If I take copious notes as I read Kant, will my momentum pick up the further I get?
If I read Kant slowly and laboriously with notes, will it get better/faster/more enjoyable the further I slog through? I've basically read his Prefaces & Introductory Notes to an abridged version of the Critique of Pure Reason.
I read slowly because I recently learned the difference between absorbing and BELIEVING philosophical thought. So once again, will the inordinate amount of time I will spend on Kant be worth it? Or should I wait to be taught next year when I ship off to college?
- jLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
You're reading Kant, and one of the points of leisurely reading (as Emerson noted, one conducts an inward dialogue with good authors, and one also learns somewhat of how the author thinks) before college is the reduced tension, which, along with genuine interest, aids further knowledge acquisition. Sadly, all too many people do not grasp the distinction you have. As the 10,000-hours-makes-one-an-expert (Malcolm Gladwell writes of it, in a popular book) theory has validity, you're helping your rationality, which fully develops 20-26, be exercised/tuned.
Would suggest that if you regularly read your notes, that will help considerably.
the free online philosophy courses described at http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses Drs. Dreyfus and Searle are tops in their respective interests, and Marianne Talbot's "Philosophy for Beginners" is good.
The courses offered at http://www.teach12.com/tgc/course/CoursesByCategor... are generally available at public and other libraries, even if via inter-library loan.
Would note Tom Morris' "Philosophy for Dummies" as a general, middle of the road survey which, if learned well (neither holding the snake too tightly, as that may kill or injure it, nor holding the snake too loosely, as that may find it escaping, but the middle way or golden mean), will serve as a general scaffolding or Cartesian grid for most all purposes.
Eugene Rose's "Nihilism" is a brief and excellent critique of Western philosophy's sorry tendency, valuable in that its point of view is somewhat outside modern philosophy.
Concluding unscientific postscript: http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1 is a novel if idiosyncratic schema of Kant's ideas; portions of it may have some heuristic value for you.
- 9 years ago
It is hard to believe Kant.
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageous [ ] idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason."