German Idealism General /gig/ #1

>>45698
this i like

File: ziz55.gif (40KB, 250x167px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 250x167px

>>45698
Nobody? Self-bump, somebody's got to be interested in philosophy here.

>>45698
I'm currently writing my MA thesis in philosophy, but I'm writing about Heidegger and Husserl and only touching upon Kant in relation to Husserl..

I did write a paper about Ernst Cassirer once though.

>>46112
I'm starting to think if we're going to have something like this on /his/ we might have to expand the scope to continental philosophy in general. This board is filled with shitposts already...

>>45698
What do you think of Simon Lumsden's work on Hegel?

>Brandom's book on Hegel soon
>linking german idealism to the philosophy of language
>the continental/analytical distinction shall be overthrown
>philosopher kings shall reign a thousand years

>>46112
the crisis of european sciences in the only good thing husserl ever wrote

>>46222
Probably a good idea. German idealism is a fairly narrow period in continental philosophy, exciting as it is.

>cambridge publishing top tier editions of the complete works of hegel, kant, and schopenhauer
what a time to be alive

>>46376
okay?

does anyone know which of the kant works (the cambridge ones) are worth getting besides critique of pure reason/pratical philosophy/critique of the power of judgement?

>>46112
do you enjoy the early or late heidegger more and why :3

>>46581
Kant's work under the name: 'Anthropology, History, and Education' (cambridge) are interesting.

who are the best living kant scholars/kantians? and how do I actually into Hegel (willing to read brick sized tomes not just crappy intro texts)

I don't know (almost) anything about Fichte or Schelling or other guys that aren't Hegel and Kant. Anyone with too much time on their hands willing to write a quick explanation? Lets assume I know the basic Hegel stuff ( and Kant's).

>>46630
for my thesis I'm using the early Heidegger (Being & Time) which I find very good. I find his interpretive turn of Husserl's phenomenology very interesting, but also confusing sometimes, like the distinction between the threefold ontological constitution of 'dasein' and the same threefold structure of care. I'm also fond of his 'what is metaphysics' and the related lectures.
I haven't read the later Heidegger, so I can't comment on that.

>>46760
Alexandre Kojéve's 'Introduction to the Reading of Hegel' might help, albeit following in a 20th Century vein. Blackwell and Cambridge both have companions to Hegel, and the O.U.P edition of the Phenomenology has piece-by-piece analysis. There's plenty out there.

>>46760
Even though you specified living, John Rawls is probably currently the most important contemporary Kantian philosopher.

>>46793
Fichte is the source of most generalizations about german idealisms

tl;dr he dismisses the noumena/phenomena distinction and insisting consciousness is grounded in nothing but itself, but also for self awareness to exist, other rational subjects need to exist to bring the subject of unconsciousness. he tried to bridge subjectivity into an intersubjectivity. also he was hella nationalist

I know fuck all about schelling except that weirdly enough, samuel taylor coleridge (who as it turned out was a german idealist) was obsessed with his works

>>46855
you should check out john haugeland
>>46760
Robert Solomon's "In the Spirit of Hegel" or Charles Taylor's "Hegel"

>>47023
Rawls is dead. Also a pleb tier philosopher.

>>47167
>Rawls is dead
Oh I had no idea

>>47023
>John Rawls
>not Korsgaard or Parfit
and that's just on an ethical front

>>47196
he was too polite to tell anyone so he kept showing up to his lectures

>>46010
analytic philosophy is the only philosophy worthwhile. please don't ruin this board with snake oil charlatans, we are on a good roll so far

>>47341
then make a thread for it.

>>47341
It's not in your power to stop. This is now the philosophy board. Go to /sci/ if you want to play your self-referential word games. Your 'philosophy' is empty.

>>45698
>Remember that philosophy proper started with Kant.
Please die.

>>46341
The hour is upon us.

all philosophy started with Thales and ended with Anaximander

>>47668
it was a short run.

>>47341
>>47598
>>47668
The analytikids are here...

File: 861px-Allan_Ramsay_-_David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (175KB, 861x1024px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 861x1024px

>Hegel

Hume gonna have to slap a bitch?

>>47711
would you say that Hegel's philosophy CAUSED Hume to want to slap a bitch?
;)

>>46760
Use Russon's Reading Hegel to quickly translate Hegel into plain english so you can learn his language and not waste time making elementary mistakes. When you have that much understanding use Hyppolite's Genesis and Structure to really pick him apart and see what exactly it is Hegel is responding to.

