Critique of Pure Reason - Immanuel Kant

[CosmicJoghurt]

Hey there.

So I went to my local library and got myself a big and fat copy of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

I'll be reading it these holidays, and I'd like some insight on.. well... how TO read it.

Considering I haven't read anything by Kant so far, what should I expect? Anything I need to know about him or his ideas before I read the book?

Funny thing.... this is the first book I read on anything philosophy/science related. Quite a lot of material to devour.


Cheers!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You're going to want to start at the beginning of the book, and work one page at a time towards the end of the book.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

You're going to want to start at the beginning of the book, and work one page at a time towards the end of the book.

Where in the hell did you get that idea? Fuck, I've been doing this shit backwards all my life.









Now seriously you know what I meant.

 

[Dean]

[ ... ] Considering I haven't read anything by Kant so far, what should I expect? Anything I need to know about him or his ideas before I read the book?[ ... ]

Kant was the forbearer of a position called Transcendental Idealism. To be honest, I personally cannot really see how classical Kantian Idealism is really so different from traditional brain-mediated materialism. In fact, I would go so far as to affirm that it is a species of materialism, or vice versa.

Essentially, he laid out the fact that we sense a spatiotemporal world imbued with Qualia, e.g. everything we apprehend is through qualia, as I believe, etc. He pointed out that these quales exist only in our minds rather than in the objects themselves. But Kant went further. In his theory, even spacetime causality, and such like -- are projections of the mind. Basically, the idea was that human consciousness was merely an immanent representation of a more ultimate reality.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism split into 2 branches following his death. There was the advance of Schopenhauer's idealism, and also Hegel's. In fact, Hegelian Idealism was so popular in philosophical thought at the time, that it came to be known as "The GERMAN Ideology". I recommend at least reading the first few volumes of Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" for a more firm grasp of such concepts.

^^ That's a very brief attempt to explain a whole tradition of philosophical thought. To be honest, I found that Kant didn't really expand on his notions of idealism very much in his "Critique Of Pure Reason". But then that's not what it was about. It was more to do with laying out a theory of knowledge based more heavily on Empiricism than other traditions of thought (e.g. Descartes' Rationalism). In other words, it was about developing empirically based epistemological theories, rather than PURE reason-based ones.

.... did this help in any sort of way.... at all?

 

[Laurens]

Personally I'd choose a science book over a philosophy one any day

 

[Dean]

Personally I'd choose a science book over a philosophy one any day

I'll bite ...

Scientific modes of inquiry ARE part of philosophy, and the term "science" wasn't even used to describe what we would now consider to be "scientists" until fairly recently. Newton chose the term "natural philosopher". And so on.

I cannot see how the nature of science in any way denigrates the value of philosophy. I tend to think that the natural sciences coupled with philosophy, is a reliable way to arrive at the most probable truth. Makes me wonder about how Hawking proclaimed that "Philosophy is dead" in his book "The Grand Design", because in my opinion, whether or not that statement was meant to be taken literally, it was a stupid thing to say.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps it IS the case that one of the world's foremost scientists is so ignorant of the nature of philosophy that he doesn't realize that he is engaged in it himself. But I doubt it ... And just as an aside, I don't know if you think in this way as well, but I find that philosophical prescriptions are necessary to have a fuller understanding of science. I.e., the way you colour your scientific paradigm is obviously going to influence the way you view evidence.

 

[Laurens]

Personally I'd choose a science book over a philosophy one any day

I'll bite ...

Scientific modes of inquiry ARE part of philosophy, and the term "science" wasn't even used to describe what we would now consider to be "scientists" until fairly recently. Newton chose the term "natural philosopher". And so on.

