/lit/ - Literature

There is what is considered contemporary Kantian epistemology and Kantian ethics and then there is also still the study of Kant or Kantian studies. They are different. Kant is looking stronger now a days and the phenomena /noumenal distinction is still pretty prominent. People often take F. H Bradley's way around it but that still bakes it in a way. Generally, philosophers try to have accounts that are more powerful then Kant or more useful or that provide something more then his accounts. In terms of contemproary Kantian philosophy try Kantian Ethics Almost without Apology by Marcia W. Baron and Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense by Henry E. Allison and Manifest Reality: Kant's Idealism and his Realism
by Lucy Allais. A person need not take Kant's ethics with his views of epistemology and metaphysics also.

>>14715508
Good post. Im just about ready for Kant in my autististc genealogical track Im making myself do. Ive got most under my belt. Just finished locke. I am now starting on Monadology and plan to get into Hume before jumping in at Kant. I personally like it non annotated and just the books proper.

I've noticed a lot of Kantposting over the last few days, is he our new meme philosopher? Has he replaced Guenon?

>>14715508
Cheers. I imagine his ethics comes under attack?
>>14715529
Did you do Aristotle? I've heard somewhere that Kant draws from Aristotles wells.
>>14715566
More real than you think I reckon.
>>14715640
Kant is actual philosophy. Guenon seems like comparitive religion and passing opinions of as fact.

>>14715667

His ethics is the most attacked directly. Trying to take down his view of metaphysics or epistemology is like a trap. You will get the first shot in but he makes you say weird stuff about math or human experience.

I did not do historical Aristotle but I did do contemporary Aristoliean material like E.J. Loux. They still hate and fear Kant and one of the big hurdles they always state is that Kant is a big problem for the more ambitious metaphysical projects. Basically, Kant ruins any theory of everything.

>>14715667
Yah i didnt want to do my ful geneology but I went:

Plato
Aristotle
Cicero
Bible
Augustine
Plotinus
Ockam
Aquinus
Descarte
Hobbes
Spiniza
Locke
Leibniz

And I plan
to go

Hume
Kant
Hegel
Shopenhaur
Marx
Kierkegaard
nietzsche
The French.

But for now, Kant is my immediate goalpost.

>>14715707

One possible avenue to explore are the Neo-Kantians. Ernst Cassier and Wilhelm Wundt for example.

>>14715712
Interesting. will keep in mind.

>>14715707
You did all of those? Very based. I couldn't be bothered, so I just went Plato, Descartes, Hume, and now Kant. How long did it take to read all of those philosophers?

>>14715687
>They still hate and fear
They is who precisely? The academic mainstream? How would you characterise such a stream?

>>14715707
I really think kierkegaard is overated as philosophy proper. He mostly just seems to gush over Yeshua with sophistic hegelian oratory. I'd honestly suggest something like Dosto. I realise its not philosophy proper also but at least hes more interesting. Its also amazing prose. Underground man and CP or TBK would cover him. Also if your doing marx, how come you didn't do Rousseau bro? Jean is the dean. The man basically sparked the french revolution in the bourgeois. Also beautiful prose.
Kant is really good prose to actually imo. Its does take parsing sometimes, but when hes not going into minute detail its actually splendid.
>>14715712
What (if any) is the major evolution that constitutes the necessity for the prefix neo?

>>14715805
>They is who precisely?
Not him but it seems he meant contemporary Aristotleans.

>>14715805
Metaphysicians. One of the first things you have to do when you make any claim is show that you are doing more then Kant. Generally, you will ok with a minimal metaphysics that allows your account to work at least on phenomena. However, the moment you start overreaching or trying to create something systematic people don't quite take it seriously. Think David K. Lewis and modal realism.

Neo-Kantians were a complex group. Some sought to ground everything at Kant and others saw some problems with such as the issue of space and time. Ironically, some of those aged worse for that reason and now the original Kant appears stronger then them. Others, sought to develop Kant to explain culture and myth and give synthetic a priori conditions for them. Some also sought to combine Hegel or Fichte with Kant.

