>Buy pic related
>Reading the preface
>He insists on 3 things
>"Read my book twice! Read 'On the Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason', and be familiar with Kant's work!"
>"Ok, I guess I'm putting this on hold-..."
>"Also! Don't you dare read any second-hand accounts of Kant. Read straight from the source."
>Tfw I couldn't make it past Page 1 of 'The Critique of Pure Reason'
So the moral of the story is that ol' Schoppy trolled me good.
Then again, I can kind of admire that he sets such a high bar for himself. I was consoled by how often and amusingly he mocks Hegelians, kek.
>>8201121
>Before trying to understand my work, start from the beginning
Wow, how unreasonable...
>>8201121
what is the point of this thread
if you haven't read kant what the fuck are you doing in the 19th century to begin with?
>>8201148
It's more /lit/-related than a lot of /lit/ threads lately, which would be better suited to /soc/
>>8201151
I haven't read Kant directly, but I'm familiar with his philosophy.
How many people on this fucking board have seriously read The Critique of Pure Reason?
>>8201121
That's what happens when babbies think they can just read whatever philosopher they want because they "sound cool". All you faggots trying to read german idealists and fucking Nietzsche need to start with the Greeks
>>8201163
But Plato is a bore...
>>8201158
I have. Twice. And I'm continually returning to passages and whole sections and chapters.
And you are not 'familiar' with 'his philosophy' if you can't even manage to make it through a single page of his actual writing.
>>8201169
if you sincerely unironically think that then philosophy is not for you
>>8201170
>I have. Twice.
>>8201169
The dialogues are pretty easy, why not start there?
>>8201176
>He thinks philosophy isn't for Nietzsche
>>8201152
surely you're joking, this is just a boring blog post
>>8201225
You're right, how could it be any better than:
>Age
>Location
>What you read last
>What you're reading now
>>8201121
My problem is more with the goddamn density of Schopenhauer's writing. I really wish these philosophers would be a little more friendly towards their readers.
>>8201236
He's the most friendly of all the Krauts, which maybe isn't saying much.
I'm reading this book. Was written at 23 by a student of philosophy who killed himself in 1910. He tries to do what I've gathered is Stirner's thing and liberate you from all chains, but he does so via Eraclitus, Empedocles, Schopenhauer, the Ecclesiaste and Leopardi. It's pretty cool - never been translated tho.
>>8201265
Wasn't that the guy Wittgenstein read?
>>8201252
This. You think Schop is difficult? Peep Fichte and Schelling.
>>8201236
He is no doubt the clearest writer of the post-Kantians, and is known for the clarity of his writing. He intentionally tried to write more like an Englishman than a German after reading Hume, so he went about as friendly as he could. His concepts are dense but not because of his prose.
>>8201279
I don't think so - only thing I've found about it is a JSTOR essay on the metaphysics of will that cites wittgenstein a couple of time for other things. Source?
>>8201279
Otto Weininger
>>8201158
i read all three critiques, but i had a TA to hold my hand. you should try it.
>>8201310
TA?
Tight Ass?
>>8201306
Michelstaedter did exactly the same, only seven years later. Think he was inspired, so easy mistake.
>>8201292
Would have been cool to hear these old German guys actually talking English desu.
I wonder what they sounded like.
I imagine Schopenhauer to be some sort of grouchy grandpa with the best of intentions.
>>8201265
It's been translated by Russell Valentino
>>8201313
teaching assistant.
>>8201265
>never been translated
>was actually translated
Get out, pseud.
>>8201158
I read it. Kinda felt like reading pic related
>kant
i fucking hate him
surely, SURELY he could have used simpler language to get his ideas across
>>8203001
Gotta keep the casuals out.
>>8203010
I GUESS