You can also just start with Hegel's History of Philosophy but even though it's not as obscure as the rest of his writings it's pretty fucking hard to make sense of his meaning without having adopted his language first.

philosophy before the 50s is retarded. Id reccomend Sam Harris for someone who doesn't make shit up

>>47709
More like the historically minded and sensible students of philosophy are here.

>>47735
:^)

>>47341
>analytic philosophy is the only philosophy worthwhile. please don't ruin this board with snake oil charlatans, we are on a good roll so far
http://www.philpapers.org/archive/sinPG

File: cover.jpg (84KB, 951x1429px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 951x1429px

Is this any good?

>>47911
Yes. I recommend it.

>>47911
stay away from zizek

>>47879
im crying

>>47911
Do you understand Stalin, Lukacs, Gramsci, Lenin, Marx, Hegel, Lacan, being an intellectual in a soviet-style society and post-soviet Yugoslavia?

Can you read Judith Butler? Because he's even trickier than Judith. Judith writes shit but wants to say simple things. Žižek writes simply but is behind 7 proxies of irony.

>>47806
nice meme.

>>47709
please don't tell me that the ignorant i/lit/erates have come to /his/. dont cancer up this board

>>47969
I'm still on the Hegel-stage.

>>47911
>zizek

no, he is literally in it for the money. dont trust a marxist

>>45698

>German idealism
>no Schopenhauer or Nietzsche

Delete this and fuck off back to /lit/ you statist trash

File: Comfy yoba.png (180KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 409x409px

More threads like these pls

>>48040
If you don't like just hide it or whatever, by posting here you are increasing (although by a minimal margin) the posts in here yourself.

File: kantstombsovietvandalism.jpg (110KB, 640x941px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 640x941px

>tfw when russians have no appreciation for intellectuals whatsoever

>>47997
illiterate has two l's. Also most of /lit/ doesn't acknowledge continental-analytic distinction, because it's primarily meaningless and based on location.

>>48125
>the continental/analytic distinction is meaningless!
>Lacan is as intelligent, intelligible, and stimulating as the work of Quine!

>Remember that philosophy proper started with Kant
Triggered.

>>48040
Schopenhauer's whole philosophy is just him not being able to understand Hegel and ontologizing his own libido and depression...

Philosophy should stay on /lit/, desu, this board is for armchair historians and wiki warriors to have fun posting about irrelevant battles.

>>48046
it's comfy as fuck, yeah. 4chan needed a board like this, free of /pol/'s bs.

>>48228
>that feel when neither of the boards know fuck all about philosophy
:(

>>48228
The sticky claims that this is the place for philosophy, and phil has more to do with other theoretical humanities than literature proper.

>>47911
zizek doesn't know what he is talking about. skip him kid

>>48227

Confirmed for not having read a single page of Schopenhauer.

Hegel didn't write to be understood, that's the whole problem with him. It's obscurist claptrap. Schopenhauer was the first philosopher in Germany to have enough balls to call bullshit on Hegel's pseudo philosophy

>>48271
his pervert's guides are entertaining though (not the guy you're replying to).

>>48228
too bad, the grown ups get to talk about it now. get back to your containment board

>>48315
>Hegel's pseudo philosophy

Elaborate.

>>48315
Yeah, sure... Why don't you make your own thread where you can talk about your Schopenhauer and Nietzsche...?

>>48315
>Hegel and Schelling just made it all up! everyone who likes them is stupid!!!!
its sad how often people believe this is an adequate rebuttal
(except about Derrida where its true)

File: I see what you did there.jpg (61KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x420px

>>48403
>except about derrida where its true

>>48167
Typically when you want to counter an argument, you try to prove the contrary is true rather than give your opinion on two philosophers.
>>48265
Not really. Philosophy and Theology is more closely tied to literature than history. Up to the enlightenment, I would argue most philosophers drew their ideas from Greek literature and the Bible than from society and politics.

>>48459
Go back to eating your chips and drinking champaign every day in your beautiful mansion.

>>47969
>Žižek writes simply but is behind 7 proxies of irony.

His writing is comparatively direct, personally I find his materialist interpretation interesting, he's a worthwhile read for that, and a pretty important contemporary Hegelian.

>>48315

People fail to realize that Hegel's enormous popularity both in German and elsewhere stems from his opaque thinking and generally pompous verbiage. His lectures were full to capacity, but it was not the kind of crowd you'd expect. Government officials, divinity scholars, low level businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists. In short, he appealed largely to people who had no serious grounding in philosophy.

