Dear All,
I come from an Engineering background but I was always passionate in Art/Humanities. Over the past few year due to several episodes of existential crisis and one case burnout I've found myself drawn more and more into philosophy. Now I know what you're going to say, that philosophy won't make my problems go away or give me answers ... and I know all that. I just enjoy reading and learning again, even so that I might change my field so that there's some inter-disciplinary Research or do a PhD or whatever.
So I've started reading. I did Aristotles' physics and Nicomachean Ethics; which was surprisingly nice. I briefly went through the history of the classics with Copleston's "A History of Philosophy". I went through Descartes' meditations, Summaries on hobbs and Bacon; which were easy. Spinoza's Ethics was .... difficult but I managed somehow and I went through lock and Leibniz's sections in Russel's HoP. Now I've arrived at Kant, specifically the critique of pure reason; which is by far the most difficult text I've ever read.
Let's get to the point, I don't think I can get through Kant by my own and I need help. Some annoying Phil Grad told me the best method is to just go throught the book itself, which might've been helpful for him but not for me, a person that isn't academically trained in philosophy.
My Question is, what is your recommending for secondary literature to be read alongside CoPR and Kant's further works ? I don't need any simplifications but as mapping the ideas in Kant's writings is very difficult, I would love it if there was some book out there that broke down in detail everything Kant says in each clause of each chapter of CoPR and how it relates to each other. If that's too much to ask, an in detail analysis would be very helpful.
Thanx and sorry for the wall of text.
What are the most important texts that inform kant's work, preferably in order of priority. Are there any pre-modern philosophers that it's important to have read first?
I went through a sweep of the western tradition leading up to Kant — reading a lot of the primary literature — I don't know what to read now since my goal was to read Kant's critique. I'd like to either continue historically from Kant or, read what advancements were made in epistemology since Kant. Any suggestions?
These two things are not same, or he wouldn't use two words for them. However, they are extremely similar. Can you elucidate the precise difference and meaning of these terms?
In any case, Kant has a passage that seems to use the two terms somewhat interchangeably:
"Intuition and concepts, therefore, constitute the elements of all our cognition, so that neither concepts without intuition corresponding to them in some way nor intuition without concepts can yield a cognition. Both are either pure or empirical. Empirical, if sensation (which presupposes the actual presence of the object) is contained therein; but pure if no sensation is mixed into the representation. One can call the latter the matter of sensible cognition. Thus, pure intuition contains merely the form under which something is intuited, and pure concept only the form of thinking of an object in general. Only pure intuitions or concepts alone are possible a priori, empirical ones only a posterior. If we will call the receptivity of our mind to receive representations insofar as it is affected in some way sensibility, then on the contrary the faculty for bringing forth representations itself, or the spontaneity of cognition, is the understanding. It comes along with our nature that intuition can never be other than sensible, i.e., that it contains only the way in which we are affected by objects. The faculty for thinking of objects of sensible intuition, on the contrary, is the understanding." (B 75-76)
As I can see in some scientific literature, the relationship is not altogether clear. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2217756. I tried to search on this sub and on the web, but nothing explicitly discussed this, as far as I could see.
Questions about this section. Page numbers are from Guyer/Wood translation. - 3. Do we agree on what Kant means by "schema"? Scott suggested a form of templating , i.e., schemas enable us to represent shapes like circles, triangles, lines, etc. What is the relationship between this patterning and the categories?
The part I am confused about is in bold.
Now these sciences, if they can be termed rational at all, must contain elements of à priori cognition, and this cognition may stand in a twofold relation to its object. Either it may have to determine the conception of the object—which must be supplied extraneously, or it may have to establish its reality. The former is theoretical, the latter practical, rational cognition. In both, the pure or à priori element must be treated first, and must be carefully distinguished from that which is supplied from other sources. Any other method can only lead to irremediable confusion.
I mean I majored in computer science, so I do have some training in logic and being able to think of abstract concepts.
I've read the first two sections of Critique of Pure Reason, "I. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge" and "II. The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State, is in Possession of Certain Cognitions “à priori” and I seem to understand what the text saying so far.
Does this mean I should be able to read the entire thing? If not, then what would I need to do to get good enough to read Kant? Thanks.
I’m currently in the brainstorming phase for my undergraduate honor’s thesis in cognitive psychology. I have a reasonable background in philosophy, as it is a passion of mine (I’ve taken nearly as many philosophy courses as psychology courses). My work is of course deeply related to the nature of the mind and cognition, so I am getting the sense that I ought to read some Kant to help guide my understanding of these matters from a less purely scientific and more abstract point of view.
My first question is, how familiar do I need to be with Hume to engage with Kant? Hume’s causality is still puzzling to me after engaging with his work several times.
Second, is there any particular version of Critique of Pure reason that I should read? If so, why?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
“For the propositions which assert that equals added to—or subtracted from—equals yields equals are analytic propositions, inasmuch as I am directly conscious of the identity of the one magnitude’s productions with the other magnitude’s production.”
Equals added to/subtracted from equals yields equals? Someone explain please.
An online reading group at the Toronto Philosophy Meetup will be conducting a SLOW, careful reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason starting May 23!
You can sign up here - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/
Here is a bit more info, but see above link for complete details:
>"Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason! We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
>
>We are aiming for a balance between two things:
>
>On the one hand, this group will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at what Kant is saying.
>
>So if you are a beginner at studying Kant, yet want to work hard at understanding him, this is absolutely the right Meetup for you. Of course we also hope to get many people who have a lot of familiarity and expertise with the Critique of Pure Reason and want to work hard at understanding it even better. This is absolutely the right Meetup for Kant veterans as well."
To read for first meeting — Prefaces A and B (1st and 2nd edition prefaces) from the Guyer translation of Critique of Pure Reason.
https://preview.redd.it/qirbarwnw5v61.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=d28bdd956f876965abefdec2f28cba70c5aff005
Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group, a SLOW reading and careful study of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason!
RSVP in advance for the Sunday, Aug. 1 session here - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/279555994/
[See the write-up for the first session for an introduction to this reading group: https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/]
SESSION 6 READING. Sorry I lost track of time in our last session. I take that as a sign of a good discussion when you lose track of time. So you really don’t want to miss the next meeting where we will discuss Allison’s 19 page intro in his book (see Amazon link below) as well as the flip side of the Transcendental Aesthetics.
I know people always bought the record for the A side single, but in Kant’s case, his second edition is an improved explanation of time and space (fingers crossed). So also read in the Critique, pages 172-178, which will cover the second edition explanation of space. We’ll save the second edition explanation of time for the following meetup.
For Allison’s book: Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense (Second Edition) by Henry E. Allison
Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/Kants-Transcendental-Idealism-Interpretation-Enlarged/dp/0300102666/
US: https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Transcendental-Idealism-Interpretation-Defense/dp/0300102666/
https://preview.redd.it/9vyguh9ea2c71.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b941df7bdebedf988d46039824cd32c2b08745e9
About this Kant reading group:
We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
We are aiming for a balance between two things:
On the one hand, this Meetup will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason!
RSVP in advance for the July 18 session here - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/279262942/
[See the write-up for the first session for an introduction to this reading group: https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/]
If you were unable to attend the last session, you missed out on learning about the spirituality of eating Mt. Everest and the Theory of the Transcendental Lunch. But don’t worry, join us for Session 5 and learn why Aristotle is so important to understanding Kant and maybe Philip will share with us his recipe for barbecuing the Number 7. . . . oh, and we’ll probably also say a few things about time.
READING FOR SESSION 5 - We will finish the intro to Transcendental Aesthetics A, specifically the concluding section on Time, pp 162-171, paras A30-A49.
***
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR UPCOMING MEETING
- What from this reading gives you the most trouble or which you feel requires further clarification?
- First sentence of the reading: “Time is not an empirical concept. . . “. Well why the heck not?
