What do you know about Kant? Im starting "Critique of Judgment".?

Question

What do you know about Kant? Im starting "Critique of Judgment".?

Answer 1

I know enough not to dive straight in and read him without preparation. His prose style is pretty obscure and just about everybody struggles with him first (make that tenth) go.



First read a good introduction. Roger Scruton's "Past Masters" book on Kant is excellent. Very short (you can read it in an afternoon), and very clear. Read this first. Then read more books on Kant's Critque of Judgement. Only then read Kant.

Answer 2

I hope you're not going to try reading "Critique of Judgment" based on the info you get here. This has nothing to do with how smart you are (or aren't) but most Kant needs to be read with companion pieces.

The reason for this is because Kant is some of the most dense, difficult philosophy out there. Understanding his views often requires understanding the views he was responding to, as well as other contemporary views during the time.

If you're reading it for a class, then hopefully your professor can help you out. If not I'd suggest getting a companion piece to "Critique of Judgment." I can't tell you which ones will be good, because I've never read that Critique myself, but make sure you have something to explain what is going on behind the scenes; otherwise you won't understand why he's making half his points.

Answer 3

Two false arguments posted as Kantian are as follows.



1. Kant argued that humankind distinguishes itself by the power of intellect and that wisdom is intellectual merit which is demonstrated by industry collective & individual with the proviso that man is a social being. This inturn goes a long way towards explaining European colonial exploitation, and slavery and the German eventual Superman mentality.



Buddhist have traditionally argued, long before Kant, that intellect is only capable of dealing with relative phenomena and thus true wisdom is intuitive insight into the essence of a things nature. String Theorists and even Garry Kasparov the retired World Chess Champ agree!As for the notion of industry, Buddhists again argue that the demonstration of the merit of wisdom is through acts of compassion. Who would you prefer as a neighbor or parent!



2. Kant argued the cynical and sadistic notion that Honour is the will to suffer the consequences for ones actions and in his mind it has little to do with principles.



Clearly principles are the foundation for averring a sense of Honour, despite the fact that the actioner may be misguided in his perceptions. The will to suffer the consequences depends on being proven wrong and who the judge and executioned are! Hence a subjective consideration and noty an objective idea!



I could go on but am satisfied that Kant can't!

Answer 4

Kant's dentology is the concept of intention over consequence.

Let me attempt to give a classic example used by philosophers:



There's a Y shaped train track. The train is programmed to run to the left fork and so the right one is sealed. Now, there are a bunch of children playing on the left fork and one child on the right fork (the unused one). The train's fast approaching. You have 3 choices.



1. Abandon control station

2. Let it run its course (to the left fork)

3. Turn it so that it runs to the right fork instead.



Choice number one, is of course, unapplicable in the case of your question.

Choice 3 would be following the Utilitarianism concept where happiness of the majority is always a priority. So, to please the majority, you decide to run it over the innocent child who did nothing to deserve the death.

Choice 2, however, would be following Kant's Dentology, in which the intention overrides the consequence of the decision/situation. According to Kant's Dentology, the very action of pressing the button so that the train runs over the one child in order to minimise loss, save trouble, save more lives etc is an INTENTIONAL action that kills the child. It is intentional. That's the key word.



In Kant's Dentology, it is not acceptable to carry out an action as a means to an end. and in this case, the fact that you are turning the direction intentionally fits the profile perfectly-- you are using the child as a means to an end(less deaths).



Just in case you were wondering, I opted for choice number 2 because I simply cannot withstand the fact that I am deliberately killing a child by pressing the button.

A parallel situation would be: 100 suspects. Would you kill the one innocent person in order to save trouble (or minimise griefing etc) and free the 99 or would you hang the 99 and free the one innocent?

Remember, the one child did nothing wrong. So in actual fact the group of children on the left fork were destined to die because they chose to play there while the one on the right did nothing wrong. Yet he's sacrificed in order to save the guilty. It's just wrong. So, yes in this case I am supporting Kant's Dentology.



There's also another judgement concept: the right or wrong concept. It's simple and literal. the child is right, the children on the left fork were wrong, so they die.

Answer 5

i have a principle that if it is hard to read, it is wrong



or: if it is hard to read, it isnt saying anything



this saves you reading 29 books out of 30



books that have something to say show it pretty quickly



also: interesting readable books give more than they take - hard to read, take more than they give -

start your education by reading all the readable interesting books - the books that read themselves, so to speak - leave the other books for after your death



grave books should be read in the grave



i know bertrand russell said that the big advantage for philosophers before kant was that they didnt have to read kant

Answer 6

I did hear about one incident where he charged into a guard shack and was ranting at the security guard, demanding to know the definition of murder. "Was ist Morder? Was ist Morder?" He kept yelling, until people with cameras arrived and scared him off.



But ask me about Leibniz. It was he who asked "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

The only possible answer to that, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that he is now dead, so now nothing does exist (and that is the true nature of things because the time after death and before birth is eternity, and eternity is true). What?

Answer 7

Try the link in Wikipedia. They give a better synopsys than I could ever hope to give you in a nutshell.