>>48573
the same is true of any famous philosopher that delivers public lectures

>>48573
[citation needed]

All philosophy after Descartes is useless.

>>48551
Is Žižek a Stalinist?

>>48656
No, just nostalgic for his youth. You can't blame him. He has serious issues with Stalinism theoretically however.

>>48329
This is the containment board though??

>>48656
No he has Leninist leanings but doesn't fit into any neat Communist orthodoxy believing that the past attempts were clear failures and a new formulation is necessary that learn dialectically from the past while admitting to not have any idea what that may be.

>>48656
he adopts whatsoever opinion is the most controversial and thus gains himself the most press
he's argued about how "cool" it would be to live under an oppressive stalinist dictatorship, how Gandhi was more violent than hitler, how the nazis didn't go far enough etc etc etc

>>48716
Not nearly a problematised enough answer, but you're doing better than the try hard western undergraduate fanboys.

kill yourself blsius

>>46760
Others have already pointed to Kojeve and Taylor, who're very good and interesting.

Stanley Rosen has a few very good studies of Hegel: a general introduction to his philosophy that covers key topics in the Phenomenology and Science of Logic, and a book length study of the Science of Logic.

Peter Kalkavage also has a very good and very accessible introduction to the Phenomenology which I would strongly recommend for the complete neophyte.

The first half of Heidegger's Phenomenology of Spirit lecture course from the 30s is actually very accessible, and helps to place the Phenomenology with the rest of Hegel's work. The actual interpretation can be a little harder going, but Heidegger lets the text be for the most part. One of his most focused lecture courses.

As for Hegel's own writings, his lecture courses are pretty accessible (and important anyway). Between the Phenomenology, the Science of Logic, and the Encyclopedias, just work in order. How the whole System works out is confusing at first, and there is a way in which the Phenomenology and the Encyclopedia take on the Phenomenology differ, but that's part of an essential philosophical movement.

>>48656
Zizek is a meme "philosopher" who should not be taken seriously.

>>48787
We're in the age of memes, a meme philosopher is needed now more than ever

>>48787
That's just ad hominem, as much as you disagree with with someone, you can't just rule out a person completely like this.

>be somewhat interested in philosophy
>educates enough to recognise Zizek is a bullshit populistic writer
>come here to know more about philosophy
>see Zizek mentioned along with Kant
Yeah, at least I tried to like your board.

>>48830
I just did.

>>48857
a fresh board has a host of new trolls who's tactics you've yet to adjust to

>>48573
Oh, so you've read his lectures, and can attest to their pompous verbosity?

Those lectures that are the most accessible writings in the Hegelian corpus, ja?

>>48315
Schopenhauer was a whiny little bitch who wrote his polemics about Hegel after scheduling his lectures at the same time as Hegel's, and finding that no one wanted to go to them. Boo fucking hoo.

>>48982
Axes are the wrong way around, stop trying to hide behind irony.

>>48966
Besides, you can tell Schopy's bluffing when he speaks favorably of Fichte and Schelling, but it's *Hegel* who's got a problem with verbosity and obscurity of thought, as if the same couldn't be said of the former two.

>>47598
>Remember that philosophy proper started with Kant

I think he meant GERMAN IDEALIST PHILOSOPHY began with Kant.

Should be something like:
"Remember, that philosophy properly started with Kant."

File: fsadsfda.png (16KB, 767x608px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 767x608px

>>49029
Oh yeah thanks man, going to be posting this one a lot

File: fixed.png (14KB, 384x781px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 384x781px

>>48982

>>49147
Honestly you should post your first version all the time and see how many people "get" it.

It is very Žižek.

>>49162
I'm not sure how that works maine.

>>49192
that's alright, as someone who enjoys zizek you're more than likely unfamiliar with any technical know-how anyway

File: 5612851.jpg (83KB, 620x930px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 620x930px

>>49213
>>49162
>>49192
It looks like the graph is saying those who take Zizek very seriously know less than nothing

File: charlatan.png (157KB, 1356x768px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1356x768px

>>48616

Here's part of it

>>48966

This is Wikipedia tier argumentation. Schopenhauer resented hegel long before they ever lectured at the same place, and he did so because he felt that Hegel was a charlatan and a buffoon, which he was

>>49180
I don't understand what your problem is exactly?

>>49237
Make your own thread. Hegel is welcome here.

>>49036

Schopenhauer blasted Fichte repeatedly in his works.

I bet you didn't even know Fichte had been a teacher to Arthur

The problems with Fichte's philosophy were relatively straightforward. Hegel's errors were more of a convoluted mess.

