I’m reading through Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and I’m about to give up on it. I can’t read it! I have to read each section several times over in order to understand what he’s talking about. I’m wondering if anyone’s ever written a modern translation of Kant’s writings that makes sense to an average guy like me - something in “plain English”.
unfortunately, that’s kant…
-Imp
So why not pick up a “beginners” book to guide you through? There are lots of them.
That’s exactly what I’m looking for. I was hoping someone would drop a name or a book title or something.
Kant is a bit of a dry read indeed…but I still love him!
Don’t give up! Make no mistake: Kant’s difficult, especially at first.
There’s two tacks you can take towards a deeper understanding of Kant. The first is his metaphysics. He is known for critiquing utilitarianism for what he calls ‘transcendental idealism’, and once you can explain what that means, you’ve more or less got the gist. It goes deeper, but it’s a start. In terms of reading Kant for metaphysics, I recommend Alice Henry’s Kant’s Theory of Freedom (1990, Cambridge U.P.) and Ellington’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1975, Hackett.)
The second ‘tack’ towards getting at Kant’s deeper meaning is his ethical theory. Once you understand that Kant is doing a ‘metaphysics of morality’ (and what that would mean!) you will find his work immediately becomes much clearer. On this, Roger Sullivan’s work Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory (1989, Cambridge) is inimitable and engaging. You might also try Barbara Herman’s witty and delightful text The Practice of Moral Judgment (1993, Harvard U.P.)
Check out “Kant A Very Short Introduction” by Roger Scruton. Oxford press. isbn 0-19-280199-6
It’s not very short. But it is quite thorough. There’s a whole series of very short introduction books like this one that are quite nice.
Also, you can get adobe reader on your comp to read stuff out loud to you. You may find that listening and reading at the same time helps. Also, if you’re not familiar with Kant, you may not want to start off w/ the critique. Try the prolegomena to any future metaphysics, or the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. They’re a bit less abstract and can lead you into his line of thinking if you’re still interested in the Critique.
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!
I’ll be damned! Really?!
You could try reading Schopenhauer to understand Kant, that’s how I came to understand him, (well some of him anyway). Schopenhauer uses a lot of Kant’s ideas, especially the distinction between the world of phenomena and the world of noumena.
do you want to read and understand kant or do you want to read and understand thus and so’s opinion of kant? there is a huge difference…
-Imp
Well, given that the first option is not much of an option for me, I think I’ll settle for the latter.
I didn’t know that! I activated the reading mode and Steven Hawking began reading to me in his soft gentle voice! HA HA HA! It was awesome!
Kant is almost as bad as Hegel, and suffice to say that doesn’t say much other than they are both REALLY bad.
As for Kant, you may find the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics a little more accessible.
Hegel is worse because he drones on about gibberish, while Kant doesn’t.

I’m reading through Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and I’m about to give up on it. I can’t read it! I have to read each section several times over in order to understand what he’s talking about. I’m wondering if anyone’s ever written a modern translation of Kant’s writings that makes sense to an average guy like me - something in “plain English”.
I have never tried to read Kant. My theory is that a writer’s intelligibility is directly proportional to their understanding. Judging by the comments your time would be spent more profitably by putting “can’t read Kant” on T-shirts and selling them. It sounds like a real money maker to me.
What? There is no idiot’s guide to Kant? I can read him, but I don’t appreciate most of what he says. If you read him without understanding him, you will probably have a more favorable idea of what he wrote than I have. This is not a matter of prejudice on my part. Anyone who writes page and a half paragraphs expecting readers to sort out multiple premises, tangential considerations and still follow a logical? argument, simply can’t write so as to be understood and is writing only to solve contradictions emerging in his own worldview. Kant has done more to retain concepts of religious absolutisms in the teeth of empirical science than he has to provide a critique of “pure” reason. I agree with Nietzsche on this. Kant suffered from costipation. So did his writings.

What? There is no idiot’s guide to Kant? I can read him, but I don’t appreciate most of what he says. If you read him without understanding him, you will probably have a more favorable idea of what he wrote than I have. This is not a matter of prejudice on my part. Anyone who writes page and a half paragraphs expecting readers to sort out multiple premises, tangential considerations and still follow a logical? argument, simply can’t write so as to be understood and is writing only to solve contradictions emerging in his own worldview. Kant has done more to retain concepts of religious absolutisms in the teeth of empirical science than he has to provide a critique of “pure” reason. I agree with Nietzsche on this. Kant suffered from costipation. So did his writings.
Technically speaking, Kant’s aversion to positing his ideas clearly is indicative of his talents as a writer. In the system of the German university, one wasn’t considered a respectable academic unless there were commentaries published deciphering one’s work. Not to take away from Kant, but the whole of his work was him trying to conform with the system that was in vogue in Germany at the time. It would have been a lot easier for him (and certainly easier for all of us,) if he had written in a simpler format.

Technically speaking, Kant’s aversion to positing his ideas clearly is indicative of his talents as a writer. In the system of the German university, one wasn’t considered a respectable academic unless there were commentaries published deciphering one’s work. Not to take away from Kant, but the whole of his work was him trying to conform with the system that was in vogue in Germany at the time. It would have been a lot easier for him (and certainly easier for all of us,) if he had written in a simpler format.
This explanation makes Kant a vain fool even less worthy of reading. It could have only been thought up by a publicist.
Kant bored me to death, with his style.
Seriously, why should I study a philosopher who attempts to reconcile religion with science when no such dichotomy exists, whose moral mandate is just a revision of the golden rule, whose concept of transcendence is expressed better by Emerson with Eastern philosophic influences. Nietzsche really did a credible debunking of Kant’s ideas.
Read Kant, however, with an open mind, and see how much of what he has to say has any significance at all for anyone living in the 21st century.
IMHO, he is a historical artifact, wedged in between philosophies of absolutism and those of relativism.