Critique of Pure Reason

Rating:
Summary: Different Strokes For Different Folks.
Review: Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is a classic of Western Philosophy best read aloud and alone on a Winter night so as to get into the mood of Continental Philosophy. It is cold, dark, and abstract. You may want to sip a Brandy. It is a pedantic tome that serves as a moat around the ivory towers of status and quo. Kant is too serious for me. I would not join his personality cult if I completely agreed with him. The little Buddha of Konigsberg didn't like music. He never married. You could set your watch by him he was so predictable in his daily routine. He was a control freak. How dull can one man be? However, with that said, he meant well. He simply didn't have time for such trivial pursuits as life and love. He wanted more out of life. He wanted to know what can be known? He asked such questions as is it the object or the subject that rules reality? How do we stop vacillating between dogmaticism, skepticism, and indifference where reason is concerned? How do we find a point of equilibrium for reason to grab hold of? How are synthetic a priori judgements possible? What is the secret ingredient in Kentucky Fried Chicken? Tasty questions for rumination but wholesome only in moderation.

With the above said Kant's writings serve as a template for all serious academic thought where Western philosophy is concerned. Whether agreed with or not his opinions are the standard against which scientific philosophers are competing. A working knowledge of his opinion is requirred for any discussion relative to the history of Western philosophic thought. This is as readable a translation as any.

The fundamental weakness of Kant's "CPR" is that he failed to devolop his philosophy, that there is a transcendental unity of aperception, on the basis of any single first principle. This represents the single weakest link in Kantian philosophy for it did not fulfill Kant's own conditions for a science of philosophy. This chink in his armor would need to be addressed by him again and again to fend off the attacks from those that tried to take advantage of this inherent weakness in his thought. Such attacks against "CPR" have came predominantly from absolute idealism, the double metaphysic of Shopenhauer, and Phenomenology. Such amendments and attacks continue. It is the yin and the yang of the debate. I prefer the Perennial Philosophy to Continental Philosophy. Taoism, a way of life that acknowledges the wisdom of the Perennial Philosophy, has a first principle and is completely integrated with the immanent and the transcendent. There is no final discursive answer for the question of solipsism, but there is a cure. Go with the flow. That art thou.



Rating:
Summary: A major work
Review: Kant's Critic of Pure Reason (CRP) is THE major work german philosophy ever produced, there's no doubt about it. As Decartes' Metaphysical Meditations, it begins with a statement: metaphysic hasn't moved an inch on the direct and sure road of science as the mathematics and the physic once did. Kant basically built the metaphysic as we know it.

His major problem was to deal with idealism and empirism. For evident reasons, empirists cannot go very far. On the other hand, idealism doesn't produce the "clear and distinct" thoughts (Descartes: idées claires et distinctes) it's suposed to. Paradoxically, images that come from our sensations are sometimes very distincts. Kant tries to rehabilitate empirism and to keep the advantages idealism had: this was archieved with the invention of the transcendantal field.

So the CRP deals with metaphysics, but the book also tackles other problems, such as: is it possible to do a demonstration of God's existence? (see "Ideal of pure reason", second division, second book, third chapter). Personally, that's my favorite part, but it took me three months to begin to understand it.

The only reason why I shouldn't have rated this book five stars is: it is hard to read. Kant's german is awful (I have tried, reading quite fluently both german and english), and no translation can make it clearer. The readers who know something of translations's problems with Heidegger can only have a glimpse of Kant's german. So, the best is to read a translation but always to keep an eye on a german text, because german words are constituted in order to help us understand. For instance: "to have to" can be said with two verbs: müssen (idea of physical obligation) and sollen (intervention of moral principles). And that's only one.

