It's so funny how Kant anticipated and btfo'd Hegel in the Critique of Pure Reason

Honestly I don't think Kant himself is really worth reading for the average person

You can easily understand most of the key concepts of his philosophy from secondary, and literally all of his positive program has been superceded

Considering Kant is the most dull and rigidly dogmatic philosopher imagineable theres not much reason to read how he got to his arguments

Unless you're a scholar in the history of philosophy obviously

Kant contradicts himself constantly throughout the critique of pure reason (e.g. the thing in itself is unknowable but i know about it because ??????)

>he can't distinguish between known unknowns and unknown unknowns

Kant was a noob way to build a dualism into your "transcendental" method fucking idiot reinforced the same skepticism he tried to overcome

>space and time are only in your head bro

you really have to wonder if he ACTUALLY thought thay

Kant wasn't a very good writer but his concepts are too important to leave to a secondary source

Refer to And no one has answered my question. His "criticism of dialectical illusion" was patently the basis for Hegel's dialectic, so that couldn't be the BTFOing. In what part of the Critique exactly does he do this, and how?

>time and space are objects in the world bro

I have to wonder if you actually think this way

>causality is a "transcendental a priori intuition"
yeah this solves hume's paradoxes in what way exactly..?

Was his the first Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

bruh

Nothing about the theory of R E L A T I V I T Y contradicts anything in Kant. Time dilation is a very Kantian concept, actually. If anything Einstein expanded Kant's conceptions to show that time and space are more inter-related as products of the same sensibility than previously thought.

Kant argued that space and time are not things and can't cohere with or influence the world

this is not the case

also albert einstein directly referenced kant and said that he was straight wildin on this topic

>implying kant or hegel even spent the time to read their own work

Well, he argued they were necessary for the existence of the world as phenomena, and accorded the possibility of causality to the a priori intuition of time. That seems like a pretty "influential" concept to me, as regards phenomena. Have you read Kant, or just summaries?

And why don't you post that excerpt, or give a better explanation, instead of simply stating "this is not the case"?

I heard Einteins relativity actually doesn't directly disproved Kant, is this true?

“There is a certain difficulty regarding this seminar, because the texts which we must read are much more difficult to read than the ones we read previously, for example, Locke. There are even very great difficulties with Locke, but I think every reader of normal intelligence reading ten pages in Locke, whichever they may be, can give an account of what he read without too great a difficulty because immediately he begins to understand. In the case of Kant it is by no means so easy. So what should I do? I will try to distribute some papers, if I get any takers.”

Leo Strauss: The very first thing he said to his student when he was teaching them Kant.

His Critiques are large and bloated, and you indeed can understand his thought by looking elsewhere.

are you really comparing philosophy to math? because if that's the case, you're either a brainlet or intellectually dishonest. math relies on previous results to further its hierarchical knowledge structure by following very specific syntax\grammar rules. philosophy lacks of this kind of rigour and the fact of the matter is that there has never been any advancement in philosophy whatsoever, just a never-ending succession of alternative philosophical systems that need to refer to each other not out of logical necessity but to pretend some degree of legitimacy

except mathematics can't even come up with a consistent, universal set of axioms that would make it coherent

t. pseud brainlet

Then why does it work?

Veeky ForumsFAGS BTFO

Since this is a Kant thread I will ask here. So I have a midterm in Moral philosophy and I am supposed to make arguments against Kant's and Hume moral and also on Kant and Hume cause and effect. This is an undergrad class and we only learned the basic ideas without too much depth. Any good books that would give me ideas on making good arguments in the subjects above?

>he hasn't read Cassirer

Heh... how can you tell it works? With your meek senses? pleb!

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/

are you implying that time is not in your head?

Being a good scientist doesn't necessarily make you a good philosopher.

friendly reminder that Einstein also denied the possibility of Quantum Mechanics and was a radical socialist (he spoke highly of Lenin)

>are not things and can't cohere with or influence the world
Time and space are systems that order representations in relation to each other. While the precise system of representation is dependent on the inherent properties of the mind the relations it represents are actual relations between the objects i.e. I can represent a given set of data by a graph or a table but both would still illustrate the same pattern.

I don't care about Kant at all. Same with all the metaphysical wankers aka 90% of philosophy. These people actually belived writing a bunch of dense abstractions would somehow make the regular human being (who doesnt give a fuck about anything that isn't sports and alcohol) more ethical or "help" society become something "better"? Why didn't he at least write in a decently clear way, then?
>inb4 bruh is just for the elite you will never get it xd

In what way doesn't it..?

he didn't write the critique of pure reason to help random americans "better themselves" holy fuck how retarded are you

yeah of course

but it does disprove some of the premises he uses tho

Like?

It's so funny how you have a philosophy freshman level reading of Hegel.

I'm a philosophy freshman and just bought Phenomenology. How do I avoid misreading it? Are Sadler vids a meme or will they help?

>reading German "philosophy"

just stop

I never said that. Also, not an argument.

>How do I avoid misreading it?
You can't avoid being a philosophy freshman.

yes, all spooks are created by rationalists which in the end always end up wit the question ''what is a proof''

>These people actually belied writing a bunch of dense abstractions would somehow make the regular human being more ethical

I like this.

Sadler helped me out when i was a philosophy freshman, no lie. He doesn't avoid the text which is good

WHY?! WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME SO WITH THESE GERMAN IDEALISTS? All I want to do is come here for a Hellenic experience that will teach me how to be virtuous and debate skeptics but I am constantly told to read Critique of Pure Reason with its contradictions and lack of dialogue. Can I never find a definition of a man that isn't 'a biped without feathers with broad, flat nails', will I ever know what it's like to foster a teenage boy? Will my seed ever drip from his young, supple thighs?

>I'm a philosophy freshman
stop posting

t. stem undergrad and future wagecuck

It's funny how Schopenhauer btfo'd Kant, along with hundreds of others.
Kant isn't even worth reading.
His concepts are no longer important or complex enough to be relevant. Again, as another said, he is only important historically. Everything else can be gained through brief readings of his Critiques and other texts, and secondary sources.
Stop pretending that a major 17th century philosopher is still relevant.

All things are objects in the world.
Found the STEMsperg.
It doesn't work.

Time and space are not "things".

>All things are objects in the world.

>This is what people actually believe.

kek I love these

Why aren't they? Because it ruins your metaphysical systems?

>Stop pretending that a major 17th century philosopher
Why should I trust your opinion after such a juvenile blunder?

18th*
I didn't realize that mistaking dates was 'juvenile', as if our system is perfect and intuitive.
Fact-spewing cockmunch

I've read the presocratics, plato, schopenhauer and kierkegaard. I know I'm missing a lot in between but honestly medieval and early modern philosophy have been too dense to get through on my own. Any books you could recommend that fill the gap?

descartes, hume and some secondary on kant and locke

depending on who you want to read you might also want to check out berkely spinoza and leibniz

It's juvenile because you get used to the system after ecountering it your whole life, messing it up implies that you don't have much experience reading about history. Anyway

>muh histery
Go back to your containment board, undergrad.