>>49261
I think the problem is I have a handle on what Žižek is doing, other than the cocaine and audience pussy.

Can anyone explain to me, in simple terms what is the difference between synthetic and analytic on Kant´s Critique of Pure Reason?

And how they interact with "a priori" and "a posteriori"?

in what order and in what editions should I read the whole of Hegel's work?

communism birthed from Hegel which is a good enough reason to disregard him entirely.

>>49380
>should I read the whole of Hegel's work

I wouldn't recommend this, its a bad approach to philosophy

>>49233
>less than nothing

Teehee

Actually if you are well versed in the shit that Zizek likes to talk about, its easy to see his usefulness, he's more the kind of philosopher that speaks in aphorisms and is interested in provoking questions rather than providing answers, but its really only the tryhards who have a small amount of expertise and are anxious and protective over the small amount they understand that hate on him.

File: 1445743728051.jpg (141KB, 596x591px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 596x591px

>>49415
>communism birthed from Hegel

>>49415
Oh, Hi /pol/.

>>49415
Holy shit, this is literary the dumbest thing i have ever read this week, go fucking read Marx and Engels before posting such a massive imbecility.

>>49360

Synthetic = bringing disparate sense impressions together into a complete representation

Analytic = taking one complete representation and breaking it down into its constituent parts

>>49380

Get the lobotomy first, then try Phenomenology of Spirit while huffing gasoline

>>49500
You mean like constructing and deconstructing concepts? reminds me of Derrida.

>>49415

Hegel was a metaphysical statist. That essentially makes him the grandsire of materialist communism.

>>49380
How much of actual philosophy do you know? have you read the greeks? the rationalists? the idealists?

Also, are you ready to have your mind raped by his text and ending up a mental patient?

>>49562
>metaphysical statist

Oh shit, i think im going to puke...

>>49036

I can tell you're bluffing when you claim that Schopenhauer didn't repeatedly insult Fichte and Schelling too.

What do you guys think of Berkeley? Is he considered l33t enough in philosophy? I've only read his wiki no bully

>>49698

Berkeley was an idealist before idealism was cool.

Kant was a straight upgrade from him

>>49763
>Kant was a straight upgrade from him

How so?

Fucking good, this board seems like unredeemable shit but at least a few people acknowledge the existence of the greatest philosophical school of all time. I just started rereading the Phenomenology of Spirit and it's still pretty powerful stuff a year after my first reading.

>>49360
a priori: a=a, something that is true without experience
a posteriori: a=b, something that must be justified by experience
A PRIORI/A POSTERIORI IS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL DISTINCTION NEVER FORGET THIS
analytic: conceptually self contained, true in virtue of definition "all bachelors are unmarried men"
synthetic: adds or modifies the concept in question ." the sun is approximately 93 million miles from the earth", Not true in virtue of its own definition (its truth value depends rather on whether the proposition corresponds to the state of affairs)
ANALYTIC/SYNTHETIC IS A LOGICAL/SEMANTIC DISTINCTION

PEOPLE FUCKED THIS UP AND IT TOOK US LIKE 200 YEARS TO FIGURE THIS STUPID SHIT OUT

they are very similar but not the same. particularly because synthetic claims seem to necessitate empirical (experiential) verification and analytic claims seem to be self evident. there's also the necessary/contingent distinction which makes this shit even more fucking complicated

there are (or might be) instances of synthetic a priori justification.for example the claim that if something is red all over then it is not green all over. Belief in this claim is apparently justifiable independently of experience. Simply by thinking about what it is for something to be red all over, it is immediately clear that a particular object with this quality cannot, at the same time, have the quality of being green all over. But it also seems clear that the proposition in question is not analytic. Being green all over is not part of the definition of being red all over, nor is it included within the concept of being red all over.

furthermore there are analytic and synthetic claims that are not necessarily knowable.
hence a proposition(statement)’s being analytic does not entail that it is a priori, nor does a proposition’s being synthetic entail that it is a posteriori.

>>49865
Glad to have you, this board is full of shitposters but hopefully it'll calm down once it isn't so new.

>>48040
Nietzsche wasn't an idealist unless you think of the will to power as a will in the classical sense, which you probably shouldn't.

>>49698
he in a sense has spiritual successors in the anti-realists (who insist that evidence-transcendent truths are not true and only provable claims can be considered true). check out Dummett's "The logical basis of metaphysics" an "Thought and Reality"

>>50012
Nah, Nietzsche's system was metaphysical in the large sense, but instead of schopenhauers will zum lebens you have the will zur macht - an evolutionary force of self overcoming though not in the darwininan materialist sense. Nietzsche was largely a romantic, and repudiated atomism.

