Just finished the first part of this and all I can say is:
Just finished the first part of this and all I can say is:
We know, now tell us about the book
What did you like best about it?
There is good in everything.
@Garbage Can Lid
Im not sure if i liked anything about it.
T. Started phil w/ Hegel.
T. Started phil w/ Hegel
Because I liked his ideas (read lit threads, wiki and sep) and he was very influential to 20th century.
i liked it
i didn't like it
signs of arrested intellectually development
only capable of analyses in terms of hedonic intensities
as if inducing a pleasurable reaction in your perineal plexus was the object of these men
philosophy as soft pedarasty across time
influential to the 20th century
this is a good thing?
arrested [intellectually] development
Where did I say that
Did his philosophical project strike you as radical? If not, you may not have penetrated the surface layer of his thinking.
Kant’s teaching so fundamentally alters every mind that has grasped it, that it can be considered an intellectual rebirth.
It striked me as debunked by 19th, 20th and 21st Century science and was annoying to read, especially the parts about time, space.
It striked me as debunked by 19th, 20th and 21st Century science
go read the aricle 1 about space
This is retard tier shit senpai
It striked me as debunked by 19th, 20th and 21st Century science
more like phone-posting
showing u how much i care
one auto-correct at a time
This is some Lawrence Krauss level shit user
Dude I don't think you opened this book at all. Why are you looking for excuses to not apply yourself?
well you said you liked his ideas
we tight af
if I show a picture with books it means I read them
T. Started phil w/ Hegel.
If you're getting all your information on science from "articles" I can guarantee you don't know as much as you think you do
Eh Hegel guided me easily over my lack of knowledge of Kant. Cant say I missed anything so far. Maybe hia retarded ethics will give me a good laugh to wash this garbage taste.
u right i just bought 'em to impress u
u c right thru me
towel thrown in
How would you make a person blind from birth draw a dot or straight line between dots without first giving her the experience idk how they are supposed to be a priori at all tfw brainlet
Cant say I missed anything so far.
Honestly though if you're reading them for recreation you need to do it chronologically. Without Scholasticism Descartes seems trivial, without Descartes and the subsequent empiricst-rationalist break with the onset of mechanist explanation and materialism you won't get why Kant was so important, or why he did what he did, and without Kant and maybe even Fichte you can't appreciate Hegel's viscous abstractions about subject-object unity and absolute. You can certainly understand them, but you aren't in this to become a Kantian, it's an interest, and without the context and progression it becomes a lot less interesting and meaningful
Hegels reading of kant is often hailed as garbage
We know substance in space only through forces that are effacious in it, whether drawing of others to it (attraction) or in preventing penetration of it (repulsion); we are not acquainted with other properties constituting the concept of the substance that appears in space and which we call matter.
Kant throws out mindblowers without even trying. Genuinely feel sorry for you if you're not keen enough to recognize it
Blind people have a concept of space you idiot. How the fuck do you think brail works
Show me one top uni course that is not history of phil and starts with the greeks mem.
And I know all if that because wiki and SEP exist.
Literally and I mean literally wouldnt impress a sixth grader. I'm sorry for you if you feel that is mind bending, wait until you get to modern physics.
Literally every philosophy degree on Earth begins with Socrates my man
You're done talking now
I dont see course link.
Not even sure how that relates to the benefits I was trying to tell you, try and read the post again.
Also, you read the Greeks for the Greeks, like everyone else in Western tradition you complete fucking plebs. It's not some prerequisite pill you must swallow in order to understand latter 20th century literature like some newfags assume
Go back to wherever you came from you insufferable twat
History of ancient, medieval, or modern pre-20th-century philosophy.
Took one google search retard
Lol ancients is 4th and 1,2,3.come before it. Good jib refuting yourself retard.
The numbers don't represent priority, you study more than one module at a time. Did you even go to college?
I'm done replying to you regardless
numbers dint represent priority
Your one job was showing me top tier uni that starts with the greeks
Thus is your second post refuting yourself, no priority to greejs
You're stupider than you know, and I don't mind, just use a trip so I can filter whatever underage ignorant bullshit you might post elsewhere.
U sound nad.
1 top tier uni that starts with the Greeks meme, come on buddy we can do it right?
have you touched an intro-to-physics textbook in your life
Einstein's theory of relativity overwrites anything Kant wrote about time and space. Sad!
Letterkenny? In my Veeky Forums? Never did I dream the day would come.
You clearly havent understood the book at all. Holy shit you are fuckign dumb. Im not actually sure you've read it at all. Seriously. Just read 10 pages a day and make sure you understand what hes saying. Also, some of it might strike you as dumb or wrong (some of it is "wrong"), but try to understand it within the context of western philosophy, as kant and the people who came after him most certainly were better philosophers than you. Like, man, if your everyday life isnt painful as fuck i better drink some lead.
if you unironically think that you don't understand either
PHIL 7: Ancient Greek Philosophy
"An historical introduction to ethics, from the Greeks to, roughly, now. We begin with the concept of virtue in Homer and trace its development through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Aquinas. In the modern period we look, in a somewhat skeptical spirit, at the rise of the 'moral' as a supposedly sui generis category of reasons, traits, obligations etc, as this is found in Hume, Kant, Mill and others.
PHIL 34: Existentialism in Literature and Film
"In this course, we will study some of the major thinkers and movements in the philosophy of the ancient Greek world: the Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism. These thinkers spent a lot of energy on some rather odd questions (for example, ‘Is there more than one thing?’ and ‘Why doesn’t the ground fall?’). But they also introduced many of the enduring, guiding questions of philosophy, such as: What is it to know or understand something, and have we ever succeeded in doing it? What exists at the most fundamental level (if anything)? What should be our highest aim in life? Should we fear death?"
try to understand it within the context of western philosophy,
I unironically do not give a rat's fucking ass about outdated debunked shown to be wrong notions aout time and space, he got it wrong and it deserves no respect.
1,2,3,4,5 & 6 come before 7. Doesn't start with the Greeks meme.
Come on dude. 1 university which makes you start with the greeks with them as clear priority.
protip: you wont find.
well maybe you find some shithole retard university from Greece that does this
great review, I'd love to hear your views on other stuff too
"try to understand it within the context of western philosophy"
being this fucking retarded
Are you legit a fucking moron? Why are you even read philosophy? Why are you even readying ANYTHING AT ALL except modern research papers?
The point is that understanding what kant tried to do, regardless of how correct you think it is, is required to understand most, if not all, philosophy coming after. The fact that you read Phenomenology of Spirit and thought you "understood it" is fuckign laughable and shows you have the maturity of a 9-year old, and the fact that you read it without having read kant is so idiotic its not even funny.
The fact that you read Phenomenology of Spirit and thought you "understood it" is fuckign laughable.
Did and did. I've read plenty of secondary literature about Hegel too, he just interests me.
and shows you have the maturity of a 9-year old
and the fact that you read it without having read kant is so idiotic its not even funny.
Is Kierkegaard funny? He didn't give a fucking shit about Kant. Though he did say he would've fancied a start with Descartes.
he was this and this influential
not even the part that is annoying me, it's just how every notion of time and space is wrong on the level that a junior high person would have hard time reading the first book
Just drown yourself waste of cum
please write a fucking essay on Veeky Forums
im leaving in 4 minutes to finish this garbage book maybe tomorrow when i'm done wiith it
if you dont see my point you're a brainlet
im sorry for being rude
Not true. See Cassirer's book on Einstein which addresses precisely this issue.
Kant was talking about time and space as purely formal idealities. Einstein was talking about time and space as physical realities.
Stop bumping this idiot
Started phil w/ Hegel
Starting with the Greeks isn't about learning "real" metaphysics you complete fucking moron, the first step is usually the Iliad, and Plato's dialogues are open ended catalysts for ethical and personal reflection. These are humanities, you learn about the human experience for recreation and to better your own, that's Paideia. Studying the Greeks actually changed my life for the better, but you seem to young, or stupid for it.
And thinking you understood Hegel's PhoS must be bait right? You claim to be interested in and understand Hegel but then bash Kant... by vaguely alluding to physics! That doesn't make a difference, you'd know that if you understood either.
Philosophy isn't for you yet, really.
What's wrong with starting philosophy with Hegel ?
Hegel and almost all philosophy don't exist in a vacuum.
The irony of this is Hegel's PhoS in theory is self contained, he references other philosophies by briefly describing them. It's an incredibly difficult text, and honestly a meme, but it is fun to understand. He's more of a precise prophet or mystic of abstractions, the language is so dense and specified it feels like jumping into another viscous world of concepts. A lot of the fun is seeing him "complete" Transcendental Idealism, which reconciled Empiricism anfdRationalism. Really the main point is why would you want to start with Hegel? If you think you're into his ideas, start with Parmenides and Heraclitus because they use a lot of his ideas, then read Hegel's lecture notes on them.
Oops, lot of errors and grammar mishaps in that post
I'm more interested in seeing how the author develops his ideas, than the ideas themselves. I was just curious if there was some required reading in order to understand the PhoS.
Really the main point is why would you want to start with Hegel? If you think you're into his ideas, start with Parmenides and Heraclitus because they use a lot of his ideas
you will never live in a world where ancient philosophers time travel and read philosophers from the future
just finished the first part of a philosophical system and I cannot come to a conclusion.
Come on, user.
Nothing. He like Descartes creares very much his own system and is very easy to approach since you can read his lectures and stary with history of philosophy.
Its just autotictac meme that you need to start with greejs, if youve passed first grade in euro or american school youve already contained them
Is that book readable?
the mueller translation is
Started phil w/ Hegel
I really loved his lectures, what can I say
We know a lot about how gravity works, but we don't know what it *is*.
