/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13608008]

Seriously, how Kant, absolute peak philosopher, marked off the limit of reason with a beautiful, perfectly ordered philophical sytem with each of his terms rigorously defined, each of his argument perfectly and clearly layed out, did spawn such a fucking obscurantist and failure of philosopher that is Hegel?
I felt a regression when reading him after Kant, I felt like philosophy want to shit because everything that had to be said was said. There wasn't any room for anything new, so in order to say something "new" you had to hide yourself behind a veil of mist trying to fool people. Not defining any term you're using because the book is targeted at "specialist "obviously, also he explicitly argues that his sytem can't be summed up. If you can't sum up his philophical system, how are you even able to think about it, or even able to talk about it? You can't think all his system at once, if you want to discuss with someone about the phenomenoly, you have to take small pieces of it in order to convey your thoughts. But Hegel and his retarded followers forbid that, you can't talk about it, you can't think about it. It has to be the entire thing, the book itself.
The purpose of writing a book is to convey your thoughts, you have a duty to be comprehensible, why? Because if you don't want to be clear, that means that you don't want to properly convey your thoughts! And that is contradictory to the purpose of writing a book!
That's right, fuck Hegel.

[Anonymous No.13608025]

The Eddie and Metaknight of philosophy

[Homer No.13608029]

>>13608008
Holy shit, who hurt you? Chill out baby.

Also, I've noticed that those who understand Kant are intellectual and understand philosophy well while those who are hegel fans tend to be those continental weirdos who are into all the sorts of humanities and shit. Hegel was a pseud but whatever lmao.

[Anonymous No.13608097]

>>13608008
close your eyes and let your thoughts run wild for a day

[Anonymous No.13608193]

[Anonymous No.13608202]

>In happiness thought has already the upper hand with the force of natural impulse, since it is not satisfied with what is momentary, but requires happiness as a whole. This happiness is dependent upon education to the extent to which education confirms the universal. But in the ideal of happiness there are two elements. There is a universal that is higher than all particulars; vet, as the content of this universal is in turn only universal pleasure, there arises once more the individual, particular and finite, and retreat must be made to impulse;
Since the content of happiness lies in the subjective perception of each individual, this universal end is again particular; nor is there present in it any true unity of content and form

[Anonymous No.13608221]

>>13608008
Never ever forget.

[Anonymous No.13608234]

>>13608008
Kant is really the biggest guy in Philosophy and people who don't understand that are in denial. Even if you disagree with Kant on a fundamental level are doing so on the rigorous terms he defined because they work so well.

[Anonymous No.13608237]

>>13608202

[Anonymous No.13608379]

>>13608008
>be Kant
>following the same tight schedule of tasks every day
>be Hegel
>be drunkard that has written his phenomenolgy while napoleon's forces attacked the city
Why does cunts shit have such neat structure?

[Anonymous No.13608472]

>>13608008
you fucked up, Peirce and James were right.
first become learned, then make careful study of logic and metaphysics for 10 years before even attempting to understand Hegel. then you must contemplate the dialectic while bingeing on whippets in order to understand how profound hegel really is.

[Anonymous No.13610034]

>>13608008
>a beautiful, perfectly ordered philophical sytem with each of his terms rigorously defined,

Not really.

[Anonymous No.13610044]

>>13608008
>>13610034

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_Philosophy

[Anonymous No.13610051]

Kant actually has several major problems and these were pointed out fairly quickly in the 1780s and 1790s. The most interesting critiques probably come from the Aenesidemus response (pseudonym, probably of G.E. Schulze), Solomon Maimon, and J.G. Hamann. Aenesidemus shows how Kant's limitation of knowledge to the immanently accessible transcendental domain implicitly rests on knowledge of a non-immanent, supra-transcendental sort. Maimon naturalizes the Kantian subject to a Leibnizian Platonism to solve various logical problems which Kant claims to solve but really doesn't, especially the problem of how universals and particulars are related (Kant basically begs the question on this note). Hamann's "metacritical" approach to Kant's writings is proto-linguistic.

All three of these substantially influenced Hegel and his friends (e.g. Schelling). Their responses to Kant may not "succeed," or satisfy, but they are at least conceptually coherent solutions to logical gaps in the Kantian system.

[Anonymous No.13610125]

>>13610051
What do you mean by proto-linguistic like before language itself is considered as mean of thinking or before linguistic critique occurred or something else?

[Anonymous No.13610161]

>>13610125
Linguistic was a school of Chaldean philosophy started by King Nechepso in 440BC. It's major premise was that the moon was more important than the sun, and that moonlight was in fact what made plants grow and people thrive.

[Anonymous No.13610170]

>>13610125
Yeah sorry I meant like early linguistic philosophy, so basically the reverse of this:
>before language itself is considered

>>13610161
Lorenzo Valla is actually a weirdly interesting precursor to modern linguistic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13610179]

>>13610161
I don't get how this is linguistic the premise is cosmological

[Anonymous No.13610337]

The schematism is gibberish and the mind doesn't work that way.