>>49814

Transcendental idealism > subjective idealism

Berkeley denied the existence of an external world. Kant affirmed it, but claimed we could never have any knowledge of it. Schopenhauer inverted the properties of the phenomenal world to make the noumenon intelligible in negative terms. Nietzsche finally came along and said none of it fucking matters.

>>50162
>Nietzsche finally came along and said none of it fucking matters.

And thats why everybody loves Nietzsche

>>50162
That's a very strange way to spell Hegel.

>>50162
>implying Giacomo Leopardi didn't anticipate the wholesale rejection and destruction of metaphysics in the Zibaldone before Nietzsche was even born
>Schoppy called Leopardi his spiritual brother
>Leopardi was a hunchback manlet like Kant

>>50012

He agreed with the basic precepts of idealism. See the first section of Human, All too Human, as well as his later notebooks.

He had the same physiologically grounded approach to metaphysics as Schopenhauer. Effect proceeds cause; cause is a fiction worked up by the brain and projected into space as object to ground the sensory effect, which meanwhile lingers as a kind of resonance until the intellect allows it to enter perception in a causal way.

>>49908
Holy shit, i got confused again, care to explain a few points?

If i understood right, to a christian, the phrase "god exists" is "synthetic a priori"?

Synthetic can be "a posteriori", but how can you actually "prove" or "know" if anything "synthetic a priori" is true?

>the claim that if something is red all over then it is not green all over.

What if the there is a green underpaint on the object, then it is both "red and green" all over.

Can any analytic affirmation, proven right? i mean, where does the analytic knowledge comes from? the world? some kind of platonic extra-dimensional, metaphysical plane of ideas?

>>50012
>unless you think of the will to power as a will in the classical sense

That would be incredibly fucking dumb

>>50316
The categories of the understanding and reason.

>>50377
to what question is that an answer for?

>>50460
Sorry, the very last one. Also I'm not the guy you were replying to.

>>50515
Allright.

What do you mean by "categories of understanding an reason"? you mean its the "way our mind works but not necessarily how the world actually works"?

>>47341
You're like the Anglican church your lords belong to, so desperate to keep up with the times that there's nothing authentically "you" left and you get discarded for a superior product.

>>50316
Kant attacks all the proofs of god in the critique of pure reason, but he also attempts to disprove the non-existence of god (yep its that fucking complicated) as his initiative is to draw boundaries on the possibilities of pure abstraction (derived non-experientially) so in a sense even disproofs of god are untenable because they can't exactly be confirmed or disconfirmed

whether or not there "are" synthetic a priori statements is a notorious controversy

synthetically a priori statements are logically true (such as he believed the statements of mathematics to be, like 7+5 = 12) because when analyzed in aristotlean subject/predicate terms , it would seem false to call 7+5=12 a priori analytic, because "equals 12" doesn't seem synonymous for 7+5 (and vice versa)(and he believed that a notion of multiple objects would entail some sort of notion of temporality which isn't analytic but a product of our continuous human experience) Gottlob Frege however requalified mathematics in complicated ways to state that mathematics was analytic a priori
further Kant also believed analytic a posteriori statements to be flatly contradictory (which is contested)
all of it can be contested based on what logical laws you hold or how you define "conceptual containment" or your epistemology

Kant doesn't posit that analytic truths are magic, (given that most of the things we talk about are ofcourse experientially derived), but he's talking about a realm where whatever we're claiming can essentially be substituted for the other claim and held true "all triangles have (only) three sides" is an analytic claim, but no doubt we've experientially derived the notion of "triangle" from sense experience (he's huge on space and time being boundary notions of our continuous experience) its much less magical than you think and kinda common sense. its to say of something that is, that it is.

>>50316
(followup from >>50935)
there's an extremely famous paper by W V Quine called Two Dogmas of Empiricism where Quine attacks the whole notion of an analytic/synthetic distinction, largely on the basis of a definitional circularity of the notion of analyticity
to call claims analytic is in a sense to call them conceptually synonymous, but in order to define synonymy you'd end up having to define logical necessity, and then to define logical necessity you'd have to define analyticity.

it would be alright if you were class all analytic statements as logical truths and had a verification theory of meaning (if you held that only "verifiable" claims were meaningful)(extremely problematic for ten thousand reasons) but then Quine spends the rest of the paper murdering the dogma of verificationism

>>49326
>>49678
Nice reading comprehension; I said, after all, "speaks favorably of", which doesn't say anything about whether he critiqued their work.

