anybody here read picrel? Is it good?

anybody here read picrel? Is it good?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whoever read that is lying or a scholar who's insane. I don't Trust anyone who says he read that

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It had a big impact on German idealism after 1789? Looks I've found two midwits in this thread

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No dude i meant that this book is so fricking dense it's hard to read it, Kierkegaard seems like a piece of cake when compared to Kant.

        He's insane but his impact changed the world

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Kierkegaard seems like a piece of cake when compared to Kant.
          Kiekegaard is some relatively light reading tho.
          Unless by Kierkegaard you mean him larping as a hegelian.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kant is way easier to me than Kierkegaard. Kant is straightforward. He explains everything logically, step by step. Kierkegaard is all literary and shit, and I have no idea what moronic point he's trying to make half the time

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You need to up your game then bro

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >insane
      why?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        See

        I keep getting stuck on page 1

        because it's very dense and dry

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >very dense and dry
          excellent

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s pretty foundational. Just accept you were filtered. Most precocious undergrads read it.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and it's one of the most effective filters out there.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, it is the most influential philosophy published in the last 250 years. It is also difficult to read. Roger Scruton wrote a decent overview of it, I would read that and build out a general knowledge of philosophy first.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Yes.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I keep getting stuck on page 1

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's as good as your reasoning capabilites, so it's not for everyone.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I read Kant do I still have to read Aristoteles?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hat jemand hier ihn in Deutsch gelesen?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ich habe es versucht.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you follow this guide it'll be substantially easier. I followed it mostly and was able to fix.
    I'd you're too lazy Pinkard's history of German idealism will give an overview of Kant.
    Even reading Schopenhauer will give you a vague idea to work with

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      guide?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is fricking insane, I can literally acknowledge that this is too hard for me

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Mate the ones before Kant are straight forward and short. You can do it. If that's really top hard then read the proglomena

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I can understand books like that by reading them over and over again, and so could you. That's all philosophers do to understand these dense texts, read them multiple times and take careful notes. But reading dozens or hundreds of them? That is beyond me, too. It took Proclus two years to get through Aristotle and he was supposed to be quite bright. But to keep up with modern philosophy you have to do the same thing with many thinkers. There is a shortcut, though. Read the philosophers you really like carefully and over and over again, read everything else in encyclopedia articles on SEP which are quite good. No one IQfy will be able to tell you're fooling.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It took Proclus two years to get through Aristotle and he was supposed to be quite bright
            More examples of history's brightest minds struggling please

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Aristotle's works gained a reputation for complexity that is never more evident than with the Metaphysics — Avicenna said that he had read the Metaphysics of Aristotle forty times, but did not understand it until he also read al-Farabi's Purposes of the Metaphysics of Aristotle.

            >I read the Metaphysics [of Aristotle], but I could not comprehend its contents, and its author's object remained obscure to me, even when I had gone back and read it forty times and had got to the point where I had memorized it. In spite of this I could not understand it nor its object, and I despaired of myself and said, "This is a book which there is no way of understanding." But one day in the afternoon when I was at the booksellers' quarter a salesman approached with a book in his hand which he was calling out for sale. (...) So I bought it and, lo and behold, it was Abu Nasr al-Farabi's book on the objects of the Metaphysics. I returned home and was quick to read it, and in no time the objects of that book became clear to me because I had got to the point of having memorized it by heart.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I like MY version better.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Theophrastus was never able to understand the part of De Anima about the human soul. He also never understood Aristotle's modal syllogistic and created an entirely new system instead, because he just couldn't figure out what was going on in the first half of Prior An. It seems like Aristotle followed Plato in giving people something to read and then refusing to explain it. The best story I know though is Avicenna's first encounter with Aristotle's Metaphysics when he was about 19 or 20. He said he read it over and over again, would wake up in the middle of the night and go back to reading it, would dream about it, eventually reached a point where he had memorized it, but still could not make heads or tails of it. Then one day he encountered a book-seller with a copy of Al-Farabi's Book of Letters and then he was able to understand the Metaphysics, with the help of this commentary (which is really good btw). When he felt like he did understand it, he gave alms and praised God at the mosque. I can't find the original text of this story right now on google, but it's pretty well-known, and is toward the beginning of his autobiography.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aristotle's Prior Analytics represents the first time in history when Logic is scientifically investigated. On those grounds alone, Aristotle could be considered the Father of Logic for as he himself says in Sophistical Refutations, "When it comes to this subject, it is not the case that part had been worked out before in advance and part had not; instead, nothing existed at all."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know Kant appreciated Aristotle's logic, I also happen to know that he did not understand it whatsoever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how do you did know that?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (cont'd) okay I'll say what I mean. First, Kant makes logic prior to metaphysics. But this is ass-backwards, logic depends on ontology. That's not a quirky IQfy view, it's a mainstream one even now. This mistake is symptomatic of his errors as a whole. It's especially glaring in the case of Aristotle, who begins his logical works with a piece of elementary ontology, and then follows it up with one on philosophy of language. But this all went over Kant's head.