- 162/A47: “Time is a necessary representation that grounds all intuition.” There’s that word “representation” again. What does the word mean in this context?
- And why/how does time ground our intuition? Assuming we understand what he means by “intuition.”
- The third point of Para A31 says that time also grounds the axioms of time, which I assume means that the concept (representation?) of time is given first before we derive axioms therefrom, but can we come up with some examples of said axioms?
- A32: “Time is not discursive or, as one calls it, general concept. . .” What does “discursive” mean here?
- And why are general concepts anathema to Kant?
- “. . . but a pure form of sensible intuition.” And here we go again with purity. Is there an impure from of sensible intuition?
- 163/A32: “The infinitude of time signifies nothing more than that every determinate magnitude of time is only possible through limitations of a single time grounding it.” Can someone make this plain language a little plainer?
- 162/A31: “. . . one cannot remove time, though one can very well take the appearances away from time.” How does one do that
What would be the best section-by-section reading guide to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason today? Something similar to Peter Kalkavage's guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit?
I myself read the Critique about four years ago with Robert Wolff's YouTube lectures and a couple other commentaries which weren't as helpful as Kalkavage did when I was reading Hegel. So I am wondering if there has been a more comprehensive commentary published in the last few years. (And I have doubts about the Norman Kemp Smith commentary for a first time reader as it veers off too frequently from the text.)
This is for a friend who has no access to seminars/university and isn't too active on the internet.
Doesn’t Kant make logic almost useless by distinguishing between synthetic and analytic judgements? Who responded to this?
I run a philosophy book club with my friends that has spent the past year studying epistemological works such as Locke, Hume and now Kant. To be honest, we have never finished a book and usually stop once we feel like we have gotten what we needed to get from it. We stopped after book 1 of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature and tossed Locke into the trash after just a few weeks. We are currently plowing through the Critique of Pure reason and I think are nearing our stopping point at the Antimonies of Pure reason. The structure Kant built and needle he threaded through the first half of the book was brutally difficult to grasp but well worth the work. Everything after the Analogies of Experience and refutation of idealism has felt superficially easy but incredibly deep and complex as he grapples with specific arguments from his time.
So my question is, is it The Critique of Pure reason worth reading in its entirety? We already have Schopenhauer waiting on deck after six months of bloody battle with Kant I'm exhausted and ready to move on unless there are more diamonds tucked away in the second half of this monstrous tome.
I have read a fair amount of Plato and Aristotle and a few newer philosophers such as Nietzsche. I have not read any of Kant but German idealism is interesting to me, Soo is it possible to dive into this book with only a brief knowledge of its ideas from YouTube videos and online articles?
Hello, I am a college student who is interested in ethics. I am planning to study Kant's moral philosophy for my graduation thesis. I know that Kant focused on moral philosophy on other books (Critique of Practical Reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals). However, I thought I should read the "Critique of Pure Reason" first as it is Kant's most famous work. Nevertheless, while reading the Critique of Pure Reason, I felt that the content of the book is not necessary focused on ethics but rather epistemology. I am wondering whether I can understand the Kantian books that mainly deal with Kantian ethics before/without reading the Critique of Pure Reason. Any tips or suggestions are greatly appreciated!
I’m about 100 pages into the book and average (I’d guess) about 5-12 pages an hour (taking notes, stopping to think, rereading lines, etc.) I, have, thus far, understood everything I’ve read, but just wanted to know what to expect as I progress through the book. Also, does anyone have any tips regarding reading strategy and scheduling? Thanks in advance.
I'm struggling to grasp exactly what is entailed by Kant's critique of metaphysics--particularly the meaningfulness or lack-thereof of the philosophical and theological enterprises of, say, the medieval period, or even of Augustine, and so forth.
If I understand correctly, Kant's critique renders the project of natural theology unsuccessful--i.e. that we cannot reason about God's existence theoretically. Given that Kant's critique succeeds, if one assumes God's existence, under the Scholastic conception of God for example, can one still meaningfully reason about God within that metaphysical scheme and make meaningful theological statements stemming from and building upon these underpinning and assumed ideas about God?
