Almost through the introduction

I am almost through the introduction. Post coming, but not in the next two weeks, because I have a conference.

Kant book I will defeat you some day.

Dummies guide to Kant acquired

The trouble

It is easy to see the trouble one has reading Kant for the first time when the following passage is regarded as constituting an introduction,

"Kant holds that we do not know our noumenal selves by any act of rational intuition (light of nature). For Kant, pure apperception is an act of spontaneity and as such is different from sensibility, which is a passive receptivity for sensible intuitions. The self for Kant becomes aware of itself and gains knowledge of itself only by bringing to self-consciousness (through a transcendental act of synthesis) the manifold intuitions provided by sensibility. Accordingly, the self knows itself only as an appearance (phenomenon)."

This is an introduction to the Prolegomena, which makes it an introduction to an introduction, and yet the writer still seems unaware that he is using at least nine words in one paragraph in a specialized manner.

A critical journey

Now for my New Year's resolution: I am going to read the Critique of Pure Reason.

(Which translation? A Kant scholar told me, "Kemp Smith all the way.")

For help I have enlisted Gardner's Routledge guide.

I will post once per chapter.

Notice: the following text and associated context are approximations

Reader,

The following blog entry is notice that the blog you are reading is at best an approximation to the truth.

Therefore the conditions of this blog impose on readers the usual antideconstructivist responsibilities. 

The Wartburg Convention Protocols for the Reception of Persuasive Text is binding on readers within this jurisdiction. It requires that any reader aware that he is receiving an approximation to the truth in textual format participate in the construction of the blog's thought in the three aspects:

1. ACCURACY. When reading, keep in mind this blog's limiting nature as an approximation. Should you encounter a word that is a shade of meaning off, please replace the word mentally with one that is more accurate, and continue reading. The mental replacement will enhance your ability to learn.
2. SPIRIT. Read the blog for its spirit and not for its literal meaning. If a blog entry contains a statement that seems out of spirit with the rest of the text, assume the author is of one mind and mentally modify the color of the statement to fit. Statements that are unnecessary or peripheral to the blog's spirit should be regarded as not having been written.
3. SUFFICIENT REASON. Moreover, should the blog in the course of its reasoning use an assumption that is insufficient to the conclusion, replace the assumption with the weakest common refinement assumption (the "meet" assumption) that is still sufficient to the conclusion. The reader is responsible for assuming the text is essentially correct. Again, exercise of the antideconstructivist responsibilities will maximize the profit that can be gained from a text.

The Wartburg protocols can in certain cases result in much or even all of the blog's verbiage being replaced in the mind with different language in order to preserve its self-consistency or to preserve the assumption that the author is of one integrated mind and personality. It is a heavy cost to pay, but failure to apply the Wartburg protocols results in literalism, deconstruction and hence a loss of meaning.

As should be apparent, the reader must identify the meaning and spirit of the blog's conclusions before performing any of the necessary mental replacements. Otherwise the reader cannot identify which replacements to make. The Wartburg conventions acknowledge that any persuasive text underdetermines which conclusion it advocates in the universe of conclusions, so context must be used to narrow down the list of possible conclusions that the blog might be advocating.

However, no amount of context is sufficient to identify the meaning of any text. Lacking other tools the reader must make recourse to what he already knows to be true to the text in order to correct errors it makes due to its nature as an approximation.

Because the reader must participate in the construction of both text and context, before reading anything the reader must first choose what every text concludes.

No reader may lawfully receive a persuasive text in this jurisdiction until he has chosen what he desires to be true and to be advocated by the text.

(While this blog is in general an approximation to the truth, this blog entry is not to be regarded as an approximation and may safely be taken literally.)