Kant and his theories

[Primo]

Well, I have to make a presentation about Kant in 2 weeks. I have gathered enough Informations about Kant as a person, but I still have no idea about his actual philosophies. The teacher gave me a few sites about them, but they are that complicated (and often based on other theories I donīt know) that I understood nothing.

The only thing I really know is that he thinks we canīt use reason in metaphysics, but I donīt know why.

So I would be more than happy if someone could explain them (please easy ) to me.

Greetings,

NM

[Himster]

I've only studied Kant's work on aesthetics, but from what I can gather he makes a distinction between "common sense", which is used to judge beauty and morals and logic/reason. He admits that logic and reason are used in the judgement but the judgment is not a cognitive judgment and is consequently not logical. A pure judgement of taste is in fact subjective insofar as it refers to the emotional response of the subject and is based upon nothing but esteem for an object itself: it is a disinterested pleasure, and we feel that pure judgements of taste, i.e. judgements of beauty, lay claim to universal validity. It is important to note that this universal validity is not derived from a determinate concept of beauty but from common sense. Kant also believed that a judgement of taste shares characteristics engaged in a moral judgement: both are disinterested, and we hold them to be universal.

[AdamWeishaupt]

The only thing I really know is that he thinks we canīt use reason in metaphysics, but I donīt know why.

Well, this is not entirely correct. Kant says we can't use reason in Metaphysics as philosophers of Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Wolff etc.) have done. Kant dissolves also Metaphysics as a system of all sciences (e.g. Wolff), instead he opts for having Sciences and Metaphysics as exposed to distinguished critical questions. What can we know is the basic critical question of the theory of knowledge. What can we believe would be the pendant in Metaphysics.

A practical approach to Kant can be found if you go through the indices of editions of his books and have a look on his definitions and terminology. This is what I am doing when I try to find to understand what he says in relation to a specific problem, normally.

A good and easy to understand text by Kant that one should have read at least once a life has the title:

Answering the question: What is Enlightment?
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html

There you'll also find the programatic expression: Sapere aude! (Dare to know!)

[godol shmok]

Well, this is not entirely correct. Kant says we can't use reason in Metaphysics as philosophers of Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Wolff etc.) have done. Kant dissolves also Metaphysics as a system of all sciences (e.g. Wolff), instead he opts for having Sciences and Metaphysics as exposed to distinguished critical questions. What can we know is the basic critical question of the theory of knowledge. What can we believe would be the pendant in Metaphysics.

A practical approach to Kant can be found if you go through the indices of editions of his books and have a look on his definitions and terminology. This is what I am doing when I try to find to understand what he says in relation to a specific problem, normally.

A good and easy to understand text by Kant that one should have read at least once a life has the title:

Answering the question: What is Enlightment?
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html

There you'll also find the programatic expression: Sapere aude! (Dare to know!)

I would present and discuss "Answering the question: What is Enlightment?" in class. He would have to treat otherwise a lot terms and definitions that require a lot of preparation and reading.

Indeed Kant's critic of Metaphysics means among others a critic on the idea of the unity of sciences in the sense of Rationalism, e.g. Wolff.


======================================================================================
If you want to have it simple, you can bring face to face the rationalistic Metaphysic and Kant's critical philosophy the following way:

Rationalism (Science and Metaphysics)

Knowledge can be presented in a system of sentences. All these sentences together form a unity, e.g. the unity of spreadsheet. The unity is called Metaphysics.

Kant's Critic (Knowledge and Speculation):

Before we can lay down the knowlege of sciences in a system of sentences, we need to know what we can know and what belongs as true knowledge in the system and what does not belong in because it is speculation.

[Denny Crane!]

It is always worth mentioning that Kant felt the need to divide up his focus on metaphysics between the normal realms and the unknowables like God and the Universe.

[AdamWeishaupt]

It is always worth mentioning that Kant felt the need to divide up his focus on metaphysics between the normal realms and the unknowables like God and the Universe.

I think so. Kant questions among others the schematic understanding of rationalistic science that did in his understanding not lay enough weight on experience. One may say instead of metaphysics, knowledge in form of spread sheets or hierarchic trees. Metaphysics in the sense of final questions, apeira, or even the idea of a possible future universal theory of science had been seen as possible forms of metaphysics including mathematics which already contains elements of metaphysics for Kant. The three Critics offer various passages about metaphysical problems. In short Kant was not against metaphysics but against the belief that dogmatic systems, that lack a critical reflection on their criteria and a backing in experience, could be a kind of science.

