The very fact that Kant and Hegel can't put their philosophy into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for...

>Wrong
whoooaa,,, you got me

>The lowerclass thinkers are called stand up comedians
So they are bullshitters.

Plato's philosophy is just as complex, it's only that he chooses to use simple language in such a way that the complexity only becomes apparent through repeat readings. That and the mess that comes of translating Ancient Greek.

...

made me think!

Kant's entire philosophy is basically just a bourgeois version of the Golden Rule

upboated

Meditations by Aurelius is objectively the best and most practical philosophy ever written

Philosophy isn't self-help.

What is philosophy?

>Well in the early days of philosophy any joe blow could do it.
Wrong. The rest is wrong, too.

Wissenschaft.

...

>Truth has to be simple
Lumpenproles actually believe this

I remember when I thought this when I first started reading philosophy too

So you have nothing but anecdotal evidence?

>implying 700 pages of bourgeois terminology is truth

>implying truth exists and if it did humans could comprehend it and accurately expound it

Didn't Kant actually apologise somewhere for his inability to write clearly and gracefully

Kant: do unto others
Hegel: A+B=C+D=E+F=G ad nauseam

>bourgeois

Could Americans please stop using this word? You guys never use it correctly.

It just makes it all the easier to turn the common man against them. When someone writes something so difficult, it's very easy to convince them that it means whatever you want it to, and it's very easy to convince people that academics are looking to harm them. Just look at how successful Tha Frankfurt School conspiracies have been, and how easily Peterson has managed to turn people against the postmoderns.

The very fact that Planck and Einstein can't put their physics into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

false equivalence fallacy

Why?

science assumes scientific knowledge

philosophy doesnt assume philsophical knowledge

this is false

>philosophy doesnt assume philsophical knowledge
Then what makes a good philosopher?

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG WAKEEEEE ME UPPPPPPPPPPPPP PLSSSSSSSSSSDASF ADLÇFNSD

One is relevant to the conscious activity of every person. The other isn't.

People should be made aware of the theories that will be used to control them in the future.

non sequitur
also the open philosophy courses my university offers always have some blue collar workers attending

I forgot to mention the most popular of said courses is on german idealism

>The very fact that Marx can't put his philosophy into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

His ethics, maybe. His real legacy was his work in The Critique of Pure Reason though, and I don't think the golden rule has much to say on the topic of the synthetic a priori or the categories of understanding

Dumb post.

>I forgot to mention the most popular of said courses is on german idealism
Lol no wonder 80IQ blue collar Trumpets worship Hitler.

But Marx actually is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands

To be fair, I think Marx at least tried to make some of his ideas accessible to laymen.

HAHAHAHAAHHA

>i cant refute it

>The very fact that Einstein can't put his physics into layman's terms means it is bourgeoisie horseshit for people with too much time on their hands.

t. brainlet

Or it means that they're just terrible writers with brilliant ideas. This is why scientists invented math, so they can express their autism in intelligible form

Good ideas don't fit into texts and tweets. That's what books are for, kiddo.

Than how do you explain this:
>>kys

youtube.com/watch?v=rzpL_5CI0WQ

ITT:Brainlets can't comprehend the greatest genius that ever lived

bad writers
great thinkers

then there are great writers, bad thinkers like Hume

Does Kant require me to read any previous philosophers? I want to have a good understanding of Arthur Schopenhauer works so I have been told to read Kants critiques before starting on Arthur.

It means they were poor writers.

>implying that primitive human creation of language is enough to capture the fullest transcendental quality and extent of the enormous landscapes that are their mind

Can't really fault them for being bad writers.

spoiler alert: Schoppy BTFO's Kant

>bad writers
such a simplistic view
not every subject is able to be conveyed with layman terms

errr

if you understand what enlightenment was about - and Hume then you are good to go

everyone has BTFO kant. its a requirement for good philosophy

>everyone has BTFO kant.
[citation needed]

ITT: people who read translations

In a response to the first review that was written about Critique of Pure Reason, he does (also in Prolegomena)

The creation of concepts.

But Kant was the last good philosopher.

I take delight in not reporting this post.

Hegel*

>good
>believe in retarded shit like spirit and the end of history

He's a terrible philosopher and always has been.

You write like a fag.

How?

Hegel literally ruined the spirit of the western people forever and paved the way for a pervasively bureaucratic organization of society. Read Philosophy of Right, it's fucking dystopian.

That can be said about any philosophy desu

Nietzsche,Hegel, Marx, Foucault, Derrida, Wittgenstein.. list goes on!

