>"Of Kant it may be said that what is good and true in his philosophy would have been buried with him, were it not for Schopenhauer...." - Michael Kelly, Kant's Ethics and Schopenhauer's Criticism
What did he mean by this?
>>8162234
why don't you tell us what you think that means, OP
Kant is some apex retard famous for being mocked by better men, much like sophists, expect kant was turned into like sophistry -yet- so fellow retards mistakenly believe he had any contemporary value
>>8162243
Habla usted ingles?
>>8162242
Schopenhauer discovered what was true and good in Kant? Or at the very least, made it famous?
If you took the time to read The World as Will and Representation, you'll notice that Schopenhauer starts by saying that Kant is required reading for his work. He even has an appendix dedicated to Kant's philosophy that is somewhat necessary to understand everything else. He basically deconstructed Kant's philosophy, extracted whatever he found was actually good, and expanded on it with his own thoughts.
>>8162243
0/10.
Kant > Hegel
Tbh, lads.
>>8162268
You're not welcome here, Habermas.
>>8162234
Kant made some errors (which Schopenhauer corrects) but also there had been a trend which misinterpretted Kant's philosophy to mean there was no thing-in-itself (Schopenhauer corrects this in his criticism of Fichte in particular) and, worse, a trend like Hegel where the scribbling prose was valued as contributing to philosophy, which ignores Kant's criticism of Hume's prose and his conscious decision to write plain things plainly, and which Schopenhauer promoted in philosophy for any case other than rhetorical argument (whence his aphorisms and editing becoming features of pessimistic philosophy). The last point also considers Kant's aesthetic notions on utility, which has obvious ramifications on other modern concepts of form and function.
>>8162287
Kant's prose was anything but plain.
>>8162268
More like
Kant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retarded German Shepard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel
>>8162287
>a trend like Hegel where the scribbling prose was valued as contributing to philosophy
Found the retard who couldn't understand Hegel.
If Hegel was alive now, he would say of me that I understood him.
>>8162295
artful artlessness is exactly that kind of plain style, so are many other modern styles derived from Kant's really meticulous style. have a book rec
https://www.dukeupress.edu/constituting-critique
>>8162234
It doesn't mean anything special. It's just voicing the common criticism of German Idealism.
Nobody in Kant's wake really communicated with Kant's ideas in any direct manner. Fichte focused almost exclusively on Kant's conception of apperception. As a result his students, such as Schelling, weren't in the conversation Kant had expected to create with critical philosophy. As for Hegel, he never actually read Kant per se. It's also a real project to figure out what exactly his reaction to Kant is.
Schopenhauer on the other hand brought Kant directly into his philosophy. He uses precisely the same terminology, even if he modifies it. He knew his Kant better than any of the other big Idealists and it shows. Kant wasn't at all forgotten by the time Schopenhauer came along, but he was definitely being twisted in a way that readers of Kant today are still trying to understand. Schopenhauer's interpretations of Kant are very clear and handle Kant without changing his message.
>>8162234
I'm not sure about the historical claim, but Schopenhauer certainly helped to clarify much of Kant's metaphysics, and laid it all out in an expositorily coherent fashion.
>>8162304
>found the retard who doesn't recognise a Schopenhauer paraphrase
>he doesn't even know it's about Hegel's students
>either that or he thinks Hegel's students are known for copying Hegel well
kekekekekek
Hegel isn't hard to understand; he has deliciously comfy prose. Looking at your pictures, you obviously don't read for prose because Stirner has some of the driest going. The best prose in Stirner is when he quotes someone else tbqh.
I see you only understand memes though, so I'll stop explaining history and literary trends in philosophy.
>>8162308
Kant's prose style was a complete and utter horrorshow. On the other hand, underneath it all, his ideas were brilliant and groundbreaking. This in contrast to Hegel, who kept the tortured prose style but offered no actual ideas.
>>8162318
>Getting triggered by an ironic Stirner pic
>Implying one cannot acquaint himself with any and all tiers of philosopher
You got spooked, kid.
>>8162323
Hegel doesn't have a tortured prose style though. Kant's prose style could be considered a horrorshow in the way that Victorian letters or analytics or postmodernism are considered horrorshows by some, but it's meticulously designed, in the same way that Schopenhauer designed his critique to a different purpose.
Many people read Schopenhauer's critique of Kant and feel he's being nitpicky or bitchy, because they fail to appreciate how wrong they would get Kant if someone wasn't explaining it to them on a very petty level, but he was trying to make Kant the resource he could be without trying to improve humanity's understanding of the self reflexive in grammar at the same time as in philosophy.
Funnily enough, without stripping the prose style away to reveal it more simply to those who don't understand it, we probably wouldn't have enough people interested in Kant to explore the philosophy to get to the point of people understanding self reference if Schoppy hadn't stripped out the part that Kant made three heavy books from.
It's as though people think he wrote a big book with a very particular style because of other reasons and he lied when he was explaining it, which means we're really through the looking glass of postmodernism as an audience.And probably morally destitute 0.0
>>8162327
>only knows memes
guess you don't want to defend Stirner's prose then