But Einstein himself wasn't even sure if the mathematical description of "space-time" actually corresponded to any physical reality and famously vacillated on the question before arriving at some kind of ontological relationaism - see his Hole Argument.
I agree with the spirit of your posts, the guy you're responding to is a retard, but how little physics actually interacts with ontology, contrary to popular belief, would probably blow your minds.
Regardless there is absolutely nothing in the physical relation of space and time which affects Kant's work, all that matters is the simple fact that both are experienced
yeah its philosophy, its a guy writing down his mental masturbation on paper, instead of writing a novel or getting a real job. What did you expect?
I agree completely
but he had a job user
he was a professor of logic and metaphysics at konigsberg university when he wrote the cpr
His job was his mental masturbation
oh shit guys looks like we're trapped in this prison cell for no apparent reason and no easy way out
lets just occupy ourselves with making neatly ordered stacks of garbage
lul look at that fag trying to escape, what a pretentious dick
we're trapped in this prison cell for no apparent reason and no easy way out
this is what he thinks life is
who hurt you user
You're reading the wrong scholarship, for one thing. Relying on Allison and Wood to understand Kant would be like reading JK Rowling to understand contemporary literature
writing down his mental masturbation on paper
Implying that's a bad thing
Implying that isn't mental expression of the highest caliber
Kant was everywhere concerned with critiquing the ethical vacuum left by modern science, and its failure to consider the ends of man. Judging transcendental criticism because you like science more than the summum bonum is, just, like, why did you even bother picking up the book
Literally every intro level philosophy class starts with Plato and Aristotle, through the Christfags, onto Descartes, through the Germans (starting with fucking Kant), ending usually with the French.
In my class on nineteenth century German philosophy we spent literally the first third of the semester on Kant alone so we'd be able to understand the rest in the proper context.
You're a pseud. Your eyes move over the page and though you may know the definitions of the words, you don't know their context or nuance, yet you trot on patting yourself on the back because that's the only reason you're reading Hegel in the first place, not to understand him.
That's what I'd say if I didn't think you were baiting
Forgot to copy and paste his sentence for the greentext, ignore greentext
waiting at a bus stop in winter
middle aged man next to me suddenly collapses on the ground and starts wheezing
young guy runs over
person i would have least expected
kneels down and starts pumping the man's chest and breathing in his mouth
everyone is just staring in shock, some dial for help
after almost a minute the man gasps and his eyes open wide
people literally applaud the young man
cant believe this punk guy was the one to do the moral thing
ask him how he even knew what to do
he tells me he got everything from Kant's CPR
Ive understood both Hegel and Kant fine, dont know what you are projecting here mate. Desperate!
philosophical logic is like being a child at a playground and throwing mud around
In other words, fun.
fugg I've been logic'd :D
he taught math and physics as well, such as they were. his lectures on theoretical anthropology are available in print. he had broad interests.
I'm shitposting and baiting why are you responding.
because i value honesty i guess i don't know
debunked by 19th, 20th and 21st Century science
So what does it so fundamentally alter?
Only the relation between subject and object that had held for well over two millennia. You know, just the small shit.
Kant is one of the only philosophers more important than Hegel and I can't even express how disappointed I am in you son.
What is the before and after relation?
Kant is one of the only philosophers more important than Hegel
Only if you care about history of philosophy which I do not. Hegel's ideas were more interesting than Kants.
It was known for a very long time that subject is "in here" object is "out there", and that they interact with one another. Kant said this was not true, both subject and what we know as object exist only "in here". there are phenomena which we interact with but those phenomena have no intrinsic relation to the noumena (we cannot even know if the noumena exists). We can only know causality and the like because of synthetic a priori judgements (math, geomerty, ect.)@CouchChiller
people out there actually believe this
Yeah try and flex your deep philosophical knowledge while simultaneously admitting you haven't read Kant. I'm sure you'll get far in intellectual circles.
I mean, isn't this just a fallacy based on reductionism? The intelligible world is determined by the sensible world because all our imaginings must be sensible, and cannot be verified as the intelligible, therefore the intelligible can only be created out of the sensible. He's set it up as though his ideas are how things actually work, but this is different from cosmology and the materialism of planets. You can't just say, 'Oh, but immaterial is really material, thus immaterial is just created by our understanding and propositions of the material.' It's nonsense.
This is just autism trying to prove Berkeley as an inversion, but without the interesting levels of solipsism and hologram larping. There's no big bang when we sit on a chair or ride a bicycle.
ayo hol up
*smacks lips profusely*
so you be sayin
we be like
*descends into suspended animation over the chair*
object-subjectors n sheeit!?
I really do not give a shit about jerking over in an intellectual circle, I'm only reading for myself.
admitting you haven't read Kant.
but I read one of his books already and I'm going to read rest of his books that I bought :v)