/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23059971]

>But what distinguishes the false philosopher from the true is this: the perplexity of the latter arises from the contemplation of the world itself, while that of the former results from some book, some system of philosophy which is before him. Now Fichte belongs to the class of the false philosophers. He was made a philosopher by Kant's doctrine of the thing-in-itself, and if it had not been for this he would probably have pursued entirely different ends, with far better results, for he certainly possessed remarkable rhetorical talent.
Did this nigga destroy Fichte's whole career in one sentence?

[Anonymous No.23059973]

>>23059971
And before anyone says those are three sentences, it's one in German
>Aber hier scheidet die unächten Philosophen von den ächten dieses, daß letzteren aus dem Anblick der Welt selbst jene Perplexität erwächst, jenen ersteren hingegen nur aus einem Buche, einem vorliegenden Systeme: dieses war denn auch Fichtes Fall, da er bloß über Kants Ding an sich zum Philosophen geworden ist und ohne dasselbe höchst wahrscheinlich ganz andere Dinge mit viel besserem Erfolg getrieben hätte, da er bedeutendes rhetorisches Talent besaß.

[Anonymous No.23059992]

>>23059971
You could apply the exact same reasoning to Hegel's phenomenological (kantian) spirit. Just echoes of Kant's publication of his first Critique. I'm always amazed to see how well Schopenhauer understood the implications of the transcendental aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.23060006]

>>23059971
No but he was destroyed by Heidegger (PBUH) in one sentence
>(Schopenhauer, whose work was Nietzsche’s downfall, demonstrated that he is not a thinker through his self- indulgent rant concerning Schelling and Hegel and their lack of clarity. Nevertheless, we should give Schopenhauer his proper due as an accomplished novelist who, in the middle of the last century, imparted to the Germans only a pale notion of what ‘philosophy’ is.
>In modern times one all too eagerly understands the words of Heraclitus’s
concerning the understanding of the mob in light of the rantings and ravings that
Schopenhauer delivered during the previous century regarding university philosophy and its followers. With Schopenhauer—who was never a thinker, but merely a writer who obtained his thoughts secondhand from Hegel and Schelling and then trivialized them—grumpiness is the principle from which the relation of philosophers to the world is determined.

[Anonymous No.23060011]

>>23060006
Wow, who would have thought Heidi was such an idiot.

[Anonymous No.23060016]

>>23059971
>proceeds to be perplexed by Critique of Pure Reason

[Anonymous No.23060025]

>>23059971
Pathetic. He’s just declared the entirety of human inquiry to be worthless, including his own work. If philosophical systems are not able to accurately describe the world, then there is no point in even reading Schopenhauer’s work. But if they are, then “perplexity” arising from contemplation of a philosophical system is just perplexity at contemplating the world, for the philosophical system describes the world. This of course is how Fichte proceeded. He did not take Kantian philosophy as a first principle independent of his experience of the world. Rather, he found that Kantian philosophy accurately described the world as he saw it. This is why he was a Kantian. Being a follower of a philosophical tradition does not imply mindless subservience to that tradition, but rather the belief that, at least in its core aspects, the tradition is valuable and accurate. Kantian philosophy does — as a matter of objective fact — make some very good points, which cannot be ignored by any serious inquirer into truth.

[Anonymous No.23060028]

>>23059971
Not really but things do

Ever seen one? For how long you contemplated it?

[Anonymous No.23060031]

>>23060006
>grumpiness is the principle from which the relation of philosophers to the world is determined.
Kek.

[Anonymous No.23060044]

>>23060025
Philosophy isn’t for philosophers, it’s for the herd.

[Anonymous No.23060045]

>>23060006
> who obtained his thoughts secondhand from Hegel and Schelling
What?

[Anonymous No.23060048]

>>23060025
>Being a follower of a philosophical tradition does not imply mindless subservience to that tradition
That's not what he said. He's talking about what is a true and a false philosopher. If you start philosophizing AFTER you read the thoughts of other people, then you are a false one.

[Anonymous No.23060055]

>>23060025
>Kantian philosophy does — as a matter of objective fact — make some very good points, which cannot be ignored by any serious inquirer into truth.
Indeed. Even Copenhauer starts with Kant, not "the World".

>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.

[Anonymous No.23060064]

>>23060045
it's obvious if you actually read Schelling and Hegel. Why do you think he discourages reading them so much?

[Anonymous No.23060073]

>>23060048
>If you start philosophizing AFTER you read the thoughts of other people, then you are a false one.
TIL Schopenhauer was a false philosopher

[Anonymous No.23060082]

>>23060044
no it isn't
>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste

[Anonymous No.23060091]

>germans trying to think
oof

[Anonymous No.23060092]

>>23060048
But in that sense everyone is a philosopher at birth. Every human child on the planet wonder about the mystery of life.

[Anonymous No.23060132]

>>23060092
>man is a thinking being and a born metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.23060174]

>>23060045
Schopenhauer sometimes borders on acknowledging the influence of Schelling on his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23060204]

>>23059992
Hegel was a hermeticist to begin with. His pseudophilosophical work is practically theology. "Absolute knowledge" has fuck-all to do with philosphy and everything to do with gnostic hermeticism.

[Anonymous No.23060220]

>>23060082
Like a Catholic priest trying to justify why mass and The Bible should be in Latin and not in the language of the people.

[Anonymous No.23060237]

>>23060204
He is hermetic and a theologian, but neither of those is incompatible with philosophy. The opposite actually, they the capstone of the pyramid of a true system of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23060248]

>>23060220
Based. The Bible is not for the plebs.

[Anonymous No.23060253]

>>23060237
>they the capstone of the pyramid of a true system of philosophy.
No. You are trying to steal the credibility of philosophy and all its traditions to support your own religious beliefs. You're a dangerous fool, just like all Hegelians.

[Anonymous No.23060252]

>>23060092
The full quote by schopenhauer defines true philosophy according to aristotle as attempt to resolve the perplexity (thaumazein). Children don't seriously try to resolve this even If they naturally have high Sense of Wonder.
>>23060006
Everything schopenhauer accused hegel of doing applies to Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.23060392]

>>23060220
Oh snap, even Gauss dunked on Hegel? Fuck....