/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1798

I'm not quite sure what you're asking but; you can quote anyone at any time in order to critique them. There isn't any sort of copyright protection protecting one from criticism.

No point in pure negative critique. If you're not going to offer nothing new, nobody will care.

You can go against Kant thinking it's easy fruit, yeah, good luck.

>>1801

by making a critique, im ipso facto proposing new ideas, since its logically needed to replace the "refuted" idea with a new one

>and actually im gonna critize "the world as will and idea"

>>1798

You don't need to worry. Copyright is not relevant after (I believe) 100 years since the death of the author have passed. A lot of important philosophers are ripe for the picking - only most of them already have entire fields of study dedicated to their criticism and improvement.

>>1802

>by making a critique, im ipso facto proposing new ideas

No you aren't. You are merely advising against an already existing idea. That does not a new proposal make.

>>1803

I cant simply refute ,i must propose a new solution, by doing that, i AM actually creating a new, original idea, to replace the other one.

>>1804

>New and original idea

>critiquing Schopenhauer

Bruv, I suggest you find a bigger target if you want your critique to actually have something new. Schopenhauer is widely ignored in academia precisely because he wasn't anything original in his own time.

>>1804

That's not ipso facto. You criticise and then suggest your own ideas, but the two aren't connected by necessity. Though there might be a nunace to the term "critique" I'm unaware of.

>>1805

Philosophical academia isn't necessarily as linear as that though. Even 'discarded' ideas can be reevaluated or made fruitful at any given time, provided it's done well enough.

I assume that the majority of copyright laws make exceptions to quotations in scholarly works, given that they are properly cited.