[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 260x336, Kant critique of pure reason.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4836107 No.4836107[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Admit it, /lit/, you don't really understand pic related.

You may well think you do, but you most assuredly do not. Only those with the type of rarefied intelligence that would never happen upon a place such as this even begin to have a chance of grasping Waldo.

You're just not smart enough. Give up.

>> No.4836109

Congratulations OP.

>> No.4836113
File: 35 KB, 490x450, 388671_114351635349362_100003235793375_71566_329288111_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4836113

>>4836107
Waldo

>> No.4837272

bamp

>> No.4838538

>>4836107
I understood it. Also the Second Critique. I'll let you know when I get around to the third.
Come at me bru.

>> No.4838547

reading philosophers is a complete waste of time

prove me wrong

>> No.4838553

>>4838547
>reading philosophers is a complete waste of time

"wasting time" requires philosophical unpacking.

>> No.4838558

>>4838553
but not reading

>> No.4838559

>>4838547
i have more pretentious neuroses than you

#rekt #burnt #murkt #killt

>> No.4838614

>>4838553
>>4838558

rekt

>> No.4838620

Yes, it is extremely difficult, but I think that's partly Kant's own fault. The way he presents his thought is next level dense.
People here who claim they understood all of it are just full of shit.

>> No.4838625

>>4836107
ya i think we can all agree whether we like him or not that he was genius

smartest person to ever exist?? id say newton but my other choice would be kant

>> No.4838627

>>4838625
lol some privileged white male with too much time on his hands writing mostly drivel is not second to newton

>> No.4838632

>>4838627
*dribble

>> No.4838635

>>4838627
lol looks like someone either hasnt read kant or did but didnt understand him

youre talkin about perhaps the most intelligent philosopher of all time tho now that i think about it leibniz and goethe might be smarter

>> No.4838639

>>4838635
nietzsche is infinitely smarter

>> No.4838641

>>4838635
>youre talkin about perhaps the most intelligent philosopher of all time tho
Alfred Korzybski?

>> No.4838648

>>4838639
Nietzsche is more marketable, but marketing majors don't have to be smart.

>calls the main, most significant cultural force of the time a bunch of sheep
>while at the same time establishing the concept of some sort of superman who is super by virtue of his eclectic taste and values

>yfw nietsche just appeals to the hipster in all of us.

>> No.4838707

>>4838553
That's not how arguments work

prove me wrong

>> No.4838727

>>4838648
/r/ing that introduction of a book by nietzsche where he explains that he doesn't care if he's understood

>> No.4838742

>>4836107
>>4838625
>>4838627
>>4838635
>>4838639
>>4838648
Hey you dumb gay fuckers maybe talk about the actual things these people said instead of arguing whoever which of them was or was not smart. I literally can't think of a stupider more pointless argument than whether Nietzsche or Kant was the smartest person of all time. Idiot fucks. In conclusion mods please delete this idiot thread and ban me and also everyone else on 4chan, thank you, good night.

>> No.4838746

>>4838742
i think you need to project just a tad more

>> No.4838749

How hard is Stirner in comparison?

>> No.4838789

GUYS

GUYS

HEY GUYS

I GOT SOMETHING TO TELL YOU GUYS

GUYS

SERIOUSLY GUYS

GUYS

IMMANUEL KANT, GUYS

IMMANUEL KANT, RIGHT?

GUYS

IMMANUEL KANT GUYS

BUT KUBLAI KHAN

>> No.4838800

>>4838742
he's kinda right though. i'm not convinced that any of you tools spouting off about X's genius (or stupidity) know more than wikipedia fragments about X, let alone have seriously studied X's work, or have anything interesting to say about it.

As for understanding CPR, sure, there are some incomprehensible parts, but that's probably because Kant himself didn't have clear thoughts to express in those parts. The main gist seems clear enough, though, as do most of the arguments, at least once you've got a decent grip on the terminology

>> No.4838805

I think it's time to finally admit /lit/ is dead. It's reached that point where it starts getting populated by teenagers and that's the reason why there are so many shit threads and posts now.

>> No.4838807

>>4838749
Stirner is not difficult at all. Compared to Kant Stirner is like a magazine article

>> No.4838810

>>4838742
if its not kant or nietzsche then who do you propose is the smartest philosopher??

leibniz?

>> No.4838862

>>4838810
Leibniz is difficult for me to take seriously because he's so completely pre-modern, pre-critical. He's from another epoch of thought and I always get the impression he's still very decisively influenced by a lot of theological and pseudo-scientific ideas.

In comparison, both Nietzsche and, obviously, Kant seem to share our framework; it's easier for me to understand their ideas, why they matter.