I cannot see how the nature of science in any way denigrates the value of philosophy. I tend to think that the natural sciences coupled with philosophy, is a reliable way to arrive at the most probable truth. Makes me wonder about how Hawking proclaimed that "Philosophy is dead" in his book "The Grand Design", because in my opinion, whether or not that statement was meant to be taken literally, it was a stupid thing to say.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps it IS the case that one of the world's foremost scientists is so ignorant of the nature of philosophy that he doesn't realize that he is engaged in it himself. But I doubt it ... And just as an aside, I don't know if you think in this way as well, but I find that philosophical prescriptions are necessary to have a fuller understanding of science. I.e., the way you colour your scientific paradigm is obviously going to influence the way you view evidence.

I don't actually have much of a problem with philosophy, I actually find it interesting sometimes. Its not really a topic I'd like to read lengthy tomes on though. I'd much rather read about Biology or Physics.

I do have an issue with some of the pointless things that philosophers like to enter into lengthy discussions about. 'How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat?' and such. Those kind of discussions are completely meaningless to me, and I get annoyed with people who think it is somehow extremely profound to bring it up pointless questions all the time.

 

[Dean]

[ ... ] I don't actually have much of a problem with philosophy, I actually find it interesting sometimes. Its not really a topic I'd like to read lengthy tomes on though. I'd much rather read about Biology or Physics.

I do have an issue with some of the pointless things that philosophers like to enter into lengthy discussions about. 'How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat?' and such. Those kind of discussions are completely meaningless to me, and I get annoyed with people who think it is somehow extremely profound to bring it up pointless questions all the time.

Me too, actually. Although I've obviously read books on both. Have you read "The Extended Phenotype"?

By the way, I don't think you really understand what the so-called "brain in a vat" dilemma is about. You are right in saying that it is pointless. But that IS the point. It's meant to "make you think", so to speak. Basically, it's just an exercise in philosophy in which one states the fact that, really, we cannot actually prove that anything we experience exists. We are all trapped in our own minds. However, if we do not make the extremely basic assumption that the world around us actually exists, then we have nothing to work with, and thus, science would be pretty useless.

That's what that supposed "dilemma" is meant to be about. It's just there to make a point, and it is not something that's really meant to be discussed at length. So I hope that helps clear things up. Something to contemplate: as Russell observed, there's no way of telling, nor does it matter, whether the world with all its content and history came into being a moment ago or endured over time.

 

[Laurens]

Me too, actually. Although I've obviously read books on both. Have you read "The Extended Phenotype"?

By the way, I don't think you really understand what the so-called "brain in a vat" dilemma is about. You are right in saying that it is pointless. But that IS the point. It's meant to "make you think", so to speak. Basically, it's just an exercise in philosophy in which one states the fact that, really, we cannot actually prove that anything we experience exists. We are all trapped in our own minds. However, if we do not make the extremely basic assumption that the world around us actually exists, then we have nothing to work with, and thus, science would be pretty useless.

That's what that supposed "dilemma" is meant to be about. It's just there to make a point, and it is not something that's really meant to be discussed at length. So I hope that helps clear things up. Something to contemplate: as Russell observed, there's no way of telling, nor does it matter, whether the world with all its content and history came into being a moment ago or endured over time.

I haven't read that yet, no. I have got through most of Dawkins' books this year, that is one of a couple I've yet to read.

I understand that, I just think you could go on along the same lines for hours. How do I know I'm not actually an alien dreaming...? How do I know that the universe isn't a computer simulation created 5 seconds ago with false memories in all of our heads...? I can see the point that it is trying to get at, I just don't think it's a very profound or useful thing to think about, or to base one's world view upon. And it especially annoys me when people try to use it to refute science.

I think its a necessary and reasonable assumption to make that the external world is real, once you make that assumption then you can start to have interesting discussions. My personal view is that philosophy and science should compliment each other, but there are a lot of people who try to drive them apart for various reasons.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

@Dean

That WAS helpful, don't worry. Hopefully tomorrow night I'll have time to start reading it... for now... CHRISTMAS!

Thanks for the insight.

@Laurens

Unfortunately that discussion about the "brain in a vat" is what I see a lot of people near me come up with sometimes... How profound of a question... How deep of a meaning...




(not)