Read Kants Prolegomena. Didn't understand anything. Wtf I thought this is a introduction?

How long should one retain the semen unless we can understand his philosophy?

You read it fully? And you didn't get anything out of it?

i hear it's a bad introduction anyway
check out this lecture: youtu.be/d__In2PQS60 he explains why the prolegomena is bad somewhere in this vid

b-ok.cc/book/785479/5acc35

Attached: ab5b74c491204b24ff2404ef8373b5ad.jpg (313x475, 14K)

Read the Greeks you dumbfuck. Unironically. No joke.

If you try to read Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche you will have no god damn idea what they're talking about unless you read Plato or Aristotle first.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

Or you can like read Hume and be like "You know what. Whatever. Bye." in regard to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Plato and Aristotle.

You will focus way better when you are retaining your semen cuz dopamine receptors aren’t being bombarded with dopamine from your masturbatory habit.

Attached: SAVE.png (838x793, 300K)

I enjoyed that book as well as the one on the critique of judgement, had some nice insight from the longuenesse book "power of judgement" though it's probably not something you wish to read as an introduction

*blocks your path while jerking off*

Attached: final boss of the wankzone.png (166x374, 185K)

the Prolegomena is a litmus test, if you can't read it something has gone horribly wrong with your philosophical education. tell me user, did you skip the early Rationalists?

more like probly goblina

no they won't shut up. you nofap people are weird

Read Beiser, Pinkard and SEP articles. It'd also be wise to read people he was responding to: Hume, Berkeley, Locke, Leibniz, Descartes. These lectures are pretty useful, too:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBHxLhKiPKxDVZ1QyWMRyaJC6vRhU2qSU

I read Prolegomena twice before getting semblance of something. Re-read each chapter two or three times before moving on and put your nose to the grindstone by looking up kantian terms, browsing posts explaining things in short, and then returning to the text. Re-read, re-read, re-read. Watch Adam Rosenfield lectures on the prolegomena (these you only have to do once. They're VERY comfy and newer). Read the beginning of CPR a couple times. REREAD REREAD REREAD REREAD. If you want, start reading Schopenhauer too. He pretty much follows Kant up, explains him better, and corrects his wrong.

Source?

Attached: 2EA7F2CB-539A-4684-8BAA-8A717B9C3FBF.gif (365x400, 551K)

what posted. Continence is a good thought. But Proust, Joyce. If you don't like Joyce, then Schopenhauer. Nabokov. Tolstoy. Nietzsche. Half of them recommended chastity or at least acknowledged it for its virtue, but to say it's the ONLY WAY...

Just be moderate.

>Pinkard

Attached: nonono.gif (300x242, 1.13M)

i study kant in uni, beat my meat daily and fuck regularly
yall are just brainlets
have sex

kants work is a response to hume tho

your understanding is prob school of life-tier

(((Walter Siegmeister)))

Crimina carnis are flagrant violations of ethical duty to self, user, not to mention contrary to natural ends.

>appeals to his undergrad shit as if it gives sway to his appeal to authority
>yall
>euphemisms for masturbation
>recreational sex
Very low IQ post and bugmanned.

Attached: 1563165025727.jpg (850x400, 78K)

mhm
im not interested in kant for his ethics
*ahem*
“have sex”
honestly, ah, and youre one of the many famous Yea Forums autodidacts? i cant stand people who think philosophy can be learned in a casual or non-academic setting properly. very few can approach something like engineering outside of a formal educational context, and thinking that philosophy is any different betrays your disrespect for the field

Embarrassing.

Sometimes you can tell a poster has a low IQ just by the way they write.

and what do you study?

>very few can approach something like engineering outside of a formal educational context
Very few DO it, because there is no point in it. That doesn't mean they couldn't. You can learn everything on your own, all the information in the world is out there.

>thinks education is the same thing as intelligence
Further proof of low IQ.

Talk about Kant. Show these autodidacts what's what.

I find that people on this board have a warped understanding of the purpose of the academic context. It’s not to give you information in a certain way, but to immerse you into a tradition, to give you access to a live environment which adapts to you and which forces you to adapt to it in turn. It’s not that you *can’t* learn this stuff by yourself with the aid of loads of literature, but that doing that is extremely difficult without falling into intellectual pitfalls and losing much of what’s necessary to properly progress in the field. I think that it’s more than wonderful to study Kant by yourself, but disrespecting academia, as shit as it is right now, is completely unnecessary and pretty misguided.

he invented a " categorical imperative ". basically outlawed all instances of wrongdoing. he wrote the three critiques. i could post my ethics paper if i find it. sure as shit know more than those autoautists.

What do you want to hear about?

>but disrespecting academia, as shit as it is right now, is completely unnecessary and pretty misguided
Who did that

There’s a lot of implicit disdain for the importance of formal education in these IQ/intellectual dick-measuring contests. I’m not quite sure who’s who when I respond, but regardless, as unpalatable as it might seem to self-professed autodidacts, education and intelligence are certainly very interrelated. What *is* an indicator of low IQ is constantly appealing to IQ.