            "Aristotle erred by including in logic a division of general concepts by means of which one can think objects; this belongs to metaphysics. Logic has to do with concepts whatever they might be, and deals only with their relation. (Refl 4450, 17: 556)"

            Aristotle was not writing about the relation of concepts. So Kant did two things:
            1) He didn't understand what Aristotle was writing about.
            2) He thought that this system, which he misunderstood, was complete, when in fact viewed from his (false) perspective of what it was meant to be, it is obviously incomplete as has been known for thousands of years (Galen).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how does logic depend on ontology when thinking is a necessary condition for there even to be ontoLOGY?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Logic studies being in your mind/understanding. Metaphysics studies being itself. So metaphysics is prior to logic just as it's prior to anything else. "But you're not answering me, you have to be logical to even think about metaphysics." The word "prior" is equivocal, things can be prior in time, or prior in nature (or obviously there are other meanings of the word, prior in order, prior in nobility, etc). So logic is prior to metaphysics in time, but the reverse relation holds by nature.

            >thinking is a necessary condition for there even to be ontoLOGY?

            And being is a necessary condition for thinking, so...

            [...]
            Are you making an ecthesis argument? I would also say I am not opposed to the point you are making, you can technically see the changes in his logic patterns when he reverts to Aristotelian, and Hegel also notably addresses this as well in Science of Logic I believe.

            No, those are pure syllogisms. Where did you see ecthesis? Where's the particular/indefinite premise that you think I'm resolving by ecthesis?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And being is a necessary condition for thinking, so...
            Being is a category of thought so...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just because two terms are reciprocal or simultaneous does not mean that one is not prior to the other. If a flame is burning my hand, the fire is prior (as in causal) of the phenomenon of "my hand being burned" even though they're present together. There's a similar relation between logic and metaphysics.

            >Metaphysics studies being itself
            That's begs the question which the whole Kantian enterprise revolves around.

            You're right, I don't like Kant and think he was wrong. My criticism still stands re: Aristotle. Regardless of which of them was right about metaphysics and logic, Kant did not understand what Aristotle was even saying.

            >logic is prior to metaphysics in time
            it is logically prior not temporally.

            No, it's temporally prior because the individual becomes able to use logic before she is able to engage in metaphysics. It's not logically prior; metaphysics is logically prior to logic, as I keep trying to explain to you poor people.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > I don't like Kant and think he was wrong.
            why?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it's temporally prior because the individual becomes able to use logic before she is able to engage in metaphysics. It's not logically prior; metaphysics is logically prior to logic, as I keep trying to explain to you poor people.
            You do know you have to read Kant in the context of transcendental idealism? You do know that for Kant even time is ideal right? The transcendental ideality of time is how logic is logically (not temporally) prior to metaphysics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Metaphysics studies being itself
            That's begs the question which the whole Kantian enterprise revolves around.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >logic is prior to metaphysics in time
            it is logically prior not temporally.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have seen a number of these sorts of arguments which you are speaking of, so I would point out at this point I may have simply misunderstood the main point you were trying to make, I have seen arguments that by the time Kant put pen to paper the Aristotelian system had indeed been refined to such a point that it could be called complete, and notable attempts to make new systems were not technically getting past some of the issues Aristotle had encountered. So Leibnitz and Wolff went back to the arguments of origination from God, and Locke said it was unnecessary, and I don't remember what Bacon said in his version, and the list goes on really, I'm not going to recite what everyone was saying. The main point of some of these arguments goes back to Aristotle's use of ecthesis for the purposes of validity in which case there is a sort of token argument it cannot be 'complete' due to symbology for use in reductio ad impossibile derivations. At this point I would also like to point out that the way Kant wrote the CPR was such that he could not risk arguments of what are generally termed 'dialectic illusion' and it is honestly just likely that he accepted the completeness of it so that his work would not be pigeonholed by token arguments, especially since he had already established a system for removing a number of ontological hurdles as is. Hegel technically refined some of this and made valid arguments that Kant was within Aristotelian bounds so if you throw Hegel into the mix then Kant becomes reconciled either way. This is technically a Kant thread, so I'm not sure how you want to approach the Hegel angle but to answer your question I'm not sure how well of an incomplete argument there was before Kant and Hegel pretty much buried that body afterwards outside the realm of ekthesis arguments, this is not to say that the topic is not still discussed today or that there are no major criticisms that can be made per se, rather that the claim could be justified in Kant's time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is obviously incomplete
            How is Aristotle's logic incomplete?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He has no way to handle disjunctives. He has no way to handle conditionals, except in the limited context of reductio ad impossibile. He has no 4th figure (okay that's a cheap shot he clearly was aware of it, but he didn't work it out). His modal syllogisms, if you can make any sense of them at all, are not about things in time but eternal objects. Geometrical proofs cannot be reduced to syllogisms (several people have tried to do this with Euclid and failed, over the centuries). I say all this as someone who loves Aristotle's logic, and think all these criticisms miss the point. But I love it for what it actually is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >thinks Kant misunderstood Aristotle
            >completely misunderstands Kant