Neither of you must be familiar with the following by Schopy:

"At first Fichte and Schelling shine as the heroes of this epoch; to be followed by the man who is quite unworthy even of them, and greatly their inferior in point of talent --- I mean the stupid and clumsy charlatan Hegel."

Sup /gig/. Is an understanding of Hegel absolutely necessary before reading Stirner?

>>51314
Strange, i was under the impression, W.V. Quine was a neopositivist.

Anyways, thanks for the detailed explanation, i think i need to go back to the back itself. It is thoroughly raping my mind. Would you recommend me any auxiliary reading of Kant for better understanding?

>>46222
>being a pleb continental
>any fucking year.

Plz.

>>51382
eh kinda
it critiques some hegelian notions (though the whole of european modernity as well) and he occasionally makes in-jokes about feuerbach and hegel and he quotes schiller, goethe, and bauer constantly. If you're familiar generally with the epoch and the german idealist movement in broad detail you should be able to get by
I assume you mean the ego and its own
its nothing some googling or a browse through the secondary literature won't be able to overcome

>>51382
Stirner isn't difficult, and you don't really require too much Hegel. But he relies on many Hegelian conceptions.

Kierkegaard is interesting too, and he is very Hegelian.

>>51338

Heroes of a shitty epoch are still shitty

You must not be familiar with the cartoon praised by Schopenhauer, which depicts Kant ascending to heaven in a balloon while discarding all his worldly possessions (his wig, cane, frock coat, etc) . Down below, a group of monkeys is shown picking them up and trying them on.

>>51576
Who cares about this childish gossip. Discuss philosophy or go.

>>51471
he's commonly called a "post-empiricist" (because of his wholesale attack on the logical positivist movement
the schools of thought he's most commonly associated with are semantic holism (specifically confirmation holism, that theories or statements cannot be tested in isolation but only when embedded or against a web of other hypotheses or beliefs) though he's also famous for his "naturalized epistemology" which is that since philosophical approaches to scientific problems give us fuck all and scientific questions should be approached scientifically

btw most of these figures I feel I should add DO NOT reject science in any of its manifestations. what they're doing is reject ways we TALK about science (or whether we even can) given epistemic circularities and logical/empirical incompatibilities. only the occasionally fucktard will directly critique science and then set back public opinion about us a hundred years

File: 1431740200237.jpg (334KB, 1161x869px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1161x869px

How should we proceed with the threads? I don't like the analytic-continental split at all. But I feel something like 'philosophy general' would attract too many shitters by its vagueness. Thoughts?

>>51471
"The Bounds of Sense" by P F Strawson is a no-nonsense analysis of Kant that's pretty top tier. Henry Allison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense" is considered to be one of the richest expositions of the critique of pure reason in english.
the best version of the critique of pure reason is the cambridge edition, don't listen to any shit you hear about the penguin classics edition or the hackett edition being any better (more readable yes, but hella less accurate) one of the big doods in the kant scholarship behind the new cambridge editions, Paul Guyer, has a general text called "Kant" by routledge that's a good overview of all of his work

>>52028
I say generally just make threads about philosophers /pol/babbies haven't been told they should hate yet

>>52080
Is the Oxford edition any good?

>>52028
Too much general thread thought-policing turns this place into a Web 1.0 internet forum. Keep it general and come what may. The majority of posts are still quality.

>>52084
That's what I'm trying to avoid. This thread has shown that this sort of topic is possible on 4chan, but it's unclear how to facilitate this sort of discussion.

>>52148
The problem is that without some locus for discussion the wheel fall off.

>>51338

You did originally write

>but it's *Hegel* who's got a problem with verbosity and obscurity of thought, as if the same couldn't be said of the former two

implying that Schopenhauer did NOT say the same of Fichte and Schelling. This very much is a statement about

>whether he critiqued their work.

>Neither of you must be familiar with the following by Schopy:

I've read it - and what is it supposed to be? Tell me. One of those rare instances in which Schopenhauer compliments Fichte and Schelling?

In other passages, Schopenhauer did have some reserved compliments for Schelling and his school, like their search for what Schopenhauer calls "Ideas" and Schelling's description (but not citation) of the Kantian distinction between transcendental character and empirical character; I can't remember coming across even mild compliments for Fichte, though maybe there are some. But regardless, the quote you chose is not an example of Schopenhauer speaking favorably of either of them.

