Are there any other books I should read before or after?
Who are the writers who discuss the topic before Kant and after Kant?
Is Prolegomena a sufficient replacement?
I’ve read that it has been refuted but I don’t remember where and by who. If it is a historical marker that is outdated but still “worth reading” because it is historically important I’m tempted to skip it and just read whatever the modern standard is.
Lots of people have read it, and whether it’s worth it depends on what you want from your philosophy.
It’s quite dense and hard going, but it is one of the classics for a reason. As an introduction to philosophy, it’ll probably put you off for life, but in the context of the development of western thought it’s one of the key texts, and fundamental to seeing how it developed from there.
As for refutation, I know Russell and Popper both considered Transcendental Idealism to be flawed, Wittgenstein saw it as a problem rather than a solution, Heidegger seemed to interpret him in a completely different way to anyone else. I’m sure there are others with opinions.
So what do you want to read? Where do you want to go?
I have chatted with some people who read it and pure reason is flawed, in my view. There always needs to be a balance between the heart/emotions and the mind.
My own reaction to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is that it appears to be largely an “intellectual contraption”. At least with respect to that which propels me toward philosophy:
How ought one to live?
And then, in considering that, the existential relationship between 1] human identity, 2] human value judgments and 3] the manner in which folks like Marx connected the dots between social interaction and political economy.
Now, if anyone would care to explore Kant’s ideas/ideals in that respect, I would be interested in pursuing it.
I’m always curious to imagine how others might imagine Kant reacting to the manner in which I construe the meaning of conflicting goods and dasein.
Well I tried reading it but it was boring and long and I kept dazing off so I figured it was kinda pointless because I wasn’t taking any of it in. But I’ve read plenty of other philosophy just nothing that responds to him or that he is responding to. So he’s at the bottom of my reading list right now, but he’s at the top of most other people’s reading list so I kinda want to convince myself it’s worth going at it again. I’m just not sure how to approach it.
More or less I want the history of who the people are and what they were doing at the time, but in more detail than the typical “history of philosophy” book might give.
I want know who was talking to who and why they were picking up the discussions and what they added to the discussion.
Where do I want to go? Lately I’ve wanted to sit in a room by myself with the depressing understanding that none of the shit I’m reading matters to anyone, but makes me feel really smart. Maybe one day I’d like to be president.
So Russel, Popper, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger are people to read afterwards? I don’t like reading the response without knowing the text they’re referencing because I can’t tell if the arguments are sound or not.
sorry I was tired and lazy. here is what I should have said
nope I didnt read it but all I heard about it are contrived opinions as it is a laborious read, more like intellectual self- indulgence, all of which I find unappealing. I only read the works of thinkers that resonate deep within. Moreover, I think that since Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Epicurus and Socrates not much has really been discovered in philosophy.
It is very dry. Perhaps there’s a good student’s guide that summarises it? I don’t think you can skip much of the reasoning; part of the reason it was so influential was the methodical, exhaustive argumentation. If it’s just a study method, take it bit by bit, a page or a few pages at a time, and rewrite the arguments for yourself in your own words. It’s not a book you can breeze through in an afternoon with the TV on in the background.
Timeline-wise: he was inspired to write it (in his own words) as a rebuttal to Hume, who argued that the rationalists’ confidence in reason was very much overrated. His most important direct descendants were Hegel (who subsequently significantly inspired/influenced Marx) and Schopenhauer (who subsequently significantly inspired/influenced Nietzsche).
You might get more out of Aristotle. Nicomachaean Ethics is all about practical living and the virtues needed to be an effective and good part of society.
I wouldn’t wish Heidegger on anyone They’re not direct responses, all from the 20th Century, and they are coming from very different basic positions. If you want context, I’d suggest Hume’s Enquiries - he’s very readable (although not easy) and despite the scepticism of his outlook, not bleak. If you read that and understand the basic arguments, you’ll know better what it is that Kant is trying to do with his Critique.
Is not emotion a part of pure reason? that there is not a distinct entity of reason itself. At base reason is [at least in part] going by the same choices as the emotions, that is; just as we can measure and observe the pathways of causal choices, the emotions would relate also to that same stimuli. At base that is, naturally the emotions work in their own centres and ways, at the experiential and also a subconscious level.
The emotions conflict with reason is perhaps due to them emanating at a lower stem of the tree than conscious reason. The intellect though takes from that same tree, and only later forms a conflict ~ in the calibrating sense perhaps. To arrive at decisions the intellect thinks in a duality/polarity, then forms and gathers as many parties into the equation as are needed. There would be included in that package, the ‘instincts’ which would comprise much of emotion based info and sensation.
