/lit/ - Literature

Kant mentions that his 12 Categories are fundamental ones but there derivatives and it's possible to create full genealogy of derivative categories. However he said it's not his purpose at the time.
I wonder were there any attempts at this, maybe someone can point me to the right direction? Any examples of derivatives of categories?

>>15921627
Kant was quite handsome.

What's the best approach for Kant? I've read the seminal works (among others) of Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, and Spinoza, so I feel that I have a good background to finally read him, but his bibliography is so vast that I'm not really sure where to start. I'm mostly interested in his works on ethics and aesthetics, if that helps at all; but if there's a good entry point that isn't related to either of those two, that's fine as well.
I'm also wondering if there's a unanimous choice for the best translator (similar to how Kaufman is viewed as the best for Nietzsche).

Why do people say it's Kant when it's clearly Jacobi? Kant was never this handsome

Is it viable to go from Plato and Aristotle straight into Kant, or do I need to read some other people along the way?

>>15287451
> DIALOGUE BAD
> ACCEPT GUD
> WHY KANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG

Kant's maxim that no other human should ever be used as a means is the most beautiful notion in all of philosophy.

The goodwill behind it takes my breath away.

>>15247796
Nah, but Immanuel Kant did several hundred years before this guy was even a twinkle in his daddy's ballsack

The whole course of our life must be subject to moral maxims; but this is impossible, unless with the moral law, which is a mere idea, reason connects an efficient cause which ordains to all conduct which is in conformity with the moral law an issue either in this or in another life, which is in exact conformity with our highest aims. Thus, without a God and without a world, invisible to us now, but hoped for, the glorious ideas of morality are, indeed, objects of approbation and of admiration, but cannot be the springs of purpose and action. For they do not satisfy all the aims which are natural to every rational being, and which are determined a priori by pure reason itself, and necessary.

has anyone ever offered a legitimate justification for being straight edge if you're not religious? I'm legitimately asking just out of curiosity so I can read their arguments.