Current Events > What do you think of Emmanual Kant?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Are his philosophies worth learning about? Is he a good or bad philosopher? Is he still relevant?
---

The name gives me bad flashbacks to revising for Philosophy exams in college.

I think Emmanual Kan do whatever he sets his mind to.
---

yes he was very relevant he developed the first computer
---

You need to buy the German Idealism Complete Edition complete with British Idealism DLC to even understand why perpetual peace doesnt work
---

I Kant stand him!

*puts on sunglasses*

---

Cool ideas that can trick you into thinking you understand them quickly, but they go a bit deeper.

Try some Fichte too

Kant is kind of hit or miss to me. The only philosopher from the era that I feel was pretty spot-on with his ideas was David Hume tbh. Kant always felt like, to me, a very smart man who did an excellent job hiding his dogmas and biases beneath a veneer of exceptional rhetoric. It's evident in his deontology, for instance.

Some of his ideas were exceptional though.
---

his name reminds me of BK99

and this:

jumi posted...

I Kant stand him!

*puts on sunglasses*

puns, puns everywhere!
---

most of this philosophical stuff is way over my head
---

i've been meaning to delve into his work

i'll also check out hume at @Pogo_Marimo's recommendation
---

I read the Critique of Pure Reason and Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

I will preface this as noting I'm not super into German Idealism. I've read Fichte, Schelling, and Kant. Some chunks of Hegel as well. I find it generally very cumbersome. I admire their efforts though as being extremely detailed and that is admirable.

On Kant, the categorical imperative is very impressive. His work on the primacy of space and time are well. His political philosophy is very interesting too.

Honest evaluation:

Must read for Modern Philosophy. His ideas and methods are extremely influential. I find them somewhat remote from every day life, but that aside, his works are extremely important.

Edit:

And yes, read Hume. A great intro to modern philosophy is Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Critique is the tome. The others are shorter. I suggest direct texts, read what you can stomach. Find ones with good annotations. My philosophy program placed value on reading the direct texts even at the beginner level instead of textbook cutouts. Part of philosophy is learning how to read it and to read well in general. Sticking to textbooks or omnibuses rob you of that experience.

---

Romes187 posted...

Cool ideas that can trick you into thinking you understand them quickly, but they go a bit deeper.

Try some Fichte too

The Wissenschaftslehre is the hardest thing I've ever tried reading. I had a 400 level course on it and something by Schelling and wanted to stab my eyes out. It was a fluke they let me take it my freshman year ha ha. Same semester I took a 400 level existential philosophy course. I fell in love the latter but only gained a cautious respect for the former.

---

furb posted...

I read the Critique of Pure Reason and Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

I will preface this as noting I'm not super into German Idealism. I've read Fichte, Schelling, and Kant. Some chunks of Hegel as well. I find it generally very cumbersome. I admire their efforts though as being extremely detailed and that is admirable.

On Kant, the categorical imperative is very impressive. His work on the primacy of space and time are well. His political philosophy is very interesting too.

Honest evaluation:

Must read for Modern Philosophy. His ideas and methods are extremely influential. I find them somewhat remote from every day life, but that aside, his works are extremely important.

Edit:

And yes, read Hume. A great intro to modern philosophy is Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Critique is the tome. The others are shorter. I suggest direct texts, read what you can stomach. Find ones with good annotations. My philosophy program placed value on reading the direct texts even at the beginner level instead of textbook cutouts. Part of philosophy is learning how to read it and to read well in general. Sticking to textbooks or omnibuses rob you of that experience.

thanks, i'll take that all into consideration.
---

furb posted...

The Wissenschaftslehre is the hardest thing I've ever tried reading. I had a 400 level course on it and something by Schelling and wanted to stab my eyes out. It was a fluke they let me take it my freshman year ha ha. Same semester I took a 400 level existential philosophy course. I fell in love the latter but only gained a cautious respect for the former.

did you read the source material?

i used some translated lectures but it was still impossible to comprehend

Romes187 posted...

did you read the source material?

i used some translated lectures but it was still impossible to comprehend

@Romes187

We had the book. I mean, it was translated from german. It's likely somewhere in my book stack back at my parent's house. Although I might have sold it out of spite.

The course was supposed to be a book by Fichte, a book by Schelling, and then a book by Hegel. We did not make it to Hegel. Everybody had a rough ride with Fichte. We only had a class of like 8 and one of the girls in the course is a philosophy professor in her own right now.

edit

Guess it wasn't the whole thing. It was this specific book. I remember the grey and red cover well.

https://www.amazon.com/Introductions-Wissenschaftslehre-Writings-1797-1800-Classics/dp/0872202399/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=fichte&qid=1571887148&sr=8-1

---

p-m posted...

The name gives me bad flashbacks to revising for Philosophy exams in college.

---

furb posted...

@Romes187

We had the book. I mean, it was translated from german. It's likely somewhere in my book stack back at my parent's house. Although I might have sold it out of spite.

The course was supposed to be a book by Fichte, a book by Schelling, and then a book by Hegel. We did not make it to Hegel. Everybody had a rough ride with Fichte. We only had a class of like 8 and one of the girls in the course is a philosophy professor in her own right now.

edit

Guess it wasn't the whole thing. It was this specific book. I remember the grey and red cover well.

https://www.amazon.com/Introductions-Wissenschaftslehre-Writings-1797-1800-Classics/dp/0872202399/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=fichte&qid=1571887148&sr=8-1

oh nice. The lectures I was thinking of are the 1804 lectures he held for a small group of people each week in his home. It was his attempt at teaching the science of knowing to regular people

and allegedly the mere action of learning the science is what gets you to learn what it is or something.

but it was just confusing for me...at one point he claims hes trying to get past the assumptions Kant didnt realize he was making

been a while though

I learned about him in Ethics, and on the grounds of ethics, I don't really buy into his ideas. Dude claimed it's unethical to say lie about your friend's location if someone wants to murder them.
---

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
And Hobbes was fond of his dram

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
---

drunk philosophy shanties
---