I'm reading The Critique of Judgment. It's killing me. It's been hours since I started reading and I still feel like I'm guessing--these run on sentences are going to cause me to have a breakdown.
If anyone has any suggestions for reading Kant, specifically, how to approach his vocabulary or style, I would greatly appreciate it. I have a synopsis that I'm absolutely dependent on.
I guess I'd really just like to know if anyone else has had trouble with Kant.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Good Lord, put that down and save yourself! Why read it?
Unless, you're in a class...in which case I sympathize. Tonight I have to read two chapters on modern communication theory.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kant is so impossible that often native German readers get English translations because it is marginally easier to understand!
It was notoriously dense, even in his time. You are not alone.
-Bok
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
It's for Art Historiography--the history of art history. I'm looking at definitions of the "aesthetic."
I'm getting the larger plot points but the actual meaning of every individual sentence is just impossible.
My sympathies, Belle; and Bok, thanks so much! I feel much better.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I concur with the aforementioned statements. lol. If you value your sanity, give up now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Find a good work of secondary literature and follow along in that. Read the critic's explanation of what Kant is saying first, then read the Kant yourself and see if you agree.
Allison's book is great for this method, but it's only on the First Critique. I don't know what a good source would be for the Critique of Judgement.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You might try the Cambridge Companion to Kant.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
So far, I kind of agree, only in so far in that I think I get the overall picture. I really don't know why anyone would be confident about thinking they know anything about Kant's intent, given the foregoing. Are his personal papers written like this? Was he insane? Will I be soon?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, Kant was a big party animal, throwing lavish feasts for his friends and visitors. Very popular, but never traveled much.
He discussed a lot of his philosophy with people, but yes, he wasn't the best writer. He's still remembered because he's a brilliant philosopher. And yes, we're pretty sure we know most of Kant's intent, at least as far as we know (or care to know) anyone's intent.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually, I know a lot ofpeopel who thinkk Kant is a waste of time, including one Philosophy professer I had in college. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heheheh. Some people hold that opinion because Kant's work has largely been surpassed by those who come after, but a lot of that is because he laid such a thorough groundwork. I don't know why your philosophy professor does, though.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
The first 4 or 5 paragraphs, every other word is a priori. Yikes!
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
Start with what others synthetised about Kant's work. My highschool book noted his 4 questions, one of which is "What could I know?" (not what I do know, which is a subset of all the things that may be known). I think about this question as I am thinking about "What is information?".
Anyone has any suggestions for this last question?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are a series of lettered treatises on philosophers. Kant shows up in the 9th one. But I've heard it doesn't clear things up.
No, the I Manual can't help.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
And suddently the Drunken Philosophers song (Monty Python of course) is running through my head...
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote:Originally posted by bunbun: It's for Art Historiography--the history of art history.
See, there's your problem.
Your class is not a real class. It is a made-up class.
Historiography? O_o
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And yes, we're pretty sure we know most of Kant's intent, at least as far as we know (or care to know) anyone's intent.
I don't know, I would say that there are some very serious disagreements about what Kant meant in each of his major works.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
I've decided I'm quoting Monty Python's Drunken Philosophers if only because it appears that Immanuel Kant was a drunken fart who was very rarely stable....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note the qualifiers, they were a bit of a joke -- we're not very sure how much we can know anyone's intent on a sufficiently complex topic.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
No, Rene Descarte was a drunken fart (I drink therefore I am.) Immanuel Kant was a real pissant (who was very rarely stable)
Once in HS I hadn't done the daily reading, but I got the quiz points by remembering bits of the drunken philosopher song.
--Enigmatic
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Phew. Thank goodness I didn't make that faux pas....was it Heidegger who was a boozy beggar? One just Kant be too careful.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I enjoy reading Kant, but I think that could just be because I'm used to it.
If you're having a hard time, I suggest doing the reading after class. I know that sounds like being a bad student, but it actually works. You'll understand the material so much better after you get an idea of what it's about. (So actually, doing supplementary reading as others have suggested would probably accomplish this as well.)
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
I don't remember it being this hard when I was in college.
I think it's the translation.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Actually, I do have a serious suggestion about reading difficult texts.
Get a book you can mark up, or better yet, an electronic version. Edit it. Strike out the phrases that aren't absolutely necessary (examples, for example); strike out really long ways of saying things and replace with something simple. Eventually you get down to something readable. This is how I handle monster texts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
bunbun, you're probably right about the translation. My Historical Theology professor switched translations of Augustine between the time I took the class and when I was a TA for it two years later. The first translation was a joy to read. The second time, I could barely get through it without banging my head on the table, and I'd already read the good translation twice and loved it.
edit: The "bad" translation wasn't necessarily a bad translation, just not smooth prose. It was much harder to read.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
That's a really good point--I am sure there are truer translations that will make sense to German language scholars and really poor translations that are easier reading for me.
Oh, BTW, I used the word "teleological" about a million times in my reaction paper, and hopefully correctly, at least in the Hegelian sense.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Thanks Will-that's an awesome idea, and really a great approach especially for Kant--he's the king of parentheticals and dependent clauses.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
*adding Kant to my list of authors I won't worry about too much if I never get to -- thanks for the warning!
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
When I used to try and read Kant I could never make it through it so I went to websites and got summaries. I dont know if that would help you but it might. It always helped me and it would help you if you are just trying to get the basic points he is making.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Uprooted:
Hey, now. If you are going to do any serious thinking on aesthetics [and, really, why wouldn't you?], you are going to need to read Kant.
This won't really help you, bunbun, but I've enjoyed two books that look at the conditions and arguments that led up to Kant-- give the critique of judgement a bit of history and context.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)