Editorial notes:
Although Shai refers to Kant in earlier essays, this is the first where he is analysing Kant’s writing and philosophical approach by analysing his “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science” (definitely a mouthful, thus often referred to as Kant’s Prolegomena). Altogether, 23 essays are related to Kant.
I severely want to re-read this and treat accordingly!!! Aka, To Do.
In his Introduction to his Prolegomena, Kant sets the scene by checking Metaphysic’s score. He proceeds by the following count: (1) Philosophy appears to make no progress. (2) Hume was a revolutionary, for raising the question, “How can Cause/Effect be necessary principles if they cannot be justified?”. (3) Hume’s answer is sceptical, but even so, his readers fail to acknowledge his success, and instead divert themselves with tricks like Common Sense. (4) Kant, of course, does it right and better, by addressing the challenge. Analysing the problem, he realises that Cause/Effect is merely a singular instance of a priori concepts employed by the mind. Thus a metaphysics can exist only if such apriori concepts are integrated into an understanding of mind and thought.
Ok. So thus follows the Introduction. Now for some egocentric perspective; responding to those points. (1) Certainly, the lack of lasting successes in philosophy can be a concern, although certainly, it feels like less of one thanks to individuals like Kant who (ostensibly) achieved new heights against which future achievements are to be measured and understood. The problem is not merely historical (i.e. people in the past have not achieved x), but also methodological (esp. esp. the existence of an authority-value). It might not be incidental to recall that Kant gave his generation the rebel’s cry, “Think for yourself!” (2) By admitting that it was Hume’s thoughts that awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber, reveals a few ideas. First, it shows Kant to admit to incapacity for superseding his generation’s dogma, but for the serendipitous reading. By analogy, and in an educating manner, it can be said and encouraged that the I will always struggle to perceive their own dogmatic slumbers, and that holes in one’s thinking might be revealed by observing them against the challenge of another’s. Second, it raises a very specific question, “How do Cause/Effect exist as concepts in the mind?” Which led Kant to the more generalized format, “How to a priori concepts exist in the mind?” These questions are not merely rhetorical (nor mere passages in history’s books); they are live problems, and their awareness joins Kant’s mind to the present’s reader’s in a dialogue across time.
Point (3) is largely historical, and allows for a re-understanding of those (quote-unquote) philosophers who had read Hume, but neither solved his challenges, nor took up his revelations into their worldview. Before continuing on, I would note that this is an especially profound achievement. The easy solution to reading Hume is to see him as a modern and empowered sceptic, whose brand is sufficiently extreme so as to make even the tools of its analysis (viz. reason) useless before it. (Again, the lesson is to truly hear and respond to philosophy’s philosophers). The last, (4) can be broken down, but is practically just a preface to what’s to come next: Section #1.
[Above is a response to some Kant; below is… something else].
Things that I’ve discovered of late: Hacking schools (aka code/academy/bootcamp, etc). Even their underlying principle, and the basis for advertising superior “educations” than universities is fascinating in its revelation of individual achievements (cf. the masses and their means), markets, and their suggestions for the future. On top of all which, it emphasizes the challenge of questioning society’s paths, and seeking the alternative, independent, and that which is best for myself because I know so.
[Ok. And…]
How (today) I see the question of educating myself in philosophy:
First of all, I’ll discuss the past. I’ve fancied a historical approach to philosophy, and have employed the argument that says that to understand each philosophy (and its creator), I must understand their predecessor, to whom they are responding, and whose ideas they grasp like tools. There have been a number of challenges to this approach. These include practical hindrances, such as time. Observations indicate that it is unreasonable to expect myself to undertake tasks x through z. More significant is, however, the Enlightenment problem. Enlightenment is a task undertaken, and involves most profoundly thinking for oneself. Today’s solution combines both these problems: practical and principled.
I read philosophy in order to behold ideas I might otherwise have never considered. In doing so, I am acknowledging superior thought, and also an appreciation of value. Some things are more valuable than others. Because of time and life and all such worries, I seek the best in preference to the rest. Thus, in order of priority, I study the best, listing them in places first, second and third. So that’s not to dismiss all the rest. In fact, even withstanding practical concerns, there is value in “the rest”, albeit reduced. So I’ll still read up on the summaries of the minors, but far less than I have to date, and with an eye that sees them in their place and as such.
Another lesson I have learnt is the significance of reading the greats’ primary texts. Think for thyself. Secondary texts, especially in particular cases, can be valuable, and valuable sometimes in their own rights. But again: engage the best in dialogue, and not through their self-identified transmitters and drones.
[Something else, or more]
As today’s instance proves, my daily writing on some days is composed of individual tangents. But sometimes I might want for writing’s origins, and on such sometimes, it can be useful to consider avenues previously considered or recommended. Thus I advise myself to identify these, “thoughts to be instantiated”.
Even without that, there are a few stratagems I have used for writing. These include: a review of scientific literature, and review of philosopher’s thoughts. Also, I have used media review (in particular of websites), and there’s a reason to include all forms of “Audience”.
[I] “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science is a book by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, published in 1783, two years after the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason. One of Kant’s shorter works, it contains a summary of the Critique‘s main conclusions, sometimes by arguments Kant had not used in the Critique. Kant characterizes his more accessible approach here as an “analytic” one, as opposed to the Critique‘s “synthetic” examination of successive faculties of the mind and their principles.” For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics.