>>14715849
It is largely them. Aristotlean's have a very strong influence in contemproary metaphysics that many are not quite aware of.

>>14715805
>How would you characterise such a stream?
As in what is the predominant position in terms of contemporary academic epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and... maybe we'll just leave aside logic. I imagine theres some real crazy stuff going on there.

>>14714969
Kant is just Islam for westerners.

>>14716452
What?

>>14715707
You missed Boethius.

>>14715707
Did you actually buy the summa theologica or just read the abridged/specific works?

>>14715707
Where's Heidegger? He effectually created postmodernism and was the largest continuation of any philosopher to do what Nietzsche "did".

>>14714969

Redpill me on Kant

And is it related to the system of german idealism?

>>14715707
Don't undervalue the traditionalists, I don't really like them myself and only really enjoyed Evola's Essays on War but even something as basic as a "primordial tradition" for example, has been widely influential.

>>14716740
>And is it related to the system of german idealism?

>>14714969
No need for Aristotle. Kant is as clear as it gets.

>>14715805
Neo Kantians are just a diverse number of Germans that united under the slogan of going back to Kant, and what makes them neo is that they came about after the period of materialism and historicism (nietzsche/marx era) until, lets say, the death Cassirer.

>>14716750

Genuine question. i only vaguely know kantbot and atrocious "your fucking a white old male" uni philosophy ethics.

So I ask you again. Who, or what, is Kant

>>14716740
German Idealism arose in a vacuum desu

What is it with Jews and neo-Kantianism?

>>14715640
Kantposting was actually responsible for the Guenonfag even being a thing. It all started when based Kantbro posted this:

>the root ontology of Traditionalism is a hodgepodge of late 19th century esotericism and hermetic syncretism, post-Kantian Religionswissenschaft and Protestant theology, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and its early 20th century offshoots, which also had a post-Kantian epistemology, and a healthy dose of Romantic theory on religion and myth, which has been described by Beiser and other scholars as "neo-Platonist," or as the "archetypal" strand of Kant interpretation. Read any myth-related text of Schelling and you will see Traditionalism. Actually, read Paul Bishop's book _The Archaic_ for a decent discussion of the core concept(s) from which Traditionalism sprang. Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism that involved a re-introduction of archetypal (i.e., Platonic) metaphysics with a vaguely emanationist structure -- that is, bootleg neo-Platonism.
>This movement was (and remains) deliberately syncretic because when you identify the primary forms or archetypes with a symbolic and mythic structure (as ALL of the traditions I just outlined did), you get a philosophy and history of religion that makes all traditions into particular instantiations of underlying immutable principles (as all of the traditions I just outlined concluded). Just read _The Oriental Renaissance_ by Schwab, which was praised highly by Mircea Eliade, about whom both Guenon and Evola complained in correspondence that he was a Guenonian Traditionalist who wouldn't cop to the fact and that he was getting credit for Guenon's ideas especially. Eliade agreed; so Guenon, Evola, and Eliade agree that Eliade is a reasonably faithful transposition of Guenonian philosophy, and Eliade embraces Schwab's diagnosis of syncretic, Fruhromantik neo-Platonism as the basis of the Traditionalist worldview, e.g., as its syncretic neo-Platonist framework effortlessly reduces and re-appropriates Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, and everything else to be simply an emanation of its own "central, really real" myths and archetypes. That is why "Hinduism looks like neo-Platonism," a favourite line of Traditionalists -- real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing." Traditionalists did not save or invent the method of comparative religions -- they killed it, and laminated its corpse.
>tldr: Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant, under which paradigms traditional neo-Platonism, and Christian and especially German mysticism were reinterpreted by the early Romantics. And it's a late-comer to the game at that.

