I'm 200 pages into the first critique and I consider the time so far to be utterly wasted. I haven't found a single valuable idea or a unique insight, whole pages are spent on defining a million meaningless terms which are used to define even more terms which are then dropped without applying them to anything of value and a new set of latin-inspired terminology is shoved your face. This isn't even a language game, it's a language workout. Whenever Kant feels like actually saying something of value, it's usually a mindblowing idea like "we can't know things without having a faculty of knowing things". Holy fucking no shit. All his proofs boil down to things being true because Kant cannot imagine them being untrue. It took me a week to trudge through the molasses-like prose and I've learned nothing that couldn't have been learned after 5 minutes of browsing wikipedia. Einstein once said that if you can't explain something in a simple way, you don't understand it, and Kant seems like a prime obscurantist faggot to me.
I'm 200 pages into the first critique and I consider the time so far to be utterly wasted...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Well he lived underground, so the things he said make sense from his point of view.
It's okay, not everyone can be smart
I see, but then why is Kant being read so much?
Academic philosophy is based on popularity essentially. So, of course, the ideas that are exceedingly obvious are better received than not-so obvious ideas. In addition, it's even better when these obvious ideas are wrapped in hilariously longwinded tomes, so that professional fraudsters will be convinced that they are intelligent.
Jump into this now
>t. Dunning-Kruger brainlet who thinks he "understands" K*nt
Great argument, user.
Yeah, bro, Kant is just obvious stuff.
Indeed, Kant is an honorary Anglo.
Better to continue studying Kant than to reject it entirely in hopes of superiority to the text
Why do I need to make an argument, user?
You don't, but insulting OP without even addressing his remarks is not contributing anything.
It sounds to me like you don’t get it...
Can you say with certsinty that even understand Kant’s argument in tbe Aesthetic as to why Space and Time aren’t just concepts, or abstractions. W
Can you paraphrase why Kant considers them the forms of intuitions?
Are you sure you understand what a Kantian Schema is? Can you give an exsmple of a Transcendetal deduction? Have you memorized all the forms and principles of pure reason? Can you make a flowchart explaining the mechanics of synthetization that leads to an understanding of cause and effect?
You need to understand that these people simply low IQ. They lived on a time of medical inneficiency, bad nutrition, and terrible educational system, even for the high class. While IQ is hereditary, you can depress it with inadequate conditions, and that was exactly the case for Kant and other philosophers. Kant was probably 89-91 IQ. It's why his text is convoluted and dry, he doesn't know how to express himself because his neurological structures are underdeveloped (thus his 89 IQ). He was also writing for an average of 78-82 IQ, which's why his text seems so innovative, compared to his contemporaries. But for a 100-120IQ educated man nowadays, his and most of the texts of the past, feels obvious and immediate, puerile, ridiculous even. Anyone who has 100IQ plus, has thought about things like "the thing in itself" and how it isn't really knowable; the division between sensory experience and mental apriori knowledge etc.
Disregard philosophy and go to STEM.
Alright then. OP, study the CPR with pen and paper, and summarize important details (this helps in assimilating the vocabulary, which will cause you to recognize the systematic form of thought, and for memorizing passages which can give importance to later sections). The reason Kant can appear obvious is due to his historical importance (in the same sense that few men read Plato, but fewer are not influenced by him). It is all a manner of patience, really
Only in philosophy you can have this relation mirrored: the text is terrible but because it's "influential", anyone who disagrees with it is accused of "not understanding it". Imagine this pseudry in maths. You go on to prove how the Pythagorean's idea of how "all numbers can be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers" is but instead of receiving attention for improving on a mathematical idea, you get discarded and accused of "not understanding it man..." because the Pythagoreans were influential. Philosophy is pathetic.
>be kant scholar
>see another kant thread
>feel anxious because I might have to gird my loins for battle and join the fray
>read OP
>it's a retard who doesn't get the glorious kant
>herr kant is not threatened at all this day
>the land is peaceful
>i may remain at rest
Kant was reincarnated into a midget hunchback hedonist with an autistic mind
most writers, never mind philosophers, are mentally ill
That's not an argument against OP. OP's argument is about how Kant has nothing new to contribute, only old and obvious ideas, and reading him is a waste of time, because anyone even mildly intelligent, has thought about the same things, probably in a more coherent manner as well. Your answer is "dude, just go and do these things to delude yourself this text has value..."
>Transcendental deduction
That and the synthetic a priori knowledge require quite a bit of in depth reading to wrap your head around. There is a need to familiarize one self with examples first before tacking those.
No, I couldn't write you a flowchart in Kant's practically invented language, because as I said, under all that minutiae there's nothing to take away and I didn't bother taking notes. Can you, on the other hand, explain why these ideas are insightful or relevant at all. By the way, aesthetic is probably the only stomach-able part of the book, Kant's explanation for time/space appears to be quite elegant.
