/lit/ - Literature

>>10281622
>Hasn't read any philosophy of mind
>Thinks most of those "existentialist" philosophers would be any sort of precedent
Just go read Descartes' Meditations and Hume's Treatise. Or, at least, read the plato stanford articles on them and the debate between rationalists and empiricists. Kant believed both sides of the debate were right, there was such a thing as an outside world, which was informed by our perceptions of it, etc.The Prolegomena has been said by some to be a poor shortened summary and rehash of the First Critique. That can amount to revision, which isn't good for philosophy because it ends up with contentious parts. What I'm doing now is reading Critique of Pure Reason with the Wolff lectures, it's not hard, just need to dedicate myself to it every day. Good luck, anon!

>>10281622
the real question, op, is how a 16 year old was ever aware this book even exists

Hijacking this thread

Just finished Leibniz yesterday and getting started on this

>>10281887
+ What/whom should I focus on most if I wanna establish a strong foundation for Kant's prolegomena and lectures on metaphysics?

>>10281860
Not OP, but I learned about Kant several high school classes.

>>10281860
op here. my therapist recommended it to me, at the beginning of my existential crisis.
>>10281887
honestly this looks decent...
>>10281985
yeah, well, I went to public school in america...

>>10281644
Is this pasta? I know I've seen this before.

>>10281622
The Prolegomena is his easier work to understand, if you can't "get it" then don't bother reading Critique of Pure Reason.

>>10282915
>yeah, well, I went to public school in america...
I did too. He was mentioned in an English class and two history classes.

>>10282915
>>my therapist recommended it to me, at the beginning of my existential crisis
>having a therapist
>actually falling for the existentialism meme

>>10282938
Fuckoff nerd that's ridiculous

OP here and I just wanna say like the point is fuck you
>>10282934
fuck you
>>10282938
fuck you
>>10282961
fuck you
anyway if there was someone or a book club I could join and discuss it in a simple way that'd be grand. pic not related

>>10282920
No. I'm just repeating what I've heard in lectures.

Hume first. Descartes first first if you want to be thorough

What kind of sadistic therapist recommends Kant to a teenager?

Also if you're serious OP just take a class or watch some college lectures on youtube along with your reading. A 4chan post isn't going to explain a complex thinker to you.

>not starting with hegel

>>10284124
Deconstructing the discursive dialectic, so you go backwards to the Greeks.

What's your excuse for not having read Plato?

>>10281622
>>10284115
Don't worry OP, I got you. Kant is a horrible writer, which makes his fairly complex ideas just ridiculous to parse. Fortunately, every one of his ideas is wrong. What's more the whole field of metaphysics is pointless BS and misunderstandings of language. (Yes, I'm informally making the logical positivist argument, and yes I understand Kripke and Wittgenstein. But still it is a super waste of time, go study eudiamonia or something.)

>>10284258

>this entire branch of knowledge is pointless, trust me bro

>>10284258
OP here. Honestly I'm just thinking of getting into Absurdum? What should I do I'm freaking out and I can't quite bite the bullet. This is madness.

>>10281893
>>10281887
Baumgarten is great but I only skimmed the final parts of the book on religion. If you're still around my suggestion is to look over the Leibniz-Clarke correspondense closely- Kant was highly inspired by their debate about space in his early years, writing his inaugural dissertation around it.

>>10284311
Go ahead and list any portion of metaphysics that has been resolved or is even really new since the ancient Greeks.

>>10285027
Freaking out about what, metaphysics? It’s all how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Go figure out your ethics and live your life. (Obviously I’m not exactly recommending Kantian ethics...)

>>10286665
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what metaphysics is and how it works if you think that it should be judged by the scientific method or can and should be "resolved"

>>10286679
Haha, what? you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology. What are you even trying to say? ‘Philosophy is just the noodling of poets, meaning nothing more than the tapping of a pencil.’?!

>>10286787
>>10286665
please read Kant, jesus christ

>>10287658
I have read Kant, that’s the problem. In fact, it is imperative you reject the entire category of Kant’s works.

>>10289041
Is this imperative hypothetical or categorical?

>>10289098
Sorry, I thought that’d be more obvious, and funnier, but the answer is right there in the joke.