Used as a philosophical instruction for thinkers such as Kant, Mendelssohn, Abbt, Herder, and Maimon, Metaphysica is arguably one of philosophy’s most influential texts.
METAPHYSICS
Used as a philosophical instruction for thinkers such as Kant, Mendelssohn, Abbt, Herder, and Maimon, Metaphysica is arguably one of philosophy’s most influential texts.
Read Aristotle, Leibniz, then the Traditionalists. Any other 'metaphysics' is a road to nowhere.
Herder pretty much ended those mind games
Never get tired of all the cluelessly assertive larpers on this board
I do wish any of you genuinely cared about philosophy and not just appearing all-knowing to one another
lol, this. I imagine they'd get much further picking up even some basic undergrad intro like the Routledge Contemporary Introduction to Metaphysics than leafing through the pages of "Great Names," and accepting them as gospel.
Philosophy on IQfy gets approached like esoterica threads.
>"Oh, you think X is wrong. You can't possibly understand them. If you were a true patrician of the soul you would embrace every word X ever set to paper."
E.g., people who are full on about Kant not being a subjective dualist or vice versa, since either are possible conclusions.
Well, Kant himself actually recognized this tension in his work and went through pains to correct it. But he obviously wasn't successful considering there have been competing "camps" on this very issue since critics began responding to him in the very years following his publication of the Critiques.
Even worse is seeing Schopenhauer's critiques of Hegel, which even Schopenhauer scholars and partisans write off as invective based on personal anger, as somehow being some sort of high minded critique.
He basically just says "Hegel is a moronic and moronic people like him." This isn't a good philosophical point. That people like it shows a desire just to find a "Great Name," to attach to.
It's a shame because, for all its faults, modern academic philosophy has made philosophers get way better at writing and has led to much more direct formulations of said great names.
You gotta sift out the wheat from the tares when you use this board. It's part of posting on an anonymous website where any rando can fart out a post anywhere - great in some ways, but terrible in others. There's some very educated and interesting thinkers who post here from time to time, and tons of morons and midwits who don't quite grasp what those educated posters are talking about but know that it's some smart people shit so they try to copy it in order to seem smart themselves.
A good example of this is Hegel threads: sometimes you get very lucid and interesting discussion, like in
right now, and then you get a bunch of people who will post copycat threads without understanding how to start an interesting conversation, which usually consist of a meme picture of Hegel and a random quote from the Phenomenology (the only work of Hegel's to feature in memes and thus the only one the copycat posters know of), the "spookier" and more esoteric sounding the better.
>the "spookier" and more esoteric sounding the better.
unironically yes
>Eliphas Levi
I have stuff by him is it worth it?
yes
Just finished reading Introduction of Metaphysics by Grondin and just felt like I went through a bunch of wikipedia articles. Are all secondary texts worthless like this? How far can you really get just browsing plato.stanford.edu all day?
>Introduction
>felt like I went through a bunch of wikipedia articles.
what did you expect?
Stop being an inferior historical cognizer and become a superior rational cognizer
>If I make complete abstraction of the content of cognition, objectively considered, all cognition is, from a subjective point of view, either historical or rational. Historical cognition is cognitio ex datis, rational, cognitio ex principiis. Whatever may be the original source of a cognition, it is, in relation to the person who possesses it, merely historical, if he knows only what has been given him from another quarter, whether that knowledge was communicated by direct experience or by instruction. Thus the Person who has learned a system of philosophy—say the Wolfian—although he has a perfect knowledge of all the principles, definitions, and arguments in that philosophy, as well as of the divisions that have been made of the system, possesses really no more than an historical knowledge of the Wolfian system; he knows only what has been told him, his judgements are only those which he has received from his teachers. Dispute the validity of a definition, and he is completely at a loss to find another. He has formed his mind on another's; but the imitative faculty is not the productive. His knowledge has not been drawn from reason; and although, objectively considered, it is rational knowledge, subjectively, it is merely historical. He has learned this or that philosophy and is merely a plaster cast of a living man. Rational cognitions which are objective, that is, which have their source in reason, can be so termed from a subjective point of view, only when they have been drawn by the individual himself from the sources of reason, that is, from principles; and it is in this way alone that criticism, or even the rejection of what has been already learned, can spring up in the mind.
