Welcome to the forum! Kant's work might be complex to begin with but it is perhaps also a good introduction. Perhaps it would be a suggestion to start with philosophers before Kant so that you might better understand his work. The following website provides a short introduction to pre-Kant history:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/18thGerman-preKant/
With regard the reading of Kant's works. My advise would be to start with exploring podcasts that discuss the works. The following website provides an easy search:
https://www.listennotes.com/
An example podcast author is Partially Examined Mind by a group of philosophy professors that provide a
conversational perspective.
Some examples about Kant:
Episode 10: Kantian Ethics: What Should We Do?
Discussing Fundamental Principles (aka Groundwork) of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785).
We try very hard to make sense of Kant's major ethical principle, the Categorical Imperative, wherein you should only do what you'd will that EVERYONE do, so, for instance, you should not will to eat pie, because then everyone would eat it and there would be none left for you, so too bad.
Also, Kant on free will, "things in themselves," our duties to animals, and prostitution! Plus: Should you go to grad school?
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2009/ ... uld-we-do/
Episode 105: Kant: What Is Beauty?
On Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgment (1790), Pt. 1, Book 1.
Kant thinks that finding something beautiful is different than merely liking it. It's a certain kind of liking, not dependent on your idiosyncratic tastes (like your preference for one color or flavor or tone over another) or on your moral opinions. He wants these judgments to be subjective in the sense that they're not about the object, but about the fact that people receive pleasure from it, yet he also wants them to be universal, so that if I (correctly) find something beautiful, then I expect others to feel the same way, and moreover, if they have taste, they should.
Of course this is all put into very difficult Kantian language with virtually no actual examples, so the regular foursome had a good time attempting to translate it to something you can get your head around.
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/ ... is-beauty/
Episode 19: Kant: What Can We Know?
On Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783), which is a shorter, dumbed-down version of his Critique of Pure Reason.
Do we have any business doing metaphysics, which is by definition about things that we could not possibly experience?
Kant says that yes, we can, to a limited extent, but that everyone before him did it wrong, because they didn't understand how our minds interact with the world to create experience. He insists that once you read his book, you'll never be satisfied with such "twaddle" again!
LEARN about the faculties of Sensibility, Understanding, and Reason! THINK about whether geometric truths are justified by our intuition of space (maybe) and arithmetic is grounded in our intuition of time (probably not). DOUBT whether we actually impose causality on our experience as Kant says! MARVEL at our guest participant, Azzurra Crispino, as she augments the number of speakers on this episode to a PERFECTLY SQUARE number! GAWK as your world is turned up-flicking-side down by Kant's "Copernican Revolution" (a term we neither use nor explain in this episode)!
http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/05/14/ep19-kant-citizens/ (paid members only)
Ep. 295: Kant on Preventing War (3 parts)
On Immanuel Kant's essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (1795). Do nations have the "right" to go to war? What principles ground just international relations, and are there structures and agreements that we can embrace to prevent prevent future wars? Naturally, we consider the current conflict in Ukraine as well as other recent wars.
Kant's essay reads like a multi-layered peace treaty, with various "articles" stating what nations should agree to. In this first part of the discussion, we discuss the six "preliminary articles of a perpetual peace" that make up the first part of the essay:
No conclusion of peace shall be considered valid as such if it was made with a secret reservation of the material for a future war.
No independently existing state, whether it be large or small, may be acquired by another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift.
Standing armies will gradually be abolished altogether.
No national debt shall be contracted in connection with the external affairs of the state.
No state shall forcibly interfere in the constitution and government of another state.
No state at war with another shall permit such acts of hostility as would make mutual confidence impossible during a future time of peace. Such acts would include the employment of assassins or poisoners, breach of agreements, the instigation of treason within the enemy state, etc.
This is our first peek into Kant's political philosophy since our ep. 200 on his view of enlightenment, i.e. the intellectual and so political autonomy of citizens. As with that topic, we're concerned here about how his views of political rights relate to his moral views. Kant saw nations as like people, with an organic unity based on their history and culture, and so just like people, their integrity should not be violated; they should not be merely "used," as when states are sliced up or sold off (article #2). They should act with integrity toward one another. However, Kant makes a distinction between moral rules, which apply to individuals just because we're reasoning creatures, and political rights. Kant agreed with Hobbes that the latter are granted by governments, and so there are no rights whatsoever in a state of nature. In order for there to be rights that governments owe to each other and to the citizens of other government, there needs to be some sort of super-state: a law-making entity that exists beyond individual states. In part two of this discussion, we'll discuss Kant's proposal for a federation of independent states, which is different than a world state. We'll also say more about Kant's claim that in order to guarantee perpetual peace, all states must be republics (even though per article 5, we can't actually bring that about for other states; they have to work through their own problems).
Part 1:
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2022/ ... ual-peace/
Part 2:
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2022/ ... ual-peace/
Part 3:
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2022/ ... ual-peace/
- By Sy Borg
- By thrasymachus