1. Envy
2. Projection
>Kant was probably 89-91 IQ
time to get off Yea Forums
Before I read Kant I was unemployed, depressed, sexless and resentful. After I read Kant my confidence increased and noticed my powers - which were unlocked after reading Kant - were growing. Using Kantian ideas during a job interview - which, I must say, was quite thrilling - I got a job. I talked to people using the very words that the great Kant taught me. I noticed how my rivals would succumb and I climbed the dominance hierarchy, the categorical imperative guiding me in building alliances. Women would - and still - flock to me. I can't imagine how bad it must be to not "get" Kant, now knowing its powers.
they're insightful or relevant to Kant's (and philosophy's larger) project of understanding the mind and knowledge, you picked up a 400+ page philosophical tome for the pseud cred and not out of any apparent interest in Kant's problematic, Kant didn't write the Critique for brainlet slugs like you fresh off a decade WoW addiction to pick a philosophy book that looks suitably "hard", he wrote it because he was interested in responding to a very specific debate of his times in a very specific way, he is immensely interesting (if flawed imo), you sound like a child who got in over his head, give it 20 years and come back, guy wrote this shit in his 60s, you're barely 30 and think you understand it enough to know there's nothing to understand, humble up little nigga ahahahahahah
At least I don't substitute theoretical musings for actual being and experience lol
based
Although I am not a Kantian I admire scholars who do work on that splendid tradition which is German idealism, keep fighting the good fight.
Based and STEMpilled
I already contested that with the line about historical importance. If you're not willing to accept that Kant has already influenced your conception of these issues, then you're living in a fantasy (especially if you believe in materialism)
Ahhhh, cultural osmosis, philosophy's trademark get-out-of-jail-free card in case somebody points out how obvious and simplistic the ideas of those "greats" were.
ironically enough, you imply that these ideas are innate to us without further experience, therefore meaning you are influenced by the terminology of a priori concepts.
>scholar
>doesn't contribute to any degree in the spread of knowledge
>be kant scholar
>come into a kant thread
>call op a retard and leave
Shouldn't you be the one most qualified to address his points, clarify whatever misunderstandings he might have, and help guide him to a greater comprehension of the text? You're either not a Kant scholar, having no greater understanding of the philosopher's work than anyone else, or are not a mature enough person to be capable of anything beyond pointlessly insulting others.
what fucking points lmao
Which Plato first put forward literally 2400+ years ago, so certainly not a new concept, nor one originating from Kant in any sense. Perhaps he revived the notion (because foolish empiricists didn't even recognize that the sensory chambers are inert by nature, without capacity for discernment), but he certainly did not introduce it. Not OP btw.
Honestly, you don’t sound like you’re genuinely interested in wbat Kant has to say. Just stop reading. You don’t have to read CRP. But if you can’t at least just how influential the guy is from a wikipedia reading, it’s clear you’re not here in good faith.
Wtf are on about? You know how many people complain on a daily basis that even basic math is hard? More than there have ever been saying the same thing about Kant. All I asked was for OP to display that he understood the text at all. He is saying in the OP that Kant is obvious, but that’s not the historical consensus on Kant. I asked OP to demo strate some basic aspects of Kant’s philosophy before he starts making conclusions and claims. Kant isn’t an obscurantist, he was just s bad writer when writing the Critique. If you want a clearer exposition, read the Prolegomena. Kant himself wrote a sparksnote of the Critique and it’s super easy to read.
Post passages proving please.
>meaningless terms which are used to define even more terms which are then dropped without applying them to anything of value and a new set of latin-inspired terminology is shoved your face
>Whenever Kant feels like actually saying something of value, it's usually a mindblowing idea like "we can't know things without having a faculty of knowing things". Holy fucking no shit. All his proofs boil down to things being true because Kant cannot imagine them being untrue
> Einstein once said that if you can't explain something in a simple way, you don't understand it, and Kant seems like a prime obscurantist faggot to me
Try these. Is OP making valid points here?What of them would you correct?
If OP is a materialist, then if not for Kant, he would likely believe in Hume's skepticism instead
Your mentions of "age" are entirely irrelevant. A person being "older" means absolutely nothing in terms of their intelligence. You have insulted OP several times, contributed several other non-arguments like the point regarding "Kant being an old man and therefore automatically more knowledgable than a young one like you", and ultimately done nothing to demonstrate a superior grasp of Kant, or of what makes Kant so great. Telling someone to "read it again when you're older" doesn't communicate anything when it comes to literature involving non-fiction of pure rationality, and not something like the fictional variety that requires greater life experience to be appreciated.
Try another comment if you can, but this time without the above flaws.
I'm 2 lines into the OP and I consider the time so far to be utterly wasted. I haven't found a single valuable idea or a unique insight.
