter.

[Anonymous No.22367619]

>>22367402
>Matter and Form. These two conceptions lie at the foundation of all other reflection, so inseparably are they connected with every mode of exercising the understanding. The former denotes the determinable in general, the second its determination, both in a transcendental sense, abstraction being made of every difference in that which is given, and of the mode in which it is determined.

[Anonymous No.22367695]

>>22367619
Yes but what is reason behinde his decision to separate matter from forms and vice versa, placing matter externaly (as sensory datum) to human mind while placing forms as foundation of human perception?
He does not give reasson why he does it.

[Anonymous No.22367729]

It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de Animalibus xi.

[Anonymous No.22367743]

>>22367695
Kant didn't come up with it, it goes back to Aristotle

>Aristotle introduces matter and form, in the Physics, to account for changes in the natural world, where he is particularly interested in explaining how substances come into existence even though, as he maintains, there is no generation ex nihilo, that is, that nothing comes from nothing.

[Anonymous No.22367749]

>>22365578
Germs lost, Scots won. This is the true eternal reminder.

[Anonymous No.22368064]

>>22367743
Mm i am aware anon thank you for info.
But hilemorphism is anything but a srparation of form and matter. Aristotle does speak of them separately but does not threat them as separating aspects of reallity they are necessery conected.

[Anonymous No.22368107]

>>22368064
>Aristotle does speak of them separately but does not threat them as separating aspects of reallity they are necessery conected.
so does Kant

>Thoughts without content are void; intuitions without conceptions, blind. Hence it is as necessary for the mind to make its conceptions sensuous (that is, to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under conceptions). Neither of these faculties can exchange its proper function. Understanding cannot intuite, and the sensuous faculty cannot think. In no other way than from the united operation of both, can knowledge arise. But no one ought, on this account, to overlook the difference of the elements contributed by each; we have rather great reason carefully to separate and distinguish them.

[Anonymous No.22368220]

>>22368107
You missunderstood me.
Aristotle gives account of them separetly but does not separate them in reallity.

Kant does exactly that by separating matter (sense datum) from form (apriori forms), placing matter externaly and placing forms internaly. Aristotle does not do that. He never separated matter and form one from another.

>Thoughts without content are void; intuitions without conceptions, blind. Hence it is as necessary for the mind to make its conceptions sensuous (that is, to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under conceptions). Neither of these faculties can exchange its proper function. Understanding cannot intuite, and the sensuous faculty cannot think. In no other way than from the united operation of both, can knowledge arise. But no one ought, on this account, to overlook the difference of the elements contributed by each; we have rather great reason carefully to separate and distinguish them.

Yes yes. But im telling you i am asking why does he separate them? By what reasson? Because it seems to me his whole tranacedental philosophy is built upon this separation of form and matter for which he gives no argument why it is like that.

[Anonymous No.22368251]

>>22368220
>Kant does exactly that by separating matter (sense datum) from form (apriori forms), placing matter externaly and placing forms internaly.
you misunderstood the quote if you think this. The phenomenal world is the UNITY of sensation (matter) and pure intuition and Categories (form). Without both there is no world. The alternative would be formless matter or matterless form.