/lit/ - Literature

>>13435111
His Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics arrived at my door some 20 minutes ago.

>>13425926
>>13426070
Long, well-crafted sentences make me rock-hard, baby.

>>13239318
>God
Define God

>>13217284
Big brains, girls like it. Even if you're spouting insubstantial gibberish they like it, because they can't differentiate. Also manly eyes with a drop of tiresomeness. The kind of tired that sleep can't fix.

tfw no teen bride

>>13151347
1984 predicted the future of war as a way to divert attention from the establishment's shittery. Orwell was a genius.

>>13138678
>Kent Hovind
This is actually embarassing, no wonder /sci/ shits on this board.

Is there anything that I should read prior to Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics? I know that the work is essentially a prologue to the Critique of Pure Reason but I just want to know if there is anything I should read prior to the Prolegomena.

>>12241164

This.

>>11784056

You don't seem like the type of reader who would get much out of them.

>>11784097

>Object != Objectivity which is entire Critique of Pure Reason

Believe it or not, these 800 pages of arguments and examples and qualifications can't just reduce to a single slogan.

> I read summary of Judgement and it was some retarded moralfaggotry

Sounds like an incomplete summary, but again I doubt you'd be willing to read the full book in a fruitful way.

> and I read the intro to Practical Reason and it seems to be the same

Congrats on the introduction at least. Not sure you'll be able to interpret much of it though, or what comes after it, without understanding the first critique to any depth.

>>11784114

>It's pretty fucking cringe to read Kant try to explain nature without evolution theory

What's cringe is that if you had read the third critique - which you're trying to shit on, though you can only muster up hot wind - you would have read the section where he argues in favor of biological evolution. Kant's hypothesis is pre-Darwinian and theistic, but it's made in support of evolutionary speciation and applies to homo sapiens.

>>11784129

> Everything he wrote about reasoning on hereditary similarities

What writings are you referring to? And how does that undermine his fundamental arguments and systematic coherence? And how can you make these evaluations with such confidence before reading his works for yourself?

>>11784163

> I didn't say 'as a whole', I said it refutes what he wrote about with regards to science and nature

Even this isn't right. He wrote volumes about science and nature, and their transcendental preconditions and relations to the human mind - great deals of this aren't threatened by the obsolescence or limitedness of the facts he had access to.

He actually contributed to the development of the physical sciences, to take a specific example, by proposing the nebular hypothesis for the formation of solar systems - separate from Laplace - which cosmologists acknowledge was largely correct.

> I don't know how Pure can convince you of limits of science

Because you haven't read it, and it's extremely doubtful you even understand what Kant technically meant by a cognitive and/or empirical "limit."

> when science came around and proved so much of Kant, Hegel and Husserl wrong in 21st Century neuroscience

New discoveries about the nervous system, or genetics, or the universe, or anything empirical, are going to have an extremely difficult time threatening Kant's system, because all of those discoveries are within the natural world, whereas Kant's fame is primarily due to his arguments about the preconditions underlying the natural world itself. They are different levels of inquiry.

>>11784450

> I was genuinely curious what an old scientific philosophy like this can teach 235 years later.

You just fail to grasp that these books are not Kant's scientific philosophy, though they make references to science.