Kant vs. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8649145]

Who was the better philosopher and why was it Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.8649153]

>>8649145

It was Nietzsche, but I still like Kant desu.

>Tfw you will never be invited to one of his dinner parties

[Anonymous No.8649155]

>>8649145
Kant

[Anonymous No.8649165]

Hegel.

[Anonymous No.8649169]

Kant actually did philosophy; all Nietzsche did was write incoherent edgelord rants about "What if teh evil is actually teh good?"

[Anonymous No.8649172]

>>8649169
Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.8649177]

>>8649172
lmao BTFO

[Anonymous No.8649178]

>>8649145
Stirner.

[Anonymous No.8649187]

>>8649178

[Anonymous No.8649234]

>>8649155
>>8649165
>>8649169
>>8649178
>>8649187
>these fucking retards not showing Nietzsche the respect he deserves
>not acknowledging truly the last philosopher
>not acknowledging one of the top 5 minds of all time

kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.8649585]

Nietszche was a Kantian desperately trying to get out from under his master's shadow. He was only partially successful.

[Anonymous No.8649607]

Kant is actually an idiot, but Nietzsche was pure edgelord so i can't really decide

[Anonymous No.8649629]

>>8649145
In academia Kant is a central piece. Pick literally any field in philosophy, you must know what Kant thought about it. While Nietzsche is only relevant to those who specialize in him.

So you tell me who's the better philosopher...

[Anonymous No.8649673]

>>8649145
Led Zeppelin.

[Anonymous No.8649696]

Plato

[Anonymous No.8649708]

>>8649145
Nietzsche was better but he was a beta cuck lord.

[Anonymous No.8649718]

>>8649145
They're both such shit that I could genuinely answer "me".

*Edgelords away*

[Anonymous No.8649733]

>>8649187
Disgusting prose. And N. called his own writing in Birth of Tragedy too Hegelian and at the same time we're to believe he was reading garbage like this?

[Anonymous No.8649740]

>>8649234
Kierkegaard did everything he did, first and much better.

[Anonymous No.8649763]

>>8649740

Kierkegaard was a dumb Christfag.

>2016
>Taking leaps of faith

[Anonymous No.8649767]

>>8649740
No idiot, Kierkegaard is Dostoevsky's forerunner. Stirner is Nietzsche's >>8649187 >>8649733

Both branches are opposed apart from being post-enlightened.

[Anonymous No.8649784]

>>8649767
Kierkegaard has nothing to do with Dostoevsky, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.8649801]

>>8649784
I guess you could say that Anon is "The Idiot".

[Anonymous No.8649809]

obviously nietzsche. he started and finished philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8649824]

Reminder: Nietzsche never read Stirner

[Anonymous No.8649844]

>>8649145
Kant was the better philosopher, but Nietzsche was the better writer

[Anonymous No.8649852]

>>8649763
>tfw to smart too not be religious
>tfw to smart too not teleologically suspend the ethical

[Anonymous No.8649872]

>>8649852

>too not

Don't fucking flatter yourself in my smart presence.

[Anonymous No.8649877]

>>8649145
Kant was the 'better' philosopher but Nietzsche still annihilated him.

>>8649169
t. all I read about Nietzsche is memes on the 4chan and wikipedia article.

Nietzsche was a philosopher in the same sense that a detective must force himself to think like a criminal in order to trace a crime back to its source. He did the autopsy of philosophy in the old sense of the word. Granted, in Hegel you can see a lot of the shadows of what Nietzsche goes on to articulate.

>>8649629
Nietzsche is much more relevant in every area except for academia, and there are very obvious reasons why outside of Nietzsche scholars (who almost function as court jesters) academic philosophers do not like Nietzsche, namely that he viewed philosophers as an intrinsically degenerate class.

Examine WTP 426 to see what his 'endgame' on philosophy was, you'll notice that he doesn't afford much room for either philosophers or priests.

[Anonymous No.8649912]

>>8649784
>>8649801
>Kierkegaard has nothing to do with Dostoevsky, you idiot.
Oh really?
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/shestov/sk/sk_01.html

>>8649824
We don't know for sure. Some books he read for sure cite him. Either way it doesn't matter since there is still enough original content in N even if he plagiarised everything that can be found in S.

>>8649877
Good post.

[Anonymous No.8649920]

Nietzsche's entire "philosophy" can be summed up in a couple of edgy bumper stickers.

[Anonymous No.8649987]

>>8649920
t. never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8650018]

No love for Sartre? Makes me feel.... queasy.

[Anonymous No.8650029]

>>8649912
>shestov
My nigga.

[Anonymous No.8650031]

>>8649733
>Disgusting prose.


Now you've discovered the hatred of translations

[Anonymous No.8650062]

Kant provided arguments for his philosophy and extensively so.
Nietzsche sprouted opinions without argumentation.

[Anonymous No.8650091]

>>8650062
If you understood the basic epistemological perspective that Nietzsche was working with you'd understand why this is the case.

[Anonymous No.8650097]

>>8650091
would you say that perspective can be easily understood if explained?

>inb4 lashing out aggressively

Not that dude and just curious about your perspective.

[Anonymous No.8650117]

>>8650062

>Kant provided arguments for his philosophy and extensively so.

This is called systematizing.

Nietzsche also provided arguments for his philosophy, extensively so. He did not do it in the same way, however, as the Will to System repulsed him:

>The will to a system: in a philosopher, morally speaking, a subtle corruption, a disease of the character; amorally speaking, his will to pose as more stupid than he is-more stupid, that means: stronger, simpler, more commanding less educated, more masterful, more tyrannical.

[Anonymous No.8650121]

>>8650097

Look up perspectivism

[Anonymous No.8650126]

>>8650121
that wasn't my question.

[Anonymous No.8650132]

>>8650117
>>The will to a system: in a philosopher, morally speaking, a subtle corruption, a disease of the character; amorally speaking, his will to pose as more stupid than he is-more stupid, that means: stronger, simpler, more commanding less educated, more masterful, more tyrannical.

Jesus Christ. No wonder this guy appeals to edgelords so much

[Anonymous No.8650142]

>>8650126
Perspectivism (German: Perspektivismus) is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato's rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Absolutely painful excuse not to argue, but it's half decent.

[Anonymous No.8650151]

>>8649153
How can anyone possibly even hold a view like this? Nietzsche contributed nothing.

Nietzsche isn't even a philosopher, he's a literary concerned with aesthetics of his work and they're also the ravings of a bitter tyrant.

If anyone prefers Nietzsche over Kant you know they're not concerned at all with philosophy but only with looking deep and intellectual.

[Anonymous No.8650183]

>>8650062
>arguments
reason is good cuz reason

[Anonymous No.8650194]

>>8649629
>So you tell me who's the better philosopher...
Nietzsche.

The "academy" is not reflective of life at all. It's a sterilized, isolated little island that does not pay attention to the world around it but instead feeds off of itself and dances in circles endlessly. Being a "central piece" there is nothing to be proud of, especially in philosophy, which is about analysis and wisdom of life.

Nietzsche is disliked and ignored by people who think in terms of the academy, i.e. in a rigid, bloodless, highly dependent way because his approach was very anti-academic (which is the approach of all good philosophers, like the pre-Socratics).

[Anonymous No.8650216]

>>8650091
Because he's a shit tier philosopher?

[Anonymous No.8650297]

>>8650097
Read On Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense. Just google it and you'll find a pdf. That is basically the summary of how Nietzsche sees epistemology. It's a pretty great read and also very short. I often recommend it as an introduction to Nietzsche because by the time you're done with it you can pretty much know how you're going to feel about Nietzsche.

For a shorter explanation, let me give you this

WTP 481

>Against positivism, which halts at phenomena-"there are only facts"- I would say: No, facts are precisely what there are not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact "in itself": perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.
>"Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is. -Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.
>Insofar as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the word is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. - "Perspectivism."
>It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

I think it's self explanatory, given this, that Nietzsche really doesn't care too much about constructing elaborate, precise and 'factual' arguments to convince you that he's in the right and instead fills his work with sweeping arguments and intricate musings which are very appealing to people who have had similar thoughts to his at times.

[Anonymous No.8650349]

why can't people at least read Nietzsche before talking about him.

[Anonymous No.8650384]

>>8650349
Every Nietzsche fan thinks people who dislike his shitty reasoning haven't read him for some reason.

