[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 300x300, immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13017817 No.13017817 [Reply] [Original]

>Whosoever finds this plan itself, which I send ahead as prolegomena for
any future metaphysics, still obscure, may consider that it simply is not
necessary for everyone to study metaphysics, that there are some talents
that proceed perfectly well in fundamental and even deep sciences that are
closer to intuition, but that will not succeed in the investigation of purely
abstract concepts, and that in such a case one should apply one’s mental
gifts to another object.
i consider myself better than most in terms of verbal reasoning ability, yet still i find myself going back and rereading certain parts of a text, almost always when kant gearshifts into denser and more abstract ideas. answer me this: are there actually anons out there who are able to read heavy literature without pause, fully grasping the depth in implication of all its constituent sentences? might it simply be my adhd? PLEASE ANSWER ME I NEED TO KNOW

>> No.13017828

haha i just realized i fucked up the formatting of quote. this makes things seem even worse

>> No.13017838

>>13017817
really smart people can

>> No.13017842
File: 10 KB, 250x238, ddgd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13017842

>read the first page of a book by windelband in german
>the entire page is one sentence with 129 nested clauses and adjectival/adverbial parentheses
>it continues onto the next page

>> No.13017852

>>13017842
Kant's writing is like Guenon's on crack

>> No.13017853

>>13017817
It depends, I can read through philosophy in solid chunks if it's all related, wherein everything connects and flows with the information always topical.
But if it's philosophy where things are being compared and contrasted with differing takes, I tend to slow down and re-read the allotted texts.

>> No.13018078

It highly depends on whether it’s pure abstraction or if they provide an example or relate it to the everyday world. For example, I was struggling with Plato’s hierarchy of truth of forms until the allegory of the Cave, as soon as I read that I understood straight away. I guess my brain only likes to process new information with the context of existing information.

>> No.13018192

>>13017817
I read up to the second comma, restarted due to the greentext break and it was easy enough to understand. I agree, but it's a very general statement.
>not everyone needs to be a philosopher. some people are a better fit cognitively to work with less abstract ideas [like chemestry] because they have a difficult time with abstract concepts
He says it better, but it's simple enough.

>> No.13018361

>>13018192
he isnt exactly saying that tho.

Kant is simply saying some people are just better suited for the concrete instead of the abstract, with emphasis that the former is no better or worse the later.

>> No.13019383

>>13017817
>which I send ahead as Prolegomena for Any Future Metaphysics
really kant?

>> No.13019855

why is so much of /lit/ starting to read Kant’s Prolegomena?
>>13017817
Doesn’t matter how long it takes you OP as long as you make it to the end understanding it.

>> No.13020318

what the fuck is midwit-core
explain

>> No.13021124

based kant

>> No.13021178

>>13020318
Midwit is something Dimwits say to feel like Bigwits.

>> No.13022388

>>13021178
Based & Witpilled