Philosophy is any culture’s pole of maximum abstraction, or intrinsically experimental intelligence, expressing the liberation of cognitive capabilities from immediate practical application, and their testing against ‘ultimate’ problems at the horizon of understanding.

kant was a philosopher of negative value - philosophy was worse for his having not been stillborn.

it's not hard at all to see why some people consider kant to have been outright evil.

you mean any western cultures pole of maximum abstraction. philosophy is a purely european invention.

the chinese are an exception.

See:

"no".

philosophy is a thinking thats thinking.

this pretty much.

kant justified the idea that 'it's wrong to pursue the good, for the virtues which the good bestow, because it is not purely selfless, one ought to pursue the good only because one ought to.'

which of course is exactly how every single mass murder in history has been justified.

kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger. which is a complete inversion of the purpose that morality serves, it is absolutely counter-moral. not amoral. not immoral. counter-moral.

>which of course is exactly how every single mass murder in history has been justified.
Yeah, it wasn't justified through Hegel's bureaucracy, alrighty then :)

Did you read Philosophy of Right or not?

why did you post a video about Kant?

is this willful upside down interpretation of kant?

why do people do this to Hegel and Kant

the idea existed before kant. it has nothing to do with philosophers, who merely notate ideas as they pass through humanity. nobody gives a fuck about philosophers except other philosophers.

the fact is that people were using the process of justification that kant championed long before kant existed.

you're getting cause and effect mixed up.

you haven't read kant, then. alright.

>it's wrong to pursue the good, for the virtues which the good bestow, because it is not purely selfless, one ought to pursue the good only because one ought to.
One what texts are you basing this on? I only read the Grundlegung, but this sounds nothing like Kant.
>kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger.
????
There are no ethics for the phenomenal world. That world is deterministic.
We can only be free in our will, for we have noumenal freedom.
Why would Kant have you feel bad for some empirical event?
One of us has completely misunderstood Kant's ethical project. Again: on what texts are you basing this?

how does someone think both Wittgenstein and Foucault are both good

it's like saying 'oh I love Marx and Freidman'

>One what texts are you basing this on? I only read the Grundlegung, but this sounds nothing like Kant

Not OP, but it's perfectly in line with Kant's thinking that you should act purely out of a sense of duty, i.e. you shouldn't pursue it for the result, even if it's the development of virtues, but because it is your duty and you ought to do it.
>kant would have you feel bad for helping your mother if you could have instead helped a stranger.
Yeah this is a completely wrong interpretation, no idea where this is coming from.
>There are no ethics for the phenomenal world. That world is deterministic.
Doesn't Kant establish in the antimonies of pure reason that we can't know the answer to the question of determinism? It's been years since I took a graduate seminar course on Kant, I'm curious where you found this.
All in all, 10/10 thread for making me dig up my old school notes.

>This entire thread

Einstein got it right:

>It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

Or for the retarded among us:

>Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

There are some ideas so grand/complex/etc that they can only be made so simple without losing something. Over the years, however, some have come to believe that if something can't be made so simple that even the dumbest single/double-digit retard can comprehend it, then obscurantism/etc is at play.

>too much time on their hands

Oh, so the working class has enough time for hours of sports, sitcoms, and video games, but not enough for Hegel or Kant? Get real.

>Not OP, but it's perfectly in line with Kant's thinking that you should act purely out of a sense of duty, i.e. you shouldn't pursue it for the result, even if it's the development of virtues, but because it is your duty and you ought to do it.
Indeed. I was off when I quoted that first line in my post as something unkantian. My bad.
>Doesn't Kant establish in the antimonies of pure reason that we can't know the answer to the question of determinism?
Does he? Isn't the synthesis of the third antimony a compatibilist position?
>I'm curious where you found this.
Me too. I believe I heard it in a lecture. Sorry, I'm not 100% sure.
This explains things pretty clearly thought: philosophicalruminations.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/kant-on-free-will-and-determinism/

>When you make a shitpost and come back to 90+ replies

Feels kek

You should feel ashamed of yourself.

Why?

>Does he? Isn't the synthesis of the third antimony a compatibilist position?
My copy of the Critique is literally a bookend of one of my shelves, I'll have to dust it off and reread the antimonies.
>This explains things pretty clearly though
Thanks for the source, I'll check it out. It's been years since I've done any real rereading on Kant, so far I'm enjoying it. I don't understand the hate he's getting from other posters on this thread though ...

try kantcentrating harder

(You) don't write at all.