/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16261591]

>This is why Kant is so great.
:-3

[Anonymous No.16261604]

>>16261591
That's not Fichte

[Anonymous No.16261610]

>>16261591
>GREAT KANT taught us to postpone the wish for knowledge of the world to criticism of man's power of knowledge; if we thus arrived at the most complete uncertainty about the reality of the world, Schopenhauer next taught us to draw the most infallible conclusions as to the world's In-itself from a farther-reaching criticism, no longer of our mental faculties, but of that Will in us which goes before all knowledge. "Know thyself, and thou hast read the world"—the Pythia said; "look round thee, all of this art thou"—the Brahmin.

http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagknow.htm

[Anonymous No.16261619]

>>16261591
I'm a huge fan of schopie, but he was ironically a stupid interpreter of Kant on the face of it. He asserted and asserted that the Will was the thing-in-itself, even though Kant if he was alive would say he was doing the exact same thing as all the other philosophers he was criticizing. I do maintain that Schopenhauer backs up his claims, and treats with all of Kants sources on the same level Kant did, but the logical positivists who were just as much influenced by Kant would say that Schopenhauer was full of shit. (Even while Wittgenstein, who they irrationally venerated in a humorous bit of irony, read Schopenhauer who was one of the only traditional philosophers Wittgenstein read. He was very unconventional and didn't bother to read philosophy while claiming to be a philosopher.)

[Anonymous No.16261647]

>>16261619
Somehow Wittgenstein also greatly respected Heidegger, and his necessary "use of nonsense" in his writings to create quite the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16261718]

>>16261619
>positivists

[Gustav Klimt No.16261947]

>>16261591
Schopenhauer was smart, but he won't ever beat the machine.