/lit/ - Literature

Can someone provide me a guide of books I need to read to understand this dude?
Assume I've read nothing

what’s the best way to take notes for kant’s prolegomena? or is it better to just read it through?

Aesthetics is the best branch of philosophy for showing how devoid of substance philosophy is. The branch talks about Art something that actually has substance. Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo, Dante. Geniuses who produced beauty that affect us on a deep level and what are philosophers of aesthetics doing? Writing 800 pages of circlejerk on definitions who no feels anything reading except boredom. The great genius philosophers everybody...

>Nonmarital sex is always immoral
Was he right?

HE WAS A PSUED

The truth can be found by pure reason, logic, and rationalism. Empiricism is entirely unneeded. Trying to bridge these two schools was the worst thing he ever did.

I've given up on reading philosophy. I've spent the last few years reading it and I've come out with nothing of substance at all. A complete waste of time and I'm no better off. Where should I move now? History? Science?

>>20396811

> muh Ussher chronology
There is nothing fundamentally biblical about arithmetic. In fact arithmetic is the deadliest enemy of a pure biblical worldview because mathematical platonism suggests that God is not sovereign enough to make 2+2 equal to 5. The unbiblical Euclidean worldview is of this world. The synthetic a priori is a lie straight from the Devil.

Why should I read Kant in 21st century?

Explain his rebuttal to Hume regarding cause and causality. I don't get it.

Does anyone have a beginner's guide to the philosophies of famous philosophers?

>>20154700
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/d3c674ba_monkaHmm.png"> <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/9ecd704b_PepoThink.png"> <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png"> My favorite philosopher is Kant; do you think I could do it?

>criticizes reason in your path
What do you do?

>>20117884
We know that sensuous matter exists and is distinct from form because we cannot tell if something exists just by its definition, basically, we cannot tell if a certain form (essence, definition, concept, whatever) will have matter (actually exist) just by analysis, we have to check the world. Existence is not a property that is part of the essence of a thing, but a non-conceptual aspect. There is no difference between Socrates and the essence of Socrates, both wear togas, both have beards, both have stomachs and eyes and such, except that one exists and the other is mere conceptual form. What is added to get existence from mere possibility? Matter, existence. We know because of this simple fact that sensation is not reducible to conceptualization. It contains existent particulars not subsumable under universal concepts. Form and matter are thus different and we must accept that matter is given to us in a passive way while form is actively created. Does that answer your question?

How well read do you have to be to realize that /pol/ is correct about everything

>By means of the external sense (a property of the mind), we represent to ourselves objects as without us, and these all in space. Herein alone are their shape, dimensions, and relations to each other determined or determinable. The internal sense, by means of which the mind contemplates itself or its internal state, gives, indeed, no intuition of the soul as an object; yet there is nevertheless a determinate form, under which alone the contemplation of our internal state is possible, so that all which relates to the inward determinations of the mind is represented in relations of time. Of time we cannot have any external intuition, any more than we can have an internal intuition of space.

Pseuds cannot wrap their heads around this, I'll gladly answer any question about it.

See: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2014/03/04/was-kant-an-enlightenment-liberal/

> On women — e.g., “woman betrays her secrets even though she is unable to keep those of others (owing to her love of gossip). Man is fond of domestic peace and submits easily to its governance so as to be unmolested in his business. Woman has no dislike for domestic war for which she is armed with her tongue …”

> On Jews — e.g., the Jews are “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.”

> On war (and more fully here) — e.g., “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

> On race — e.g., “The mingling of stocks (due to great conquests), little by little erodes the character and it is not good for the human race.”

> On education (and here) — e.g., “Above all things, obedience is an essential feature in the character of a child, especially of a school boy or girl.”

> On reason (and more fully here [pdf]; HTML excerpt here) — e.g., “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”

>>19898259
>The enlightenment era was SO FUCKING SHIT
Why do people even bother pretending like the enlightenment wasn't peak humanity, up there with the renaissance and Classical Greece?
The literature, music, philosophy, art, science, theatre, and culture that came out of the 17th and 18th centuries was and is fucking brilliant.
Sneed, Cope, and Seethe.

Here we can talk about the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm

>By means of the external sense (a property of the mind), we represent to ourselves objects as without us, and these all in space. Herein alone are their shape, dimensions, and relations to each other determined or determinable. The internal sense, by means of which the mind contemplates itself or its internal state, gives, indeed, no intuition of the soul as an object; yet there is nevertheless a determinate form, under which alone the contemplation of our internal state is possible, so that all which relates to the inward determinations of the mind is represented in relations of time.

More interested in responses to his first critique than fictional responses to his ethics. Schopenhauer had a large influence on literature but I’m wondering which authors were directly influenced by Kant.

I am perfectly ready to admit I'm a midwit but I've spent my time reading Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and the rest of popular philosophers and I feel like I have a decent understanding but I'm not sure what's so mindblowing about the field of philosophy? Is it like a "you had to be there" type of thing? They have explanations for understanding reality but I don't really feel like my life is changed or anything I just feel like I can better articulate things that don't feel really matter. What is supposed to be so mindblowing?

I recently read the first two Critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason. After reading Kant’s ethics, I decided to stop lying, masturbating and using pornography to keep in line with the categorical imperative. Unfortunately, due to excess libido or something of that nature my dreams became a medley of pornographic images. I was about to have sex with a woman in cliche lingerie when Kant himself appeared to me. He looked just like he did in his portraits, but younger and stronger. He told me not to defile myself or my partner by treating human beings as mere objects of animal lust. I thanked him and when I looked down I realized the woman was literally hollow, and that I could see the light coming through her mouth, eyes, etc through her other orifices. I left the woman behind and had a good talk with Kant about Metaphysics. I asked him about Heidegger and Derrida and he quickly undermined their arguments in a way that I can no longer remember. Finally, I woke up to the sound of my Alarm Clock and realized it had all been a dream. I need to read the Third Critique. What do you guys think of Kant and his Critiques?

What is Kant's view on suicide?

Asking for a friend...

Does Kant refute materialism? It seems like objects being mental representations is a pretty good argument against it.