/lit/mus test. There was a recent thread regarding a Plato reading group. How many of you guys would be up for a Kant one?
Critique of Pure Reason. No girls/empiricists allowed.
It'd be standard procedure; using burner emails or whatever.
>>8207149
Sounds good to me. I'm a retard who couldn't get past page 3.
>>8207158
I've read/studied it before, just curious to see if there are any /lit/ friendos to discuss it with.
I can help if you want.
>tfw read all kant's work
>trolling hume posters for years
>tfw autistic enough to understand kant
>tfw autistic enough to abide by your no girls rule
>mfw kant group of emo males who don't know how to use a semicolon trying to pretend they're not empiricists reading cpr
;_; and people wonder why schopenhauer was a dick
>>8207169
>trolling hume posters for years
That's exactly what David Hume would say in a Kant thread.
We know it's you, you fat empiricist fuck.
>>8207176
technically, even if I were a Hume poster telling an untruth about myself in order to further the reading of Kant, Kant wouldn't consider me a liar, and would consider it a doctrinal right on my part, absolving me of your consequential lie and any rage rampage you go on. you'd have to read more than cpr to get to that part though, which I again recommend; enjoy your book club experience.
I'd be keen to discuss Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism', and whether it's still worthwhile to maintain the Analytic/Synthetic distinction, or at least, to keep such a sharp divide.
>>8207197
>Kant wouldn't consider me a liar, and would consider it a doctrinal right on my part
You pulled that out of your ass.
>>8207202
read doctrine of right
>>8207200
I think, if anything, Quine spectacularly missed Kant's point.
>>8207214
Unless you qualify your post, that's a fucking platitudinous armchair criticism.
When do we start?
>>8207243
Depends when everyone can get their hands on Critique of Pure Reason.
>>8207271
I don't understand how anyone could read a book on a computer screen.
A kindle is understandable.
>>8207260
Just got my copy today at 2nd hand store. Looks as new. Ye
>>8207276
>not having the patrician english edition
You guys don't learn, huh?
>>8207303
>Introduction
>Written by a female
JUST
>>8207303
I am a superior intelligence whom transcends the mere surface of language. I view the world from an idea standpoint only.
>"Today, at any leading American university, a Kant, with all his dithering about God, freedom, and immortality, or even a Hume, wouldn't survive a year in graduate school, much less get hired as an instructor." - Tom Wolfe
I've always wondered if that was a compliment or not, given the terrible state of universities/colleges today. Mere job creation factories, which Nietzsche (among others) predicted.
>>8207197
>disrespects the humanity both within himself and in others by knowingly spreading falsehoods.
>somehow thinks Kant would be okay with this
>>8207396
>>8207197
From 'On the Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy':
>...a lie, defined merely as an untrue declaration to another...always harms another, even if not another individual, nevertheless humanity in general, in as much as it MAKES THE SOURCE OF RIGHT UNUSABLE
>To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred command of reason prescribing UNCONDITIONALLY, one not to be restricted by conveniences.
>>8207318
>a female
Anyone want to get this rolling? Make a group?
>>8207169
What do you think of his concept of negative magnitudes?
how hard is kant.
like really?
with an aid?
>>8207622
i'd love to but i don't own a copy.
apart if it's a reading group where you post extracts and shit.
>>8209083
Just make sure you've read and understood Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume and you'll be fine.
>>8209086
how are spinoza/leibniz/locke and berkeley related to kant?
i understand descates and hume but a lot of peoples tell that it's possible to understand Kant just after the greeks if you are reading it multiples times with help.
or maybe i was getting memed?
>>8207396
>>8207407
>still hasn't read doctrine of right or virtue
>assumes one kant text supersedes all others
>can't tell the difference between untruth and lies
>assumes everyone else to be a liar, which, no doubt, stems from being one himself
>people still don't know why schopenhauer was so mad about kant interpreters mouthing off
try again when you've read more than just the personal gain murderer stories.
>>8209096
They all propose and defend either empiricism or rationalism, which Kant naturally built on heavily. That said, you're right, you could probably just skip them and go straight to Kant after the Greeks.
>>8208135
i think it trolls hume fans that he doesn't cite hume as the source of an example he solves.
the one you want to troll kant fans with is when he does dreams of a spirit-seer, where he solves one of the unsolved examples from NM, and does it with a hume style logic.
>>8207149
>no empiricists allowed
>yet it's a critique of pure reason
wut
>>8209177
>critique
>>8210058
why are you quoting?
Is the Norman Kemp Smith translation any good?
>>8207338
University philosophy is a bad joke
>>8210180
It's a job in ethics and logic.
Pure philosophy bring nothing to society in term of market beneficit.
