kant

[dfindley]

Did you ever read the critique of pure reason?

How long did it take you to read? (Or, how long did you take to read it?)

It's hard. And there are concepts I didn't realize kant himself developed. (Ie SS12 of the originally synthetical unity of apperception, which is ...dasein?? ...I thought that was the genius in heidegger but apparently ... it was kant.

I can't believe how good it is...

[dfindley]

???

Does anybody know their kant??

I swear he just implied that the ego was transcendental. I thought that was fichte.

...I can't believe I never read kant...

[Philhopeful]

Mind blowing right?! I just read him for the first time less than a year ago. I did it in small chunks with the help of some commentaries and online lectures over about two months. But yeah, a lot of people in my department would call him the most important philosopher behind Socrates and Descartes. Fichte is also often categorized under the broad label of "Post Kantian Philosophers".

 

If you like lectures, I know that Oxford has an 8 hour introduction to the main ideas of the first critique for free on itunes. Also, for a unique take on it, you should also check out Heidegger's lecture series collected as The Phenomenological Interpretation of the Critique of Pure Reason ISBN 0253332583.

[dfindley]

Aaah two months with commentaries and lectures?

So I don't feel so bad ) thanks. I'm reading it bit by bit , too. I am definitely checking out the lectures.

Behind Socrates and descartes?? No way. I am thinking he is number one. Schelling would be number two...

Ps so is the ego transcendental?? Maybe I'll encounter that address further in.

[dfindley]

Well I think he called it a representation ... but then the synthetic unity behind the 'I think' (in apperception) is is indiscernible from the self, (ie they are the same. Right??)

! I didn't know kant said that kind of stuff.

I want a refund from the university of Memphis for my modern philosophy class

[dfindley]

Ok ok I must have read it and not realized;

'The unity of apperception I call the transcendental unity of self-consciousness.'

Wow... I don't think he is being explicit enough ... maybe he'll talk more about it later...

[Human_]

I don't know how you can be applying to philosophy grad schools without ever having studied Kant. He is one of the pivotal figures in the history of philosophy due to his copernican revolution. He changed the entire metaphysical paradigm and I'm not sure there is another philosopher outside of the past century that has had as much impact on philosophy as Kant.

 

 But yeah, a lot of people in my department would call him the most important philosopher behind Socrates and Descartes. Fichte is also often categorized under the broad label of "Post Kantian Philosophers".

 

Kant > Aristotle > Socrates > Spinoza > Leibniz > Descartes

 

Everyone has their own opinion though.

[Cottagecheeseman]

I don't know how you can be applying to philosophy grad schools without ever having studied Kant. He is one of the pivotal figures in the history of philosophy due to his copernican revolution. He changed the entire metaphysical paradigm and I'm not sure there is another philosopher outside of the past century that has had as much impact on philosophy as Kant.

 

 

Kant > Aristotle > Socrates > Spinoza > Leibniz > Descartes

 

Everyone has their own opinion though.

I never studied that much Kant (like one small section in ethical theory about his views, that's about it) in undergrad, but I went to a very contemporary focused analytic program, so I only took two history courses there, lower level stuff. I feel that outside of Kant's ethics, he wasn't hugely influential in analytic philosophy. 

Personally I think Plato (Socrates) > Aristotle > Descartes > Hume > Wittgenstein > Russell > Lewis > Quine > Kripke in terms of influence on philosophy.  

[maxhgns]

 I feel that outside of Kant's ethics, he wasn't hugely influential in analytic philosophy. 

 

 

He had a significant influence on early philosophy of math (leading to intuitionism), and Benjamin Constant's misunderstanding of his friend's notes on a lecture Schelling gave on Kant gave us the ideas of disinterested appreciation and art for art's sake, which have been hugely influential (if misguided!) in aesthetics/philosophy of art (Clement Greenberg was also a huge Kantian). Kant's view of the mind is still in common parlance thanks to the work of Peter Strawson and Sellars.

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what the direction of your list is supposed to be (is Socrates the most influential, or Kripke?), but I'd say Lewis has been the most influential analytic philosopher of the last hundred years, and that Kripke's kind of overrated.