>>52144
there's an oxford edition? wat
the cambridge edition is a huge ass blue version with Kant's sexy face on the front, designed for scholars and serious study
the hackett editions are minimalistic paperbacks that are usually extremely affordable, designed for undergrads
the penguin classics version is crap pumped out for penguin's general pseudo-intellectual audience, destined to gather dust on a bookshelf in a commercial bookstore

>>52259
Then call it Romantic Era Philosophy. Ultimately it's semantics and you really shouldn't give a shit, but it sets a start date and end date without bringing up the Analytic/Continental conflict.

>>52521
Modern Philosophy perhaps? Being roughly Kant onward? Also I just noticed the bump limit is huge ○~○

>>52680
I would say no, as that risks bringing in hordes of Post-Modernists who are the greatest risk of shitting up the general, if anyone. If you want to be cheeky, you could call it "Pre-Post-Modern Philosophy General" and use OP pics of Romantic and Modernist philosophers so people understand we aren't going that far back.

>>52818
That excludes some contemporary realist philosophers though. I guess it's best to add to the OP something warming against pomo subjectivism/relativism shitposting? And I agree with picture choice.

>>48573
>>48315
>>48966
>>49036
>>49237
>>49326
>>49678
>>51338
>>51576
>>52326

Been reading Bryan Magee's "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer" lately, so this argument is interesting to me. I'll try and offer something about Schopenhauer's relation to the Idealists without getting involve in the topic of personal spats.

Magee notes in his chapter on Schopenhauer and the Idealists that he shares a number of features in common with his former teacher, Fichte:

"1. What is primary and fundamental in the world is described as will — though of course the two philosophers use the word in different senses."

"2. The entire world of phenomena is seen as being the creation of this will."

"3. The act of creation involved is a 'free' act on the part of the will in the sense of being outside the domain of the principle of sufficient reason."

"4. Since this domain of natural causality is co-extensive with the domain of natural knowledge, of understanding and reason, and hence of intellect, then intellect is a creation of will, and is brought into being to serve its purposes."

"5. Man is not primarily a rational creature; what is primary in man is not reason but will."

"6. It is inherent in the very nature of the phenomenal world, constitutive of its being, that it obstructs, if not opposes, the willed activity of individuals."

"7. Morals and ontology are seen as two sides of the same coin, not unconnected as in Kant: the moral unity of the world, and the ontological and epistemological unity of the world, derive from the same source in such a way that the very existence itself of the world has a moral significance."

"8. The whole philosophy thus outlined is seen as being the natural next step after Kant's, and thus the fulfilment of Kant's work: it develops implications of his thought which he himself did not perceive; and where it differs from him it is more accurately seen as a correction of his errors than as a rejection of him."

(cont.)

>>52976
With respect to Schelling, Magee notes:

"Like Fichte's, this philosophy of Schilling's has a number of striking features in common with Schopenhauer's. To say that Nature is visible Spirit looks to me suspiciously like saying that the phenomenal world is the perceptible manifestation of the noumenal.

Schelling and Schopenhauer both see the character of this phenomenal world as essentially evolutionary; both see the fundamental driving force of this evolutionary process as something which is not rational or mental; both see the goal of the process as being the achievement of self-awareness on the part of what exists; both see man as having been produced in the course of this process in order to serve the ends of the process; both assert an identity of inner nature between man and the natural world; both see creative art as the highest, or among the highest, of human activities, one that lets us look into the ultimate nature of what is (though in Schopenhauer's case music was thought of as being the only art that did this).

One can say that Schelling and Schopenhauer are in a class apart from all other well-known philosophers in the importance they attribute to art in the total scheme of things. By Schopenhauer's lights, Schelling's whole philosophy is superficial in that its application is largely within the world of phenomena — as indeed its label 'the Philosophy of Nature' implies — but, nevertheless, what the two philosophers have to say about this phenomenal world is, in all the many points I have just listed, similar."

(cont.)

>>53000
With respect to Hegel, Magee makes a more interesting set of claims:

"In the case of Hegel, by contrast, what he had to say that is of real value is radically different from anything Schopenhauer had to say. Indeed, some of Hegel's most significant contributions to thought correspond directly to shortcomings in Schopenhauer's philosophy. This obviously helps to explain why Schopenhauer was so blind to their substance.

I have instanced already Hegel's grasp of the fact that the history of ideas is constitutive of all ideas, and the history of art of all art, an insight which Schopenhauer—passionate scholar though he was, and with a special reverence for the classics — surprisingly failed to absorb, despite the fact that he was lucidly aware not only that, but also how, the history of philosophy was constitutive of his own philosophy. (He even went so far as to cite the essentially historical character of Hegel's philosophy as an illustration of its valuelessness.)"

