ETERNAL REMINDER

[Anonymous No.22372673]

Read it today. Take notes. Share.

[Anonymous No.22372675]

INB4 Kant retard durrr
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because MEN CHOOSE TO SKIM THROUGH THE BOOK, and not to think through it

[Anonymous No.22372681]

INB4 muh Hegel
>>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently FOR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one MUST turn to that preceding exposition.

I like Hegel by the way; the most Kantian of Kantians

Gott mit uns

[Anonymous No.22372689]

INB4 have sex
>Sex is for materialist normalfags. It was the redirected orgone from his sex organs to his cognitive organs from voluntary celibacy that produced the supermind and the corresponding super thinking abilities of the great Kant. Develop the self discipline to resist sexual desire and thereby acheive the intellectual heights of the Empyrean like Kant did. The never ending chase on the hamster wheel of sexual gratification is mere cope for those that can't into Kant and their seetheposts against Kant are the only way they know how to release their pent up sexual frustration. I would tell them to kys but I am not so cruel, and instead I invite them to read a copy of the first critique today. Good day, sirs.

[Anonymous No.22373459]

[Anonymous No.22374810]

>>22372673
Mfw reading the Introduction in B

[Anonymous No.22374813]

>>22372673
This is the 500th time you've made this thread, autist.

[Anonymous No.22375416]

I can't believe that the more I've read the more retarded I've become. Last night I went to /x/ to laugh at some schizos and I went to succubus thread. I was horny and was honestly thinking of invoking a succubus, but I didn't. Not beacuse I didn't think it was going to work but because I was scared of it working. Kant is really making me into an autistic retard. What is the solution here? Btw, thank you for reading my blog.

[Anonymous No.22375465]

>>22374813
>ETERNAL REMINDER

[Anonymous No.22375471]

>>22375465
Look up the difference between eternal and recurring... lol....

[Anonymous No.22375473]

>>22372675
Charles Sanders Peirce painstakingly read through the Critique with his Harvard mathematician father every day for three years. Then he debunked Kant.

[Anonymous No.22375500]

>>22375473
>Then he debunked Kant.
or so he would have you believe...

[Anonymous No.22375505]

>>22372673
I bought it when i was 16. I still haven't read it at 24. Not going to either

[Anonymous No.22375558]

>>22372673
FINE you nigger I'm reading it


Kant is the all-destroyer of metaphysics


Preface A
1. Reason has a peculiar fate
Reason itself generates certain questions that reason itself can't answer
2. As reason does its job, it's going to find out the questions never cease
3. Reason getting to self-understanding should solve the problem of metaphysics that we follow the natural inclinations of reason, but those natural inclinations drive reason beyond the bounds of its applicability (where we can actually gain knowledge)
Preface B
1. Logic
The understanding has to do with nothing further than itself and its own form
And that is why it can be certain. Aristotle basically brought fourth logic, nothing was wrong with it, that's because this is about the general rules of thought in our understanding itself.
His claim that logic didn't change between his time and Aristotle's time might be overblown.
It's just like empty rules of thought, not really a science.
2. mathematics
Math didn't immediately get off on a good start. The right way to do math turns out to be an emancipation from objevts. In mathematics we only think about what we construct ourselves (our intuition). And since we construct it ourselves, that's why we can fully grasp it.
3. physics
There is something we put into the world when we do physics.
In which our understanding takes the reign
Approach nature in a natural spirit.
4. Copernicus
If we think that our cognition have to conform to the objects, that's what everyone has been assuming so far and it's been a disaster. Let's try the opposite. in all these other sciences we put something to the world, maybe in metaphysics we should think that objects should conform to our cognition.

The understanding, our use of concepts, is a faculty of spontaneity. It is active.

[Anonymous No.22375654]

>>22375500
Yeah, I read Kant, and then I read Peirce, and I found Peirce's autism to be on a whole 'nother level. Peirce wins hands down.

[Anonymous No.22375753]

>made obsolete by einstein and the fact that space is non-euclidian

[Anonymous No.22376034]

>>22375753
einstein was a kantian

[Anonymous No.22376038]

>>22376034
as I understand it, kant thought that euclidian space and time were a priori knoledge, and lots of experiments proved later that space and time are in fact empirical, because we were wrong about them.

[Anonymous No.22376144]

>>22376038
>experiments proved later that space and time are in fact empirical
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22376147]

>>22376144
>no argument

[Anonymous No.22376151]

>>22372673
What order should I read Kant? I’ve been told to start with the Prolegomena, then the first Critique, then Groundwork, then the later critiques, then his stuff on religion. Also who should I read before Kant to prepare? Is Hume required?

[Anonymous No.22376171]

>>22376151
Hume is required

[Anonymous No.22376181]

>>22376151
start with the Logik

[Anonymous No.22376189]

>>22376171
also Leibniz

[Anonymous No.22376208]

>>22376151
> Also who should I read before Kant to prepare
A rudimentary knowledge of Leibniz, Descartes and Hume is a must as Kant's entire system is basically an amalgam of Leibniz and Hume.

[Anonymous No.22376580]

>>22376144
Different anon, but your experiences within space and time are empirical. The pure intuitions or space and time are a priori. How could you possibly learn or experience space and time without the capacity to do so already present in you? Without time you cannot learn anything new, including time itself, and without space you cannot be aware of anything as separate.

[Anonymous No.22376688]

>>22376580
intuition and learning are completely different things, you can intuit space and time as a component of transcendental aesthetics which paves the way for the actual a priori knowledge of the possible object of experience that can only be obtained through transcendental appeception and via categories. learning requires understanding but intuition is something which comes BEFORE understanding.