[Cottagecheeseman]

He had a significant influence on early philosophy of math (leading to intuitionism), and Benjamin Constant's misunderstanding of his friend's notes on a lecture Schelling gave on Kant gave us the ideas of disinterested appreciation and art for art's sake, which have been hugely influential (if misguided!) in aesthetics/philosophy of art (Clement Greenberg was also a huge Kantian). Kant's view of the mind is still in common parlance thanks to the work of Peter Strawson and Sellars.

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what the direction of your list is supposed to be (is Socrates the most influential, or Kripke?), but I'd say Lewis has been the most influential analytic philosopher of the last hundred years, and that Kripke's kind of overrated.

I haven't studied philosophy of math  or art, but I have studied mind and didn't encounter any Kant references there. I'll check out Sellars or Strawson's work sometime then. 

And yeah Plato (Socrates) is the most influential, Kripke the least. Although Kripke might be overrated, naming and necessity has been hugely cited since it was written, and Kripke sparked a ton of debates. 

[dfindley]

Like I said before, I read around kant, (a very short introduction for example) and was even taught a little kant (apparently by two imbecile phds)

But I never read the critique of pure reason in itself.

YOU HAVE TO READ THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON FOR YOURSELF. especially if you're analytical and especially if you're into philosophy of mind. You will quickly discover kant >>>> everybody else given historical circumstance.

Human you arrogant twerp (who would comment on my paper without having understood it in the least NO I didn't illustrate spacetime as internal inrtuitions like kant did you idiot )

But maybe you can help me -- in the first analogy of the transcendental doctrine of the faculty of judgement or, analytic principles,

Kant asserts that in order for time to be successive (and not coexistent) that phenomena must be a substance (''the principle of permanence of substance)

But how can this assertion of phenomenal substance be, when phenomena are concepts derived from the intuition and an essentially transcendental selfconsciousness?

(Or are you just an arrogant little cocksucker , 'human'?)

[Cottagecheeseman]

Like I said before, I read around kant, (a very short introduction for example) and was even taught a little kant (apparently by two imbecile phds)

But I never read the critique of pure reason in itself.

YOU HAVE TO READ THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON FOR YOURSELF. especially if you're analytical and especially if you're into philosophy of mind. You will quickly discover kant >>>> everybody else given historical circumstance.

Human you arrogant twerp (who would comment on my paper without having understood it in the least NO I didn't illustrate spacetime as internal inrtuitions like kant did you idiot )

But maybe you can help me -- in the first analogy of the transcendental doctrine of the faculty of judgement or, analytic principles,

Kant asserts that in order for time to be successive (and not coexistent) that phenomena must be a substance (''the principle of permanence of substance)

But how can this assertion of phenomenal substance be, when phenomena are concepts derived from the intuition and an essentially transcendental selfconsciousness?

(Or are you just an arrogant little cocksucker , 'human'?)

 

Edited December 20, 2013 by zizeksucks

[dfindley]

>··< I am enraged by his arrogance after his utterly stupid comment of my paper . And I am a base prole, so what

PS driving me crazy phenomenon are you-concepts- subject to the transcendental self-consciousness (ie schemata and dialectical and analytical syntheses implicit the understanding) so how do you corroborate the phenomenal as substantial (as illustrated in the first analogy) ...isn't he sort of qualifying the thing in itself or...what I don't think I totally understand...

[axiomness]

hmm... Whitehead's "series of footnotes to Plato" quotation isn't unfounded. I say, in terms of philosophical and scientific influence, Aristotle > Plato > Kant.

[dfindley]

HmMmMm I think in terms of philosophical significance.

maybe kant and Aristotle are on par. Aristotle did develop a formal logic.

Plato no way...

[Human_]

Human you arrogant twerp (who would comment on my paper without having understood it in the least NO I didn't illustrate spacetime as internal inrtuitions like kant did you idiot )

But maybe you can help me -- in the first analogy of the transcendental doctrine of the faculty of judgement or, analytic principles,

Kant asserts that in order for time to be successive (and not coexistent) that phenomena must be a substance (''the principle of permanence of substance)

But how can this assertion of phenomenal substance be, when phenomena are concepts derived from the intuition and an essentially transcendental selfconsciousness?

(Or are you just an arrogant little cocksucker , 'human'?)

 

[deloozin it]

it's about time we got gifs up in hurrrrrr!!

[Loric]

[Cottagecheeseman]

The Bronies found us! RUN!!!!