(cont.)

>>53022
"Another important example of complementarity between the two philosophers is Hegel's understanding that, precisely because all aspects of culture and civilization are constituted by their own histories, they are all essentially social phenomena; and that one of the consequences of this is that the classical liberal conception of independent individuals coming together to form a society and to decide on its terms is profoundly uncomprehending. For the individuals are themselves largely constituted by society. Its language provides them with the very categories in terms of which they think, and everything about their outlook and values is historically and socially influenced. This means that the relationship of the individual to his own society is organic, not mechanical, and it means also that he has a special relationship to other members of the same society — he is like them on the inside, as it were; they are tissue of the same social organism — which is fundamentally different in kind from his relationships to members of other societies."

>>52355
I have an old edition of Critique of Pure Reason from a collection of "great works" by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

>>52943
Modern Absolutist Philosophy?

>>53087
looking it up online I'm very skeptical. it looks extremely abridged (the critique of pure reason alone should be close to/more than 800 pages) and boasts including several of his other works which are all of varying lengths. if you're looking for a cheap edition of the critiques (because cambridge editions can be expensive af even in paperback) I think amazon sells the hackett editions of the 3 critiques (translated by pluhar) for like 10-30 dollars each

the cambridge editions are
the critique of pure reason (15-35$)
practical philosophy (45-65$)(contains not just the critique of practical reason but absolutely all of his ethical writings)
the critique of power of judgement (35-45$)

>>53511
Im looking for the Cambridge edition, money isn´t exactly a problem right now. But i´d prefer a digital edition, easier to take with me wherever i need it.

>>53087
you could spend the rest of your life studying the critique of pure reason alone. seriously. you don't want to take reading it lightly. It was one of the first books I ever felt legitimately challenged reading and I doubt I still understand it properly (or maybe if anyone does), its subject matter is so broad but simultaneously important that Kant's project is often considered synonymous with the whole of the enlightenment. the whole of subsequent philosophy aftewards could possibly be considered just debate about kant's work (in the vein of that whitehead quote about all philosophy being a footnote to plato)

>>53782
But anon, im so interested in Kant, ever since i´ve began studying philosophy, Kant remains the most intellectually stimulant philosopher i know. But im no genius, and im constantly plagued by a feeling im constantly misinterpreting him on every sentence. I take it very seriously, i don´t think i will ever stop attempting to understand Kant.

>>53740
you might want to pick up "the prolegomena to any future metaphysics" too. When kant first published the critique of pure reason he was deeply upset by the lack of response to his work, and published a hyper-condensed, introductory text to the critique in a plain style (as plain as you can get when trying to reconcile Newton and Leibniz lol), kinda like Hume's failure with the treatise and subsequently his two "popular" enquiries

>>53782
>>54068

Should i read it alongside a audiobook? sometimes i find them helpful to maintain focus on the text.

>>54179
idk I've never used audiobooks and works of philosophy. The critique of pure reason is so rigorously organized (near obsessively) that it may be better to encounter purely as a text

>>49147
this is real, can confirm as someone who has formal training in this field

>>46376
found the pleb

>>49419

Why do you say this?

File: 1431628193937.jpg (152KB, 1437x772px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1437x772px

bump

Did the german idealist stole everything from buddhism ?

no general threads you shits, read the sticky, this numbered shit has to go

File: 1444777020745.jpg (464KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1024x683px

>>51807
>nly the occasionally fucktard will directly critique science and then set back public opinion about us a hundred years
found the terrorist and yet claiming to be rigorous

File: Schopenhauer.jpg (14KB, 300x358px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x358px

>my face when people openly engage in Hegelry in public
Shameless.

File: 1397876124683.jpg (29KB, 315x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 315x375px

>>58947

>mfw a self-proclaimed "philosopher" thought he understood "the system" near me

>>59294
link to this?

>>49360
Actually the Nation-State was birthed from Hegel. There's a reason why Hegel is considered the father of modern conservatism and nationalism. Also Fascist ideology is derived from him by Gentile.

>>57355
>did the philosophers of Becoming steal things from a bunch of guys who were into immanentism

Really?

>>59523
Which is a shame, Hegel's system focused much on individuality and negativity which presupposed the destruction of this abstract and mere universal (opposed to the the subject) state, i.e. the death of Christ is also the death if the distant Jewish God.

New thread:

>>64603
>>64603
>>64603
>>64603
>>64603