critique of pure reason

>>8746124
holy crap man, your not supposed to actually read it, the absolute mad man! you just skim through a bit, google the buzz words, maybe scroll through spark notes, and then make a thread about it

>>8746137
i see that. apparently he wrote it in haste because he was afraid he'd die before he could finish it, little did he know that when he wrote it in such an unreadable fashion, his readers would die before they finish it

Nice, now go read some Hegel.

>>8746176
I remember somewhere in the Science of Logic Hegel actually criticizes Kant for being too opaque.

>>8746190
The irony

>>8746166
this was a funny way to put it

Hegel's bagels

>>8746176

hegel is totally legible once you realize he is actively trying to reprogram your entire mechanism for representing the world to yourself.

>>8746166
I think it actually took him 11 years or something to write, and he published books after like a critique of the critique I think sooooo

Kant was one of the most autistic men to ever have lived. But he channeled his autism into revolutionizing philosophy instead of playing Minecraft like today's autists. Once you understand how far he is on the spectrum, his writing makes a lot more sense.

>>8746410

well, whatever this means;

"Kant decided to find an answer and spent at least twelve years thinking about the subject.[13] Although the Critique of Pure Reason was set down in written form in just four to five months, while Kant was also lecturing and teaching, the work is a summation of the development of Kant's philosophy throughout that twelve-year period"

" Also referred to as Kant's First Critique, it was followed by the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the Critique of Judgment (1790)"

Kant actually used 10 years thinking and writing about his thoughts, and when he got it 'right' he wrote the whole Critique in a couple of months i believe

>>8747154
uh, didnt read the thread (posts above), my bad.

File: Kant bust.jpg (392KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 768x1024px

>>8746124

It's dry because it's very technical and very thorough. If you can come to appreciate the technicality - the subtlety, intricacy, systematicity - then you can enjoy so much of its painstakingness and exhaustiveness.

Cargill's Kant Dictionary was hugely helpful in revealing much of this to me.