You know, I thought I loved philosophy, and I still do, but I can't stand reading Kant. It's just so fucking unpleasant...

You know, I thought I loved philosophy, and I still do, but I can't stand reading Kant. It's just so fucking unpleasant, you have to extrapolate from the past shit he said and apply it to the context like every single second. This is an actual chart of the system that Kant uses. It has honestly made my spring vacation a total joke. I have avoided actually reading classic literature like Heart of Darkness, like I thought I would be reading, and finishing up Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, because I don't like to get too distracted from my homework of reading Kant. I can say pretty confidently and unequivocally, fuck Kant.

Attached: Screenshot+2017-12-09+17.16.32.png (2306x1624, 412K)

Kant is for people who study science or economics. You know, the people who care about actual constructive literature, the kind of literature that goes about to prove something constructive, like some of Descartes texts.

Why don't you go ahead and read something by Nietzsche? That seems more your speed.

so this got me thinking

did these guys (Kant and Hegel) have an idea of where their questions were going from the start? an intuition? or is the whole fucking spaghetti just a corrected mess they published because they had to or their autism demanded it and they feared dying before finishing it?

the whole thing smacks of the beginnings of the industrial age, a mechanized view of human thought.

>the kind of literature that goes about to prove something constructive, like some of Descartes texts.
That's a hardy chuckle you gave me friendo.

If you could remember 150+ Pokemon as a kid, their type, attacks, who they are strong and weak against, then you can learn Kant.

is this anything like the critique of culture??

I only memorized the shit that made sense. Fire beats grass, grass beats rock, rock beats lightning, lightning beats water, water beats fire, and that's not even technically correct it's just a logical approximation that will get you through the storyline, not player battles. I've never been a pokemon autist. It's too hard.

You played pokemon. You had it on your gameboy, in cartoons, stuffed animals, cards, the fucking dinosaurs were burned into your brain. With Kant it's just "intuition", "synthesis", "analytic" and taking words and understanding what he means by them and arranging them in different combinations with other words which he periodically resurrects in ways which sound paradoxical as fuck unless you can extrapolate the past context of the way he used the word. It is not like pokemon. I don't think beating the elite 4 was as bad as this.

Joseph Pieper, in his book: In Defense of Philosophy, argues that Kant made philosophy "hard work" in a misguided attempt to legitimize it.

Do we need to invent the Kantian TCG Veeky Forums? What would some of the cards look like?
Taking all syntheses, there's no such thing as a bad idea!

You shouldn't have to have an autistic child's obsession with stats in order to comprehend the main ideas of someone's work

Ah, and now you are beginning to realize that Kant is not worth the trouble. You are learning.

>I'm too retarded to understand Kant and this fact makes me so butthurt that I'm going to write a book about it

The book is not about Kant. Also, the fact that Kant's attempt to legitimize philosophy by making it the fruit of vigorous labor was misguided is not refutation of his work, nor does it intend to be so.

I wonder if Kant and Hegel wrote as similar to thoughts as possible, and we just don't understand them easily because of the limits that language has imposed on our conscience. So, instead of reading Kant, you have to think Kant, which can't be done at 180 wpm

Kant did not create his philosophy out of thin air: he was in dialogue with those who came before him — namely, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Hume. Berkeley invented subjective idealism and was almost all the way 'there;' one of his major flaws, which Kant corrected, was talking about "real things" (which are actually immaterial ideas) as though they were physical. In order to do this, one would need to systematically classify each "real thing" to a corresponding idea — no one has yet succeeded, which is why Kant made hay out of Berkeley's ontology.

To answer your question: they were great thinkers, to be sure, but they were writing within a framework that existed centuries before their birth. They were responding to mistakes in others' philosophy, so they did have an idea of where they would end up.

Kant isn't philosophy. Kant is autistic garbage.

It's literally so fucking clear. I hate you.
Nobody sets out to prove something without believing they are already correct. Even when you set out to prove something and fail, you don't just go and prove yourself wrong. You actually convince yourself that the opposite of what you believed is true, and then you try to prove that.
Belief-->Proof
Success/Failure-->Belief
no u

Kierkegaard is the only good philosopher, fuck everyone else

Kant answers you himself in the preface or introduction: this book is NOT for everyone, and it SHOULDN'T be for everyone. Especially not as a "vacation read". What should be for you, and is for every one person, is practical reason. Again, not the book, but moral duty. If you're not for theoria, no worries, you can still be free and healthy as a person. Just follow the imperative.

think about it like this: kant took decades to figure that shit out, atleast give yarself some months to understand it's laid out form. i mean you still have to sort through the piles of data it's just cleaner now.

Fuck off moralizing fuckwad

t. dumb

Brainlet.

You're supposed to read it alongside your life as you go, reading other stuff and keeping that as a background project of sorts. It's certainly not something to be tackled like a vacation project (at least not in a single vacation).

This may very well be said about so many philosophers, but Kant is particularly relevant for many reasons explained inside the works themselves. The gist of it is that his project of rationality is a staple of all of our modern endeavors. He is also in many ways more comprehensible and "immediately applicable" than Hegel and perhaps even materialists. Regardless, even if you disagree with him at any profound level, thought in general is actually divided in "pre-Kant" and "post-Kant" and for good reason.

TL;DR just read it faggot, slowly but surely and not trying to get it done fast

I love Veeky Forums, because only somewhere like here can you tell someone to go read Nietzsche as an insult.

start with the greeks

Attached: two retards.png (274x280, 46K)

Philosophy is not something you are supposed to love, you are supposed to love wisdom if you are into philosophy, but not philosophy in itself, because it is dreadful garbage that breeds.
If you don't care about Kant thats fine, just read the most important passages and discuss them with someone who is really into him. Descartes didnt study Agustine with the original text.
Then move on with something you feel actually moved by. You will never be able to read every philosopher, so you better be really knowledgeable with some that really interest instead of sticking with some that are making you hate what you are doing.

If you loved wisdom you wouldnt be reading philosophy.

I second this, Veeky Forums is great for banter and general obscenities while still spouting interesting ideas about life and thought in itself. With that said, the author of the post quoted is an utilitarian faggot hiding behind the constructivism masque, which says nothing about how Kant is actually great as well. OP definitely should read Nietzsche instead of struggling with knowledge he doesn't actually want uncovered.

>
>the whole thing smacks of the beginnings of the industrial age, a mechanized view of human thought.
I like this observation a lot, not sure if I fany its content