[Anonymous No.8650419]

>>8650349

[Anonymous No.8650468]

>>8650349
I've read Nietzsche, perhaps you should wisen up and stop presuming anybody that disagrees with a positive egoism must have never read it.

[Anonymous No.8650584]

>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.8650622]

>>8650349
You can't expect the majority of people to read him, much less properly understand what they read. Nietzsche has a very broad body of work that is unlike most others, more characteristic of Heraclitus in style than anyone else, and even he was considered insane and undecipherable by the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.8650649]

>>8649145
> Childhood is when you idolize Kant
> Adulthood is when you realize that Nietzsche makes more sense

[Anonymous No.8650659]

>>8650649
other way around, pseud

[Anonymous No.8650662]

>>8650649
>11 is when you idolize Kant
>12 is when you realize Nietzsche is better

[Anonymous No.8650671]

Oh, how fun, people are bitching that Nietzsche isn't a philosopher the same way they bitch that Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher.
The irony.

[Anonymous No.8650677]

>>8650671
The two are still nothing alike.

[Anonymous No.8650743]

>>8650142
>haha guys truth is relative

How's high school?

[Anonymous No.8650757]

>>8650677
Keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous No.8650770]

>>8650743
Well it is a lot of hard work, quite different to what you are used to I expect. Don't worry kiddo, you'll do fine.

[Anonymous No.8650809]

>>8650757
I don't need to "tell myself that" because I've understood their differences already.

[Anonymous No.8650812]

>>8650622
It really is a shame that Heraclitus didn't survive. Even Socrates couldn't make sense of his shit.

>>8650757
They aren't. Rand was blown the fuck out by Nietzsche before her Jewish ass was even born to boot. There are surface level similarities but at a fundamental level Rand is arguing the from the exact opposite position as Nietzsche and ironically ends up at a similar looking conclusion, yet one that is still at odds with Nietzsche's thought.

[Anonymous No.8650825]

>>8650812
>same conclusion
>yet not similar
Uh huh.

>>8650809
All you've likely understood are memes.

[Anonymous No.8650982]

>>8650825
Not him but similar looking =/= same. IN APPEARANCE, and to those with mediocre vision, they seem similar. They aren't at all though, and not even really in appearance.

Nietzsche is not an "objectivist" — to think he is means you haven't read shit by him. Like, absolutely nothing. You can't claim to even be trolling, because you look like a complete retard to everyone who has read him if you continue to assert that he was.

Rand is full of erroneous conclusions and phenomenological inconsistencies that Nietzsche never possessed. Her crude notions of reality, perception, happiness, moral purpose, etc. are all absent in Nietzsche. Her sense of art is completely unlike his.

Rand doesn't have anything close to the Dionysian ideal in her philosophy; she is more universalist than him. Her concept of power is also vastly inferior to Nietzsche's as a result and she does not have anything close to his will to power. Nietzsche grasped far more about the human condition than she ever did, because of how superior his understanding of past texts, myths and art was. She has nothing on his understanding of the Greeks.

Rand did not ever possess Nietzsche's fervor for diversity. Value diversity in the world, the world as a monstrous melting pot of values and a unity of opposites, sits at the heart of Zarathustra's teachings. Hence why Zarathustra didn't end up positing a junk philosophy like "objectivism" like Rand did.

[Anonymous No.8650992]

>>8649629
How do you know anything about either and then come with such a half-ass excuse?

[Anonymous No.8650997]

>>8649145
Reading Beyond Good and Evil for the first time, it's my first Nietzsche. Having trouble with Nietzsche's prose, though. What do?

[Anonymous No.8651015]

>>8650982
>Not him but similar looking =/= same. IN APPEARANCE, and to those with mediocre vision, they seem similar. They aren't at all though, and not even really in appearance.
The point I was making is that simply saying they are nothing alike then say that they look similar is just silly.

>Nietzsche is not an "objectivist" — to think he is means you haven't read shit by him. Like, absolutely nothing. You can't claim to even be trolling, because you look like a complete retard to everyone who has read him if you continue to assert that he was.
Obviously, I never assert that they are absolutely identical or that Nietzsche is an objectivist either.

>Rand is full of erroneous conclusions and phenomenological inconsistencies that Nietzsche never possessed
Such as?

