/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14708105]

Do I need to read Kant if I want to really get this guy? I think I have a pretty good grasp on the thing in itself, but holy fuck do i not want to read kant.

[Anonymous No.14708117]

kant is a dweeb and a bad writer. plus, his stuff isn't very deep so no you don't unless you're autistic feel a burning in the back of your head that makes you feel incomplete if you don't experience everything he has written

[Anonymous No.14708120]

>>14708105
Kant is perfectly readable, just take it slowly. The most important bits of Kant are all at the beginning of the first Critique anyway, you don't even have to read the whole thing to be able to pick up with shop.

[Anonymous No.14708138]

You probably need to at least understand Hegel too since Schopenhauer kept dissing him.

[Anonymous No.14708140]

I just finished reading The World as Will and Representation today, weird to see this thread.

The most important thing is to understand Kant's Metaphysics in regards to the thing-in-itself and Kant's view that causality, time and space are intuitions of the mind (Is intuition the right word?) and not inherent in objects themselves.

[Anonymous No.14708145]

no just reread plato's republic

[Anonymous No.14708153]

>>14708120
This. Also, Kant is an excellent writter. With that being said, a good edition of The World as... will probably contain an introduction to Kant's epistemology.

[Anonymous No.14708165]

>>14708153
his german is clearer than dear nietzsche or schopenhauer, but i don't think anyone would accuse him of being a good stylist. krauts, feel free to refute me here

[Anonymous No.14708344]

>>14708105
I will give you a protip: read Kant's section in Schopenhauer's Fragments of History of Philosophy. The most readable introduction to Kant in 50 pages by Schopie himself.

[Anonymous No.14708363]

>>14708140
>The most important thing is to understand Kant's Metaphysics in regards to the thing-in-itself and Kant's view that causality, time and space are intuitions of the mind (Is intuition the right word?) and not inherent in objects themselves.
is that it? cause i already know that much about him

[Anonymous No.14708370]

>>14708344
based anon, thanks

[Anonymous No.14708377]

>>14708140
>Kant's view that causality, time and space are intuitions of the mind
Not that I'm an expert I'm Kant, but I think he believed causality was a category.

[Anonymous No.14708400]

>>14708377
category of the mind

[Anonymous No.14708402]

>>14708105
He is readable on his own. Don't read Kunt.

[Anonymous No.14708406]

>>14708402
This. Unless you want to write an essay on him and get an A, just read him on his own.

[Anonymous No.14708425]

From the preface to the first edition:
>Finally, the third demand to be made on the reader might even be taken for granted, for it is none other than an acquaintance with the most important phenomenon which has appeared in philosophy for two thousand years, and which lies so close to us, I mean the principal works of Kant.

From the preface to the second edition:
>...there has since grown up a generation that does not really know Kant. It has never done more than peruse him hastily and impatiently, or listen to an account of him second-hand... But the man who imagines he can become acquainted with Kant's philosophy from the descriptions of others, labors under a terrible mistake. On the contrary, I must utter a serious warning against accounts of this kind, especially those of recent times.

[Anonymous No.14708445]

>>14708153
You've clearly never read Kant. He is an horrendous writer. Absolutely genius, and exceedingly rigorous, but he could not write worth shit. His books are drier than the God damn Sahara.

[Anonymous No.14708452]

>>14708120
>>14708153
I'm all for reading Kant, but it's ridiculous to say he is readable or an excellent writer. He literally writes half a page long run on sentences. Have you people read Kant or is it just LARPing?

[Anonymous No.14708453]

>>14708425
damn, do it really be that way?? guess ima read me some kant

[Anonymous No.14708470]

>>14708105
No but also maybe

[Anonymous No.14708474]

>>14708105
his critique on judgement is his A E S T H E T I C work

[Anonymous No.14708480]

Just ignore the Fichte part.

[Anonymous No.14708489]

>>14708452
I've only read him in English translation so I can't rightly say how readable he was himself, but when he's outlining his main ideas I find him perfectly coherent. I do think that he gets very muddled at certain points, but they aren't the points for which he's so famous and influential, those ideas are clearly set out in my opinion.

I have a great deal of trouble understanding other philosophers, Hegel, early Wittgenstein, Spinoza, Sartre, the list is pretty long actually, but Kant is not one of them.

[Anonymous No.14708496]

>>14708480
I would switch the metaphysics lectures with his logic lectures (much more important), cross out Baumgarten, and just read Leibniz SEP page instead of a book full of commentary. Other than that, good guide.

