/lit/ - Literature

>>20249769
I think he's pretty readable, however there aren't the millions of second sources for him like say, Hegel

>>20249791
I mean yeah sure I can sit down and read primary Kant and wrack my brain over a single paragraph for 4 hours. It can be done.
Or I can save valuable time and read a brilliantly eloquently written secondary source by someone who spent 40 years reading the text and can get infinitely more out of it than if I was going into it blind on my first read.
I know snobs on /lit/ usually look down on reading secondary, but it's better most of the time.

>>20249769
Just take your time and read it you lazy fuck, it is not that hard, you will get used to it. fucking hell, be patient

>>20249791
What the fuck is a "subject" and what is an "object". I get the whole "a Concept is the mediate of an object" because it has been cognisized by the Understanding/Verstand from the raw Intuition that comes out of the Sensibility/Sinnlichkeit.
But what the fuck are Kantian Objects that are mediated as Concepts?

>>20249811
I referenced this in another thread, but its my own personal take, probably not Kant's own take.
here >>20249824

>>20249769
Was Kant a bit of a dumbass? He was trying to gain knowledge while refusing and avoiding getting actual knowledge.

>>20249829
> probably not Kant's own take.
Then not really what I'm looking for

>>20249856
ok look at it like this, a subject is (you), an object is like a tree or something, you are perceiving the tree. the "concept" is what occurs when the subject perceives the object and in the middle is what information is taken from perception, got it?

>>20249769
don't blame the book for your lack of conceptual abstraction

>>20249921
Is that what Kant means though? Or what you mean?
Any other Kant-anons want to confirm this as being an adequate explanation
> the "concept" is what occurs when the subject perceives the object and in the middle is what information is taken from perception, got it?
But what IS the object? Is a "tree" an object or is it a concept? Because I only recognize it as a tree once it enters my 'Verstand' after the sensation passes through my Sinnlichkeit. Is the tree both and object and a concept? If so what's the difference?

>>20249959
Hey, answer this >>20249811 if you're so good at conceptual abstraction that you've managed to read and comprehend CPR

If you're getting filtered by kant then just read the introduction to the mieklejon translation.

Unless you're genuinely sub 120 iq then you should be able to get through the pluhar translation of the copr.
He did an excellent job arranging it. Most sections are only like 4 pages long. Just take it one section at a time. Even an amateur should be able to get through the transcendental deduction. It doesn't get difficult until transcendental dialectic, like 200 pages in

>>20249809
>Or I can save valuable time and read a brilliantly eloquently written secondary source
Oh my sweet summer child

>>20249769
Anything written by Paul Guyer

>>20249769
Henry Allison was the most helpful for understanding the CPR. PF Strawson was the most fun.

>>20249974
The anon oversimplifies it but is largely correct. The object is not a tree as something entirely external to me, but rather the tree that is in the content of the intuitions that I can link to concepts. Your intuitions are the mental component to your body being affected, there is no "tree" in it, and yet from the intuitions you can unite some of them following some form that you can then link to some mental concept. In this sense, it is entirely provisional to say there is an object here at all, as this is just a specific set of intuitions in a specific form, but it persists even when you get new intuitions, so it is improper to call objects sets of intuitions. It is tempting to say that the kantian object is what refers to some external physical entity but we can't say that for certain.

>>20250522
this

>>20249769
If you can do basic math and logic, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t be able to read Critique of Pure Reason. I suspect the biggest thing you need to get past is the terminology honestly

It's readable, but just extremely dry.

If you actually want to understand him, there's going to be no substitute for actually reading him, as dry as he is.

>>20250618
>It is tempting to say that the kantian object is what refers to some external physical entity but we can't say that for certain.
Can we at least say that for Kant the object is something that comes from or is a result of an external physical entity existing?
And is the source of confusion a matter of interpreting Kant or was Kant himself not sure what objects where?
>. In this sense, it is entirely provisional to say there is an object here at all, as this is just a specific set of intuitions in a specific form, but it persists even when you get new intuitions, so it is improper to call objects sets of intuitions.
Sure I get that, since the Concept is a output of Verstand not Sensibility, but the intuition that is in Sensibility will be 'mediated' into a concept, yeah?
Could we just say "a Concept is some derivative of an Object"?

>>20249811
>>20249846
>>20249974
>>20249809
>>20250864
start with the fucking greeks.

>>20249809
>I mean yeah sure I can sit down and read primary Kant and wrack my brain over a single paragraph for 4 hours. It can be done.
So do it, that's literally the best use you can give to a book

>>20250920
Start with the meeks

>>20250945
seems pretty boring

>>20249769

About a quarter of Pinkard's German Philosophy 1760-1860 is about Kant's theories. It's definitely worth a read, as it also discusses Kant's influence on those German thinkers who came immediately after him up until Hegel.

>>20250920
I did. How the fuck does that help? If anything I'm wondering why the fuck I bothered to go beyond the Greeks if no self-anointed Kant reader can fucking tell me something as simple as what the difference is between an Object and a Concept.

>>20250864
This shouldnt be so difficult to understand. Kant takes it for granted that objects exist. We don't have access to anything outside ourselves so the object must come from somewhere within us. On the other hand, it isnt the direct result of a faculty, so we can't conveniently label it. Nonetheless, it must exist somewhere so we look at its relationship with sensation and understanding. It exists within intuition, and relates to concepts, but as time invariant is not the former and as singular is not the latter. Properly, it isnt anything at all except the area of intuition that gets united in consciousness and it is this unity that gives it the object-ness we experience. There is no confusion on Kants part on our proclivity to make the object to something external, it is a fault of the brain.

>>20249811
sensuous intuitions formed by concepts

>>20249769
I have the two Cambridge Companions. One for Kant and one specifically for the Critique of Pure Reason. They're pretty good, but don't tone down the excessive verbiage much so expect a hard slog.

>>20251305
>>20251346
Tell me if this is correct:
A "tree" is not an object, but a concept of some object.
Objects are things outside of ourselves, Kant doesn't define the essential nature of Objects just acknowledges that there are things out there which influence our senses, which gives us sensory data. We never actually recognize objects or differentiate between one object and another, instead the sensory data they influence is cognisized and we experience as "concepts".
Concepts are sort of the ripples of Objects via our sensory information. We don't recognize Objects themselves, after all even Kant is unable to tell us exactly what are Objects, only that something exists, but we can recognize and delineate between concepts of those objects.

>>20251362
This is all wrong, every single point. Just read the book.

>>20251409
Nah... Not worth my time. I've already wasted enough time trying to answer this simple question. I have more pressing priorities in my life, such as what financial investments to make or what functional changes I should make to my living quarters or how to get back into a long term relationship.

>>20251305
Sounds dumb

>>20251350
Can I just read the critique one? To be honest, his political and ethical philosophy kinda bores me.

It's called German, dumbass no duh you can't read it.

>>20251478
but posting on 4chan about how it's ok that you got filtered because you're a pragmatist is?

>>20251493
Youre are dumb. Its portrayal of mental faculties is really primitive, but his conception of objects is clever and holds up well.