Read فلسفه کانت by Stephan Körner عزت‌الله فولادوند Online

Title : فلسفه کانت
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9644870522
Format Type : Hardcover
Number of Pages : 432 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

فلسفه کانت Reviews

  • Foad
    2019-03-05 01:09

    کانت در دو دقیقه و سی ثانیهیک:"وضعیت انسان" یکی از آثار نقاش سوررئالیست بلژیکی "رنه ماگریت" است.اين نقاشى، پنجره اى رو به منظره ى بيرونى را نشان مى دهد، كه توسط يک تابلوى نقاشى مسدود شده. تصوير تابلو و منظره، به قدرى شبيه همند، كه انگار تابلويى وجود ندارد.نکته ی مهم این نقاشی، این است که ما نمی دانیم پشت آن تابلو دقيقاً چیست؟ ممکن است آن قسمت از چمنزار سوخته باشد، یا یک درخت کاج به جای درخت بلوط قرار داشته باشد و نیز ممکن است منظره ی پشت تابلو، دقیقاً همان صحنه ای باشد که در تابلو نمایش داده شده.کانت می گوید: وضعیت انسان، مشابه تابلوی "وضعیت انسان" است. ما همگی در برابر تابلویی از ادراکات حسی ایستاده ایم، بی آن که بدانیم منظره ی پس پرده، حقیقت خارجی و عینی چیست. کانت به این تابلو که همیشه در برابر ماست، "پدیدار" یا "فنومن" می گوید. هر چند ما معمولاً متوجه دوگانگی و تغایر این "تصویر ذهنی" با آن "حقیقت عینی" نمی شویم و هر دو را یک چیز می پنداریم، تا حدّی که وجود تابلو را فراموش می کنیم.□دو:"والتر" در طول فیلم "لبوسکی بزرگ" عینکی با لنز زرد رنگ می زند. در حالی که رفیقش "دود" عینکی دودی به چشم دارد. حال اگر این دو نفر در کنار هم، در برابر تابلویی که رنه ماگریت در مقابل پنجره گذاشته بایستند، آیا تصویر یکسانی خواهند دید؟ نه. رنگ چمن و آسمان و ابر، برای یکی زردتر و برای دیگری دودی تر خواهد شد. و این، یعنی مشکل در مشکل.علاوه بر آن که به جای منظره ی بیرونی، به تصویر منظره ی بیرونی نگاه می کنند، خودشان نیز چیزی به چشم دارند که در همین تصویر غیرواقعی هم دست می برد و آن را حتی غیرواقعی تر می کند.کانت می گوید: ذهن ما، در تصاویری که از جهان خارج دریافت می کند دست می برد و آن ها را در قالب های پیش ساخته ی خود می ریزد. مقولاتی همچون زمان و مکان، جوهر و عرض، علّیت، وحدت و کثرت، امکان و ضرورت، قالب هایی است که ذهن به همه ی ادراکات حسی ما می افزاید و به آن ها نظمی ساختگی می دهد.□سه:پس چطور می توانیم به آن حقیقت خارجی، به صورت دست نخورده و همان طور که در واقع هست، دست بیابیم؟ چطور می توانیم پرده ی پدیدار را کنار بزنیم و به "اشیاء کما هی" نگاه کنیم؟ کانت می گوید هرگز نمی توانیم. ما همیشه در پشت تابلو، با عینکی رنگی بر چشم محبوس شده ایم.اما این فلسفه منجر به شک گرایی نمی شود. کانت یک شک گرا نیست. درست برعکس، تلاش می کند ما را از شک گرایی برهاند. و این بخش بسیار مهم فلسفه ی اوست: کانت می گوید هر چند ما در برابر تابلو ایستاده ایم و عینک رنگی به چشم زده ایم، اما همه در برابر "یک" تابلو ایستاده ایم، و همه عینک "یک رنگ" به چشم زده ایم: تصویری که همه ی ما از عالم خارج می گیریم یکسان است و ذهن همه ی ما تصرّفات یکسانی در این تصویر می کند. در نتیجه می توانیم قوانین علمی این جهان را کشف کنیم، چون قوانین موجود بین تصاویر ذهنی ما همیشه یکسان است؛ اما باید توجه کنیم که همه ی این قوانین، قوانین جهان پدیداری است، نه جهان فی نفسه. از همین جاست که علوم امروزی، بر خلاف گذشته، همه از "پدیده" ی بار الکتریکی و اُسموز صحبت می کنند. دانشمندان امروزی می دانند دیگر وظیفه شان کشف "جهان آن چنان که هست" نیست، بلکه وظیفه شان شناخت "جهان آن چنان که می نماید" است.

  • peiman-mir5 rezakhani
    2019-03-08 07:22

    دوستانِ گرانقدر، متأسفانه «امانوئل کانت» با فلسفۀ اشتباهِ خودش زحماتی که فلاسفه و روشنفکرانی همچون «هیوم» برایِ آگاه نمودنِ مردم کشیده بودند را به نوعی بی اثر میکردکانت میگوید: فلسفۀ «وجودِ جهانِ آفرینش» و نظمِ آن، ما را به طبیعت و نهاد مادّی و فیزیکی دنیا هدایت میکند که بدون وجود نیرویِ برتری که همان «خدا» است، امکان پذیر نیست.... این صحبتِ «کانت» به نظرم مغالطه است، زیرا بارها شرح داده ام که دستگاهِ جهان اصلاً منظم نیست، دستگاهی را منظم قلمداد میکنیم که یک هدفِ مشخصی را دنبال کند، مانندِ ساعت، که هدفش اعلامِ زمان است، و یا ماشینِ حساب که هدفش محاسبه است... این جهان یک هدفِ مشخص دارد؟ خیر... از نظرِ علمی این امکان نیست کانت میگوید: خرد و دانش را برایِ توجیهِ وجودِ خدا نمیتوان به کار گرفت، بلکه واقعیتِ وجودِ خدا را باید به وسیلۀ اصول و ارزش هایِ اخلاقی درک نمود... همچنین در کتابش آمده که، انسانِ خردمند نباید توقع داشته باشد که از خدا، ارزش هایِ اخلاقی الهام بگیرد و از این راه او را بشناسد!! بلکه باید به وسیلۀ ارزش هایِ اخلاقیِ خود، وجودِ خدا را درک کند و یا در این راه از کسانی که خدا را شناختند پیروی کندبسیار خوب.... دوستانِ خردگرا، آنچه که در بالا نوشتم، فلسفۀ «کانت» در موردِ خداشناسی بود، خوب به آن دقت کنید... منظورِ «کانت» این است که، از راهِ سلوک و اندیشه خدا را بشناسیم، آن هم بدونِ پاداش... یعنی انتظارِ پاداش نباید داشته باشیم.... خوب، دوستانِ گرانقدر، قبول دارید که انسان از نظرِ نهادی فاقدِ صفتِ «خداشناسی» است؟؟ بی تردید همینطور میباشد... پس خود به خود نمیتواند نیک و بد را از یکدیگر تفکیک و جدا کند و تازه اگر هم این کار را انجام دهد، به گفتۀ « نیکولا ماکیاولی»، انسان تنها زیرِ فشار به انجامِ رفتارِ نیک میپردازد و هر لحظه که فرصتِ ارتکابِ عملِ نکوهیده و بدونِ مجازات را بدست بیاورد، این فرصت را برایِ انجامِ عملِ زشت از دست نخواهد داد... پس دوستانِ من، نهادِ بشر نا مطمئن تر از آن است که بتوان از راهِ سلوک و رفتار، او را به اندیشۀ خداشناسی رهنمون شددر ضمن مثلِ اینکه «کانت» فراموشی داشته است ،اگر انسان از خرد و اندیشۀ خودش برایِ شناختِ خوب و بد و در ادامۀ آن شناختِ خداوند، استفاده نکند، پس از چه کسانی راهنمایی بگیرد؟! یعنی «کانت» نمیدانسته که بارها و بارها، ترفندبازها و دروغ پردازانِ دینی و مذهبی خودشان را وسیله و رابطِ بین خدا و انسان قرار دادند و از قولِ خدا هزاران گفتۀ چرت و پرت، نادرست و ناهمگون برایِ مردمِ مذهبی به ارمغان آوردند؟! من نمیدانم، انسانِ با شعور چگونه میتواند از راهِ خداشناسی به پیرایشِ کردار و رفتارِ خود بپردازد؟! دوستانِ خردگرایِ من، وقتی <محمد رسولِ اللهِ اکبر> پیغمبرِ تازیان در آیۀ 104 توبه و آیۀ 25 اسری از کتابش میگه: هر گناهی که انسان مرتکب شده باشد، با یک توبه بخشوده خواهد شد..... و یا دینمردان و کشیشانِ کاتولیکِ مسیحیت، با یک اعترافِ مسخره و بچگانه تمامِ گناهان را از دوشِ مردم بر میدارند... خوب، با این اوصاف، چگونه انسانِ خردمند به اصلاحِ رفتارِ خویش بپردازد؟!!... دوستانِ خردگرا، «کانت» نمیدانسته، شما خردگرایان که میدانید... وقتی کسی که از کودکی فقط در بیابان چوپانی و شتر سواری کرده است، به نامِ پیامبری، دستور قتل و کشتار و تجاوز میدهد، یا اعلامِ جهاد میکند، آنهم به اسم خدایش اللهِ اکبر، و میگه: اين مردمِ نفرين شده را هر كجا يافتيد بكشيد... به نظر شما انسان ها باید از چه کسی برای انجام کار درست پیروی کنن!؟؟مَلْعُونِينَ أَيْنَمَا ثُقِفُوا أُخِذُوا وَقُتِّلُوا تَقْتِيلًااز رحمت‏خدا دور گرديده و هر كجا يافته شوند گرفته و سخت كشته خواهند شد****************************خوووب... عزیزانم، شما بگویید، انسان خردمند، با دیدن این همه قتل و کشتار و کارهای کثیف و غیر انسانی با نامِ دین و عرب پرستی، چگونه میتواند با رفتارِ درست به سمتِ خداشناسی گام بردارد؟! بدون تردید صحبت من را قبول داریدگویا «کانت» قصد داشته تا گفته هایِ فلاسفۀ پیش از خود را نقص کند، و متأسفانه پیروانِ فلسفۀ «کانت» کورکورانه عقایدِ اشتباهش را قبول کردندکانت به جایِ آنکه عقایدِ اخلاقی را از اصولِ متافیزیکی و خرافات استخراج کند، اخلاقیات را یک رشتۀ مستقل بشمار آورده است و اصولِ متافیزیکی را از موازینِ اخلاقی میگیرد... که این عقیده و روش دقیقاً مخالفِ عقایدِ آزاداندیشانی همچون «برتراند راسل»، « اسپینوزا»، «کوندیلاک»، «لامتری»، «تولند» ، « ولتر»، «تیندل» و «هیوم»، میباشددوستانِ عزیزم، درست است که امروزه اکثرِ مسائلِ فلسفی «ارسطو» به وسیلۀ پیشرفتِ دانش و خردِ انسانی، نقض شده است، ولی همان مسائلی که به علم ارتباط نداشت و به اخلاقِ انسانی مرتبط بود را نیز « کانت» رد میکند و برایِ «ارسطو» نیز سازِ مخالف میزند... «ارسطو» میگوید: آنهایی که رفتار و کردارِ اخلاقی و انسانی دارند، بدان جهت است که از رفتار و کردارِ اخلاقیِ خویش لذت میبرند...، ولی «کانت» میگوید: اگر شما نسبت به برادر یا همسایۀ خود مهربان هستید، دلیلش آن است که شما آنها را دوست دارید، نه اینکه این رفتارِ نیکِ شما برگرفته از ارزش هایِ اخلاقی شما باشد........ بسیار خوب، دوستانِ گرامی به عقیدۀ شما صحبتِ «کانت» درست است؟ یعنی اگر ما در خیابان به دیگران احترام بگذاریم و یا ناسزا نگوییم، تمامیِ مردم را دوست داریم یا مثلاً عاشقشان هستیم؟!! اگر یک فردِ نابینا را از خیابان رد کنیم، یعنی به آن نابینا در همان لحظه و یکهوویی علاقه مند شده ایم؟!!! پس میبینیم که «کانت» دوباره اشتباه گفته است، فقط آنقدر آن را بیهوده بزرگش کرده اند، که کسی این ایراد ها و نواقصِ فلسفۀ او را بیان نکرده است و حتی با دقت و وسواس در آن اندیشه نکرده انددوستان و ایرانیانِ خردگرا، نمیتوان منکرِ این بود که « کانت» دارایِ استعداد و نبوغِ فکری بوده است، ولی اگر اندکی از خرد و اندیشۀ خردمندانی چون «زکریایِ رازی» را دارا بود، میتوانست از استعدادش به بهترین شکلِ ممکن بهره برداری کند و بدونِ تردید فلسفه اش به پیشرفتِ انسان ها کمکِ بسزایی میکردامیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما بزرگواران، مفید بوده باشه<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

  • Ian
    2019-02-25 09:21

    In Which Pictures Are Painted and Inferences Are DrawnRecently, I decided to get better acquainted with Kant in preparation for some readings in Hegel, Marx and other Continental Philosophers.I have collected some materials about this venture here:http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...After reading this work, I also read and reviewed Roger Scruton's book (which was shorter and more accessible):http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...My approach to reading Kant has been to focus on secondary material written about him, rather than material written by him.Perhaps this reflects a fear of the difficulty of his concepts and prose. However, it leaves me vulnerable to the subjectivity of the secondary author. What approach did they take? What did they focus on? What did they omit? Did they construe Kant through a subjective prism of their own? Did they interpret Kant only within the system of philosophy that he created or did they interpret him within the broader context of philosophy as a whole?Stephan Körner, who was a Professor of Philosophy at the Univeristy of Bristol and at Yale, writes with a knowledge of Kant’s context, as well as views of his own. He is at pains to explain Kant’s philosophy clearly, while occasionally revealing a dry sense of humour.I still found this a demanding read. While I did my best to understand the immediate subject matter, I found I had to explore its context more broadly, in order to understand why what I was reading was significant.I’ve tried to draw inferences from what I’ve read. If they’re wrong, it’s my fault, not that of the author. This will not be my last disclaimer.The Doors of Perception (A Priori and A Posteriori)Just about any summary of Kant starts with an explanation of two terms that are used to differentiate types of Knowledge:• A priori ("from the earlier") comes before and is therefore independent of Experience. A priori knowledge doesn’t depend on Experience for its validity. It derives from Reason.• A posteriori ("from the later") comes after and therefore depends on Experience. A posteriori knowledge depends on Experience for its validity. It expresses an empirical fact. It does not derive from Reason alone.My initial reaction? So what? Why should I care?Heaven and Hell (The Great Debate)To answer these questions, you have to appreciate that Kant was contributing to a debate between two types of philosophy concerning Metaphysics:• Rationalism; and• Empiricism.Metaphysics can be loosely defined as the study of Being, Existence and Reality.It is often construed as meaning "beyond" or "above" physics or the material.While this is a misconstruction of the literal etymology of the word, it might help me to express my next point.Rationalism regards Reason as the main source of knowledge. Truth can only be determined by intellectual or deductive means, not sensory means. Knowledge or truth is therefore a priori.To the extent that Metaphysics is a product of Reason, it might stand beyond or above the physical or material world.In contrast, Empiricism regards Sensory Experience and Evidence as the main source of knowledge. It derives from interaction with the physical or material world.In Which Kant is Awakened by David HumeThe Scottish Empiricist philosopher, David Hume, was most skeptical about the Rationalist influence on Metaphysics.He asserted that Metaphysics is "not properly a science" and that, like natural science, "the only solid foundation for [the science of human nature] must be laid on experience and observation". Hume explicitly questioned the role of Reason as the source of knowledge and truth, and therefore the foundation of traditional Metaphysics.Kant found fault with both Rationalism and Empiricism. He attempted to cherry pick what he regarded as the best aspects of each approach and construct a composite critical philosophy that avoided the flaws of both approaches.By doing so in an extremely methodical manner, he hoped to revive and rehabilitate Metaphysics, as well as vindicating its credibility as a robust branch of science.Yet, Kant famously gave Hume credit for awakening him from his "dogmatic slumber".Analytic and Synthetic PropositionsKant also distinguished between Analytic and Synthetic Propositions or Judgements.He applied the distinction to Propositions that consisted of a Subject and a Predicate.An Analytic Proposition can be proved by resort to Logic or Reason alone (i.e., without resort to Experience).For example, the Proposition "All bachelors are unmarried" is true by definition. Linguistically, the word "bachelor" "contains" the word or concept "unmarried". It is not necessary to test the truth of the Proposition by Experience or Experiment in order to establish its truth.In contrast, the truth of a Synthetic Proposition such as "All married men are unhappy" cannot be established by Logic or Reason alone. It would be necessary to resort to Experience or Experiment, and even then it would be hoped that it is not true, at least in all circumstances.Four Types of PropositionKant then joins these four terms to create four distinct combinations:• analytic a priori;• synthetic a priori;• analytic a posteriori;• synthetic a posteriori.The first exists wholly within the realm of Logic or Reason, the fourth within the realm of Experience.The third theoretically requires both Logic and Experience to prove its truth, which Kant considers to be self-contradictory. If it is true as a matter of Logic, it is not necessary to resort to Experience to establish its truth.Synthetic A Priori PropositionsKant then focuses on the second combination of "Synthetic A Priori" Propositions.Körner uses the proposition "5 + 7 = 12" to illustrate the concept.Kant argues that the truth of this proposition is not dependent on Experience and is therefore a priori.It is synthetic in the sense that the meaning of the predicate "12" is not intrinsically contained in or implied by the subject "5 + 7". The predicate or answer 12 is the result of a mathematical process that applies outside the framework of the sentence or proposition itself.The truth of "Synthetic A Priori" Propositions does not result from the internal logic or linguistics of the Proposition or from being tested by Experiment or Experience.As a result, by elimination, I infer that their truth derives from some mental apparatus of the mind (such as the mathematical process in the above equation).Thus, Kant has asserted or proved that truth or knowledge can derive not just from Experience, but from the mind or Reason.As a result, he has effectively refuted a primary assertion of Empiricism. However, he didn’t reject the whole of Empiricism or embrace the whole of Rationalism. Instead, he steered a middle ground between the two.This achievement was vital to Kant because he argued that "Synthetic A Priori" Propositions are the essence of Metaphysics. They were the vehicle by which he rehabilitated Metaphysics.The Relationship with the Outside WorldKant’s reasoning opened up scope to analyse how the mind thinks about or relates to objects in the outside world.Kant differentiated between three cognitive faculties of the mind (or Cognition):• Understanding;• Judgement; and• Reason.Kant accepts that objects in the material world exist and are empirically real. However, he speaks of objects being "given" to us via our senses. We then process what we sense and perceive:"By means of sense, objects are given to us, and sense alone provides us with perceptions."Our senses are the source of information or data about objects. Our minds "perceive" what we have "sensed". However, Perception is a passive process.Having perceived an object, our mind sets about understanding it, which is an active process of Thinking or "Judgement". We do this by applying concepts or "Categories" of "Pure Understanding", which are characteristics or "Presentations" of objects in general (as opposed to particulars of an actual object that we have sensed and perceived).The "Categories" are not abstracted from perception. They are not just the product of objects. They are the product of our minds. They are characteristics or presentations (which are given, remembered and combined perceptual data). The Categories are "transcendental", because they transcend individual objects and are a condition of knowledge of all objects. Collectively, they are forms or ways of seeing, like spectacles, which our minds superimpose over the top of what we perceive.When we apply a Category to an actual object (e.g., an elephant), we connect or unify or contract many presentations or characteristics (a "manifold") into the concept or Category.If it "fits" or coordinates, the unification results in us understanding that we have seen. In a way, in our example, our mind registers an elephant:"Connection is the representation of the synthetic unity of the manifold."Reason is the source of the concepts and principles that allow us to make Judgements. Reason defines the formal conditions of truth. In a way, it sits above Judgements and is the arbiter of truth in all Judgements. Space and TimeKant considers that space and time are not properties or characteristics of objects in the outside world, but are contributed by the mind of the perceiving subject.Again, they are like the spectacles through which we perceive the outside world. We can’t remove our spectacles. We can only see objects through the subjective framework of space and time. Therefore, we can never see objects as they are "in themselves". We change them by seeing them. The world is moulded in the process of our apprehension of it. However, the appearances of objects are not mere illusions. We can differentiate between what perceptions are real and what are illusions, just as a Realist can.Kant is, therefore, not strictly an Idealist or a Subjectivist.Cognition, Pleasure and DesireKant also differentiated between three faculties of the mind as a whole:• Cognition;• Pleasure and Pain; and• Desire.As illustrated above, the application of the Categories is an essential part of the cognitive process.The faculty of Desire is the capacity to "do or to refrain from doing as one pleases".If it involves a consciousness of what actions are necessary to achieve an object, it involves a Choice.If there is no such consciousness, it involves a Wish.The subject matter of Desire (e.g., what pleases us in particular and what choices are available to us) is determined within our Reason and is described as an act of Will. Having determined the nature of our Desire and how to attain it, Pleasure and Pain are determined by the extent to which our actions attain the object of our Desire. Pleasure is the achievement of a purpose.We are free, if our Will can cause our object to be attained, without ourselves being caused to do so (e.g., by duty or force).In the context of Aesthetic Judgements, Kant sees pleasure as deriving from beauty, which is a result of a Judgement that an object is beautiful. The pleasure derives from the compliance of the object with concepts of form. There is a harmony of object and formal concepts.Good Will Hunting (Duty, Will, Morality and Religion)Kant used the above analysis of Cognition to set out a critical philosophy of "Pure Reason".When he applies a similar analysis to Moral Philosophy or Ethics, he refers to it as a critical philosophy of "Practical Reason".Kant uses the term Will in relation to Desire, but it is also essential to an understanding of his Moral Philosophy.Will involves the choice of action required to achieve a Desire or Object.Not every action or choice is morally good. Kant uses the term "Good Will" to describe morally good conduct or a morally good person.Any decision made by a Good Will must be determined by the Moral Law or Duty and for the sake of complying with the Moral Law in its own right. It is not done in order to achieve a subjective Desire or Pleasure or to be seen to be Virtuous. Moral Law is a limitation on Desire. Good Will requires a perception of and compliance with Duty.Kant defines this Duty as the "Categorical Imperative", to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."The Imperative must not be determined by its potential application in any particular conditions or to any particular person. It must be universal in application, hence the moral authority of the Law or Imperative.It’s important that this definition of Good Will does not resort to God or Religion for its essence or its authority:"Morality needs the idea neither of another being above man for man to recognise his duty, nor of another motive apart from the Law for him to fulfil his Duty...Morality thus needs religion in no way for morality’s sake, but is by virtue of the pure practical reason self-sufficient."This doesn’t mean that Kant didn’t believe in God or that he did not purport to believe in God.He does not purport to prove the existence of God by means of Pure Reason. Instead, he relies on Practical or Moral Reason, in effect to declare God "the Ideal of Pure Reason":"We ought to endeavour to promote the highest good (which therefore must be possible). Therefore we must postulate the existence of a cause of the whole of nature, which is different from nature, and which contains the ground…of the exact proportionateness of happiness and morality."According to Körner, Kant believes that God is such a cause and that "his argument is that the highest good is not realisable unless God exists". In other words, "man can promote the highest good only if God exists."Facts, Opinion and FaithI can’t say I understand this, but I wonder whether the argument proceeds like this: "God is the highest Good; the highest Good exists; therefore, God exists."Anyway, the precise logical proof of the existence of God doesn’t really matter to me. I believe it is a matter of faith, not logic, and that Kant was expressly working in the realm of "rational faith".Ultimately, what he created was a coherent and robust system for analyzing three types of Knowledge:• Matters of Fact;• Matters of Opinion (including Aesthetics); and• Matters of Faith.Kant Help Falling in Love with YouSo what did I get out of this venture?I wanted to overcome my apprehension about reading Kant.I wanted to obtain and elucidate a simplistic overview of Kant’s basic ideas, both to help me and to hopefully help you.I wanted to understand why many see Kant as responsible for a Copernican Revolution in Philosophy.I wanted to lay the foundation for an appreciation of the influence of Kant’s analysis of Understanding, Judgement, Reason, Desire, Pleasure, Morality and Faith on Hegel and Continental Philosophers.My journey with Kant isn't finished. However, if nothing else, I think I've overcome my apprehension, and I'm ready to read on.This is the End of Our Elaborate Plans, My FriendIf you’ve read this far, thank you.Körner ends his book with the hope that:"...my exposition, brief and inadequate as in the nature of the case it has had to be, has not greatly misrepresented the thought of a very great thinker."I would like to amplify this wish in relation to the thoughts expressed in my review, because they are briefer, more inadequate and infinitely less informed than either Kant’s or Körner’s.

  • Szplug
    2019-03-15 04:29

    I can't get enough Kant not written by Kant.Though I am not digging this cover portrait of the Königsberg Colossus as a creepily malevolent and bewigged Gollum armed with ring-hungry eyes.

  • Simon
    2019-03-08 01:07

    A concise (just over 200 pages), clearly-written introduction targeting the non-specialist; it covers most key areas of the three 'Critiques' in an accessible manner with good examples illustrating some of Kant's major points... Korner raises brief criticisms and includes a short appendicized overview of Kant's life... one of the first commentaries geared to the English-speaking reader after the second world-war...

  • Michael David
    2019-02-27 02:03

    I'm not new to reading Kant. I've read two of his shorter works, and I appreciate how he has caused me to transform my views regarding ethics. I like to believe that his precepts have been influential in guiding me to become a 'better' person. Kant, however, has been known to be an unbelievably dense writer. I have had firsthand experience with his Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals and his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Both books are less than a hundred pages each; despite that, however, each book takes longer than two moderately-sized novels featuring straightforward prose (at about 300 pages each). I have believed that reading an introduction to his magnum opus, Critique of Pure Reason would lead me to an easier time in dealing with said work. How wrong I was.Korner, despite the fact that he has written a lucid account of Kant's philosophy, still has had to use Kantian terminology and thought. In spite of his illuminating, and more modern examples, my pace in reading his work of introduction has been as limaceous as my reading of Kant's shorter works: It has taken me two weeks of plodding and procrastination in order to read an introduction to Kantian philosophy. At least I've realized that I still don't have what it takes to tackle Kant's Critiques. Reading this book has been anything but fruitless: I believe that even Kant's harshest critic cannot disagree with the fact that modern critical philosophy exists largely because of Kant's works. He has prefaced Godel's incompleteness theorem in one of his expositions in his Critique of Pure Reason: 'The logical maxim cannot become a fundamental principle of pure reason unless we assume that if the condition is given, the whole sequence of subordinate conditions, which consequently is itself unconditioned, is also given.' Not only that, Kant also thought of the foundation of Hegelian dialectics. In contrast to dialectic, however, he calls his contrapuntal thoughts to be antinomies. These antinomies later resolve into synthetic statements, either by being true contradictions, or through contradictions that resolve when one realizes that they apply to different ideas. The man remains to be a genius that most people regard with respect. I also like that he believes in a God which he considers to be ens realissimum: Ultimately, there must be an unconditioned being that can represent ALL possible predicates. That Being is both a circle and a square. He is a being that cannot be incompatible with any other predicate. There are many reasons on why one should read Kant, but I just can't stomach another minute of his dense thought within the next few months. Perhaps I'm still too young.

  • Az
    2019-02-23 06:11

    Decent overview of Kantian philosophy. From the metaphysics, through to Ethics, culminating in Kantian aesthetics.

  • Mohadese
    2019-03-20 03:19

    یه جورِ عجیبی بود متن. یه جاهایی رو خیلی ساده و یه جاهایی رو پیچیده کرده بود

  • Joni
    2019-03-18 08:22

    Hard reading... but I got through it.... still not sure about the not lying thing.... I really had to force myself to read this but I really wanted to know what he thought. Had to read and re-read passages and sometimes I still didn't get it. Here's the thing, even with the difficulty, I DID get quite a lot of what Kant had to say to us all and I feel the better for it. I absorbed and understood and because of that, I feel I'm enriched.