>Rand doesn't have anything close to the Dionysian ideal in her philosophy
That's because her ubermensch is an Apollonian ideal, not a Dionysian.

>Rand did not ever possess Nietzsche's fervor for diversity. Value diversity in the world, the world as a monstrous melting pot of values and a unity of opposites, sits at the heart of Zarathustra's teachings. Hence why Zarathustra didn't end up positing a junk philosophy like "objectivism" like Rand did.
That is quite false. Rand allowed for all measure of diversity, she just maintained a foundation on nihilism was immoral, one that even Nietzsche agrees to. The love of life and the love of one's own life are primal values that both Nietzsche and Rand share. And while Rand did make assertive claims on morals, she left values to each individual to decide for themselves. The only value she claimed had to be absolute, which isn't always, is that the only thing you must value above all is your own life, and that loving your life is the foundation of all values.

But of course, you just want to bitch and assume that I think that they're absolutely identical when I don't. You let your memes cloud your judgement.

[Anonymous No.8651038]

>>8650982
lol kruger dunnig effect in action everyone

[Anonymous No.8651054]

>>8649801
underrated post.

[Anonymous No.8651057]

>>8650997
Anyone?

Should I read another one of his works first to get a taste for his style? If so, what?

[Anonymous No.8651069]

>>8650982
>Rand doesn't have anything close to the Dionysian ideal in her philosophy; she is more universalist than him.
Also, now that I think about it, Ellsworth Toohey is collectivism idealized, so perhaps he is an Dionysian ideal. He appeals to emotion, chaos, seeks to undermine every semblance of order and create decay.

So I think you're possibly the one who hasn't read anything by Ayn Rand and possibly only read wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.8651086]

Nietzsche's stance couldn't have existed without Kant's profound influence of western thought, plus the development of homogeneous, empty time brought about by print capitalism. It feels to me that Kant's work was an ingenious solution to sociopolitical/religious problems of Europe, whereas Nietzsche took the philosophic trend of his era to its logical conclusion. However, I find his worship of the individual as too excessive, ignoring the bonds in which the individual is tied to society. Kind of ironic how he ended up living in the care of his sister. His philosophy also requires a world-affirming outlook, with which I disagree.

[Anonymous No.8651090]

>>8651015
>The only value she claimed had to be absolute, which isn't always, is that the only thing you must value above all is your own life, and that loving your life is the foundation of all values.
Zarathustra: What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.

[Anonymous No.8651111]

>>8651090
That doesn't disprove what I said.

[Anonymous No.8651124]

It's funny how many people know other people's philosophy, and other people's arguments, but cannot make their own arguments, and so really don't know anything at all...

[Anonymous No.8651126]

>>8651111
Just pointing out how their conclusions are very different. One's rational self-interest is the goal for Rand, but that is just a bridge for Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.8651138]

>>8650671
>ayn rand
le reason is good is le reasonable to le do whatever to le live
>Nietzsche
reason is for gays

[Anonymous No.8651145]

Pseud thread for people who haven't read philosophy

[Anonymous No.8651150]

>>8651126
That's incorrect.
Happiness is the goal, rational self interest is the means to obtain that goal (the bridge).
>Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.

How in the world can rational self interest be the goal? That's beyond stupid and points more to a misunderstand of Ayn Rand from you than anything else.

>My morality is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.

[Anonymous No.8651180]

>>8651150
Fine, that was poor wording on my part. But man is the goal for Rand, there's no disputing that.

Rand: Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.

"Man is an end in himself." Man / man's happiness is the goal.

Their conclusions are still very different, which was my point. Man is a bridge for Nietzsche and he never speaks of happiness as a goal. He would have laughed at Rand for being so self-centered.

[Anonymous No.8651220]

>>8651057
I started with Twilight of the Idols; it's short, fairly readable, and it covers a fair number of his prominent positions/ideas. Also, since it's from the end of his productive career, it represents his "final positions" better than some other works.

Another starting place that gets recommended is Untimely Meditations, which are his earliest works besides The Birth of Tragedy. I haven't read all of them, but they're pretty accessible and in several respects they anticipate prominent elements of Nietzsche's later thought. However, he also changes his position on some of the subjects discussed in the Untimely Meditations, so they aren't the best representative of his thought as a whole.