>The retard finds the easiest part of the book the best one
SHOCKER
it's Yea Forums after all
>Kant is a famous scientist
>reads Hume once
>btfo's all philosophy
>everyone thinks he's a galaxy brain
>everyone becomes a Kantian
>a century later some other autist German proves space-time was right all along
>even science is Kantian now
>modern people can't even escape Kantian ideology because it's how we interpret both rationality and physics
>now everyone knows this shit, so Kant must have been a brainlet lmao
haven't seen akane's vividred butt for years, thanks for reminding my dick she exists
Fugly little goblin, his works are filth
>Kantfags are also pedophile weebs
Makes sense
Age is relevant. You listen to someone whose obviously spent more time thinking about these problems than someone who hasnt. You think some Yea Forums memelet's seen through a problematic that occupied decades of the life of some Prussian professor? I fucking doubt it
I refer to this fine gentleman's take on the social construct of "age" jsut imagine sex thrown in there couple times instead of "intelligence" or w/e makes my point
Christ you killed him.
I don't know what I'm seeing here, but I know that you are a total degenerate and should seriously turn away from this filth if you desire to lead a good life and one that won't get you in legal trouble or lifelong personal regret. Sickening.
it is for people with a theory of mind more advanced than that of a 10 year old
>get you in legal trouble or lifelong personal regret.
ew fucking disgusting faggot.
Liking lolis has nothing to do with liking the Pedo 3D shit that is unironically degenerate.
But liking some visual novels don't make you that way.
Dunno man, all I can see a girl doing some exercises for physical fitness. Look at her sweating, what a trooper.
lol
Kantfags probably have dysfunctional dicks can suck my shit desu
>reading primary works from 200 years ago
that's your problem, el retardo. even philosophy graduates don't understand it properly just like that.
read this, master it and then go for CoPR.
I have been saying this for many years. Kant is utterly useless.
Kant is like Cunt, kek. Get unpach real meanings for me today, fellows
Kant already got destroyed by Deleuze, he got your back bro
Why are you reading a book about a man who can't ?
>kant scholar
>posts an image of one of Kant's most polemical rivals
you're just dumb. stick to genre fiction
Kant could, but his readers can't.
>This isn't even a language game, it's a language workout
Indeed. Just read the ten pages Hamann wrote in response and you'll know all you need.
is subahibi good
Was Kant a man of dark skin ie an african american?
You have now discovered Ayn Rand's issue with the man: purposeful evasiveness.
OH NO NO NO NO MANLET HAHAHAHAHA
Fact: pseud Yea Forums larpers who were made to feel big and clever in their community college classrooms come to Yea Forums smugpost colorfully and get butt devastated when someone levies a legitmate criticism at elitist larper darling Kant. Displayed fully itt the Kantian subjectivist's only recourse is to panickingly pretend trancendental understanding the critiquer is too brainlet to understand. All wraped up in this vague prentension of worldy aesthetic taste of some undefined character.
Kant is a lout and his elaborate chlthulu-tier construction should be identified as the embarrassment it is.
>being cucked into reading kant
It's your fault.
Keep reading user and while you do take breaks to observe how based Peikoff btfos the man on every point youtube.com
This. Kant was a charlatan.
kant was an ugly little gremlin. stop posting his fuggo face. the world would be better off had his mother smothered him in infancy.
I personally never really cared for the first Critique until getting into the Groundwork and his ethics at large and understanding how the critique relates to it. For a very lucid companion work to read alongside it, I recommend Kants Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality bu Samuel J. Kerstein.
*pays the painter to make him cute*
philosophy and most high brow fiction is much to do about nothing, if i wanted to read to be educated i'd read nonfiction or even religious texts. If reading for entertainment you're better off with CYOA books.
You probably formed this opinion when you observed, directly or not, the unworkable morass of everything that isn't supremacy-of-reason philosophy.
Make no mistake friend: phil is omni-undergirding
kant was literally an autistic bruh
18th-century equivalent of Instagram filters, desu.
The first is not worth adressing. He could do what he wanted and look up kant on wikipedia and see that he contributed to a bunch of different parts of philosophy with (atr the time) groundbreaking ideas. If these are obvious, you have to acknowledge all the greek, roman, scholastic, and early modern philosophers to just be drooling retards.
He tries to figure out what we can know without relying on experience, and in which way what we know relates to experience. He btfo'd both the rationalists and empericists, and pretty much every single previsous philosopher. Almost none of his points rely on him not being able to imagine them untrue, and when they do its in a very specific sense where it makes sense.
The einstein point is a meme, You couldnt explain relativity to a child. You could give some dumbed down bullshit but thats not explaining it. youtube.com
Watch this. Mabye this is what you're looking after.
It's My Own Invention is worth downloading the game for it alone.
APRIL FOOLS, HA-HA, you have been tricked into reading Kunthe's real name[/spolier], it was a long playing joke.