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (cont'd) okay I'll say what I mean. First, Kant makes logic prior to metaphysics. But this is ass-backwards, logic depends on ontology. That's not a quirky IQfy view, it's a mainstream one even now. This mistake is symptomatic of his errors as a whole. It's especially glaring in the case of Aristotle, who begins his logical works with a piece of elementary ontology, and then follows it up with one on philosophy of language. But this all went over Kant's head.

            "Aristotle erred by including in logic a division of general concepts by means of which one can think objects; this belongs to metaphysics. Logic has to do with concepts whatever they might be, and deals only with their relation. (Refl 4450, 17: 556)"

            Aristotle was not writing about the relation of concepts. So Kant did two things:
            1) He didn't understand what Aristotle was writing about.
            2) He thought that this system, which he misunderstood, was complete, when in fact viewed from his (false) perspective of what it was meant to be, it is obviously incomplete as has been known for thousands of years (Galen).

            Are you making an ecthesis argument? I would also say I am not opposed to the point you are making, you can technically see the changes in his logic patterns when he reverts to Aristotelian, and Hegel also notably addresses this as well in Science of Logic I believe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It took Proclus two years to get through Aristotle and he was supposed to be quite bright
            More examples of history's brightest minds struggling please

            >Aristotle's works gained a reputation for complexity that is never more evident than with the Metaphysics — Avicenna said that he had read the Metaphysics of Aristotle forty times, but did not understand it until he also read al-Farabi's Purposes of the Metaphysics of Aristotle.

            >I read the Metaphysics [of Aristotle], but I could not comprehend its contents, and its author's object remained obscure to me, even when I had gone back and read it forty times and had got to the point where I had memorized it. In spite of this I could not understand it nor its object, and I despaired of myself and said, "This is a book which there is no way of understanding." But one day in the afternoon when I was at the booksellers' quarter a salesman approached with a book in his hand which he was calling out for sale. (...) So I bought it and, lo and behold, it was Abu Nasr al-Farabi's book on the objects of the Metaphysics. I returned home and was quick to read it, and in no time the objects of that book became clear to me because I had got to the point of having memorized it by heart.

            Aristotle has literally the same ideas as Kant has

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            TIL Aristotle was a Transcendental Idealist

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just read the Prolegomena. It was literally written as entry level Kant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That the Prolegomena is meant to be read before the critique of pure reason is a meme literally refuted in the intro to the prolegomena:

            >although a mere sketch PRECEDING the Critique of Pure Reason would be UNINTELLIGIBLE, UNRELIABLE, and USELESS, it is all the more useful as a SEQUEL. For so we are able to grasp the whole, to examine in detail the chief points of importance in the science, and to improve in many respects our exposition, as compared with the first execution of the work.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what the hell was his problem?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.One of the few profound books in human history.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's you again

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You know me, but I don't know you. Did you want to discuss metaphysics?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're a fricking woman then.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your bait has no power over me. My huge balls are securely attached to my body.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cool Kant wristwatch

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *