Anybody here read it yet?
I can't read any of these philosophical books, meditations, treatises, etc. They're dry, obtuse, and I don't see how anyone isn't bored to tears by them. Does anyone actually enjoy reading this stuff, or is it like exercise where you willingly subject yourself to discomfort to get stronger?
>>23328550no pain no gain
>>23328543yeah , I didn't read the end though. dude was getting on my nerves, I quit after he already critiqued reason. don't know why he needed 200 more pages.
Yes, but not the second or third critique.
>>23328543I read it from a schopenhauerian lens first, and am currently re-reading Schopenhauer from a kantian lense. Their honesty as philosophers is in the clarity of their thoughts.
>>23328543no what's the point?
>>23328543>>23328550I read it five times... always a pleasure to read Kant, especially the critique of pure reason...
>>23328550the idea that you're allowed to be lazy or undisciplined while reading philosophy needs to die. don't even attempt it if you think it ought to be easy because it's "merely" reading. All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.
yeah, it is quite a work. should have read the organon before reading this. Kant assumes you understand Aristotle and doesn't try to argue for the 10 categories or explain why he does it like that.
>>23330264Mm... *puff, puff* Quite...
>>23330917Kant's categories aren't Aristotle's categories. Not just that they are different but that they aren't even for the same thing. And Aristotle doesn't give any arguments for his categories either. Kant simply assumes that since science of syllogism is complete, he can draw the categories from logic without it being controversial.
I have one more chapter of the Analyitic to go… might take a break with something else for a bit.
Gave up halfway through. It's just autistic rambling about how we experience the world through space and time, which are ideal (mind-depenedent) and what's beyond is unknown. There saved you hours of suffering through some faggot text.I don't even agree with it either where my direct realism Chad's at?
bump
I finished it and it made me feel sad
I am still reading it. I'm finding it very difficult actually, but I reallly feel like there's something there.
Sorry if this might seem off-topic, but I can never understand how people can read Nietzsche (let alone Hegel, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida, ...) without reading the Greeks. I can't proceed through a book without understanding a single page; I feel I'd miss out on a lot by not comprehending everything. Is this a *me* problem, or does this happen to everyone? I see a lot of people around me who can't understand Joyce or Faulkner but vaunt about how they read TPoS or Fanged Noumena... (insert abstruse philosophical work that requires a shit ton of reading beforehand)
>>23333704>Is this a *me* problemyes
I'm interested in discussion on it but it seems to complicated for me