And how is that supposed to be done, by stopping reading philosophers and philosophizing oneself? By reasoning what one reads? It is impossible for an ordinary person to create by his own means anything like Kant's work.
>stopping reading philosophers and philosophizing oneself
by doing both.
>Rational cognitions which are objective, that is, which have their source in reason, can be so termed from a subjective point of view, only when they have been drawn by the individual himself from the sources of reason, that is, from principles...
You learn to reason well through the principles of the authors you read, and think out their inferences for yourself
That is, do I have to understand Aristotle's ideas and then find his errors? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis?
>do I have to understand Aristotle's ideas and then find his errors?
reason along with him and think about why you disagree with him when you disagree with him. Understand his principles, understand his concepts, understand his arguments, then infer the implications yourself and see where and why you think author is incorrect: either in his principles, in his definitions, or in his reasoning.
Anyone translate that shit to english
>Stop being an inferior historical cognizer and become a superior rational cognizer
They are not mutually exclusive, Kant was both, the former leading to the latter. I remember reading from someone that Kant was the first historian of philosophy.
>omg you didn't derive every mathematical formula from the first principles yourself?! Heh you're not doing REAL math
And they wonder why philosophy is dead. Scientists changed the world in a century more than philosophers in 3000 years because they decided to trust each other and share the ideas instead of indulging in solipsistic shit like that
>Scientists changed the world in a century more than philosophers in 3000 years
and yet now we live in clown world
Ironically, because of philosophers, namely Marx, Hobbes, and Ford
Ironically because those same "scientists" conduct their "science" according to the principles of empiricist, positivist, and materialist "philosophers" without having the self-awareness to examine their validity. Then moronic politicians accept the "Science" on the pretended authority of those "scientists" (who openly admit to not having the truth, but at best something approximating it as best we can lol forgetting apparently that to determine this would already presuppose a standard of truth, namely the Truth itself) to determine public policy.
>Hobbes, and Ford
This is either exceptional bait or pure idiocy
Holy pseud. I didn’t think the pro-science argument could get gayer!
>Ironically, because of philosophers, namely Marx, Hobbes, and Ford
Science bent to corporatism. That's also clown world. These philosophers aren't responsible for it.
So if you've been taught instead of deriving it yourself you apparently can't apply or expand upon that knowledge. Yeah, no, that's not how people learn these kinds of thing. And Kant was apparently a popular teacher? I see three option.
1: People went to his classes to laugh at him.
2: His exams were easy enough for anyone with a pulse to pass.
3: His definition of teaching here is cut down to being ridiculously narrow, specifically just teaching people to mindlessly repeat specific texts. Whereas he himself likely taught by giving his students the basic principles and then guiding them through to his conclusions, at which point he pretends the student did it all alone.
Oh, half the time they're not even trying to be smart, but just to be the most absurd. See it as a combination of relieving stress from needing to be occasionally correct about things in school, and plain old teenage rebellion where they just try to be as outrageously different from their parents as possible.
But yes, actually giving a frick about philosophy, or anything else really, certainly isn't on the menu. The absurdity, rebellion, and occasioanlly coming off as smart is all they're interested in (ie the social side of it). Philosophy or books or cars or video games or whatever is just the medium through which they engage in those things, picked on semi-random as they fumble around trying to figure out who they are. Today they try on the role of philosopher, tomorrow they'll try something else.
>He basically just says "Hegel is a moronic and moronic people like him." This isn't a good philosophical point. That people like it shows a desire just to find a "Great Name," to attach to.
Speaking of, I'm currently going through "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion". Is that some kind of summary work where h just states conclusions he's reached, or is he always that bad about telling us why he thinks things are the way he claims they are? Because as it is it seems to be mostly a bunch of often highly questionable assumption he pulled out of his arse and a few "well duh" conclusions drawn from them, but having read frick all else and it being a really tiny book I guess the actual argumentation might be in some other works of his?
>Whereas he himself likely taught by giving his students the basic principles and then guiding them through to his conclusions,
that's literally what rationally cognizing is
>he pretends the student did it all alone
you have been filtered