Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
OK. Tomorrow, I shall start an introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. This will not be a proper tutorial. That would require vast amounts of time, and a commitment from all involved to read the text as we proceeded -- clearly not on. My goal will be to guide readers into this great and very difficult book. This is, for me, a real stroll down memory lane. I first studied the Critique seriously in the Spring of 1953. My God, that is almost exactly what Bertrand Russell said to me in the Fall of 1954 when I visited him for tea [see my Memoir, Volume One, Chapter Three.] He said he "had not studied Kant seriously since 1897." That was fifty-seven years earlier, and 1953 is fifty-eight years earlier than today. I guess I am getting really old. Oh well, here goes nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Your comment about Betrand Russell reminds me of how quickly time passes, in particular a story I heard about Oliver Wendell Holmes, who knew both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
You are physically incapable of stopping writing, aren't you Professor?!
It would appear so. The words just keep pouring out. Would you believe that every time I have finished a book, I am terribly afraid that I will never write anything again?
By the way, Arbitrista, reflect on the fact that I had tea with Russell, whose godfather was John Stuart Mill, whose godfather was Jeremy Bentham!
I must admit you write more than I can keep up with. A commentary on the First Critique would be close enough to what I'm doing when not commenting here that I might participate a little more than I have the last two (or was it three?) streams.
Is there something in the Critique that you take Kant to have established?
I'm with Marinus, you write faster than I seem to be able to read. At least if I wish to give the words the proper attention they deserve.
Two quick notes:
1) Will this be a sort of "Introduction to" the first Critique (as in it won't require us to read the critique along with it) or more of a commentary?
2)As a reader of your first tutorial, I thought you might be interested in poking through this:http://tar.weatherson.org/2011/07/15/lecture-notes-on-game-theory/
(I admit that I lack the mathematical background to make sense of much of it...something I hope to one rectify).
I cannot wait for the tutorial on Kant. The Critique needs you to expose its internal narrative and the pulsating storyline.
Post a Comment