Therefore, when discussing things of pure reason like logic paths in computers, the reason has no emotion. When concerning more human matters, then it does contain emotions and sentiment etc.
why un-include one or any given area of reason? …such for reason to be what it is ~ which is surely an entirety and not one particular category?
This doesn’t quite sink down to the level of, say, Satyr in responding to my arguments, but in lieu of an actual argument itself it might just as well.
Are you still a believer in the 5 elements theory?
There’s been plenty of discoveries, but more importantly philosophy isn’t just about a base idea that once understood solves every problem, it’s about the details of different situations that appear in life. For example pre Christian philosophy can frame how to approach Christianity but would offer little on how to discuss the details of the story, or how they impact cultures 2000 years later. You would need to have read the book and have experience the future culture to have that discussion.
But yeah, much of philosophy is intellectual self indulgence. Which is exactly why I don’t know if It’s worth reading. There are a limited number of days in my life and reading this just to say I read it isn’t that interesting to me. I want to read it and get something out of it that I can’t just get out of a summary which seems unlikely.
Yeah I listened to audio recordings of it while at work and I quickly realized it’s not something you can read while doing other things. Yeah I read somewhere that you need a notepad to get through it. Sounds more like math. I already have math stuff to do though so I don’t know if I have the attention span for even more of that.
Perfect. Exactly what I wanted.
Hah, well, I just got done reading Marcus Aurelius and the “Don’t worry about anything, you’ll be dead soon anyway.” approach to life resonated pretty strongly. I would like to be an effective part of society but, I have few practical skills to further human industriousness or well being, so I’m left with the pious modest approach of dying quickly to make space for others.
Is Heidegger bad because he’s dry or because he’s wrong?
Yeah I was looking at Hume. I worked through a few enlightenment writers and he’s still on my list. I will go with him next.
Do you have a philosophy education or did you just read these for fun?
The point of philosophy is the development of ideas; which means also the development of subjectivity, of that which is made of, for and by ideas and which also makes and uses ideas. An “idea” is only a quantum of reality reflected cognitively-emotively within a consciousness-subjectivity. Even bad or false ideas have roots in reality and truth.
If the point is to progress one’s psyche and understanding or “consciousness” as far as possible toward the depths and the heights, toward truth and the most comprehensive and accurate view, and this is the point of it, then there is no use disregarding someone like Kant simply because his work is dense, he invents his own terms and he is concerned with the development of concepts as such and for their own sake— this is proper philosophical work. Refusing such work only means one is a scientist and not a philosopher, i.e. is concerned with limited-concrete measurables and not with truth as such.
So called “self-indulgent” philosophy can be either better or worse, and is not categorically erroneous or without value. You should read in Kant someone trying to push to the highest possible purview in his mind, to push ideation and understanding to their peak. This is what a real philosopher does, e.g. Nietzsche or Deleuze, and the effort can only be judged circumstantially and ethically in the moment embedded to that effort and act itself. Which would require first and also that the one doing the evaluating also be of the same ethos and capable of the sincere effort and act, which is philosophy; but sadly many/most philosophers and thinkers aren’t at that point, and merely circle around between their own psychological-pathological illusions and the small games of the empiricists, positivists and moralists.
If you believe a bad or false idea has roots in reality and truth then you should admit that they are just as useless as the hypothetical bad or false idea rooted in untruths and fantasy.
We have a limited number of years on this earth. Even if the purpose is to progress one’s psyche and understanding as far as possible, reading frivolous and unproductive texts would do less towards that goal than reading something useful and true.
Philosophers used to be scientists. They are trying to carve out a niche outside of science because they’ve failed to keep up. When science answers everything philosophy will be a toy or an art piece people use to impress friends with and interpret using tradition rather than direct emotions. It’ll be a Jackson Pollock painting that most people see as paint splatter but everyone pretentiously interprets as a study on color and composition, or rebellion against tradition. This is a lot like Nietzsche who appeared more interested in padding his books with self congratulations than actually making points. Not to say that Nietzsche doesn’t have his place but I’m interested in jamming as much useful shit into my head as possible so I can do as many useful things as possible. If I can get Kant in my head in 30 minutes instead of 30 hours I would prefer that for the same reason Nietzsche’s self praise is boring / annoying, and for the same reason learning to paint like Pollock won’t open the doors to be able to paint like Michelangelo.
They’re not direct responses, all from the 20th Century, and they are coming from very different basic positions. If you want context, I’d suggest Hume’s Enquiries - he’s very readable (although not easy) and despite the scepticism of his outlook, not bleak. If you read that and understand the basic arguments, you’ll know better what it is that Kant is trying to do with his Critique.