>>14716770
Kant invented German (transcendental) idealism. Everyone after him just thought he was not radical enough.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/germidea/

>>14716770
>So I ask you again. Who, or what, is Kant
That's the first time you've asked that and you don't even have a question mark either.

Kant created what is known as the German Idealists, and was alive to see the first major figure of it other than himself, Fichte. Though he disagreed with his formalisation.

As long as you know firstly what Idealism is(the typical babby definition is monism of the mind/spirit), and secondly Kant's Noumena, Categories and Ethics, I suppose you should be fine before you read him. Kant's system was known as Transcendental Idealism, Fichte reacted to the transcendental part of this and resorted Idealism to entirely to the individual subject. Schelling disagreed with this while somewhat creating his own nature philosophy, Hölderlin(who shared a room with Hegel in school) refuted the subject/object dichotomy which previous Idealism had dealt with(Schelling refuting Fichte is tied up with this and sometime we can't tell who is who), and Hegel got all this and created a system called Absolute Idealism, where in everything is mind. Kant would have, from what we can know given his knowledge in his lifetime and how he reacted to Fichte) rejected the later German Idealists in asserting that one cannot know the Noumena.

This whole thing is a babby explanation, there have been so many contributing critiques and other philosophers like Reinhold as an example but this will set your path I suppose.

>>14716730
True.
>>14716736
>The results of Heideggerianism have been a diaster for the humanities
See pic related
>>14716740
Watch a youtube video or read the prolegomena or the groundwork. Theyre only short.
>>14716743
>widely influential
You mean on this board?
>>14716781
?
>>14716786
Interesting. I certainly see what they were getting at. Thanks for sharing.
>>14716812
Can you imagine what Kant would have done to Hegel? Probably just laughed and called him a mystic.

>>14716812

Sorry i dont understand what youre saying but if its so convoluted and complex its probably wrong

>>14716925
>True.
So you're gonna read him?

>See pic related
I dunno sounds dangerously based anon.

>You mean on this board?
No in general. For example Dugin.

>?
Why are the central supporters of neo-Kantianism jewish?

>Can you imagine what Kant would have done to Hegel? Probably just laughed and called him a mystic.
In all likelihood. Did Hegel actually have an argument for Absolute Idealism? He obviously has value but still, even for philosophical geniuses one expects their literal embryo to have an origin of belief.

>>14717007
Maybe if i need consolation.
Also i really dont think traditionalism has been that influential. Sadly.

>>14716786
Anyone knows where to get The Oriental Renaissance or La Renaissance orientale online? Wish to read it but cannot buy, very complex procedure of shipping into mine country and shit. Works like this should be freely available but they not, why

>>14715640
I think that was mostly me and 2 other dudes who have actually read Kant. There aren't many Kantbros on this board, unfortunately
>>14715667
Aristotle is mostly useful for his terminology, since Kant worked under a scholastic tradition (mainly embodied by Christian Wolff, at that time). You don't really have to have read Metaphysics by Aristotle to understand what Kant is saying, but you should know what 99% of the terms contained in that book mean. This can be easily achieved by reading secondary literature (since reading Aristotle would postpone your plan of reading Kant by months, if not years).
>>14715866
You're talking about analytic philosophy, right? My department is riddled with analytic philosophers obsessed with Aristotle too
>>14716925
>Can you imagine what Kant would have done to Hegel? Probably just laughed and called him a mystic
Kant responded to Fichte, and Fichte diverged from Kant's program in the same way Hegel did, so we know what Kant would have said to Hegel: that his system is untenable, since it is based on Absolute Knowing, a fancy way of saying "intellectual intuition". The whole "mystic" and "charlatan" talking points come from hacks like Schopenhauer, serious people like Kant would have refrained themselves from making such ridicolous comments.

>>14717050
>Maybe if i need consolation.
Kek, but seriously, it was one of the most important texts for medieval philosophy and is amazing in itself.