The Official Thread to Discuss the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

[Mudhammam]

So, I just started reading Critique of Pure Reason. There's a lot that I enjoy so far but also a lot that has me scratching my head. I would be curious to hear others' thoughts on Kant, what you like or dislike about his "Transcendental Logic," where you agree/disagree with him. I find his ability to plainly explain terms and definitions a bit... well, lacking.

[Mudhammam]

This is the part where someone is supposed to get me excited about Kant's "Copernican revolution" in philosophy... because so far I find his writing dull, dry, and terribly confusing. Oh and I only have about 350 more pages to go.

[Endo]

This is the part where someone is supposed to get me excited about Kant's "Copernican revolution" in philosophy... because so far I find his writing dull, dry, and terribly confusing. Oh and I only have about 350 more pages to go.

Um. Okay! Good luck!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Immanuel Kant, but Genghis Khan.

I sincerely hope this helps.

Boru

[Mudhammam]

So, I'd like to see if I am understanding Kant correctly and to further explore some of the crucial points he seems to be raising against what he terms "dogmatic empiricism."

It seems he is saying that representations, that is, the objects we perceive in either the concrete or abstract, are derived via sensuous (empirical) intuitions and pure (rational) intuitions. Furthermore, in order to even have any sensuous intuitions, we must have a priori pure conceptions such as Space and Time (and hence, mathematics, causality), pure in that these are not a posteriori derived from our sensuous intuitions, but must be present for any sensuous experience to occur at all. As such, philosophy can demonstrate that at the bottom of pure conception are paradoxes which can be conceived--and in fact must be for the chain to begin--but cannot be understood because they have no correlation to our sensuous intuition. Kant then has a mind a noumenal, that is Ultimate Reality, as opposed to phenomenal reality which is all we can ever know (via our sensuous intuitions). Thus, our conceptualizations are only understood in light of our sensations and yet our sensations are only possible by means of concepts that are independent of them, making Ultimate Reality, that is objects as they are to themselves (apart from their appearance in our representations), totally unknowable.

Is that about right?

[ShaMan]

[Mudhammam]

If you thought that sounded dry DO NOT read Kant.