>> No.4838868

>>4838805
You're right. I used to get relatively good book recommendations from here, and good discussions about literature. Nowadays it's just troll thread about philosophythis, troll thread about politics that, and assholes calling each other asshole, holier than thou all over the place... Extremely annoying.

>> No.4838872

>>4838868
Addendum: I guess it would be alright if the troll threads would be funny, but they're just passive-agressive/openly aggressive "smart" 14-year-olds throwing big words at each other.

>> No.4838873

>>4838805
I've barely been on here at all in the past couple months, despite being fully depressed and having nothing to do to kill time. And I've stayed on /lit/ through some pretty shitty times on here. It's real bad recently.

>> No.4838898

>>4838873
Guy from >>4838868 >>4838872 here

Man, remember when every fucking thread was Ayn Rand? Always, everyone discussing Atlas Shrugged? Thankfully, that stopped, and /lit/ got better for a short time. This now is worse than the Rand times.

>> No.4838909

>>4838862
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Have you read Kant?

transcendental idealism? insane (unknowable things in themselves? spatio-temporal objects as mental constructions? come on)
certainty of the truth of the practical postulates (including the existence of God and the afterlife)?
duties based in our noumenal selves, which we can never have any experience of?
all sex outside of attempting to procreate in a marriage as horrific abomination?

Also you know that Kant was heavily influenced by Leibniz (and Wolff, a hardcore Leibnizian), right?

>> No.4838916

>>4838805
>>4838868
So why don't you start an interesting non-troll thread and say something worth reading. Or, you know, go on complaining about how nobody is doing that anymore.

>> No.4838924

>>4838916
I've tried over the last couple of days, all I got is passive-aggressive answers like yours. Now I'd rather wait until all of you assholes disappear again, like it was with the Rand times.

>> No.4838926

>>4838909
>spatio-temporal objects as mental constructions?
this part is pretty intuitive actually

>> No.4838934

>>4838926
So you think if there weren't humans around, there wouldn't be spacetime (or objects in spacetime)? Or at least find that intuitive?

>> No.4838943

>>4838934
Yeah, I mean its kind of impossible to get around isn't it? Space and time are the cognitive functions we use to interpret the world. They aren't 'objectively' true in any sense. I know its annoying when people do this but think about how physics treats space and time, its pretty far off from our experience of them. Time dilation alone pokes all sorts of holes in the way we experience reality

>> No.4838953

>>4838807
one of the many accomplishments of Stirner was being the first (and maybe last) readable German philosopher.

>> No.4838970

>>4838943
Sure, spatial and temporal experiences are mental. But if you think there's anything like objective time dilation, then you think time is objective (though perhaps it's not very similar to commonsense ideas about it), and not merely a mental construction. And so you also presumably think that objects, like electrons, are in time, and would be whether we were here to experience them or not.

>> No.4838977

>>4838970
My point with time dilation was just that the world is almost definitely not the way we perceive it. Time and space might only be meaningful at all within the little cognitive set-up we have in our heads. 'reality', whatever he calls it the Noumenon, is just not the same thing as our representation of it, how could it be?

>> No.4838979

>>4838805
don't worry. It used to be shit, too. It just recently got shittier than usual after the janitors on all the other boards and the scum washed up here.

>> No.4838994

>>4838970
Spacetime is radically different from how we experience space and time.

Given that we now know of spacetime and relativity and everything sense, how could our experience of time and space be seen as anything but a mental construction.

>> No.4839004

Kant's actually eminently clear and relatively easy to read once you get used to his admittedly bizarre terminology. I think Kant'd be appalled by the state of Continental philosophy today.

>> No.4839029

>>4838862

But Leibniz is eminently clear, and his arguments eminently well-made. I've no idea what you mean with this whole "epoch of thought" thing. Perhaps you're just coming up with an excuse not to bother with Leibniz.

>> No.4839046

>>4838977
>>4838994
What do you think of the following argument:
The sun is radically different from how we experience it. Given what we now know of the sun (heliocentrism, the fact that it's way larger than the Earth, etc.), how could it be seen as anything but a mental construction?

Again, our experiences of space and time (or the sun) are mental constructions (by definition). They are not complete or completely accurate representations of space and time (or the sun). This is not groundbreaking or controversial, and it's not what Kant proposed. This doesn't mean that without our minds constructing experiences of them, they would not exist, which is what Kant proposed.

>> No.4839061

>>4839004
Could you tell me what the argument of the B-Deduction is? Or the Refutation of Idealism? Or how about Section 3 of the Groundwork?

>> No.4839067

>>4839046
space and time are not really 'things' though in the same way as the Sun. they're more like the way things are, or rather the way we interpret things. the things exist out there, but not in our space and time