Kant

[Anonymous No.11933192]

Is he overrated or do people just hate him because he writes like a retard?

[Anonymous No.11933261]

Reminder that this is literally what Kant looked like.

[Anonymous No.11933303]

>>11933192
I hate him because he gave irrationalism teeth.

[Anonymous No.11933361]

>>11933303
The fuck is irrationalism?

[Anonymous No.11933371]

>>11933361
he's blaming hegel, kierkegaard, nietzsche etc on interpreting kant and the transcendental (not rational) nature of noumena

[Anonymous No.11933389]

>>11933361
I think anon's saying Kant's advice for people to be critics--not dogmatists or skeptics--leads to some people being seen as irrational (most culminated in the entirety of Nietzsche). For example, Kant in his antinomies says no one will ever be able to prove or disprove God, prove or disprove Free Will, prove or disprove immortality. It's really a revelation and he's honestly right. EVERYONE READING THIS NOW, if you haven't: read the transcendental doctrine of method at the end of CPR. It's more accessible than the beginning.

[Anonymous No.11933462]

>>11933192
Kant is definitely not overrated — he is one of the GOAT philosophers, unparalleled in scope since Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. [Locke's Essay had an impressive scope, but suffered from many internal contradictions and failures.] He also is one of the few philosophers, especially outside of ethics, who can reach out and change the way you see the world; I still get goosebumps from reading the preface to the first Critique. If his major insights don't seem so impressive, it's because we take them for granted in modern times.

I can't speak for his German, but I know that he doesn't write like a retard overall. He uses strange terminology because his philosophy is systematic, and needs highly specific words that aren't tainted with popular usage. Pic related is probably the best English translation, which brings out the best of his thought. The one retarded thing (which isn't really retarded, but was just dismissive of posterity) he did was fail to describe the historical context behind his work. Obviously, the book was written as a response to Hume and his problem of induction — but he doesn't mention it often (if at all). The single biggest mistake of potential readers is going straight to Kant, without first having read Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Hume.

>tl;dr If you want to deepen your philosophy and potentially change your life, you're going to have to meet Kant eventually. If you aren't kicking and screaming, it will be one of the greatest things you'll read.

[Anonymous No.11933525]

>>11933261
He's such a fucking disgusting freak

[Anonymous No.11933553]

The enlightenment is utterly misnamed.

[Anonymous No.11933577]

>>11933462
Aristotle too. I've seen far too many people jump straight into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason without ever having read even a summary of Aristotle's Organon, Physics, or Metaphysics, and wondering why Kant is so difficult to read, and where all of his "obscure" terms come from.