What the actual fuck

>he actually read Kant
u got memed btw

>>8975764
I'm reading Roger Scrution's A Very Short Introduction on Kant and I just don't get it

>>8975764
>>8975787
>>8975793
>t. Millennial ideology

Kant is being jettisoned all over the world for better eastern and African philosophers. Don't bother

>>8975798
t. Millennial

>>8975793
Don't be discouraged. I've read Kant and Scruton's book and he's significantly more confusing to read. Scruton is generally a great writer but he went full on obscurantist with that one.

>>8975803
What other materials would you recommend to get a better grasp on Kant?

>>8975809
The Bible

Paul guyer's book kant may be helpful

>>8975809
Tbh don't bother with any secondary sources. Read The Prolegomena and go from there. This is as close to an introduction that Kant wrote for his more major critique, but take it slow, cause you can still easily get bogged down from it. Other than that, get familiar with Hume and the rationalists before him. Happy reading.

>>8975798
Actually Kant was Moorish

>>8975798
>better eastern and African philosophers
heh

>>8975844
Would a basic knowledge of Hume and the rationalists suffice? I really have no interest in knowing their ideas other than the to know what Kant was reacting to. I think the explanation given by Scruton was sufficient and I pretty much understood everything he was presenting about Hume and Leibnez

>>8975850

Ayo hol up
If I actually understood any kant I would fit it into a racist meme template, but I don't, so I can't

>>8975856
Kant's "answer" to Hume's causality is dealt with in the preface of his Prolegomena. You don't necessarily have to read Hume, but if you want a more rounded understanding of what Kant is getting at its probably wise. I know it's a meme around here, but starting with the Greeks and going towards modern philosophy as it were (rationalists, empiricists, Hobbes, Rousseau) is all together enriching. Also it gives you a reading project that'll last you a lifetime.

>>8975864
>Aye aye hol up
>so we wuz sayin
>THAT
>Uhh priori synthetic knowledge
>AN SHIEEEEET
>*swings from vine to vine*
>WUZ possible
>*smacks lips while digging deep into a bowl of kfc
>CUZ
.... Why?

>>8975872
Yea I tried the Greeks meme for a while, but ultimately wanted to focus more on modern philosophy. I'm really only learning about Kant so I can work my way up to other German philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Hegel

>>8975885
I see your aim but even getting to later German philosophy you need to peep the Greeks. Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy and parts of Twilight of the Idols is a response to Socrates. Hegel uses the Greeks as a starting point for his totality of historical spirit. History is not just a slew of competing opinions, but a real, living process that is ultimately the complete self-discovery of thought.

File: pepe331.png (250KB, 563x364px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 563x364px

>>8975919
Let me ask you one final question. What was your own personal syllabus for studying philosophy?

btw thanks for your time and here's a dank pepe

>>8975930
Funnily enough, I started in the late continental camp. Y'know, of the Marxist variety. My English degree started me with the whole structuralist, post structuralist, deconstruction thing without ever getting into the classics. It was ultimately Heidegger that got me back into ancient metaphysics, and it was love at first sight. I can honestly say there is more meat in modern, scholastic and ancient philosophy than anything that's come out in the past hundred years or so. Sure, there's the analytics and their hairsplitting in terms of language, but philosophy of the past just has this heft, rigour and muscle behind it that you can't really find in anything contemporary. Hope I helped a bit, my dude. Above all, just enjoy it. Happy reading again.

File: Beingspeaksinmanymodes.jpg (9KB, 492x285px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 492x285px

>>8975946
>It was ultimately Heidegger that got me back into ancient metaphysics, and it was love at first sight.

Mein neger.

>>8975885
The major splits in philosophy (idealist/empiricist, continental/analytic etc) were in part anticipated by the split between Plato and Aristotle

>>8975963
pretty sure the divide is empiricist/rationalist
not idealist it's a seperate thing

>>8975787

>Can't

>>8975803
Just to offer an alternative opinion, I think Scruton's VSI is probably the clearest and most concise intro to Kant out there.

Alternatively maybe just try looking up the entry on Kant in the IEP (or if you're feeling adventurous, the Stanford Encyclopaedia).

>>8975764
This prof. here seems to be one of the more understandable neo-kantians. I'd recommend giving him a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d__In2PQS60&ab_channel=AlexCampbell

Skip the cringey parts when he whines about the american election

File: PowerfulKantianStare.jpg (47KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 992x558px

Daily reminder that /lit/ is not smart enough to read Kant

I don't understand what the fuck Kant means by logic

>>8976323
Personally, I'm having more trouble with his critique of judgment than CPR. It's hardly scrutable

>>8976323
More like, "Kant is impossible to understand due to him being a simpleton & bad writer".

>>8976342

This I can agree with. To me it looks like one of the biggest issues the neo-kantians have had to put up with is correcting the literary mistakes in Kant's works and make his theories more consistent.

>>8976439
Is there a list ranking philosophers by their ability to write coherently - unlike Kant?

Plato, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche I'd consider good writers that had no Kant-like issues with regards to writing being a problem for them.

Of course I've only read translations of each of the writers so I have a bias in that sense. But still, translation of Kant, Heidegger Hegel is infinitely more hard to read than translation of Nietzsche or Plato.

>>8976342

>this is what the brainlets actually believe

>>8976489
All British Empiricists knew how to write, especially Hume.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

this is worth a read

>>8975855
What's so funny, whitey?

>>8976489
Spinoza. Dull, but easy enough to comprehend.

>>8976691
>Spinoza
hope this is sarcastic, if not, corralarily, the statement is self evidently absurd

>>8975795
He's pretty incomprehensible to most people who weren't educated in 18-19 century Europe, or at the least people who don't make it their life's work to study Kant. It's a common fact.

>>8977500

I read the CPR on my own one summer. I have no extraordinary educational background. I was able to comprehend it just fine.

>>8976675

You gave no examples of said philosophers. You can't just say something like "Oh yeah, the founder of modern philosophy is a chump and someone somewhere is better" without telling us who the fuck you're talking about.

>>8976691
Spinoza's Ethics is one of the most complex works of philosophy.

>>8977500

>He's pretty incomprehensible to most people who weren't educated in 18-19 century Europe

This is an indictment of modern education, not of Kant.

>reading philosophy past the Greeks and Descartes

wew lads. get a productive hobby

Why read that faggot when Nietzsche already blew him the fuck out?

>>8975798
I first saw this meme yesterday and I hate it already

>>8976341
DISINTERESTED

That's about all I can remember from my aesthetics course.

>>8977574
Kant's always been considered a difficult philosopher, it's certainly not a modern development.

I just started a philosophy class this quarter and my instructer reffered to Kant as the most significant western philosopher today. Is he right?

>>8977512
sure you were

>>8978186

He is one of the few philosophers to have been a Copernican Revolution in philosophy.

The last one was over a century ago (Nietzsche). Everyone since has been forgettable/negligible.

Philosophy is in dire need of another Copernican Revolution.

>>8976489
Kierkegaard, Sartre and Camus are all geniuses of literature and express their philosophy through art and character seamlessly.

>>8978231
>The last one was over a century ago (Nietzsche). Everyone since has been forgettable/negligible.
You're a fucking retard.

>>8978237
>Sartre
>Camus
You too.

>>8978231
What would you say Nietzsche's Copernican revolution was? Simply questioning the value of values? That our values emerge and solidify from a multiplicity of, often mundane, historically contingent forces? Is that really that "revolutionary"?

>>8978317
Let me guess, you're an analytic.
>>8978369
Nietzsche effectively ended the Enlightenment project of a unified theory of morality and truth. There are thinkers as far back as Ancient Greece who held similar view to Nietzsche about power however, but his focus was a little more acute, seeing that society without God, society was going to become atomistic and descend into a cult of the individual. I see him as more of a fortune teller than a revolutionary but his ideas don't seem novel today only because they were so accurate.

>>8978580
I agree, to be honest I've seen the philosophy twisted and embraced mostly by elites. Like usual they don't understand what they promote.

>>8978580
Good points on Nietzsche, in that respect he was very prescient.

>>8975764
Kant is amazing if you dont take it too literally. Deontology is supposed to be used in the same way as a weather forecast, just as a rough but usually accurate guide.

>>8979303
I thought the point of deontology was that it purported to be a rational, a priori, i.e. absolute and universal, closed system that prescribed moral action in unconditional terms.

nO SYNTHETIC A PRIORI JUDGMENTS FOR U ANON

U THOT ALL causes HAD effects DID YOU

HOW U DO THIS?

WRONG


BECAUSE U HAVE A FACULTY

BWAHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA LEGENDary

>>8975793
That's Kant for you. He wrote to *not* be understood.

>>8977512
Sorry there buddy, some of us just don't have the carpentry skills to build as big an ivory tower as you have.