/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5339936]

Is Kant more important than Plato?

[Anonymous No.5339939]

cant have kant without plato

[Anonymous No.5339940]

>>5339936
Kant expands on Plato

But Kant also tries to conceive of a new beginning for philosophy.

Both are equally important.

[Anonymous No.5340028]

>>5339936
No, be

[Anonymous No.5340068]

>>5340028
No, do

[Anonymous No.5340367]

>>5339936
Kant is the most overrated philosopher of all time.

[Anonymous No.5340377]

>>5340068
>>5340028
No, accomplish.

[Anonymous No.5340381]

>>5340367

[Anonymous No.5340382]

>>5340028
>>5340068
>>5340377

No, I'm blue dubedidubedy, dubedidubedy, dubedidubedy, dubedidubedy, dubedidubedy

[Anonymous No.5340392]

>>5340382
No.

[Anonymous No.5340952]

>>5339936
Plato is more important in general; all philosophers that came after Plato thought within the structures he created. He defined philosophy and the boundaries of it. Kant did not succeed in transcending the influence of platonic philosophy and it's inherent contradictions. Neither did Hegel. He also had a tremendous influence on the evolution of western culture. Kant's influence on philosophy was tremendous, but in my opinion, he is not even the second most influential philosopher to date. I think that is Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.5340958]

>>5339936
I'd say those two, as well as Hegel and Aristotle, are on the same level.

[Anonymous No.5340970]

>>5340958
I agree about Aristotle, but I don't really get your opinion on Hegel

[Anonymous No.5340972]

>>5340970
Maybe that's because you don't get Hegel.

[Anonymous No.5340987]

>>5340972
Maybe you should try to explain? We're talking about influence on phylosophy, about their 'relative importancy'. Not about the respective amount of pages they've written or something.

[Anonymous No.5340991]

Why are all important philosophers either greek or german?

[Anonymous No.5340998]

>>5340991
or french, or anglo, or indian, or chinese

[Anonymous No.5341003]

>>5340998
No, the real top tier ones all seem to be greek or german, atleast like 90% of them.

[Anonymous No.5341006]

>>5340991
For western culture they are, go talk to some Erythreian guy and he won't even know any of them :p

[Anonymous No.5341043]

>>5341006
Who cares about third worlder ?

[Anonymous No.5341054]

>>5341003
>No, the ones only ones I know all
ftfy

[Anonymous No.5341058]

>>5340987
Oh well, can anyone deny the impact of Hegel?
The only reason it's not that pronounced nowadays is the ridiculous fact that most analytic philosophers literally don't understand him.

[Anonymous No.5341096]

>>5341054
Well, there are not many that compete with the "top tier" philosophers of Germany and Greek.

[Anonymous No.5341108]

>>5339936
I hate Kawnt with a passion. Fucker's an idiot.

[Anonymous No.5341114]

>>5341096
What do they compete in? Beyblade? Beauty pageant? Best bukkake face?

[Anonymous No.5341122]

>>5341114
Influence.

[Anonymous No.5341129]

>>5341058
Oh yes, I do. I do not deny that his works are -to some point- influential. You can read his influence in the immediate reponses to his works by some later philosophers like Sartre. But you will have to admit that he did not -unlike Plato- influence hundreds of philosophers, centuries of Christianity and western culture, nor that his works marked the beginning of a new era and a new subject of thinking like Heidegger's did.

[Anonymous No.5341131]

>>5339936

I don't know, but you cant have Kant without Karl

[Anonymous No.5341139]

>>5341108
agreed, betabitch he is, no wonder his name sounds like cunt

[Anonymous No.5341695]

>>5340952
How can Aristotle not be after Plato in terms of importance
Philosophy though the whole medieval period and much of the modern period is Aristotelian

[Anonymous No.5341700]

>>5339936
>plato
>important

[Anonymous No.5341706]

The greeks can basically be divided in men who could bend over enough to suck their own dick and men who couldn't and focussed on important stuff instead.

the former would be plato and socrates
the latter would be aristotle

[Anonymous No.5341715]

>>5339936


hes the most influential on the contemporary era i think, which is to say, his work (specifically, his ethics) opened alot of doors for intellectual abortions to devastate society.

[Anonymous No.5341722]

>>5341695
I'd put them on equal importance, a lot of Aristotle's writing was in response to Plato's.

