[ 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: 34 KB, 843x1038, family_clipart_pictures_momphoto_NifterDotCom.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5880273 No.5880273 [Reply] [Original]

Best way to understand Kant? He's such an important philosopher, it feels like I need to understand him before I can really understand most of the stuff that came after.

>> No.5880278

read his words until you get it

>> No.5880293

Watch a video on ytb. No, really, hearing a voice helps

>> No.5880344

>>5880278
but i kant understand it

>> No.5880360

the companions help, paul guyer is good

you need to have a broad idea of what his project is and what his aims are, then you need to learn his vocabulary, then you have to piece-by-piece the entire world in his thoughts... it also helps if you read hume

>> No.5880366

>>5880273
Categorical Imperative, Kingdom of Ends, and the thing-in-itself would be the things I make sure I know, if I were you.

The first two especially. And yeah, just read his words, man.

>> No.5880526
File: 174 KB, 545x429, Kant death mask double.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5880526

>>5880273

Read some Leibniz, read some Hume, then read some Kant. Also use some secondary, especially Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's online articles on Kant - read most or all of them. They're pretty excellent.

Any particular Kantian themes I can help explain?

>> No.5880527

>>5880273
Kant is not worth reading, he has been demolished by 20th century Analytic Philosophers.

>> No.5880532
File: 887 KB, 500x281, 1418429174838.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5880532

Just read a few summaries, like Russell's, and be done with him. Then you will have time to move on to real philosophy like Wittgenstein and Kripke.

>> No.5880538

>>5880527

As if these dismantling arguments could ever be assessed without first understanding Kant by reading him.

>>5880273

Also OP, I recommend Howard Caygill's "A Kant Dictionary."

>> No.5880588

I'd say I relate most to Kant out of any philosophers. Nietzsche was cool but Kant didn't get carried away with opinions stated as fact (or aphorism). Kant was heavily autistic and was pretty ascetic.

>> No.5880612

>>5880538
As another anon said, you can just read wiki or Russell's article on Kant to get the general gist. His arguments are terrible and are only useful as examples to be dismantled.

>>5880588
I have always thought there was a reason Kant appealed to autistic virgins.

>> No.5880669

>>5880360
Would you even go so far as to say that Paul Guyer is.. The go to guy?

>> No.5882100
File: 106 KB, 457x600, Kant-Wolff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5882100

>>5880612

>As another anon said, you can just read wiki or Russell's article on Kant to get the general gist.

If you're content to have a superficial understanding of it, then sure. Russell's History of Philosophy (if that's what you're referring to) is not famous for its fairness though, but I haven't read it so I can't weigh in on that. I can personally vouch for Copleston's treatment of Kant, though.

>His arguments are terrible and are only useful as examples to be dismantled.

Like which arguments? I don't find all of his claims or arguments to be convincing, but you're coming across as too dismissive. Maybe you've reflected deeply on the weakness of Kant's many arguments, though, and can provide many examples of their respective flaws - I don't want to make presumptions about your grasp of this topic, in all sincerity.