Its actually impressive how he managed to write so many words and communicate nothing at the same time.

Its actually impressive how he managed to write so many words and communicate nothing at the same time. I also noticed how germanic philosophers love to write big thesis on nothing.

What causes this behavior?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did you actually read this one?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP, but I just bought this. Is it actually good or just a hollow meme?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you have the attention span to sort through his turgid language, it's informative. Not the kind of thing you'd typically read for pleasure, though.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The progolomena and his lectures on Metaphysics would make it make more sense.
          Diving straight into it might not be the best plan but you have the Internet and YouTube on your side. Just don't get too mad when you realise you're a midwit

          Is there the refuge of any specific succor on the internet by which you could advise shelter for a meager pilgrim such as myself?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't ever say it like that again!
            https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1471819/1/Gardner_templateADDED_1471819.pdf

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hark! Thine rebuke is well landed! Your graciousness is all too manifest for despite this admonition you still deign to fulfill my request. May the Lord's blessing follow you through all your days.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The progolomena and his lectures on Metaphysics would make it make more sense.
        Diving straight into it might not be the best plan but you have the Internet and YouTube on your side. Just don't get too mad when you realise you're a midwit

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Metaphysics lectures are more forthcoming. This

          kant is responsible, philosophy is a bunch of gibberish crap

          his first edition of CPR was so dense and vague that nobody including academic philosophers understood what the frick was his point

          so he wrote a second book and made it a bit clearer this time

          this alone shows he is a fricking israelite, if you could write it more simple, why didn't you do it in the first place?!
          only Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Schopenhauer and probably a bunch of few other philosophers who wrote simply and made their point clear are worthy philosophers
          the rest are frauds who are after fame and not truth

          His Greek coinage was unnecessary with perfectly adequate others like apodexis already existed and were conceptually concrete by comparison, ready for use.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What philosophical works have you already read?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did you read it ?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kant always intrigued me but I know next to nothing about him. I'd appreciate if an anon can give me a qrd

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      when you see a flower, you understand it using your senses (hearing, smelling, touching, seeing,..) and we know these senses could be false, so what you are seeing is only a "phenomena" and not how the flower is as it is "in-itself"

      ----------------------------------

      the entire world that you are seeing is a phenomena (your family, other minds, flower,...) and these are caused by "thing-in-themselves" for us to see
      -------------------------------------
      there is this thing called "apriori knowledge", it's basically 12 categories but one of them is called "causality"
      kant says that you "sensibility" gives you sense-data and your faculty of "understanding", applies the category of causality to this sense data (like a function) and make it something cognizable

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kant is responsible, philosophy is a bunch of gibberish crap

    his first edition of CPR was so dense and vague that nobody including academic philosophers understood what the frick was his point

    so he wrote a second book and made it a bit clearer this time

    this alone shows he is a fricking israelite, if you could write it more simple, why didn't you do it in the first place?!
    only Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Schopenhauer and probably a bunch of few other philosophers who wrote simply and made their point clear are worthy philosophers
    the rest are frauds who are after fame and not truth

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kant often makes the list of "famous antisemites," lol. Not that you meant he was a literal israelite. I just thought I'd interject that interesting tidbit for the edification of our audience.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He was genuinely autistic, give him a break

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is this true?
        I am autistic and reading critique of pure reason for the first time and finding it not that difficult to read.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >As regards clearness, the reader has a right to demand, in the first place, discursive or logical clearness, that is, on the basis of conceptions, and, secondly, intuitive or æsthetic clearness, by means of intuitions, that is, by examples or other modes of illustration in concreto. I have done what I could for the first kind of intelligibility. This was essential to my purpose; and it thus became the accidental cause of my inability to do complete justice to the second requirement. I have been almost always at a loss, during the progress of this work, how to settle this question. Examples and illustrations always appeared to me necessary, and, in the first sketch of the Critique, naturally fell into their proper places. But I very soon became aware of the magnitude of my task, and the numerous problems with which I should be engaged; and, as I perceived that this critical investigation would, even if delivered in the driest scholastic manner, be far from being brief, I found it unadvisable to enlarge it still more with examples and explanations, which are necessary only from a popular point of view. I was induced to take this course from the consideration also that the present work is not intended for popular use, that those devoted to science do not require such helps, although they are always acceptable, and that they would have materially interfered with my present purpose.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Might it be a translation issue? I know 1800s gays liked to be wordy beyond comprehension

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Might it be a translation issue? I know 1800s gays liked to be wordy beyond comprehension

        >Regarding clarity: the reader has a right to demand discursive or logical clearness, i.e. in the first place on the basis of conceptions, and secondly, intuitive or æsthetic lucidity by means of intuitions-- viz., by concrete examples or other modes of illustration. I have done what I could for the first kind of intelligibility --This was essential to my task, and it thus became the accidental cause of my inability to do complete justice to the second requirement [of aesthetic-intuitive clarity]. During the progress of this work I have almost always been at a loss as to /how/ to settle this question. Examples and illustrations always appeared to me necessary, and, in the first sketch of the Critique naturally fell into their proper places.

        >But I very soon became aware of the magnitude of my task, and the numerous problems with which I should be engaged; and as I perceived that even if delivered this critical investigation in the driest scholastic manner it would be far from being brief-- Thus I found it unadvisable to enlarge it still further with examples and explanations, necessary only from a conventional point of view. I was compelled to take this approach from the consideration that: /the present work is not intended for popular use; that those devoted to science /do not require such assistance/ (although they are always welcomed); and that they would have materially interfered with my present purpose;-- i.e., on the basis of conceptions, and secondly, natural or æsthetic clarity by means of intuition, viz., by examples or other modes of concretizing illustration. I have done what I could for the first kind of intelligibility.

        There is zero reason to cleave to German syntax as if it was paraphrastically giving any sort of convivial echo of the author's homunculus head voice-- that's what the original fricking German is for. Even contemporary translations claiming to be literary or scholarly technical routinely step on their own dicks rendering such from a baseline of shit prosody and quality of thought in the same neighborhood.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kant was an autistic manlet, he's the equivalent of a schizo poster on IQfy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How did he manage to live like that for so long?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was rich

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know man but "starry heaven above me, Moral laws within" is such a masterpiece quote

      Based

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "starry heaven above me, Moral laws within"
        Check out a rekt thread on adult gif and tell me if you still believe that bullshit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're truly out of your mind if you think out of 8 billions the world will be harmonized lmao

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What I find very fascinating is how so much of what makes the work important and worth reading is contained entirely within the introduction and the Transcendental Aesthetic, so the real meat of the work and what it's most famous for doing is entirely self contained and delivered succinctly and with reasonable clarity within 50 pages or so, giving a solid amount of self motivated force to his core points.

    The Transcendental Logic is, on the other hand, unfortunately presented, to say the least, and the justification for the specific form it takes far less well reasoned. There is real sense in just reading the Intro+Aesthetic, then just going through the Prolegomena of any Future Metaphysics instead of the body of the work, and possibly skipping to the CPR's Doctrine of Method for supplementary clarification of things. That's what I'd advise most people seriously interested in Kant's real points to do, and then only go through his turgid logic if you really want his drawn out justifications.

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