Well, I have seen Alaska, or at least the tiny sliver of it
that reaches down the coast of British Columbia. I cannot say I was thrilled, and No, from
where I sat on the deck, I could not see Russia. However, I did start a systematic re-reading
of the entire Critique in preparation
for my lectures. As I opened the book to
begin, I realized that it has been in all probability half a century since I last
read it from cover to cover. I had
forgotten how much there is to say.
These lectures may go on for a good deal more than one semester.
Picking up the Critique
and starting with the Preface in A was like coming home. This is going to be fun. I got through the Prefaces, the Introduction,
and most of the Transcendental Aesthetic on the cruise. Today I shall finish the Aesthetic and launch
into the Analytic.
Well, I've made it to the "Table of Principles" (B200 / A161).
ReplyDeleteIn the midst of the Brexit train wreck -- my London borough voted 3:1 to remain -- I am ever more sympathetic to Hannah Arendt's comment that "it is so much nicer to spend time with Kant".
But it is getting harder and harder to see how the first Critique all hangs together. Perhaps I should go back to the Introduction and start over again.
You will be reassured to learn that it does NOT all hold together. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI imagine this will be covered in the lectures, which I am excited for, but in your opinion, does one aim to make sense of everything holding together (as good as can be held), reading all the way through, or following the patchwork theory and attempting to put it together and Kant himself was putting it together over the preceding decade? I've asked myself that question from a few different vantage points within the Critique over the past year.
ReplyDeleteLike lots within the Critique, and Kant in general, I am sure there are proponents of both trains of thought.
I will talk about this at length, but the short answer is that there is no way it can all be held together, and no reason to try, save piety. The only interesting question is this: Can we find in the CRITIQUE a coherent, straightforward argument that really answers Hume's scepticism about causal inference? The answer, I argue, is yes, and I shall lay it out in precise, step by step logical form, from premise to conclusion. Stay tuned.
ReplyDelete