[Anonymous No.8651273]

>>8651180
>But man is the goal for Rand, there's no disputing that.
Happiness is the goal. Man is not the goal. Self improvement to help obtain that goal (becoming an Ubermesch) is simply a bridge to happiness. He is simply the end in himself in obtaining that happiness.
To Nietzsche, man is the goal, but only a over-man is the true goal, which is still man. To me, that's simply circular. An endless self-improvement without goal or reason. Once you become a Ubermensch, who overcomes nihilism at the end of the world, what do you do? Sure, you laugh, but then what?
This is why Nietzsche failed at the end. He argued that no one could self improve to the point of becoming an Ubermensch.

>Their conclusions are still very different, which was my point. Man is a bridge for Nietzsche and he never speaks of happiness as a goal. He would have laughed at Rand for being so self-centered.
There is nothing self centered about happiness. It is inherent in all humans.
It is not something only Ayn Rand wanted.

I don't see what is different other than Nietzsche not giving an end goal to his own Ubermensch.

--

In the end, both Nietzsche and Ayn Rand sought to overcome and destroy nihilism. And while Nietzsche provided the tools, he succumbed in the end by saying no could could become a Ubermensch. Ayn Rand provided the tools for men to overcome nihilism by simply loving their own life and finding happiness in whatever way they found was appropriate (as long as it doesn't involve destroying the life of another).
Their end goal may not be similar, but their intent were similar. I don't think it's a coincidence that gail wynand and howard roark were similar in may ways.

[Anonymous No.8651276]

>>8651273
Thanks for the essay of a post, faggot. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.8651293]

>>8651276
Shame is a tactic of the collectivist.

[Anonymous No.8651303]

>>8651293
Shame Striner-chan is ugly as fuck

[Anonymous No.8651316]

>>8651303
yare yare daze

[Anonymous No.8651689]

>>8651273
>To Nietzsche, man is the goal
Nope.

>but only a over-man is the true goal, which is still man.
"still man"? Elaborate there.

>An endless self-improvement without goal or reason. Once you become a Ubermensch, who overcomes nihilism at the end of the world, what do you do? Sure, you laugh, but then what?
You start over.

>He argued that no one could self improve to the point of becoming an Ubermensch.
Nonsense...

>There is nothing self centered about happiness. It is inherent in all humans.
There is something very self centered about saying "man is an end in himself" and that man's happiness is the goal. Nietzsche's goal is to create beyond oneself; you are just a catalyst, a bridge. It is out of will to power, of course, but there's no guarantee or promise of "happiness" from him. That's not the reward. Nietzsche talks much about how power comes in forms that are not always directly pleasurable. Rand, meanwhile, seems only concerned about being happy.

[Anonymous No.8651863]

>>8650062
>Nietzsche sprouted opinions without argumentation.
no he didn't, you have not read nietzsche or if you did, you skimmed his works like someone might skim a magazine for "interesting articles"

[Anonymous No.8651874]

>>8649145
They're in the same tier, though Nietzsche is way more fun to read.

[Anonymous No.8651903]

>>8649145
>philosopher
you mean polemicist

[Anonymous No.8651920]

>>8649607
>Kant is actually an idiot

t. Critique of Pure Bullshit

[Anonymous No.8651937]

>>8651057
ur fuqed

You just suffer through it. Eventually you see the Matrix and realize that it's all just one enormous metaphor. There are companions (Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge) but those are mostly written by cucklords.

[Anonymous No.8652095]

aesthetically speaking, I imagine kant to be far more handsome in the flesh, but bloody hell would he be a bore to listen to- his voice would be so bloody gloomy

[Anonymous No.8652131]

>>8652095
Wasn't he actually pretty fun to be with, just completely autistic about how conversations should go and what should be discussed at which time?

[Anonymous No.8652140]

>>8652095

Kant was a tiny manlet. That's what happens when you eat 1 meal a day.

[Anonymous No.8652153]

>>8652131
From what I've read, he would refuse to actually discuss any philosophy with other people and staunchly demanded more leisurely subjects of conversation.

[Anonymous No.8652163]

>>8652153

>*Enter Nietzsche, surrounded by hot girls and Lou Salomé in his arm*
>"Hey Kant, you're a fucking backdoor Christian! The Categorical Imperative is a pile of horseshit! I'll fuck Lou in the ass, how's that for a universal law?!"
>*Kant, triggered, clenches his dainty fists and continues on his brisk daily walk through town, muttering to himself*
>"Plz no bully...don't respond..."

[Anonymous No.8652170]

>>8652163

[Anonymous No.8652211]

>>8651863
Having a claim and putting 5 nice adjectives to describe why Christianity sucks isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.8652237]

>>8652153

Kant confirmed for totally chill bro.

[Anonymous No.8652243]

>this thread

since when did /lit/ become this shit?

[Anonymous No.8652261]

>>8652243
Since teenage Nietzsche lovers started posting here, meaning years ago.

[Anonymous No.8652262]

>>8652243
how was it before?

[Anonymous No.8652565]

>>8650031
Are you joking? Nearly every major Nietzsche translation since the 60s has had great prose, due to the source material.

You clearly don't understand -why- Stirner has bad prose, regardless of the translation.

[Anonymous No.8652596]

>>8649145
>kant 5' 0"
>nietzsche 5' 8"
nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8652611]

>>8651086
>Nietzsche's stance couldn't have existed without Kant's profound influence of western thought
Poorly written but okay.

>plus the development of homogeneous, empty time brought about by print capitalism
...

>It feels to me that Kant's work was an ingenious solution to sociopolitical/religious problems of Europe, whereas Nietzsche took the philosophic trend of his era to its logical conclusion
kek Immanuel Kuck.
Kantian politics: the European "Union"
Nietzschean politics: the USA (albeit with democracy), Germany (albeit with ressentiment), Russia (albeit with ressentiment)
Also which "trend" are you referring too? He was untimely, opposed to even his biggest influences.
>However, I find his worship of the individual as too excessive, ignoring the bonds in which the individual is tied to society
Stop using the Kaufmann interpretations.

>Kind of ironic how he ended up living in the care of his sister.
Stop resorting to Chesterton's interpretations.

>His philosophy also requires a world-affirming outlook, with which I disagree.
You should put this at the start of any posts concerning philosophy from now on, so everyone else can choose whether they want to waste time on the weak.

[Anonymous No.8652617]

Where should I start with Kant? Should I read one of those Very Short Introductions?

[Anonymous No.8652636]

>>8652617
Pretend you didn't read it and read Fredrick Copleston's volume of German idealism.

[Anonymous No.8652676]

>>8649145
>>8649767
>>8650062
>>8650194

nietzche wasn't doing philosophy so much as proto therapy and self help
much like all other existentialists who genuinely wanted people to come to terms with dehumanizing an unsettling revelations that come from philosophical conclusions
nietzche is more poetic and his writing should be approached like reading shakespeare
nietzche never fully develops his theory preferring to have the reader make interpretations with symbols and metaphor playing central role.

Kant writes more conceisely and lays out his argumentation in clear defined statements, using symbol and metaphor to backup his writing
also it becuase of Kant that philosophy ended up splitting into analytic and continential and is generally understood that he had near perfect synthesis of the two in his writings

[Anonymous No.8653001]

>>8652676
Nein!

[Anonymous No.8653355]

>>8649673
Aerosmith

[Anonymous No.8653365]

>>8652596
>people still take Kantlet seriously

[Anonymous No.8653370]

>>8649145
Hegel>either

[Anonymous No.8653395]

>>8653370
This

A man with a lot to say incomprehensibly is better than two comprehensible men who have nothing to say

[Anonymous No.8653841]

>>8653001
Kant is so anal.
>if you lie, society will crumble!

[Anonymous No.8653888]

>>8653001

>Being so unaware of your own surroundings, in your own fucking house, that you can't say for certain whether your friend is in fact upstairs showering

Then again Kant did live in a pretty big house, unlike me.

[Anonymous No.8654390]

>>8651220
>>8651937
Cheers lads. Hope I didn't make myself look like too much of an idiot

[Anonymous No.8654459]

>>8653355
Justin Bieber

[Anonymous No.8654611]

>>8649234
>>8649740
Both Stirner rip-offs, one flavoured with edginess and the other with christcuckery.

[Anonymous No.8655103]

>>8654611
And then there's Stirner, the flavorless.