David Bowden

Not sure if this belongs here or in Philosophy.

I'm reading Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals and find myself unable to read more than a paragraph or two without completely losing focus.

Now, mind you, I'm not illiterate or lazy when it comes to studying philosophy on my own. I've read most of Aristotle, Plato, and the Stoics and Epicureans, plus a lot of Mill, Locke, Hume, Nietzsche and even some Kierkegaard and Hegel, and I really enjoy gnawing on the finer points of logic and epistemology...

But I've never banged my head on the table so much as with this little treatise by Kant. I'm considering whether my maxim (that I should be able to smack Kant around for writing such densely-packed prose) could stand as a universal law. Am I the only one who's had so much trouble with this guy?

</rant>

Okay, what I'm wondering is whether anyone here has read the article in question, or knows of a good online resource or a generally-available library book putting it in context or even <gasp!> summarizing it. The edition I own has no notes - it's just T. K. Abbott's translation, in the Britannica Great Books set.

Normally I'd never stoop to Cliff's Notes-ing a philosopher, but darnit I sure would feel better if I could get my head around this bugger. The moreso because I'd actually like to digest Kant's longer works eventually.

Thanks,
-Wanderer

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I cannot recommend any books that would help you to understand Kant.

There is a field of view in philosophy who says that the important philosophers are obscure, because they cause everybody else to ask "What did he say?" And then write paper after paper offering attempting to defend their different interpretations.

When I read Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, I closed myself off in a room and read the book out loud. I would read a paragraph, think about a moment, then write a summary in my own words, then go on to the next paragraph.

I left the room 10 hours later, ultimately concluding that Kant's whole metaphysics was built on a classical error.

These "categorical imperatives" he was after were a figment of his own imagination. Kant attempted to prove the existence and to describe the character of intrinsic value properties -- a rationality of ends that was distinct from a rationality of means. And he failed.

David Bowden

YES!!! I'm vindicated!!! Thank you!!

That's sort of what I felt was going on, Alonzo, only you put it more succinctly than my fried brain could articulate.

I spent a little time at Borders last night skimming the Cambridge Companion to Kant, which puts him in some context and outlines some of his key points. The whole way through I was just going, "No, no - wait, NO!!..."

It reminded me of what one of old friends said when I was just beginning to study philosophy: "Continental philosophers? Fuck'em."

-Wanderer

Bill Snedden

There is a very nice series of relatively short books on important philosophers called The Wadsworth Philosopher Series. Each book in the series deals with the life and writings of a particular philsopher (Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc) and is written by a practicing philosopher.

I have the books on Hume, Wittgenstein, and Rand and have found them to be invaluable "quick reads" that give a basic overview of each philosopher's life, influences, and ideas. Although I don't have it, I'm assuming that they also have one on Kant, and if so, it's probably a good "beginning" book to read in that it will give you a general overview before reading the works yourself.

The series also has a website, which you can check out <a href="http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

David Bowden

Thanks, Bill; I'll check out that Wadsworth set. It sounds just like what I'm looking for.

Not that anybody should care, but I didn't mean to sound so dismissive of Kant and the Continental tradition earlier. I greatly desire to understand them properly, even if I strongly doubt I'd adopt much into my own still-developing way of looking at things.

My exuberance came from learning that I'm not the only one to have such a viscerally negative reaction to a philosopher of Kant's monumental standing. Prior to this week, I'd been able to read and digest anybody I picked up, and in them I'd find some gold along with some tin. Kant was all tin to my ears and I was about to think I was to blame. So I was relieved to hear that that's not the case at all.

-Wanderer