Printable View
I really wish I could read Critique of Pure Reason,,, I tried it two years ago but had to put down because of its archaic language... Now I wanna try again. Should I familiarize with his concept before reading it right away? Or any other useful advice?
It definitely might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the basics of Kant's arguments beforehand... I say this not having read Kant, but because I've found it generally helpful to familiarize myself with the ideas of philosophers before reading them. It just leaves you less to be confused about. Regarding archaic language, are you reading it in German? If not, there are plenty of modern language translations out there. If you do read it in translation, a good idea is to pick up at least two versions of it; sample them both, read the one that's more reader-friendly, and when you come to difficult passages, compare both translations to get a better idea. IIIRC, the Cambridge Edition is also supposed to have a lot of useful footnotes & endnotes. There are also a lot of scholarly works out there on the Critique itself that may be helpful.
MorpheusSandman,
I am not reading in German... Reading in English is quite confusing too. Well I guess I should try two different versions.
It may be helpful to start with "easier" works first - e.g. "An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?" or "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals".
It's probably recommended to start with Prolegomena if you haven't read that already.
I found Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals a good intro to his philosophy and a much easier read than the Critique.
I would expect people to end, not to start with Kant.
It's not archaic language. It's technical language. Kant's terms are specific to his philosophy. Before you read Kant, it's advised that you become familiar with modern philosophy starting with Descartes and until Hume (because a lot of Kant's work draws from Hume).
The Prolegomena is essentially the First Critique told backwards and is much easier to read.
J
Ya, it's his jargon and concepts that can be difficult to follow. Definitely would not recommend reading his work until you have ALOT of other's in the old memory bank.
Descartes used his fame as a mathematician to try to trick into stupidity. Berkeley asked a stupid question to answer it even more stupidly. Kant never stood a chance to be a good thinker. He was very retarded in trying to bring back Platonic and Aristotelian farts. A lot that might have been said about the subject was said by Hume.
So a philosopher who single-handedly shaped a moment in collective intellectual history, whose work has endured into even contemporary thought, wasn't a good thinker by Mr. Folini's standards. That's a very pragmatic dismissal, Mr. Folini. Are you sure you're Italian, and not American?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
J
Sorry but Kant did not shape anything of importance at all. The idea that he did is Roman Catholic idiocy. I always give conclusions which in time you'll finally grasp, so as not to get entangled with the blah-blah. I think you misspelled my forum name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
You can keep 'em if you want, Mr. Folini. Heaven knows we've got all the conclusions/insight we could ever want-- dripping from our ears like our heads were so full of wisdom we could hardly even stand it. And yet the toilets continue to flush. Or, in your words, LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
J
To be honest there is a reason philosophy is terribly academic: A lot of people read Kant, Hegel, etc. but without some guidance it is easy to blast through the book without really understanding anything (or at the very least totally missing the nuances).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobeornotobe
So I suggest you read and follow along with one of these classes (because I am a new user it won't allow me to give you the urls):
Bernstein at The New School
Leo Strauss
The Oxford General Overview
I also think at following any Leo Strauss lecture is worth it as a philosophical experience in and of itself, if you are interested in Political Philosophy.
Many people precipitated the downfall of philo-sophy. Some important ones: Seneca, Gracian, Quevedo, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein (when he recanted). Kant utterly stupid. Even Locke with his dumb tabula rasa was better.