I’m currently in university, and I am very interested in taking at least one philosophy class (I am an engineering major). However, the only class that is currently available for me is a class about Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The class does not have any prerequisites so I’m hoping it doesn’t require too much prior philosophical experience (I have none) but I’ve heard Kant is one of the most difficult philosophers to grasp and that CPR specifically is very difficult and dense. I just wanted to hear some feedback on if this class is viable for a newbie. There is very little description for the course other than “We will focus on topics such as the self, space and time, causation, and the nature and limits of human knowledge.” Thanks!
If the class says it does not require background then I believe that the instructor has tailored it to an audience interested in philosophy with some introduction to the ideas such that Kant is the lens to thinking about philosophy rather than asking new students to do the interpretive dive into Kant.
I very much doubt that an intro class on Kant would require you to read very much of the text. Selections? Sure, they should do that. But you aren’t going to be required to read whole chunks of the book in an introductory class.
I really don’t know if a class on Kant would make a good introductory course in philosophy. Me, I did two years of undergrad philosophy as part of an Arts degree, and Kant wasn’t even part of my curriculum (the first unit was on Descartes ‘the first modern philosopher’.) I wasn’t to encounter Kant for some years after that (and then it was on a book on Buddhist philosophy which compared elements of Buddhist thought with Kant.) Obviously we don’t know how capable you might be of grasping the drift of Kant straight out of the gate - you may well be! - but from my observation, there are a lot of well-educated people who really don’t seem to see the point of his famous Critique.
Regardless, have a look at this primer The Continuing Relevance of Immanuel Kant by Emrys Westacott. It’s as good a small intro as any.
1 Like
It will be a survey course, so the goal is to introduce.
I would suggest reading the book. It’s a hard slog, but if the course is fairly surface level, you could read the book, not understand most of it, and still do well in the course. I’ve done a weirrd thing where I’ve read almost all the texts I’ve been assigned through my degree prior to starting it. So the classes are just elucidations, clarifications and sharpening of my existing understands. That has helped immensely and gave me the ability to tutor before the end of my first year.
One of the elements that make reading Kant difficult is the degree to which he wants to control the use of terms. He inscribes what has been said by himself and others to some degree by assigning ideas a place in his vernacular. Why he feels compelled to do that is interesting and an element of his thinking.
This digital copy of the Critique of Pure Reason is helpful because one can use the find in page function to locate specific uses of these terms. Kant was keenly focused on being consistent in this regard.
No idea. Kant’s not particularly known for his views on the self.
Kant thought space was geometry and time arithmetic.
Didn’t know he wrote on this topic. He does say that Hume awoke him from his slumber.
Kant was interested in rationality, especially its boundaries. The noumenon is beyond our event horizon.
Tackling Kant’s first Critique with absolutely no background is very, very tough. My recommendation: skim James O’Shea’s Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction. That’s the most accessible book I know that introduces that book. If O’Shea is too heavy going, then I’m afraid it will be very difficult to follow the course, unless the professor is a very gifted teacher (not impossible, by the way).
1 Like
Kant’s fundamental idea is that our cognition is organized by the principle of self-consciousness, and the conditions that make such a consciousness possible. His analysis influenced views of the self ranging from Heidegger and Sartre to Strawson and others.
Kant did think that the formal intuition of space was a precondition to geometry (the connection between time and arithmetic, if any, is far more contentious). But geometry did not exhaust that intuition.
His entire first Critique was written in part to vindicate out judgments of causality as objective. It is one of the fundamental categories of experience. It is analyzed in depth in the Second Analogy of Experience, particularly it’s role in determining an objective time order.
1 Like
I think that I will try and reach out to the professor before the semester begins to try and learn more about the course and get his own opinion on if I should take it.
1 Like
Oh, definitely.
I would not assign the CPR in a survey course. That’s just stupid.
I was thinking it would be summaries of the man with selected readings to get the idea across, and Kant was selected like any other philosopher of that stature would be selected (and taught in the same way: summaries with selected readings and asking for people to write papers about what they think)
If not that then I’d be hesitant. Starting with the CPR (like, the whole text) would be a terrible introduction to philosophy for anyone who is just starting.
1 Like
I would start with something simple, clear, short and summary type of books. There are plenty of the thin summary type of books on Kant. Or even read the chapters on Kant from various history of philosophy books.
Important thing here is to read several different short books on Kant, and build up 3 dimensional idea on Kant’s system. When you are familiar with his vocabularies and concepts, then it would be good time to read CPR and other critiques.
Perhaps it’s better off to start with a summary of Kants main points on CPR then read the whole book. The book can be quite dense in places so having some clarity before venturing out to read the work might help.
I kinda like Kant, as a metaphysician he’s one of the best. I wouldn’t say I’ve read the whole of his work mostly excerpts here and there. The scope of his ambition is well matched to his intellect.
That one is not recommended these days. The two most respected translations now are Guyer & Wood, and Pluhar. Personally, I like Pluhar best.
Ah, I must check out your recommendations … do you know if the preface is available free online somewhere as I’d like to carry out a quick comparison. (Of Pluhar)
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing you’d be able to find it online.
1 Like
I have
The version above compared to the one on Gutenberg I posted appears at first glance to be easier and more accessible to read. This is just a quick comparison of course, the thing with various translations of originals is that sometimes by making the conversion from German the argument remains but the utilisation of language and intent of author may be slightly lost.
I found this same issue when comparing one of Dostoyevskys work to multiple translations.
As reading the author in his native language is not always practical by having to invest time in learning the original language one must then choose based on personal preference and taste.
1 Like
Here is the link to Guyer and Wood.
1 Like
Fair enough. I first read it in the context of reading Descartes, Hume, etcetera. It still hurt my brain with the vocabulary.
1 Like
I ought say that there’s nothing wrong with people jumping in and just doing it.
I did the exact same thing, and continue to do the exact same thing.
“Stupid” is too harsh. “Naive” is probably better: sometimes our passion for various texts can obscure what’s best in terms of a new student to philosophy.
Ultimately I’d love it if a student of philosophy started to connect to Kant, and see kinship in you and others like myself who just decided to jump in out of passion. I think there’s a few of us here who feel this way! 
It still hurts my brain too, but in the good way. I think.