[VALIS]

He's most known for being a referee between empiricism and rationalism and synthesising the two viewpoints into a prior and a posteriori knowledge. (his biggest and most important contribution imo)
He's also known for his synthetic/analyctic distinction.
Also known for his transcedental idealism which states that we can never know the outside world and that our senses can not be telling (wrong word) us the truth of the actual physical universe. Therefore what we see is simply an interpretation of the world.
And finally he's known for his ethical code of deontology and the moral imperative.

Justice + Mercy incoming in 3.....2......1.....

[Justice and Mercy]

Justice + Mercy incoming in 3.....2......1.....

Tah-duh!

He's most known for being a referee between empiricism and rationalism and synthesising the two viewpoints into a prior and a posteriori knowledge. (his biggest and most important contribution imo)

If he was a "referee" he was bought. Either knowledge is sense data organized in some manner, or it is not. Excluded Middle.

He was a crafty rationalist. A Cartesian with a twist.

[VALIS]

Tah-duh!



If he was a "referee" he was bought. Either knowledge is sense data organized in some manner, or it is not. Excluded Middle.

He was a crafty rationalist. A Cartesian with a twist.

How would you counter the developments in science such as in neuroscience and linguistics that goes against your (Ayn Rands) belief in the tabula rasa?

[Justice and Mercy]

How would you counter the developments in science such as in neuroscience and linguistics that goes against your (Ayn Rands) belief in the tabula rasa?

I don't "counter" imaginary developments.

[VALIS]

Great answer. Not.

[Justice and Mercy]

Great answer. Not.

It's obviously an invitation to point out these "developments."

[Blau&Gruen]

The clip gives a good and comprehensive overview. So maybe at the end the critic of metaphysics came a bit short and it may have made sense to put it in its historical and institutional context because then one understands better why the presentation states in its title "The Great Synthesizer" and where the challenge laid for someone who had to read and explain in front of an audience the well laid out school book philosophers of his days (e.g. Christan Wolff). Btw. Foucault The Order of Things would be an interesting lecture on this background, although not directly refering to the philosophy in Prussia.

[Marechal Ney]

Can this be turned into a Kant debate thread? I'm itching to pull out my newest round of Deontology bashing...

[Primo]

Can this be turned into a Kant debate thread? I'm itching to pull out my newest round of Deontology bashing...

What do you want to debatte? I mean, I am still working on the understanding part, so donīt really expect me to debate, but there are others here who would.

[Blau&Gruen]

What do you want to debatte? I mean, I am still working on the understanding part, so donīt really expect me to debate, but there are others here who would.

Take the text AdamWeishaupt has proposed to you. It's simple but essential. The theoretical texts are rather complicate to start with.

Proposal by AdamWeishaput:
Answering the question: What is Enlightment?
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html

[Primo]

Take the text AdamWeishaupt has proposed to you. It's simple but essential. The theoretical texts are rather complicate to start with.

Proposal by AdamWeishaput:
Answering the question: What is Enlightment?
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html

I have read it. I have yet to understand it.

[Blau&Gruen]

I have read it. I have yet to understand it.

No problem, feel free to ask questions. I am certain several here can explain the points that are not yet clear to you.

[Denny Crane!]

I always found Kant needed a couple of readings, one doesn't suffice. So I wouldn't worry if you didn't really understand it first time through that wouldn't be unusual though he isn't as bad as some other writers (a peculiarity of german writing in particular I feel) who can need a much more thorough and focused read because of their obscurity of language and presentation of concepts wrapped up in it.

This is a good read if taken in context with the time he was reading it if a touch idealistic on Kants part and his faith in humanities pursuit of intellectualism unfettered by constraining forces. I've always thought it was somewhat of a precursor to the existentialist idea of authenticity incidentally.

Have you read much in the way of philosophical works before NM?

[SigniferOne]

Kant is not a great synthesizer of empiricism and rationalism. That is a great myth, perpetuated by I don't know whom. Kant is a rationalist, who made room for empiricism in -- a 100%-deluded world of phenomena. How does that make him someone who "synthesized" rationalism with empiricism? His true world is still the world of the noumena, of ideas, abstractions, forever unreachable through the process of synthetic-apriori scientific investigation.