[Anonymous No.5341937]

>>5341695
Of course this discussion is only about a normative appreciation of their respective work, so I respect your point, but let me clarify what I meant to say.
Aristotle's work was -mainly during the middle ages- of great importance. (His work is not only of philosophical value, but -due to his scientific method of investigation- he is widely regarded as one of the first real 'scientists' of our culture!)
But he too was influenced by Plato, and was not able to 'escape' the platonic, dualistic vision of reality and humankind, even though he partly disagreed with his -in his opinion- too idealistic teacher on that subject.

Most other influential philosophers after him were not able to do so either.
Whitehead put it like this; "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"
Ever since Plato wrote his dialogues, almost all philosophic discussions and theories were mostly 'metafysical'.

Mainly because the importance of metaphysical questions decreased when 'modern science' showed up, philosophers slowly started exploring new subjects.
And that is why I think Heidegger was so important; he definetively pushed philosophy in a new direction.

[Anonymous No.5342081]

>>5339936
Is "is" more "ist" than Das Sein?
-Heidegger

[Anonymous No.5342857]

>>5340952
>>5341129
>>5341937
>Heidegger
What about Nietzsche? Wasn't Heidegger still too obsessed with presence and being rather than with multiplicity, relationality and becoming?
It seems there was already in Nietzsche a kind of beyond-Platonism with his critique of opposites, particularly the opposite of essence/appearance.
It was also Nietzsche who removed unnecessary baggage from Kant.

[Anonymous No.5344430]

>>5342857
>What about Nietzsche?
Nah, he destroyed metaphysics and left nothing, while Heidi actually went on(tried).

[Anonymous No.5344494]

>>5344430
What do you mean he left nothing? He started the whole philosophy of difference, relation, and becoming.

[Anonymous No.5344503]

Did Kant genuinely wrote in a difficult style or was he just a shit writer?

I read in an interview with a Kantian scholar, Geoffrey Warnock, that Kant didn't how to write because there wasn't an established German style yet, but on the other hand when I've read his Critique of Judgment translated by Pluhar, it wasn't that bad.

[Anonymous No.5344525]

>>5344503
He is very mathematical, moving analytically from concepts to concepts and building upon them. It is just that his system is so complex that he has to introduce a ton of concepts with tons of relations among them.

[Anonymous No.5344529]

>cunt
>pluto

[Anonymous No.5344533]

>>5344503
The thing about Kant is that he spends a lot of time defining the words he is going to use in the next sentences, which results in very convoluted sentence systems. I think he is a tough read even in german. Dunno about translations.

[Anonymous No.5344540]

>>5344533
I've read some Critique of Judgement in English, he is indeed difficult to comprehend due to his writing style.
Not sure if this is the translation or just his style in general.

[Anonymous No.5344548]

>>5344503
I heard (from German speakers) that translation generally make him more complicated than he is.

He's not a prose stylist by any stretch of the mind, but as far as explanationn goes, he does the job. What he explains just happens to be very complex.

Actually, that's not quite nailing it. The particularity of Kant, notably in his longer works, is that he moves forward by reflecting on what he just said and going deeper into what it means. A bit like if you saw him build his system as he goes on. The comparison with a math teacher isn't too bad really. Even if what interests you in the end are the fancy theorem, the most challenging and essential parts are the proofs that can be convoluted and long-winded.

[Anonymous No.5344558]

>>5344540
It's his style in general, but I wouldn't recommend a translation anyway. Kant uses many different words that just don't have a fitting translation. For example, Vernunft and Verstand generally mean the same, and would both be translated to "reason" in english, but Kant defines them as two similar things in a way that would be hard to translate while keeping the definition intact.

[Anonymous No.5344570]

List me your best prayers that you know.
I really need it doing some project aboout listing alot of prayers

[Anonymous No.5344675]

>>5344548
>I heard (from German speakers) that translation generally make him more complicated than he is.
I've had that experience, though I'm not a German speaker, but my language is close to it with its conjugations and complex sentence structures. English Kant also seems really dry and boring.

>>5344558
>Vernunft and Verstand
"reason" and "understanding" don't seem like bad translations, though I don't know all possible philosophical connotations of these two English words since I haven't read most of philosophy in English. But I thought they were already translated as such.