Thanks.
Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
RSVP for the June 20 session here! - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/278666655/
We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
We are aiming for a balance between two things:
On the one hand, this Meetup will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at what Kant is saying.
So if you are a beginner at studying Kant, yet want to work hard at understanding him, this is absolutely the right Meetup for you. Of course we also hope to get many people who have a lot of familiarity and expertise with the Critique of Pure Reason and want to work hard at understanding it even better. This is absolutely the right Meetup for Kant veterans as well.
SESSION 3 READING - Introduction to second edition, Introduction B,” pp 136 - 152, (B1-B30)
Please follow link to RSVP and for more details —
https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/278666655/
https://preview.redd.it/dy63ocyzcw471.png?width=348&format=png&auto=webp&s=a8eef7099d9a9fccbbd2e4a1f8760d20813aa24b
An online reading group at the Toronto Philosophy Meetup will be conducting a SLOW, careful reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason starting May 23!
You can sign up here - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/
Here is a bit more info, but see above link for complete details:
>"Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason! We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
>
>We are aiming for a balance between two things:
>
>On the one hand, this group will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at what Kant is saying.
>
>So if you are a beginner at studying Kant, yet want to work hard at understanding him, this is absolutely the right Meetup for you. Of course we also hope to get many people who have a lot of familiarity and expertise with the Critique of Pure Reason and want to work hard at understanding it even better. This is absolutely the right Meetup for Kant veterans as well."
To read for first meeting — Prefaces A and B (1st and 2nd edition prefaces) from the Guyer translation of Critique of Pure Reason.
Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
RSVP for the July 4 session here! - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/278970358/
We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
We are aiming for a balance between two things:
On the one hand, this Meetup will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at what Kant is saying.
So if you are a beginner at studying Kant, yet want to work hard at understanding him, this is absolutely the right Meetup for you. Of course we also hope to get many people who have a lot of familiarity and expertise with the Critique of Pure Reason and want to work hard at understanding it even better. This is absolutely the right Meetup for Kant veterans as well.
SESSION 4 READING - We will start the first edition section on Transcendental Aesthetics, specifically the section on space. Please read pp 153-161 in Transcendental Aesthetics A section of the Critique
Please follow this link to RSVP and for more details —
https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/278666655/
https://preview.redd.it/s5pee1p2hw771.jpg?width=1066&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c403277f7f7c027c1f05d47921973c9c274e27a
An online reading group studying Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is meeting every Wednesday!
You can sign up here - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277601173/
Our next meeting will cover the Antinomies up through section IV.
If you haven't done the reading for each week, you are welcomed to join and listen in.
https://preview.redd.it/fpzket6bpqt61.jpg?width=1059&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e6fd16b7f99d906f3b5a45e756fefcd8f6b08f3
Hello and welcome to Gerry and Philip's reading group on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
RSVP for the June 6 session here! - https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/277446352/
We realize there are many other Meetups on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason out there. So what sets us apart?
We are aiming for a balance between two things:
On the one hand, this Meetup will be welcoming and accessible towards people who are absolute beginner's when it comes to studying the First Critique (which is another name for the Critique of Pure Reason). But on the other hand, we will be doing real Philosophy in this Meetup. The goal will be to achieve a real understanding and this will not be a place for mere chit chat. We will be digging deep and really trying to get at what Kant is saying.
So if you are a beginner at studying Kant, yet want to work hard at understanding him, this is absolutely the right Meetup for you. Of course we also hope to get many people who have a lot of familiarity and expertise with the Critique of Pure Reason and want to work hard at understanding it even better. This is absolutely the right Meetup for Kant veterans as well.
SESSION 2 READING - Introduction to first edition, “Introduction A,” pp 127 to 135, (A2-A16).
Please follow link to RSVP and for more details —
https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/events/278367477/
https://preview.redd.it/s4er5yfb2n271.jpg?width=1240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d28286e6fa53f0af018a21c948809abb1c1fc861
