Saturday, February 12, 2011

Critique of Pure Reason: not as hard as people seem to think

Just sayin'. It's one where folks have been so afraid of it that they haven't actually looked at it. I personally think it's easier than his later works, like the Critique of Judgment, that depend on knowledge of the first Critique in their arguments.

True, very true. Sort of a straw dog, not totally, but somewhat. I think all of the early 19th century philosophy associated with the idealists is good, but the problem is that in order to understand them you already have to have a background in philosophy. The tendency is to dismiss them because a background like that is hard to come by, unless you studied lots of it in college.

I would urge folks to test themselves and try to work up to reading people like Kant, Hegel, and Fichte, although Fichte is pretty obscure sometimes. The effort pays off, and it can change the way you interpret the world in a very positive way.

No comments: