[ 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: 708 KB, 1536x1853, o-IMMANUEL-KANT-facebook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5518222 No.5518222 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone here read The Critique of Pure Reason? Was it worth the effort? Has modern developments in science like Einstein and Darwin disproved Kant's metaphysics?

>> No.5518268

Yes. It literally changed my outlook on everything. Kant makes everything so incredibly clear. You won't believe it until you read it.

With the right metaphysical framework everything else becomes a trivial corollary. Need to get better at math? Read TCoPR and you'll be able to derive all of math from its fundamental principles. Don't have a job? Read TCoPR and you'll be able to discover why through philosohpy, better yourself with kantian ethics, and then become a contributing member of society.

It's impossible to disprove metaphysics because metaphysics is the foundation. Can the upper parts of a building cause its foundation to collapse? Nonsense - the foundation supports the rest of the structure. When the foundation is sound, nothing can be done to collapse the building.

Reading TCoPR is the ultimate life-hack. Highly recommended.

>> No.5518273

>>5518268
/thread

>> No.5518278
File: 55 KB, 625x626, bait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5518278

>>5518268

>> No.5518286

Nietzsche > Schopenhauer > Kant

>> No.5518298

>>5518268
Did you read Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics or any secondary sources before reading TCoPR?

>> No.5518309

>>5518298
I don't believe in secondary sources when it comes to philosophy. If the knowledge a philosopher is writing about is truly analytic, then the truths will reveal themselves with a little prodding. The philosophical work is merely a map for the lost; academics confuse the map with the terrain. A good test of a philosophy's veracity is this: upon analysis, are the claims set forth clear and distinct? For the structure of the mind corresponds with the structure of reality (it must, since it is a part of reality); hence, those things that are pleasing to our mind's eyes must be inherent in the nature of reality. Those things that are clear and distinct must be true.

Academics cash on the dilettantes who are concerned with appearances, not reality. Academics seek to obfuscate the fundamental truths of reality, cloud them with big words and surnames. The true Philosopher apprehends truth in its purest form, and is concerned with reality.

>> No.5518402

Kant's understanding of time and space isn't consistent with Einstein's but as Kant was concerned with time and space as human senses more than things in themselves, that's not such a big deal. Most of can't has not been disproved, and he is worth your while.

But be warned, he assumes familiarity with all the big empiricists and rationalists, and often uses words in very specific senses that he assumes you will pick up on, when you won't if you aren't properly read.

You should also know that Kant isn't one quick hit and split kinda theorist like Hume, he invented a brand new comprehensive system of philosophy, like Marx and Freud. He lays out a complex system for interpreting reality, and if you really want to understand him, you will have to read the Critique more than once, and you'll also have to read the rest of his major work.

>> No.5520866

bumpin'

>> No.5520879

>>5518222
If you're reading philosophy as a competitor of science then you're doing it wrong

>> No.5520894

>>5518268
Guyer translation or Pluhar?

>> No.5520913

>>5518309
pls go early Wittgenstein

>> No.5520921

>>5518222
>Has anyone here read The Critique of Pure Reason?
Yeah.
>Was it worth the effort?
Yeah.
>Has modern developments in science like Einstein and Darwin disproved Kant's metaphysics?
Nah. They appear to be compatible by and large.

>> No.5520930

As Frege pointed out more than a century ago, he was wrong about logic and math being synthetic. That said, ignore

>Read TCoPR and you'll be able to derive all of math from its fundamental principles

If you do decide to read Kant, do read Schopenhauer's understanding and critique of Kant's work afterwards.

>> No.5520937

>>5520930
What would you say is the best book(or are the best books) on philosophy of mathematics? Question for everyone here.

>> No.5520939

Who are some philosophers in the 20th century who were influenced by Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche but avoided Hegel and Marx?

>> No.5521059

>>5520937
I wouldn't suggest reading anything on philosophy of mathematics until one is fluent in at least some area of Mathematical Logic, although it's not a necessarily prerequisite. E.g., if any of the following technical terms ring no bell to you, then you should study up: completeness, compactness, Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, the axiom of choice, decidability, Church's thesis, Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Stewart Shapiro's Thinking about Mathematics is a good start, but it will probably be hard-going if you have no experience with modern logical systems, their metalogical properties, etc.

>> No.5522190
File: 23 KB, 248x310, 1403169235821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5522190

>>5520937

>> No.5522229

>>5518222
yes

yes it was worth the effort

>> No.5522252

>>5521059
What was the proof that mathematics is not synthetic? It seems pretty obvious to me that it is.

>> No.5522303

>>5518222
Damn, Kant was an ugly as fucker. Nigga makes Satre look good.

>> No.5523122

>>5522303
Kant still fucked your mother last night lol

>> No.5523156

>>5522303
He was like 4'11" too.

>> No.5523202

>>5520894
Norman Kemp Smith