Rating:
Summary: The fullest expression of Stoic philosophy on record.
Review: Kant's Critique is without any doubt a classic. It's a good example of laborious and sustained philosophical reflection, though I do not believe a single word of it. The Critique is interesting, I think, not so much as an argument as it is interesting as a crucial turn in the history of philosophy. For, Kant is the only thinker to seriously re-capture the important distinction which Chrysippus the Stoic drew between "inner logos" and "outer logos". Kant's main thrust in this book is amazingly Stoic. What Sextus Empiricus (ca. 3rd century A.D.) said of Stoic logic summarizes perfectly Kantian epistemology:"the [concepts of] whole and part are 'in' us, and what is external, underlying, and sensible is neither a whole nor a part, but it is the thing of which we predicate our conciousness"(SVF,II,80). Kant deserves credit for being the first non-Stoic thinker to construct a theory of knowledge without appealling to God as mediator between the outer world and us (as Augustine or Berkeley did) or without denying knowledge of the outside world as objective(Hume). However, I deplore the fact that some people out there think that to study philosophy is to 'know' the great systems. One fellow who reviewed the Critique said that to be a philosopher one has to study Aristotle's Metaphysics, Hegel's Phenomenology, and the Critique. But, my friend, as the French author Charles Peguy once said: philosophy does not go to classrooms." Philosophy is a life, a quest, a personal endeavor. It's not primarily an academic thing. I don't mean to say that academic philosophy is bad. I myself am a philo major. But I do say that, given that in studying philosophy you cannot possibly get knowledge (for, as Karl Jaspers rightly observes, in philosophy questions are more important than answers),the point of engaging in philosophical reflection is to change our way of living, to refine our emotions, to purify our thoughts, to elevate our tastes, and to feel true love for our fellow human beings who are parts of the same "Kosmos" as us, and share the same human condition as us. That's why I personally tend to view works such as Marcus Aurelius's Meditations as what should be most rightly labeled "philosophy" books. Anyhow, don't use this as a pretext to eschew the study of the Critique. It is a great work, and surely is the most ground-breaking work of the modern period. So, read it!

Rating:
Summary: Who do all these people do so much effort to burn down Kant.
Review: Like most of you I read alot and alot of philosophybooks. And not only the works itself but also the biograpies, explenations and everything else than can move you closer to understanding gigantical big minds as Kant was.

When I read all of these some might be sad reviews only one thing did came to my mind. All who read Bryuan Magee's "Confessions of a philosopher" know what Im talking about. There seems to develop a hype where people seems to start a study philosophy just cos they think its tough or trendy, but have really no idea what its all about. They never went to lay down in the grass, looked to the sky and start to make up any question about the universe. They never wondered about anything and took everything in the universe for granted. If you are such man do me a favor and sodd off. Leave the work to the real philosphers that still are implying to achieve knowlegde about something, and have a natural love for knowlegde, and not for opinion or as Kant is refering to Philodoxy. When someone tells me he likes philosophy the first thing I ask, is if Philosophy lives inside of him. When it doesn't then I do not have much more to say, cos the hunger to know and so symphatize with its companions does not come from the heart.

I cannot believe people actually think they have a right to play Alleszermalmer to the great Allserzermalmer and burn him to the ground. The Critique was a landmark in history, and anyone with a bit of knowlegde about Philosophy will tell you the same thing. Arthur schopenhauer refers to the Critique as the most important book ever written. Karl Popper states in his own biography "I though Kant was right !" These are not just people saying anything. This were great thinkers too, and they were respecting him.

Its true that Kant was not a stylish writer and that cos of that sometimes he is not easy to get. But should we actually burn of his marvelous insights on its shape ? I guess not. And I guess we should never ever do that with anyone. The reason why he wrote everything with lesser style is all to familiar and aught to be respected too. He knew that it was a very very big job to start an entirely new way of thinking to channel the ideas of Metaphisics, that he had to leave everything before him in ruins to built up his own. This man dedicate his life to philosophy. And the achievement might not be allways the right one, but the attempt should not be taken lightly. And his influence on everything you never realize probably is even more admirable. In the beginning of the 20th Century a man called Alfred Whitehead stated that every attempt to philosophy should be concidered as a footnote to the works of Plato. After Kant I think every attemt should be concidered as a footnote to the works of Immanuel Kant.

Im not saying that it will take you not much time to understand him or that you actually ever are abble to understand Kant. But if you are a real philosopher you know how things must brew and how sometimes on ideas its aquired to meditate a very long time first before they will become ripe and pure. The same goes with Kant, remember this is not a readingbook. Its a book about learning a whole new method of thinking. Think about the things he has to say let them move around inside of your head, let them ripe and become vertile. This is however something which you cannot do by only reading Kant. You have read other philosophers, historians and scollars to. Read about his life, read about the time he lived in & his education. This surely will bring you closer to this man. Bryan Magge once said "I had to read Schopenhauer to understand Kant" So by reading around him you will prepare yourself for the final hit, the words he wrote himself. And most of all train yourself in logics, start playing Chess, I think probably that this is the most important thing. To understand the value of his ideas you have to realize by which way they came into exsistence. One of the reviers is refering to a letter that he wote to Herz that this was also known as Prolegomena. That is however not true. The letter to Herz was written in 1772. In this letter he states that he is working on something what later became to Critique. He has meditated on it for 9 years since then and in 1781 he is ready to publish the Critique of pure reason. The Prolegomena (what means something as "Introduction") was written in 1783 after he founded out that many founded his book hard to understand, he writes a sort of introduction to the Critique. I sugest that you read this book too before you start with the big work. Perhaps you read it over more than once.

