Reading for September

Just in case any followers out there are doing better than me lately...


September
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding link
Kant: A Critique of Pure Reason (prefaces, introduction, transcendental aesthetic) link

Reading for September

Two pieces and I'm not exactly filled with optimism about them.  (But I am hopeful that the content will pick back up.)

September
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding link
Kant: A Critique of Pure Reason (prefaces, introduction, transcendental aesthetic) link

Stop Making Fun of Philosophy!

Interesting article here about the modern value of philosophy. 

We should all examine our lives and the fundamental nature of living. But few of us do. American culture is famously pragmatic. We are only interested in what works, what doesn't, and what will put a dollar in my pocket. We make jokes about philosophy majors. ("Lotta lucrative career prospects there, amirite?") We don't see the value in going around asking questions like "What is Beauty?" and "What is Justice?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" But there is tremendous value in asking these questions, even if that value is not quantifiable in U.S. currency.

 And:

And at the level of our society, there is a dramatic pragmatic stake in philosophy. We live in enormously complex, technologically advanced societies where we have the power to do a great deal of harm and a great deal of good. Our societies are built on complex institutions (such as "democracy," "the free market," and "science"), which are in turn premised on ways of looking at the world and on ideas about the world and humanity — in other words, on philosophy.
But we have become like people in a Star Trek episode whose planet is ruled by a benevolent artificial intelligence, and who live such charmed lives as a result that, over generations, they have forgotten how the computer works, so that when it breaks down, they are completely powerless to repair it, and have to call the Enterprise for help. Our entire civilization is built on technology called "philosophy" that, in many ways, we are losing a basic understanding of.

 Well, I agree of course.  If I disagreed, I wouldn't be nearly three years into the Great Books.  I never would have started a ten year reading list.  But let's turn that around.  I've spent the past three years reading the Great Books.  What has it gotten me?

• The most obvious thing that has happened is that my grasp of history is much, much stronger.  I've been a history buff for as long as I can remember.  (This is true of almost all strategy gamers.)  The Great Books have given me much better perspective on the ancient Greeks and Romans.  I now have a more comprehensive feel for the Renaissance.  I know much more about the political writings that led to our modern governments.  And I'll be adding seven more years of learning!
• I've come to appreciate a more high level approach to important questions.  'What is justice?', asked Socrates.  Now I ask that too.  I look for the basic, over-arching questions and work from there.  Aristotle has given me a much greater appreciation for finding the right categories to make comparisons from.
• Several writers, most notably Montaigne and Marcus Aurelius, have made me think about my general approach to life.  (And now that I've put them both in the same sentence, I can't help but think how wonderful an Odd Couple type TV show would be with the two of them forced to live together!)  I am using a somewhat more distanced approach when I think about how I live.  A more 'examined life', if you will.

I'm not any closer to answering the big questions that folks like Kant wrestled with and I probably never will be.  That's ok.  I'm still a better and more informed person.  Who wouldn't want that?

Admitting Defeat - Kant

I'm throwing in the towel on Kant's 'Science of Right'.  I've worked and worked at the first quarter of it and it's just not making sense to me.  I've decided that life is too short and I'm moving on.  I'll read  a few summaries of the piece in the hopes that other people could write better than Kant could.  (This isn't a tough bet.)  I'll post on those and if anyone wants to correct my misunderstandings, then they are welcome to do so.

I don't feel good about this, but I'm sure it's the right move. 

Readings for September

Two of them.

September
Locke: An Essay on Human Understanding (Book III, Ch 1-3, 9-11) link
Kant: Science of Right link

Some nice chewy reading.

Duty - Kant

I'll just say up front that I didn't particularly care for 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals'.  Kant writes in a very technical manner, and that's ok.  You have to pay attention and it helped me to take notes so that I could refer back to his definitions.  You have to take it slow and be brave.
What turned me off was the enormous wrong turn that Kant takes almost right out of the gate.

For in order that an action should be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it must also be done for the sake of the law, otherwise that conformity is only very contingent and uncertain; since a principle which is not moral, although it may now and then produce actions conformable to the law, will also often produce actions which contradict it.

Got that?  We can't trust moral principles unless they're codified in the law.  Something in the act of writing down and creating the law makes it certain.  He doubles down on this later.

Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.

Ok.  I can quibble with this, but I'm certainly not opposed to a good will.

A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations.

So if you set out to do good, you're doing good, regardless of performance or effects?  This is the opposite of the saying that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', right?  I don't think I'm reading that wrong.  A bit later on he discusses those 'who without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work'.  We may praise and encourage these people but not esteem them.

For the maxim lacks moral import, namely, that such actions be done from duty, not from inclination.

If they had to help others by law, it would be moral.  But doing so for the pleasure that it brings, while praiseworthy, is not moral.
That seems utterly wrong to me.

Biography of Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, Prussia (now Kalningrad Russia).  He never traveled far from Konigsberg in his whole life.  In contrast to many of the Great Books authors, he had a very humble beginning.  His father was a harness-maker. 
By the age of 16, he had already shown quite a bit of skill as a student.  He went to the University of Konigsberg, where he spent most of his life.  There he was introduced to the works of Leibniz and Newton and the philosophies of the day. 
In 1754, Kant won the Berlin Academy Prize for figuring out that friction causes a slow down in the Earth's rotational speed.  This was mostly overlooked until the next century when Kelvin and others brought it to prominence.  Kant also fathered the belief that the solar system was born from a cloud of dust and gas. 
Kant is best known though, for his contributions to philosophy.  Kantianism has had a major effect on modern philosophical works.  (I'm not sure that I understand it, so I won't attempt to summarize.  You can read about it here.) 
His philosophical work was done late in his life.  He spent what is called 'the silent decade'.  In this time he didn't respond to questions about his earlier work.  Then he published 'The Critique of Pure Reason', of which we will read portions of in years Four, Five and Six. 
He died in 1802.  His last words were "It is good". 

Readings for November

Two things for November:

Rousseau: A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality link
Kant: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals link

Those are some pretty meaty titles, don't you think?  A couple of months back I joked that the Kant piece looks like it was titled in such a way as to scare people away from it.  Remember though, the people that set up this list thought that the average person could understand all of it.   So take your time, make some diagrams (I have) and read it.  Think how good you'll feel after you're done.

Readings for November

Two things for November:

Rousseau: A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality link
Kant: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals link

Trouble with Kant

We'll get to Kant in November, with 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' (which sounds like a made up title to scare people away from reading), but I ran across a news report from Russia that is just too good to share.  Especially the last bit.

An argument in southern Russia over philosopher Immanuel Kant, the author of "Critique of Pure Reason," devolved into pure mayhem when one debater shot the other.
A police spokeswoman in Rostov-on Don, Viktoria Safarova, said two men in their 20s were discussing Kant as they stood in line to buy beer at a small store on Sunday. The discussion deteriorated into a fistfight and one participant pulled out a small nonlethal pistol and fired repeatedly.
The victim was hospitalized with injuries that were not life-threatening. Neither person was identified.
It was not clear which of Kant's ideas may have triggered the violence.

"It was not clear which of Kant's ideas may have triggered the violence."  I can only believe that the writer was giggling as that was typed.  More experienced readers of Kant are invited to speculate on which idea it was.