addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Critique of Practical Reason

Reading Kant's second Critique in two meetings.

This is a nice edition that contains the Second Critique and the Groundwork of the Metpahysics of morals and other texts.

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Philosophy-Cambridge-Edition-Immanuel/dp/0521654084/ref=sr_1_1

Feel free to use whatever editions you like.

Week 1: Preface to end of Book 1

Week2: Book 2 to end

Join or login to comment.

  • Rick O.

    Or (same thing in different words):

    Freedom cannot exist in the world of Nature. All things follow from some predetermined cause. If we eat, it is because we follow the inclination of hunger - if we choose not to eat it is because we follow a different inclination (I'm too busy right now), but we can always point to some event as prior cause.

    We have consciousness of the Moral Law (=the ought, in simplified terms). Moral Law and freedom are analytical (I think?) concepts. Therefore, there is an intelligible world in addition to the sensual world. This is conclusive in the opening of the 2nd, and in the Grounding. Freedom can only be disproved by doing away with the Moral Law, and we cannot do that without violating the logic of Reason (also analytical?).

    Once you have this, the rest is coloring in the outlines. This he does in the "Critical Examination of the Analytic" at the end of Book 1.

    1 · October 23, 2013

    • Chad B.

      The best reply is "no comment." Don't feed the troll.

      A second-best reply is: if we conceive of ourselves as "punishing" the tv (whether as an act of "revenge," "reform," or otherwise), then the effect is the same as if we are merely "fixing it" (or if a meteorite hits it, for that matter).

      If your point is that if we concede that we ARE punishing the tv (in reality or in our minds), and that punishment presupposes moral agency, then the question is begged, and the rest of the "proof" is extraneous (except as fancy dressing).

      October 25, 2013

    • Rick O.

      sorry - don't have time to read your response.

      October 25, 2013

  • Rick O.

    I think my favorite part of the 2nd - and in part why I think Kant is unsurpassed in philosophical Systems, is how he 'fills in the opening' left by the 2nd antinomy of the 1st Critique: "For the Moral Law sufficiently proves its reality even for the critique of speculative reason by giving a positive definition to a causality thought only negatively, the possibility of which was incomprehensible to speculative reason though this reason was compelled to assume it... Thus reason, which with its ideas always became transcendent when proceeding in a speculative manner, can be given for the first time an objective though still only practical reality; its transcendent use is changed into an immanent use" [V,48]

    Or, how freedom, left as 'can't prove / can't disprove' in the 2nd antinomy, is conclusively shown to be valid through Practical (Pure) Reason.

    Makes you go ahhhhh

    October 22, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      erik, I can see how one might think this all sounds tricky. After all, saying something is a necessary condition can be thought of as hidden away.... which is how we also describe the involuntary..like instincts. I dunno

      October 23, 2013

    • Erik C.

      Brian: What you mention is helpful here, since it is exactly where we encounter our own feeling of being agents capable of voluntary action.

      October 23, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    I'd like if we can quickly read the introduction together to clarify Kant's own roadmap for critiquing practical reason

    October 21, 2013

    • Erik C.

      Sounds like a fine idea to me.

      October 21, 2013

  • Rick O.

    Is there a good break for the text? - perhaps through Pt 1 ch 2?

    October 18, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      rick time for a photo

      1 · October 18, 2013

    • Rick O.

      Through the end of the analytic makes more sense - less pages for next meeting gives more time for the overall whole. And you can explain the categories of good/evil - never could figure out what the heck is going on there.

      October 18, 2013

  • Rick O.

    "Never act except in such a way that your action may be programmed." Thus spoke Lacan (sorry, couldn't help myself).

    1 · October 14, 2013

    • A former member
      A former member

      I think Lacan is making fun of Kant as throwing in with the mainstream. Even if unfair, I think we can find a principled reason why Lacan would want to sharply differ from Kant. It seems Lacan wouldnt have ethics be other regarding, for example.

      1 · October 14, 2013

    • Rick O.

      I think Lacan is picking up Hegel's criticism - the "significance is implied in the judgement" compares with "Consciousness comes to see that the placing-apart of these moments is a dis-placing of them, a dissemblance..." [Phenomenology 631]. But then one could ask, would Lacan have his insight without Hegel, and would Hegel have his insight without Kant? As much as I like the others, I can never bring myself to say that Kant was wro**

      October 18, 2013

11 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy