The very fact that Kant and Hegel can't put their philosophy

nigger feces

excuse my french

Yup

Not going to make it.

Philosophy is bourgeoisie shit, go till the fields, filthy peasant.

>>9351709
The humanities are inherently aristocratic, capitalist philistine scum.

>>9351637
Hegel can, and does: in the Lectures on Religion, on Art, and on The History of Philisophy. Also, in the Encyclopedia volumes he's remarkably clear, and the additions crystalline. Kant too is 'clear' enough in the Prolegomena, and remarkably so in the Critique of Judgement..

I suppose I could carp. But why bother?

Philosophy is the domain of academics.
The lowerclass thinkers are called stand up comedians

Well in the early days of philosophy any joe blow could do it.
Now, you have to go to a top university, get published in academic journals, give lectures.
And guess what, the only way you are going to make money is by being a philosophy teacher with that useless philosophy degree.
So philosophy is a closed off place for elites.
No blue collar thinkers here, now working class or ghetto dwellers here.
The marxists live in their closed off communities, away from the working class, who they despise, living their lifestyle, voting for neoliberals.
The lower classes dont read books beyond harry potter or what they were forced to in high school, you can find them at church or the local high school football game.

Some things can't be put into layman's terms. Fuck off you anal autistic.
>>9351734
Wrong.

>>9351745
>Wrong
whoooaa,,, you got me

File: history of the world.jpg (102KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1000x662px

>>9351720
>The lowerclass thinkers are called stand up comedians
So they are bullshitters.

Plato's philosophy is just as complex, it's only that he chooses to use simple language in such a way that the complexity only becomes apparent through repeat readings. That and the mess that comes of translating Ancient Greek.

>>9351718
>>9351718
>>9351718

made me think!

>>9351637
Kant's entire philosophy is basically just a bourgeois version of the Golden Rule

>>9351884
upboated

Meditations by Aurelius is objectively the best and most practical philosophy ever written

>>9351898
Philosophy isn't self-help.

>>9351901
What is philosophy?

>>9351734
>Well in the early days of philosophy any joe blow could do it.
Wrong. The rest is wrong, too.

>>9351933
Wissenschaft.

File: 44444444444483.png (96KB, 437x597px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 437x597px

>>9351933

>>9351637
>Truth has to be simple
Lumpenproles actually believe this

>>9351901
I remember when I thought this when I first started reading philosophy too

>>9352149
So you have nothing but anecdotal evidence?

>>9352097
>implying 700 pages of bourgeois terminology is truth

>>9352097
>implying truth exists and if it did humans could comprehend it and accurately expound it

>>9351637
Didn't Kant actually apologise somewhere for his inability to write clearly and gracefully

>>9351637
Kant: do unto others
Hegel: A+B=C+D=E+F=G ad nauseam

>bourgeois

Could Americans please stop using this word? You guys never use it correctly.

It just makes it all the easier to turn the common man against them. When someone writes something so difficult, it's very easy to convince them that it means whatever you want it to, and it's very easy to convince people that academics are looking to harm them. Just look at how successful Tha Frankfurt School conspiracies have been, and how easily Peterson has managed to turn people against the postmoderns.

The very fact that Planck and Einstein can't put their physics into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

>>9352792
false equivalence fallacy

>>9352793
Why?

>>9352812
science assumes scientific knowledge

philosophy doesnt assume philsophical knowledge

>>9352370
this is false

>>9352816
>philosophy doesnt assume philsophical knowledge
Then what makes a good philosopher?

>>9352816
OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG WAKEEEEE ME UPPPPPPPPPPPPP PLSSSSSSSSSSDASF ADLÇFNSD

>>9352812
One is relevant to the conscious activity of every person. The other isn't.

People should be made aware of the theories that will be used to control them in the future.

non sequitur
also the open philosophy courses my university offers always have some blue collar workers attending

>>9352945
I forgot to mention the most popular of said courses is on german idealism

>>9351637
>The very fact that Marx can't put his philosophy into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

>>9351884
His ethics, maybe. His real legacy was his work in The Critique of Pure Reason though, and I don't think the golden rule has much to say on the topic of the synthetic a priori or the categories of understanding

>>9351884

Dumb post.

>>9352952
>I forgot to mention the most popular of said courses is on german idealism
Lol no wonder 80IQ blue collar Trumpets worship Hitler.

>>9353029

But Marx actually is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands

>>9353029
To be fair, I think Marx at least tried to make some of his ideas accessible to laymen.

>>9352816
HAHAHAHAAHHA

>>9353551
>i cant refute it

>>9351637
>The very fact that Einstein can't put his physics into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

>>9351637
t. brainlet

Or it means that they're just terrible writers with brilliant ideas. This is why scientists invented math, so they can express their autism in intelligible form

>>9351637
Good ideas don't fit into texts and tweets. That's what books are for, kiddo.

>>9354474
Than how do you explain this:
>>kys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpL_5CI0WQ

ITT:Brainlets can't comprehend the greatest genius that ever lived

bad writers
great thinkers

then there are great writers, bad thinkers like Hume

>>9351637
Does Kant require me to read any previous philosophers? I want to have a good understanding of Arthur Schopenhauer works so I have been told to read Kants critiques before starting on Arthur.

>>9351637
It means they were poor writers.

>>9354546
>implying that primitive human creation of language is enough to capture the fullest transcendental quality and extent of the enormous landscapes that are their mind

Can't really fault them for being bad writers.

>>9354554
spoiler alert: Schoppy BTFO's Kant

>>9354546
>>9354559
>bad writers
such a simplistic view
not every subject is able to be conveyed with layman terms

>>9354554
errr

if you understand what enlightenment was about - and Hume then you are good to go

>>9354565
everyone has BTFO kant. its a requirement for good philosophy

>>9354569
>everyone has BTFO kant.
[citation needed]

ITT: people who read translations

>>9352384
In a response to the first review that was written about Critique of Pure Reason, he does (also in Prolegomena)

>>9351933

The creation of concepts.

>>9354569
But Kant was the last good philosopher.

>>9351644
I take delight in not reporting this post.

>>9354818
Hegel*

>>9354946
>good
>believe in retarded shit like spirit and the end of history

>>9354818
He's a terrible philosopher and always has been.

>>9351718
You write like a fag.

>>9354969
How?

>>9354946
Hegel literally ruined the spirit of the western people forever and paved the way for a pervasively bureaucratic organization of society. Read Philosophy of Right, it's fucking dystopian.

>>9351637
That can be said about any philosophy desu

>>9354818
Nietzsche,Hegel, Marx, Foucault, Derrida, Wittgenstein.. list goes on!

>>9351933
Philosophy is any culture’s pole of maximum abstraction, or intrinsically experimental intelligence, expressing the liberation of cognitive capabilities from immediate practical application, and their testing against ‘ultimate’ problems at the horizon of understanding.

>>9354818

kant was a philosopher of negative value - philosophy was worse for his having not been stillborn.

it's not hard at all to see why some people consider kant to have been outright evil.

>>9355179

you mean any western cultures pole of maximum abstraction. philosophy is a purely european invention.

the chinese are an exception.

>>9354991
See:
>>9355185

>>9355179
"no".

philosophy is a thinking thats thinking.

>>9354991

this pretty much.

kant justified the idea that 'it's wrong to pursue the good, for the virtues which the good bestow, because it is not purely selfless, one ought to pursue the good only because one ought to.'

which of course is exactly how every single mass murder in history has been justified.

kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger. which is a complete inversion of the purpose that morality serves, it is absolutely counter-moral. not amoral. not immoral. counter-moral.

>>9355203
>which of course is exactly how every single mass murder in history has been justified.
Yeah, it wasn't justified through Hegel's bureaucracy, alrighty then :)

Did you read Philosophy of Right or not?

>>9354538
why did you post a video about Kant?

>>9355203
is this willful upside down interpretation of kant?

why do people do this to Hegel and Kant

>>9355231

the idea existed before kant. it has nothing to do with philosophers, who merely notate ideas as they pass through humanity. nobody gives a fuck about philosophers except other philosophers.

the fact is that people were using the process of justification that kant championed long before kant existed.

you're getting cause and effect mixed up.

>>9355257

you haven't read kant, then. alright.

>>9355203
>it's wrong to pursue the good, for the virtues which the good bestow, because it is not purely selfless, one ought to pursue the good only because one ought to.
One what texts are you basing this on? I only read the Grundlegung, but this sounds nothing like Kant.
>kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger.
????
There are no ethics for the phenomenal world. That world is deterministic.
We can only be free in our will, for we have noumenal freedom.
Why would Kant have you feel bad for some empirical event?
One of us has completely misunderstood Kant's ethical project. Again: on what texts are you basing this?

>>9355167

how does someone think both Wittgenstein and Foucault are both good

it's like saying 'oh I love Marx and Freidman'

>>9355913
>One what texts are you basing this on? I only read the Grundlegung, but this sounds nothing like Kant

Not OP, but it's perfectly in line with Kant's thinking that you should act purely out of a sense of duty, i.e. you shouldn't pursue it for the result, even if it's the development of virtues, but because it is your duty and you ought to do it.
>kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger.
Yeah this is a completely wrong interpretation, no idea where this is coming from.
>There are no ethics for the phenomenal world. That world is deterministic.
Doesn't Kant establish in the antimonies of pure reason that we can't know the answer to the question of determinism? It's been years since I took a graduate seminar course on Kant, I'm curious where you found this.
All in all, 10/10 thread for making me dig up my old school notes.

File: ISHYUDDT.jpg (21KB, 372x362px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 372x362px

>This entire thread

Einstein got it right:

>It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

Or for the retarded among us:

>Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

There are some ideas so grand/complex/etc that they can only be made so simple without losing something. Over the years, however, some have come to believe that if something can't be made so simple that even the dumbest single/double-digit retard can comprehend it, then obscurantism/etc is at play.

>>9351637
>too much time on their hands

Oh, so the working class has enough time for hours of sports, sitcoms, and video games, but not enough for Hegel or Kant? Get real.

>>9356036
>Not OP, but it's perfectly in line with Kant's thinking that you should act purely out of a sense of duty, i.e. you shouldn't pursue it for the result, even if it's the development of virtues, but because it is your duty and you ought to do it.
Indeed. I was off when I quoted that first line in my post as something unkantian. My bad.
>Doesn't Kant establish in the antimonies of pure reason that we can't know the answer to the question of determinism?
Does he? Isn't the synthesis of the third antimony a compatibilist position?
>I'm curious where you found this.
Me too. I believe I heard it in a lecture. Sorry, I'm not 100% sure.
This explains things pretty clearly thought: https://philosophicalruminations.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/kant-on-free-will-and-determinism/

>When you make a shitpost and come back to 90+ replies

Feels kek

>>9356186
You should feel ashamed of yourself.

>>9356258
Why?

>>9356140
>Does he? Isn't the synthesis of the third antimony a compatibilist position?
My copy of the Critique is literally a bookend of one of my shelves, I'll have to dust it off and reread the antimonies.
>This explains things pretty clearly though
Thanks for the source, I'll check it out. It's been years since I've done any real rereading on Kant, so far I'm enjoying it. I don't understand the hate he's getting from other posters on this thread though ...

>>9351637
try kantcentrating harder

>>9354976
(You) don't write at all.

>>9351637
>implying truth is simple
>implying reality is not extremely complex and requires synthesis of an virtually infinite number of concepts that are not only great in number but also challenging to grasp in their own right
>implying everyone has the cognitive capacity to perform such a challenging intellectual task and truly understand everything at the same time, in an instance
>tfw I realize too late that this is bait
Either you are brain-dead and trying to rationalize your way out of facing this uncomfortable fact, or you are a top-tier troll.

>>9351637
Are you using 'bourgeoisie' as an adjective??

>>9354554
Some requirements he makes in The World as Will and Representation and its appendix are:
>The first edition of the first Critique of Kant
>His essay on the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
>His Critique on Kant (but his Critique on Kant also makes references to his main work, so it's good to follow his advice on reading both twice)
>His essay On Vision and Colours
>Familiarity with Hume, Locke, Leibniz and Wolff

>>9354554
>>9358558
Some familiarity with Plato and Eastern philosophy is welcome by him, but I don't remember if he really required the latter.
About Kant, he seems to only require the fifth item on the list I made.

>>9358577
God, I tried to correct myself but just made the post wrong, I actually meant:
>he didn't require the latter, but I don't remember if he really required the former

>>9351718
have you fucking read any of those things? In what way is the critique of judgement or hegel's lectures on art clear?

I can imagine it being """clear"" with secondary source material + an analytic translation, but the original is incredibly obtuse, as are english translations that try to retain the prose style

>>9356062
this

>>9358765
The lectures are derived from the notes of students'; evidently, Hegel spoke in 'laymen's terms' when addressing his students. Yep, perhaps embarrassingly, I've read all the texts I mentioned (Lectures on the History of Philosophy is best, Bison Books has a 3 vol set that's reasonable). Of Kant, my favorite 'clear one' is the JC, of which I have the little brown (not Little&Brown) Oxford edition. The Kant is more involved, but easily the clearest Critique (primarily on Aesthetics). In 'history of philosophy' threads, I'm surprised no one ever mentions Hegel--

>>9354562

>implying anything in kant ever gets beyond the seeming possibility lent to it by its articulation in language and manages to deliver parity or correspondence with phenomenal experience

>>9355167

Foucault isn't a philosopher. He's a theoretically oriented historian at best.

>>9359289

I would agree with this with the caveat that some of his theoretical work qualifies as philosophy of history, especially with regards to how he synthesizes Marx and Nietzsche.

Wtf I love the bourgeoisie now!

>>9359306

insofar as we take "philosophy of history" to been the worst excesses of 19th century idealist historicism, I agree with you. the copernican revolution foucault brought to the social sciences through the fixing everything on the notion of power totally removes the question of determination: who has power? who wields it? whose interest can it serve? "the powerful." but that can be anyone, and the discourse of identity politics foucaultianism becomes when metastasized through american academics in fact shows it to be everyone (but "me," of course). this is totally symptomatized throughout Discipline & Punish, where the question of determination is always forestalled until the next chapter, where it never arrives. Not to mention the use to which he puts Marx in that book, citing him as a mere "labor historian." in the later neoliberalism lectures this translates into an almost open hostility toward anyone who thinks a coherent, class politics is possible or useful. typical french anti-total spooks.

in the words of baudrillard, "Forget Foucault."

>>9356067
Tbqh familiar it can be argued that this time the working class spends with facebook, television and so on isn't really their time, it's just another form of capital production pervading their bare lives.

>>9356067

time not working is time restoring yourself to work for the next day. you've never labored if you think studying philosophy is possible "on the side" in that class position. in any case the things you mention are nothing short of the colonization by different capitals of leisure time, to turn restoration of labor for one capital in valorization of commodities for another.

File: Guy%20Debord%20with%20knife.jpg (293KB, 452x622px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 452x622px

>>9359366
>>9359357
oh shit bois you woke him up

File: tips wine glass.png (13KB, 530x492px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 530x492px

>>9356062

This guy gets it.

>>9359347
And yet Peter Sloterdijk, the most active and probably most influential philosopher on the European continent right now, is nuts for Foucault. Any ideas as to why?

>>9359528

>And yet Peter Sloterdijk, the most active and probably most influential philosopher on the European continent right now, is nuts for Foucault.
>continent
>philosopher
>continental philosopher

There's your answer. They're all hacks.

>>9354554
Mate, if you are still here, don't listen to what the others tell you, or you're not going to understantd a single thing Kant wrote.

Firstly, read Descartes' Meditations. After that, read the An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by Hume. After THAT, read New Essays by Leibniz, and then read Kant's Prolegomena. You should be ready to read the rest of Kant by now.

>>9354554
>>9359573
If he wishes to understand to Schopenhauer, he has to listen to what I told (since I just wrote what Schopenhauer himself recommended). The Prolegomena are important too, to Schopenhauer it's important to read it before reading the Critiques.
I think the order to do things would be:
>Plato's dialogues
>Descartes' Meditations (Schopenhauer doesn't recommends it but I think it's important to understand the main concerns of modern philosophy)
>Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
>Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
>Leibniz's New Essays and Monadology
>(I don't know much about Wolff)
>Kant's Prolegomena
>Kant's first edition of the first Critique
>Schopenhauer's The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
>Schopenhauer's On Vision and Colours
>Schopenhauer's Critique of Kantian Philosophy
>Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation
>Schopenhauer's Critique again
>Schopenhauer's magnum opus again

File: image.jpg (74KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x768px

>>9355185
>>9355203
>>9354569

Are any of these assertions based off of Objectivist interpretations of Kant?

Because all such interpretations I've yet read have been superficial, unreliable, and so venomous in rhetoric that they seem very obviously biased.

>>9351718
Could you not say the same thing without your verbose language and retarded syntax?

>>9351637
I thought I was the only one who realized Kant was a hack.

It got him laid though, that was likely his goal.

File: 1441129067400.jpg (10KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x238px

>>9361233
>It got him laid

>>9361226
Well, not 'the same thing' but I suppose I could line something up. Would that make you happy, boss?

>>9361273
It happened friend.