/lit/ - Literature

>>23146209
I don't think it's cringe, thanks for sharing.

>>16574205
It's a joke for those who have read the first Critique. Unlike Hegel, Kant actually argues for this shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_apperception

>>15694363
He's right. I'd like that too.
We'd had our moments before, and we've kisseda couple times but never got to fuck

i have it on my shelf, likely going to read after i finish his first critique and gftmom
give me a quick rundown anon, what's it really about and why's it so good?

>>15640616
kant should be a tier
his philosophy may not have stood the test of time, but his historical influence is undeniable
>>15640655
you can value philosophers without necessarily agreeing with them
>>15643420
this is more accurate

>>15509708
hegel, of course
regarding kant there seems to be a lot more supportive material (such as notes, introductions, courses and whatnot) by which even a casual reader of philosophy could more or less grasp his work, it'd just take a while to actually read

>>15216457

>>14556831
The joke itself is that result and intention seldom correlate.
He meant to ingratiate himself to a gril with a joke about trotsky, and it ruins his life. The Czecks meant to confuse invading army's by getting rid of read signs, they end up forgetting the names themselves. He meant to get revenge on another man by sleeping with his wife, but the man had lost interest in her by that time and it helps start a new relationship.
This phenomenon is not always bad, in music, you never create what you set out to, but the result might be wonderful all the same.

Like so many existential novels of ideas, it concerns an absurdity in life, a joke, and the joke is on us But the joke itself is funny, so we get to laugh.

>>14538475
There is no way you have actually read Kant with that retarded ass interpretation. Also Spengler was clearly a Kantian, his whole philosophy builds on kantian epistemology, now fuck off.

>>13567666
read >>13567261 and >>13567352 dear satan. Nobody thinks philosophy is useful but pseuds.

>>13463268

Kek this one is good too

>Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Is this essential reading after finishing the Critique of Pure Reason?

People who take analytic philosophy seriously (that is to say, more so than "continental") are honestly pathetic. I once knew a guy doing phil in undergrad and the school was mainly analytic. Basically an autistic incel. This convinced me that analytic philosophy was for literal retards and betas. I'm sorry but all of you are cringe. Now if you don't mind I shall return to reading Nietzsche.

>>8964211
>>Professor interrupts him "why do you have to put on clothes?", "why do you have to walk places?"
The response to this is simple.

>You don't, technically and generally speaking. But the metrics we are discussing deal with exactly these actions, so obviously they are relevant in this discussion.

Simply assault them with specificity.

>>8871131
I Kant say yes.

>>8664798

>>8651780
I see you don't have the ability to understand Kant.

University of Edinburgh gave free access to their journals and publications until the end of May (i.e. 2 hours 40 minutes left, GMT time), this is the url: http://www.euppublishing.com/action/showPublications

Is there a way to bulk download it? The whole archive is free, some journals as far as 2004, literature and philosophy included.

What are /lit/'s thoughts about alternating books while reading?
Be it reading a certain book today, and reading a different one tomorrow and back to the same book the day after and so forth.

Or be it read two books at different times of the same day.

Do you think this is welcomed in the sense that it generates variety and numbs boredom from reading the same book all the time, or do you find it confusing to the reader and thus detrimental to cognitive being?

Picture unrelated.

thoughts in kant?