What is the Transcendental Deduction?
November 5, 2008 4:02 PM Subscribe
What, exactly, is Kant trying to say in the Transcendental Deduction? More specifically...
What is Kant arguing for in the "A" version of the Transcendental Deduction, and how is he doing it?
I've read the Guyer and Wood translation a dozen times and I'm still lost as to exactly what Kant is going on about. I've searched the intarwebs, but I haven't found much help. Someone must know!
What is Kant arguing for in the "A" version of the Transcendental Deduction, and how is he doing it?
I've read the Guyer and Wood translation a dozen times and I'm still lost as to exactly what Kant is going on about. I've searched the intarwebs, but I haven't found much help. Someone must know!
Here is Bennett's free amended translation: Chapter 2: Transcendental Deduction. I haven't actually read this particular version, however, I've read Bennett's take on Locke, Berkeley, and Hume and they are surprisingly clear/easy to understand. Hope this helps.
posted by ageispolis at 4:29 PM on November 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ageispolis at 4:29 PM on November 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
On closer investigation I see that Bennett has used Smith's translation as his base, but has modified it extensively for clarity.
posted by ageispolis at 4:32 PM on November 5, 2008
posted by ageispolis at 4:32 PM on November 5, 2008
Response by poster: I'm looking at the Kemp Smith translation right now, and I'm still having a hard time.
If anyone can provide even the barest possible explanation, it would be much appreciated!
posted by brandonjadams at 4:35 PM on November 5, 2008
If anyone can provide even the barest possible explanation, it would be much appreciated!
posted by brandonjadams at 4:35 PM on November 5, 2008
If you're anywhere near philadelphia, try to sit in on Guyer's Kant II (I think that's the one you want, but maybe it's Kant I) class. Of course, ask him first, but the phil dept there is pretty nice.
posted by singerdj at 5:26 PM on November 5, 2008
posted by singerdj at 5:26 PM on November 5, 2008
IANSWAWTA (I Am Not So Well Acquainted With the Analytic), but you might benefit from reading Sebastian Gardner's book on the Critique. It's very lucid but, since it's Gardner, not "For Dummies" either. Henry Allison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" (second edition) is also readable and has a chapter on the Dialectic, though with him you risk reading a more reconstructed version of Kant than you might prefer (though that depends on you).
(And, in case you ever want to concentrate on the way cooler part of the Critique, let me take this opportunity to plug Michelle Grier's 2001 book on the Dialectic, "Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion." So damn good.)
posted by Beardman at 5:42 PM on November 5, 2008
(And, in case you ever want to concentrate on the way cooler part of the Critique, let me take this opportunity to plug Michelle Grier's 2001 book on the Dialectic, "Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion." So damn good.)
posted by Beardman at 5:42 PM on November 5, 2008
have you looked at this earlier askme thread?
Speaking as someone who works in philosophy, I think you have to ask yourself, if you are still getting confused after reading it a dozen times, whether it is worth reading at all. It's likely that you don't have the background awareness necessary to appreciate what he is saying, and would really need some grounding in Aristotle, Descartes, Hume etc. first. It's also a common experience to read something like this 20 years later and then suddenly appreciate it for the first time.
If you are a philosophy student, and you have to read this for a course, then your teachers should be telling you what you need to know. If its for private study, then what are you really after? Just an ego-trip to read something really really hard? Or do you genuinely suspect that it will give you answers to problems you are considering? Without having those problems in the forefront of your mind, the whole thing might seem pointless.
Also remember that although Kant is incredibly smart, he is wrong about pretty much everything.
posted by leibniz at 4:50 AM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
Speaking as someone who works in philosophy, I think you have to ask yourself, if you are still getting confused after reading it a dozen times, whether it is worth reading at all. It's likely that you don't have the background awareness necessary to appreciate what he is saying, and would really need some grounding in Aristotle, Descartes, Hume etc. first. It's also a common experience to read something like this 20 years later and then suddenly appreciate it for the first time.
If you are a philosophy student, and you have to read this for a course, then your teachers should be telling you what you need to know. If its for private study, then what are you really after? Just an ego-trip to read something really really hard? Or do you genuinely suspect that it will give you answers to problems you are considering? Without having those problems in the forefront of your mind, the whole thing might seem pointless.
Also remember that although Kant is incredibly smart, he is wrong about pretty much everything.
posted by leibniz at 4:50 AM on November 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
« Older How to Troubleshoot Intermittent Network Problem | We stopped the tide, but broke everything else Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Also, you might want to consider switching to Smith's translation in addition to his commentary. It's considered such a lucid interpretation of a famously confusing book that German students who speak English as a second language will often prefer to read the Smith translation instead of the original. I believe the whole thing is available free online.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:23 PM on November 5, 2008 [2 favorites]