[Anonymous No.14708506]

Just read an intro to Kant and Schopenhauer's appendix to the Kantian philosophy

Also read fourfold root you lazy slob

[Anonymous No.14708507]

>>14708445
That’s simply no true. Kant’s writing is concise and, in most parts, clear, if one is reading with attention. Albeit it could be argued that his writing is circumspect, it’s, still, great writing.

[Anonymous No.14708508]

Schope does a good job of explaining Kant's ideas. The main point you need to know is the the thing-in-itself. Kant believed this was indefinable and its true nature could not be known.
Schopenhauer identified the thing-in-itself as Will, this inner animating force that strives for existence and of which our bodies are the objectification. He compares the will to a magic lantern depicting all the animals of the world. The light that shines through them and maps to the wall (the representation) is the inner consciousness of the world self-illumined within each creature.

[Anonymous No.14708581]

what edition of the critique of pure reason do i get bros

[Anonymous No.14708592]

>>14708581
At least start with Prolegomena. Going straight for the Critique is much harder than you realize.

[Anonymous No.14708596]

>>14708581
Try the Werner S. Pluhar translation. It is a nice balance of readability and word choice.

[Anonymous No.14708615]

>>14708592
well then which translation of the prolegoyomama

[Anonymous No.14708628]

>>14708615
I was reading the translation by James W. Ellington and comparing it to the original. It's very faithful and readable (more so than the original).

[Anonymous No.14709236]

>>14708105
Just read Kuno Fisher's commentary like Nietzsche did.

[Anonymous No.14709241]

>>14709236
Wait are you saying Nietzsche never even read Kant?

[Anonymous No.14709272]

>>14708153
>a good edition of The World as... will probably contain an introduction to Kant's epistemology.
Oh you.

[Anonymous No.14709278]

>>14708105
>holy fuck do i not want to read kant.
Why? Kant is very interesting and Schopenhauer obviously thought highly of him.

[Anonymous No.14709279]

>>14709241
not sure about Kant, but Spinoza is real. Historians have determined that Nietzsche has never read Spinoza's Ethica, and that the only thing he read related to Spinoza is one secondary literature that explains spinoza's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14709283]

>>14708489
>circumspect
German actually buy the English translation of Kant to make it easier anon.

[Anonymous No.14709290]

>>14709279
That's insane if true. He outright says Spinoza is one of his biggest influences.

[Anonymous No.14709296]

>>14709283
I'm reading him in German and I highly doubt it. Sounds like one of those reddit rumors.

[Anonymous No.14709325]

>>14709296
Not at all, I speak both English German and English german, it really isn't that difficult since it's in english but german is much harder.

[Anonymous No.14709334]

>>14709325
The translation breaks down the long sentences into individual sentences, so it's a bit easier to read. Other than that, there is no difference that prompts a German speaker to read the translation. Was this what you meant?

[Anonymous No.14709338]

>>14709325
>I speak both English German and English german

[Anonymous No.14709343]

>>14708105
lol i kant even read what the fuck is going on here?

[Anonymous No.14709355]

Can anyone tell me if there's a Dutch translation of Essays and Aphorisms?

[Anonymous No.14709360]

>>14709338

[Anonymous No.14709362]

>>14709241
He never read critique of pure reason. He read critique of judgement first then kuno fishers commentary on critique of pure reason.

[Anonymous No.14709367]

>>14709362
Is this why he said retarded shit like "there is no truth; only interpretations"?

[Anonymous No.14709385]

>>14709367
Aren't you interpreting right now? Retard.

[Anonymous No.14709397]

Folks would do will to read Fredrich Paulsen's Immanuel Kant. Kant wanted to save Christianity from science. Hence all the hairsplitting mumbo-jumbo.

[Anonymous No.14709408]

>>14709279
Yes. He only read kuno fishers commentary on spinoza. Can't find the English trans.

[Anonymous No.14709409]

>>14709385
No, I'm asking for the truth or falsity of a judgement of experience, retard.

[Anonymous No.14709415]

>>14708105
Schopenhauer did have some great ideas but Kant is infinitely more important

[Anonymous No.14709420]

>>14709415
t. hasn't read both

[Anonymous No.14709437]

>>14709409
Trip out on acid retard. Then you'll understand. Ernst Junger understood nietzsche like no one else.

[Anonymous No.14709595]

>>14708377

>Not that I'm an expert I'm Kant
>I'm Kant

You thought you could get away with that little Freudian slip but I see right through you, goblin man. I knew you were immortal. Now while I've got you, tell me what you think of Nick Land, who I assume is your son.