What's this Kunt's problem? Why can't he write like a fucking normal human being?

What's this Kunt's problem? Why can't he write like a fucking normal human being?

Attached: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (220x317, 17K)

because he's writing philosophy
read his essays that are intended for public consumption, dickhead

So if I spout a bunch of nonsensical fluff I too can be a philosopher?

By that definition, it looks like you already are one.

fucking roasted mate damn there's a philosophy lesson for ya

>Why can't he write like a fucking normal human being?
too bigbrained

Attached: 20090508-185605-pic-445835680.jpg (1001x1280, 210K)

tfw bigbrained

Attached: immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg (300x300, 19K)

Parlour trick. If it's obtuse and difficult it must be profound.

Kant is patient zero for the autism virus. He was picking up on tachyon interference, a kind of retrocausal Van Eck phreaking of the communications between nanites that form the postsngular noosphre of 2087.

It caused him to write like a robot.

he was a god
but
op is a loser

Have you read any of his lectures?

shut up nick

This nibba writing on the noumenal level. Plebelets only on the phenomenal baka

Because he's not a human being.

I was just complaining about this exact same thing. I thought I was going to get some extracurricular reading done this spring vacation, but I spent literally two days trying to read the "the transcendental doctrine of space" so I could get the annotations right, and I still don't understand what the fuck he's saying.

t. brainlet

The transcendental aesthetic is pretty straightforward. Just read Parsons analysis if you're not getting it (but skip the math parts)

I have literally no idea what you people are talking about. Everyone's always going on and on about how fucking difficult Kant is.

Look, I understand that Hegel is difficult. That's obvious to me. And I'll admit, Kant isn't as easy to read as, say, Hobbes. But I thought that's because he's talking about more complicated things.

What is it about him that's hard? I just don't understand. I read Critique of Pure Reason in like a week cause it was interesting.

You're right on all accounts. But I remember how I struggled reading it in school, I think I was 16. Now I'm 24 and it fucking flows like butter (once I let go of my junk and am in "productive mood"). I think the final maturation of your brain to adulthood helps you get this stuff.

Prussian censorship

Kant is nearly mathematical on his approach. I can't see how people struggle so hard. Maybe don't start with the Critique?

Also, having previously read easier topics like political phil would probably help, because I don't think most people find his way of writing hard, it's actually a pretty hard subject in itself he is dealing with. Actually, when you start to "get" it you will realize how good of a job Kant has made in clarifying what would be otherwise unapproachable topics of discussion.