Kant Debunked

@de Silentio,

For me it's a not a matter of debunked or not. To read Kant and contemplate his purpose is sublime. Of course he wasn't the end of the matter, but no one can be.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107248 wrote:

For me it's a not a matter of debunked or not. To read Kant and contemplate his purpose is sublime. Of course he wasn't the end of the matter, but no one can be.

Kant's prose has been called a number of things, but I don't remember "sublime" being among them. His purpose was to save philosophy from Hume's criticism. It is a matter of opinion whether that purpose was sublime. But to treat Kant as if he had written a novel is, I think, to treat him with disrespect and some contempt. He was doing philosophy, with all that entails.

@de Silentio,

Kant's writing is very technical, certainly not sublime unto itself. If anything is sublime about him it's the breadth and thoroughness of his system -- sort of the way Frank Herbert's Dune world was sublime and Tolkein's Middle Earth world was sublime -- because of the high degree of ingenuity and consistency. I'll grant Kant that, even though I've never found his ideas all that appealing.

@de Silentio,

Well, I'm sure he had his influences. But to elaborate on the concept of the "thing-in-itself" is a good example of what I mean by sublime. Though perhaps not sublime in Kant's sense.

Other philosophers implied such a thing. But I got my dose of the "thing-in-itself" from reading about Kant. (Eventually I read some of the man himself. Life is short. Kant is long-winded.) It opens to the mind the distance between itself and what it took for reality. And one then becomes conscious of the mind as the mind's mental model of itself.

And that's a mental-model that's never finished being edited...

@de Silentio,

Philosophy? Debunked? Hahaha. . .

@Ichthus91,

a priori intuitions - the form into which all other intuitions go. These a priori intuitions are space and time. Intuitions are in immediate relation to the objects themselves and are needed in order to even view the object. In essence, we see things in space and time, but nothing else. The interesting thing to point out is that since we view things in space and time, we view them only as appearances and not in themselves.

Kant also talks about the impossiblity of viewing objects in themselves if space and time were considered objective of things in themselves. (Critique A 47)

Space deals with outer sense.

Time deals with inner sense.

Kant is hard and also very long winded at times in his Critique. If you can deal with his long windedness and his diversion on arguments that would be used against him, you can definetly read this book. However, its probably best that anyone who reads the Critique read it more than once (Im on my second run through this bad boy).

oh and synthetic means combining a predicate that was originally not seen in the subject. a priori means prior to experience. So synthetic a priori means "combining a new predicate not seen in the object prior to experience."

Hope this helps.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;121757 wrote:

a priori intuitions - the form into which all other intuitions go. These a priori intuitions are space and time. Intuitions are in immediate relation to the objects themselves and are needed in order to even view the object. In essence, we see things in space and time, but nothing else. The interesting thing to point out is that since we view things in space and time, we view them only as appearances and not in themselves.

Kant also talks about the impossiblity of viewing objects in themselves if space and time were considered objective of things in themselves. (Critique A 47)

Space deals with outer sense.

Time deals with inner sense.

Kant is hard and also very long winded at times in his Critique. If you can deal with his long windedness and his diversion on arguments that would be used against him, you can definetly read this book. However, its probably best that anyone who reads the Critique read it more than once (Im on my second run through this bad boy).

oh and synthetic means combining a predicate that was originally not seen in the subject. a priori means prior to experience. So synthetic a priori means "combining a new predicate not seen in the object prior to experience."

Hope this helps.

It's better to read some secondary sources first, so you can know what is going on. The main theme of the book is Kant's question, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" When you know what Kant means by asking that question, and why he think the answer is "a matter of life and death for philosophy", you will get a handle on what the First Critique is all about.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121785 wrote:

It's better to read some secondary sources first, so you can know what is going on. The main theme of the book is Kant's question, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" When you know what Kant means by asking that question, and why he think the answer is "a matter of life and death for philosophy", you will get a handle on what the First Critique is all about.

I very much agree with you on reading secondary sources, especially if those sources are kants other works. Last time I checked I read grounding for the metaphysics of morals 4 times and his prolegomena 2 times. You definetly need to saturate yourself with Kants thinking. And also reading sources such as commentaries and introductions help. Regardless of all that though I dont think you could ever be sufficently prepared to read CPR. Its just that hard.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;121822 wrote:

I very much agree with you on reading secondary sources, especially if those sources are kants other works. Last time I checked I read grounding for the metaphysics of morals 4 times and his prolegomena 2 times. You definetly need to saturate yourself with Kants thinking. And also reading sources such as commentaries and introductions help. Regardless of all that though I dont think you could ever be sufficently prepared to read CPR. Its just that hard.

I think that people starting Kant need guidance; and not from Kant. No beginner in philosophy can read Kant with any understanding without guidance. You have first to understand the problem he was addressing, and no beginners understand that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121826 wrote:

I think that people starting Kant need guidance; and not from Kant. No beginner in philosophy can read Kant with any understanding without guidance. You have first to understand the problem he was addressing, and no beginners understand that.

Oh yes Im sorry for not adding that you probably need someone who actually knows a bit on Kant, in particular a professor or teacher of the sort. I forgot to add that very essential part.

@Shostakovich phil,

Well, I don't think he's very "Debunked"... that's all largely dependent upon what you find to be acceptable arguments.

But I do remember one thing that he stated that at least contradicts current scientific theory -- I remember in the first Critique Kant chastising "students of nature" for explaining the origin of specific gravity in terms of the "void" between atoms, as he thought it was a metaphysical claim that had no place in science. Current atomic theory, however, would state that this is a good explanation of specific gravity.

.... and as much as I love Kant, I really take issue with his dualism and his convenient redefinition of the law of non-contradiction. But, that's not exactly the same thing as "Debunked", in the sense that the sentence you're quoting seems to imply.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know