Kant will not allow it to be understood in one night overtime. It needs time, hard working and reading his books over and over again. And then (I have the feeling I only scratch the surface by now) you will see that more and more will fall on its place.

Rating:
Summary: Why Immanuel Kant is important
Review: Lots of folks complain that Kant is hard to understand blah-blah. Here is a quick and simple explanation for the layman. Philosophers can slot in their preferred jargon as and where appropriate.

Everything you need to know was said by Plato.

There is a realm of Reality

(aka God, Divine realm, Truth, Noumenal realm, Essence, Absolutenss, Objectivity, Metaphysical realm, Brahman, Din, Spirit, Tao etc)

and there is a realm of Perception

(i.e. this world that we live in, aka phenomenal realm, physical realm, existential realm, relativity, subjective realm, maya, duniya, humanity, etc)

The latter is a shadow or reflection of the former.

The latter is completely dependent upon the former for its existence.

We humans have a soul which connects us to the Divine realm and a body which locates us in the physical realm.

We are rationally obliged to take care of our bodies and morally obliged to look after our souls.

As far as the realm of perception goes, we need to deal with it in a practical way, with common sense, humour and a lack of dogmatism.

As far as the Divine realm goes, we can only access it via a combination of hard-headed reason, humility, faith, morality, love and courage. Our access is limited by our God-given design -we can only access it up to a point. The Absolute true nature of reality 'as it is' is unknowable to human beings. We can approach it but never reach it.

Interestingly, it is not required by us to 'know' it. Once it is experienced even to a small degree, one realises that the Divine Realm is a realm of infinite love and bliss and concepts derived from within the realm of Perception such as 'philosophy', 'knowledge', 'mind' are not necessary or essential to grasp, feel, taste, experience or understand this realm.

After Plato, Bishop Berkeley restated these great concepts for the benefit of Western humanity in 1713, in philosophical language that was appropriate to his time, place and circumstances. Immanuel Kant restated them again in his time in language that was deliberately less theological than Berkeley, keeping in mind the audience he was addressing. In the meantime Hume had provided an invaluable service to both these philosophers by demonstrating that nothing is knowable with absolute certainty, in the philosophical sense of the word, in the realm of perception.

Gravely and unfortunately, many influential people in the West have since taken Hume and Kant to mean that we live in an anthropocentric, relativistic world, in which there are no valid overarching meanings left to live by. Properly religious people (i.e not cultists, fanatics, bigoted and closed minded fundametalists or soft-headed 'spiritualists'), would find such views and extrapolations to be most misguided. Interestingly and tellingly most modern people dismiss Bishop Berkeley's views out of hand, because he states the truth a bit too baldly for cynical and knowing modern appetites to digest.

Berkeley, Hume and Kant were wonderfully well-balanced, sane, rational, good-natured, hard-thinking, clear, morally upright and decent individuals. Their philosophies are designed to provide the maximum allowable and necessary intellectual framework you need to function as a human being in this world of ineffable mystery, a world created by God. They are an aid to living, not an end in themselves to be debated over endlessly or used as abstractions to tie your self up in knots.

Of course, you won't like or accept any of the above if you either don't believe in or if you refuse to believe in the Divine Realm - something which applies to some of the famous names in philosophy as well, especially many of the modern Anglo-Saxon philosophers.

Relax and Give Yourself A Chance - you can't and don't need to know everything - leave that to God.

Rating:
Summary: How to get your money's worth from this book
Review: Many people have trouble reading the Critique of Pure Reason, and it truly is a very difficult book. But the fact is that it does all make sense, not just in some facile verbal way but logically -- and once you're used to certain idiosyncrasies (especially the old-fashioned scholastic terms and the seemingly artificial organization of the text), you'll be well able to find out for yourself what Kant's points were, and whether or not he really made them. So I won't talk about that here, I'll just give you some tips to help you get started with a minimum of pain and bafflement:

1. Read the Prolegomena first, or at the same time. That book, which is both clear and SHORT, is Kant's own account of what the Critique was meant to accomplish and what prompted him to write it. If you read the Prolegomena and think he's barking up the wrong tree, put off the Critique... until you change your mind. (The last bit doesn't apply to people taking a class, of course.)

2. Kant's lecture notes on Logic can also be useful because they show how he believed philosophical thought should be organized and expressed. Regardless of whether you take his so-called "logical method" seriously, no one denies that *Kant took it very seriously*, and once you can recognize it in the Critique, many passages become much easier to follow.

