/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22895164]

Alright. How do I take the kantpill? What are the first step?

[Anonymous No.22895184]

>>22895164
Start with Guénon (pbuh) instead, who refuted Kant

>Indeed, no knowledge is really worthy of the name except insofar as it has the effect of bringing about such an identification, although in all cases other than that of intellectual intuition this identification always remains incomplete and imperfect; in other words, there is no true knowledge except that which participates to a greater
or less extent in the nature of pure intellectual knowledge, which is the supreme knowledge. All other knowledge, being more or less indirect, has at best only a symbolic or representative value; the only genuinely effective knowledge is that which permits us to penetrate into the very nature of things, and if such a penetration may be effected
up to a certain point in the inferior degrees of knowledge, it is only in metaphysical knowledge that it is fully and totally realizable.

>The immediate consequence of this is that knowing and being are fundamentally but one and the same thing; they are, so to speak, two inseparable aspects of a single reality, being no longer even really distinguishable in that sphere where all is “without duality”. This in itself is enough to show how purposeless are all the various “theories of knowledge” with metaphysical pretensions which occupy such a prominent place in modern Western philosophy, sometimes even going so far, as in the case of Kant for example, as to absorb, or at least to dominate, everything else.

>The only reason for the existence of such theories arises from an attitude of mind shared by almost all modern philosophers and originating in the Cartesian dualism; this way of thinking consists in artificially opposing knowing and being, an opposition that is the negation of all true metaphysics. Modern philosophy thus ends by wishing to substitute the theory of knowledge for knowledge itself, which amounts to an open confession of impotence on its part; nothing is more characteristic in this respect than the following declaration of Kant: “The chief and perhaps the only use of all philosophy of pure reason is, after all, exclusively negative, since it is not an instrument for extending knowledge, but a discipline for limiting it.” Do not such words amount purely and simply to saying that the only aim of philosophers should be to impose upon everyone else the narrow limits of their own understanding?

[Anonymous No.22895187]

>>22895164
Read critique of pure reason I would think?

[Anonymous No.22895190]

>>22895164
Who's that cutie right by stalin?

[Anonymous No.22895197]

Start with the Logic

[Anonymous No.22895218]

>>22895184
Happy New Year, Guenonfag! Do you know Sanskrit yet?!

[Anonymous No.22895221]

>>22895184
THIS, kant was a hylic

[Anonymous No.22895224]

>>22895218
No but I've finally started studying it

Happy New Year to you as well

[Anonymous No.22895229]

>>22895224
Based, glad to see you're still around even though we used to argue. I want to learn Sanskrit at some point too.

[Anonymous No.22895232]

>>22895164
If taking the Kant pill makes you Goku and pic related is the pill then you have a lot of reading to do. If you are already familiar with Hume and Leibnitz go for the Critique of Pure Reason.

[Anonymous No.22895240]

>>22895221
unironically he was a hylic but a self-aware one and reached peak hylic; no hylic has ever reached that level of self-awareness. He is like Moses: he didn't cross into the promised land but he shows you the way. (assuming you havn't heard of my theory that the Critiques are a work of irony written by a pneumatic to troll the normies; Hegel also hints at an esoteric Kantian doctrine)

>The EXOTERIC teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which by itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought.

[Anonymous No.22895261]

>>22895240
I recently read Greg Johnson's PhD thesis on Kant's metaphysical beliefs (yes, the white nationalist) and it was very good. It was way better than Palmquist in my opinion, even though Palmquist seems to be the guy who typically gets cited for "Kant was a secret mystic."

[Anonymous No.22895265]

>>22895261
>Greg Johnson's PhD thesis on Kant's metaphysical beliefs
thanks anon gonna check that out

[Anonymous No.22895294]

>>22895265
lol I just realized he's the guy that translated Dreams of Spirit-Seer with Brian Magee (the Hegel was a sorcerer guy). good shit.

[Anonymous No.22896485]

>>22895261
What was so good about the thesis, if you don't mind me asking? I always liked it when Johnson speaks about philosophy. He's definitely a cut above your average interpreter, at least for Heidegger and Plato.

[Anonymous No.22896494]

who is the guy shaking stalin's hand?

[Anonymous No.22896982]

>>22896494
Ribbentrop

[Anonymous No.22897015]

Read Ibsen’s Brand, it’s Kant’s philosophy in art form. Brand’s ‘naught or all!’ Is the artistic form of Kant’s ‘moral law’

[Anonymous No.22897019]

>>22895164
read the kant books you are assigned in an intro to philosophy class

[Anonymous No.22897704]

bumperino