Just talk about Kant dude. Don't post your paper, talk about Kant.

i did.

But what do you want to hear? I’m mostly interested in early modern idealism, so I guess I know a couple things about that. I don’t think I know all that much, but what do you want to hear about? Or do you just want me to post something that sounds smart enough to meet the bar you set for some internet rando?

Pure sophistry.

So you know shit that a cursory read of Kant's wikipedia page could tell you?

Ok, i don't care about IQ or intelligence or being an autodidact. I studied a STEM subject in uni and have a job in this field. Literature and philosophy is just a hobby.
So I don't like the arrogance of some people here telling that you have to study it in an academic context to fully get it. It's cool if you chose this path but I do something else and don't want to focus my life on the humanities.

I wasn't talking to you, I don't think you were shitting on autodidacts itt

>durr he wrote 3 critiques

Thanks for nothing

Kant didn't "invent" the categorical imperative, he thought it could be derived a priori as a principle of reason. Don't trust everyone who claims to be an expert on the internet.

i minored in philosophy at a respected university, the fuck have you done?

9/10 bait

imagine owning yourself this hard on an anonymous image board

loser cope

>i minored in philosophy at a respected university

Attached: 1508365594389.png (588x576, 437K)

Kant was a fella who lived a while ago who thought that the issues Hume puts forward can be appropriately resolved by restricting the scope of metaphysics to the phenomenal world. In the Prolegomena, he follows this line and develops arguments for the ideality of time and space, for his understanding of the categories, etc., and by this responds to Hume’s criticisms of causality, induction, etc. That’s the focus of the Prolegomena. Contrary to how it’s commonly understood, it’s not just a simplified Critique, it offers different arguments and omits some, and has somewhat of a different focus.
Again, I’m not saying you can’t study it on your own time. I’m just responding to the shitters who think that being in uni for philosophy is stupid or means nothing.
Actually you probably were. And I’m not shitting on them, I’m saying that a structured, formal learning environment *does* make a difference and *is* worth quite a bit.

He owned himself from his very first post with the low IQ stylometry indicating he is clearly an idiot, further proved by his aggrandizement of the base elements of humanity (have sex, beat meat). All this paired with viewing study as some accomplishment to be measured against others really proved he was some undergrad midwit at best.

Mm, that’s not me, I’m the other undergrad nitwit.
Have sex.

No it wasn't you, I could tell, and you passed. The other guy had a wikipedia-tier summary and got shown up

Also, unduly privileging the “higher” elements of humanity at the expense of the “lower” really shows that you need to get in touch with a little more of where philosophy went after about 150 years ago.

Based

pray tell. what the fuck have you done with your life ?
and yet....i went to a prestigious institution which disproves like all this shit.
sour fucking grapes.

Very low IQ post.

I majored in philosophy and graduated with honors

Attached: 1516548263040.png (396x385, 132K)

Cringe. This is that guy in an argument who just asks for the most extraneous details because hes got no real brainpower to fight with. Its like a boxing match with a paraplegic who thinks that Because you cant cause physical pain by kicking his wheel chair, hes winning the fight

The higher elements are inextricable from the lower. Philosophy should be close to things like sex. Don’t be boring.

Nah I just like outing pseuds.

My gucci's in the cleaners faggot

>le current year
>don't be boring
Confirmed cumbrain with burned out dopamine receptors. Certainly NOT gonna make it.

It doesnt count as outing pseuds plural when your dipshit ass just outs yourself again and again

As sad as it is, you’d probably benefit from Cosmo articles about getting in touch with your needs. Or a psychoanalyst.

I haven't outed myself yet, im not the one posting wikipedia summaries on Kant. If you want me to spin some shit off the top of my head I will

>reading Cosmo
Either bait (again) or terminal case. Regardless, too late for you.

Attached: 1560734483740.png (952x717, 186K)

I want you to post a gif of you fucking a lukewarm ziplock of gummy warms with your smelly shrimp dick

You've outed yourself as a brainlet in this post and every single other one. Just leave this corner of the internet.

Just FYI, I’m the one who posted the original “I study Kant and fuck, have sex.”
And I’m

oh epic bro zzzzz

zzzzz

That’s the point, friend, YOU would benefit from reading COSMO. That’s how far gone you are.

>i-i don't have brain damage -y-you need to read Cosmo. Reeeeeee

Wheres the gif?

Come on, you talk big. I ain't never read a kant book in my life, never even picked one up by that little runt. Now either nut on the worms or can it

Sounds like denial that you fucked up and embarrassed yourself time and again, so you assume an alter ego. How convenient.

Sweetie, do you want my girlfriend to tell you to have sex?

Dog just stop

wasn't Nietzsche allegedly a chronic masturbator?

Proofs. I’m also a phoneposter.

Attached: DBC3DCCA-3FC6-4D8F-9094-68DA2344A20C.png (1242x2688, 691K)

What a fucking pussy. I bet you cant even read. That other guy demolished you in debate

Bowie recorded Station to Station while fucking like crazy and doing heroic amounts of cocaine

>Im a chronic masturbator and can regurgitate undergrad summaries of Kant

yeah blown away here

Both posters were idiots.

Dopamine stimulant counters prolactin. Not sustainable.

You're weak. Post better shit than that guy, gummy worm dick

vocaroo.com/i/s13YyYzLVGOO

as are you

>no you

What a savage. Based

can't back this up because haven't reach kant yet but anyways maybe it can help OP and other lost souls

Attached: kantbyitself.png (946x2017, 586K)

That’s right, that’s what your post amounted to. I think it’s you.

lmao

But you clearly were trying to separate yourself from an idiot but at the same time did not realize you also were an idiot.

What Kant is trying to communicate with his notion of synthetic a priori truths is a certain kind of productivity inherent to space and time with epistemological consequences. For example, the triangle is both a three-sided shape, and a shape whose angles add up to 180 degrees. Taken strictly (that is, analytically) by itself, the second property cannot be derived from the first. Identity statements are insufficient for knowledge, experience has an intrinsic, spatiotemporal structure whose intelligibility has direct consequences on our knowing and how we know. The object does not presuppose intelligibility, intelligibility is always-already presupposed by our experience of the object (as is also its object-hood, since even the raw schematization of sense-data does not inherently presuppose something like an object, the object is as transcendental as the subject, by their mutual positing experience is constructed, but a positing that can only be disclosed in and through cognition, hence the two revolve around a kind of abyssal = x through which both nature and the subject emerge as the other's transcendental condition)

But
said I passed! I can’t be the idiot.

Being this neurotic is a sign you're mentally ill.

That's stupid and you're stupid

Man, Kant is great.

But I have sex! I can’t be mentally ill.

Mental patients have sex all the time.

But you don’t.

Our minds have what he calls a priori intuitions and a priori categories. A priori intuitions are space and time. The a priori categories are pic related.

"A priori" means that the intuitions and categories are experienced prior to empirical observation. They are projected onto our experience of the world. For example, the category of causality and dependence allows us to observe causal chains between objects. According to Kant, the when you see a rock fly into a window and smash the window, the causation we observe is not a fact of the event but instead something our minds project onto the event.

This results in there being a phenomenal world and a noumenal world. The phenomenal world is the world that we experience; it is filtered through the intuitions of space and time as well as the twelve categories. The noumenal world is the world independent of our minds, and neither of the intuitions nor any of the categories apply to noumenal objects. What you see in front of you is your computer monitor as a phenomenal object; but you can't know what it's like as a noumenal object. We can't imagine an object that doesn't have a position in space or time and doesn't have the categories applied to it. It is beyond human understanding.

To reiterate, we cannot know anything about noumenal objects. This is because we do not have any empirical experience of them, and they are not a priori but instead a posteriori (knowledge of them requires empirical observation). In addition to the noumenal objects "behind" our phenomenal experience, there are also objects like God that are noumenal because we require empirical observation to confirm or deny any fact about them.

Kant is here trying to solve the divide between the Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Malebranche) and the Empiricists (Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume) of the early modern period. The Rationalists thought you could prove certain things (such as God) through mathematics-esque approaches divorced of any empirical observation (a priori), whereas the Empiricists insisted on sensory observation (a posteriori) was the only source of knowledge. Thus, Kant is much like a Rationalist who was very informed by Empiricist concerns. He rejected both the dogma of the earlier Rationalists as well as the skepticism of the Empiricists, and termed his approach "critique". The stuff about our inability to have knowledge of noumena is how he countered the dogma of the Rationalists through Empiricist insights. He countered the skepticism of the Empiricists by asserting that the a priori faculties of the mind are universal among rational beings. This means that every rational being can experience the twelve categories as well as the two intuitions. He also believed this of mathematics and logic, as he thought they were a priori faculties of the mind. So while they are not part of the objective (noumenal) world, they are still universally necessary among us, contra the Empiricists

Yeah but I bet you couldn't even begin to tell me why, right? Stay mad fuckboy

One thing: the intuitions aren’t “projected” onto our experience of the world; they are how our experience is *structured*. Like a filter, or maybe a font or even a language.

Where the gummy worms at

>pic related

Hey does daddy know you're spending his money on an education I got for free? Keep posting about my dick though bitch

Smells gummy

zzzz

Sorry you got a kant interpretation

I don't care if someone knows Kant or not. Just dont talk shit if you can't back it up

I'm not that guy. I've never read the dipshit you gummy worm dick

Ite bro have a good night