He hasn't studied meta-metaphysics

I took a class on Sartre last semester and I found that a solid knowledge of Kant was really helpful for understanding him even though I'd imagine that not a lot of people would say Kant for Sartre. I could imagine someone saying that Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and Heidegger are the fore-bearers of Sartre in that he made explicit what was implied in all of them. With that said, if you read all those guys before Sartre, you may not even want to read Sartre at that point. Sartre didn't really say anything philosophically interesting in my opinion; I guess this is the trade-off for writing to change the world (and therefore trying to reach many people).

>Also, rule n.1: if it is written by a frenchmen, it does not qualify as metaphysics.
This but unironically I can not think of a single example

>he isn't teaching meta-metaphysics

I'd say Destiny is really going to be strong in this metameta. His kit is just so strong and his lockdown capabilities are going to work within the submeta as well.

that's very kafkaesque

>not being a metametametaphysician

he's right though

meta-kafkaesque

Metaphilosophy is stupid. At best it is transcendental philosophy without the force and will of making a strong argument, and at worst it's just dogmatic metaphysics judging other metaphysics. If it is neither of this it is merely comparative metaphysics which always ends with admitting we don't know how to properly ground any fundamental presuppositions.

No matter which it is, it's a waste of time.

it seems kind of inevitable within the narrow frame of analytic metaphysics though, it's like the equivalent of continental frenchies trying to be as edgy as possible within that context

Rene Guenon you fucking brainlets

If metaphysics is the study of what is real, then what is metametaphysics?

typical *rolls eyes*

It really depends on what part of metaphysics interests you, but a common method of teaching introductory metaphysics courses is to start with Descartes and then work your way up to the modern era covering people chronologically.

The way I was taught was something along the lines of Descartes > Locke > Berkeley > Hume > Kant, with others thrown in along the way where needed.

(you) are not, actually

But what if I have? Although I like meta-epistemology more

I'm a stemfag. What metaphysics books could save me?

Tell me what you need to be saved from and I'll tell you what book you need to read.

The study of metaphysics as a field.

Nothing continental, that's for sure. You'll really appreciate books on the philosophy of science, particularly the philosophy of physics. Try out Sklar, Maudlin, Cassirer, Albert, Earman, Reichenbach, Salmon and enrich yourself

I'd also like to find out what I'm supposed to be saved from.

Will check it out. Thanks user

fuck you descartes is great

being and nothingness is not a good intro to anything

t. monolingual A*GLO

Hah! — that is literally the course on the moderns in which I am currently enrolled. (Except Thomas Reid comes in before Kant.)