3. Don't expect a profound spiritual or aesthetic experience. I value this book as the first really satisfying rational explanation of why the world makes sense (turns out it has to!), but I won't claim it's any good as a guide to meditation, as a substitute Bible, as poetry, or even as prose. Contrary to his reputation, Kant is an excellent writer, but he's not trying to take you to a higher level here, or even to entertain you. At all. See also point 6, below.

4. Choose your text with care. Abridgments are tempting, but every sentence of the original is there for a reason. Make sure your translation includes the texts of both the first and second editions (Meiklejohn doesn't). Of the two translations I've read, I can recommend Kemp Smith's often loose rendering (St. Martin's Press) over the scrupulous but stilted Wood-Guyer (Cambridge), and both over either alone; but I've heard good things about Pluhar's Hackett translation too.

5. Don't skip the Introduction. Key points are made there, and key terms defined. The first time I tried to read the Critique I skipped to the first chapter of the main text (Transcendental Aesthetic) and it was like running headfirst into a brick wall. (It *is* all right to ignore the Prefaces on a first reading.)

6. Whichever parts you read, read every word. It's possible to skim through one of Kant's arguments and get an accurate feeling for the meaning, but the details of the argument do matter, because he very often appeals to them later on -- and also because, unlike so many other writers on the same subjects, he is trying to *prove*, not to cajole or enchant. Emphasis is important too, so you must read for context: does he mean "*synthetic* unity of the manifold", "synthetic *unity* of the manifold", or "synthetic unity of the *manifold*"? It's not that the concepts are different, but the author is pointing out something different about the concept depending on where and how he uses the phrase. Take the phrases, sentences, paragraphs out of context and they all sound like the same kind of hollow, pretentious, narrow-minded nonsense. I have found that the best way to preserve the logical connections is to READ ALOUD.

7. Question everything you read. You'll usually find that the statement was justified earlier (or, in some cases, will be explained in the next paragraph). Not only is this the safest way to read a book of Western philosophy, but it is the best way to *restore* the logical connections of the text once you have lost track of them, which will often happen.

There's more I could say, but that's plenty to be going on with. Best of luck!

Rating:
Summary: The New Old Stand By
Review: The Critique of Pure Reason stands as one of the most important works in the history of philosophy. Kant is difficult to read, but not because he is an arrogant, pedantic philosopher type (though he may well have been), but rather because the subject is so intelligent that there simply is no way to make it easilly readable. Books like Kant in 90 minutes or the idiots introduction to Kant will never get across the ideas as well as reading the book itself. Reading this book is a challenge, but agree with him or not, it is a challenege worth taking.

For you pros out there who are hesitant to give up your old translation which has stood for so many years, add this one to the bookshelf. With every german verb that is even a little bit shaddy annotated with the origional german, a terrific set of end notes and a fantastic introduction, this is the future of Kant.

Rating:
Summary: The Greatest Philosophical Work Ever!
Review: The greatest philosophical text ever. 6 stars. Jason Miller is obviously one of the Ayn Rand followers who attack Kant without having ever read the book; it is certainly not anti-reason, anti-thought or anti-life, but I doubt anyone who belongs to the cult of so called "Objectivists" could understand that. This is the book which reshaped philosophy as we know it: Schopenhauer, Hegel and all others still exist in Kant's wake, and this is the most important book of his philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: An affront to everything good about philosophy.
Review: The sole purpose of philosophy is thus: to assist us (that is to say, humanity) in understanding our internal and our external universes.

Philosophy should not be prejudiced. It should be accessible to, and comprehended by, all of us. If the universal truths that any given piece of philosophy purports to represent are not accessible to, and comprehended by, all of us, then that philosophy has failed.

Kant is an elitist, pure and simple. He writes philosophy for a select few (other philosophers, it would seem), and not for humanity in general. This critique of his is nothing more than a twisting, baffling exploration of verbosity. Kant's inability to logically and comprehensibly structure his thought processes, instead rendering his theories unclear and incomprehensible, marks nothing more than his failure as a proper philosopher.

Plato's philosophy was for the masses. Any reasonably intelligent individual can easily digest his arguments. There are dozens of other popular philosophers just as good, and better than, Plato. Their philosophies are remarkably informative, useful, and well-written. Kant is uninformative, useless, and poorly penned. If you have read this, and understood it, and then applied it, then you are to be commended. But that's not many of you.

My suggestion: avoid this unless you are looking to punish yourself. Your education, with Kant as a guide, will give you nothing more than an increasing understanding of your own ignorance. Philosophy is meant to be refreshing and fulfilling. The 'Critique of Pure Reason' is not.

Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest books ever written
Review: This book is absolutly beautiful. Read it and enjoy the complexity of one of the greatest man in history. If you are into philosophy (or any other science) you MUST have this book.