Jeff Rubard
2010-02-07 18:32:46 UTC
"A screaming comes issuing from /this/ guy"
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html
----------
Critique of Pure Reason Norman Kemp Smith
(Doctrine of Method)
P 571
II
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF
METHOD
P 573
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD
IF we look upon the sum of all knowledge of pure speculative
reason as an edifice for which we have at least the idea within
ourselves, it can be said that in the Transcendental Doctrine
of Elements we have made an estimate of the materials, and
have determined for what sort of edifice and for what height
and strength of building they suffice. We have found, in-
deed, that although we had contemplated building a tower
which should reach to the heavens, the supply of materials
suffices only for a dwelling-house, just sufficiently commodious
for our business on the level of experience, and just sufficiently
high to allow of our overlooking it. The bold undertaking that
we had designed is thus bound to fail through lack of material
-- not to mention the babel of tongues, which inevitably gives
rise to disputes among the workers in regard to the plan to be
followed, and which must end by scattering them over all the
world, leaving each to erect a separate building for himself,
according to his own design. At present, however, we are con-
cerned not so much with the materials as with the plan; and
inasmuch as we have been warned not to venture at random
upon a blind project which may be altogether beyond our
capacities, and yet cannot well abstain from building a secure
home for ourselves, we must plan our building in conformity
with the material which is given to us, and which is also at
the same time appropriate to our needs.
I understand, therefore, by Transcendental Doctrine of
Method the determination of the formal conditions of a com-
plete system of pure reason. In this connection, we shall have
to treat of a discipline, a canon, an architectonic, and finally
a history of pure reason, and to provide (in its transcendental
reference) what, in relation to the use of the understanding
in general, the Schools have attempted, though very unsatis-
P 574
factorily, under the title of a practical logic. For since universal
logic is not confined to any particular kind of knowledge made
possible by the understanding (for instance, not to its pure
knowledge) and is also not confined to certain objects, it cannot,
save by borrowing knowledge from other sciences, do more
than present the titles of possible methods and the technical
terms which are used for purposes of systematisation in all
kinds of sciences; and this serves only to acquaint the novice
in advance with names the meaning and use of which he will
not learn till later.
----------
What's up? *That's* what's up -- whatever /that/ is -- and why would
*I* -- or, shudder to think, /you/ -- be /determinative/ as regards
its *determinations*? Even, /shall/ it be said -- in the case of the
"general form" of 'public discourse' as it is presented to you /in
texta/? I said that before in the case of Foucault's *Order of Things*
-- which is, as per 'general assent', /available/ in a Good Enough
Translation. Or *what*? Why would it matter what /I/ said, even
regarding "the legal"?
Thusly concludes a *discorsi* [!!] on the /entirety/ of Kant's 1st
Critique. You /can/ read it all, dood-z. Maybe you /already/ did.
Even.
S*R*S*L*Y.
JDR /camera/ World
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html
----------
Critique of Pure Reason Norman Kemp Smith
(Doctrine of Method)
P 571
II
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF
METHOD
P 573
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD
IF we look upon the sum of all knowledge of pure speculative
reason as an edifice for which we have at least the idea within
ourselves, it can be said that in the Transcendental Doctrine
of Elements we have made an estimate of the materials, and
have determined for what sort of edifice and for what height
and strength of building they suffice. We have found, in-
deed, that although we had contemplated building a tower
which should reach to the heavens, the supply of materials
suffices only for a dwelling-house, just sufficiently commodious
for our business on the level of experience, and just sufficiently
high to allow of our overlooking it. The bold undertaking that
we had designed is thus bound to fail through lack of material
-- not to mention the babel of tongues, which inevitably gives
rise to disputes among the workers in regard to the plan to be
followed, and which must end by scattering them over all the
world, leaving each to erect a separate building for himself,
according to his own design. At present, however, we are con-
cerned not so much with the materials as with the plan; and
inasmuch as we have been warned not to venture at random
upon a blind project which may be altogether beyond our
capacities, and yet cannot well abstain from building a secure
home for ourselves, we must plan our building in conformity
with the material which is given to us, and which is also at
the same time appropriate to our needs.
I understand, therefore, by Transcendental Doctrine of
Method the determination of the formal conditions of a com-
plete system of pure reason. In this connection, we shall have
to treat of a discipline, a canon, an architectonic, and finally
a history of pure reason, and to provide (in its transcendental
reference) what, in relation to the use of the understanding
in general, the Schools have attempted, though very unsatis-
P 574
factorily, under the title of a practical logic. For since universal
logic is not confined to any particular kind of knowledge made
possible by the understanding (for instance, not to its pure
knowledge) and is also not confined to certain objects, it cannot,
save by borrowing knowledge from other sciences, do more
than present the titles of possible methods and the technical
terms which are used for purposes of systematisation in all
kinds of sciences; and this serves only to acquaint the novice
in advance with names the meaning and use of which he will
not learn till later.
----------
What's up? *That's* what's up -- whatever /that/ is -- and why would
*I* -- or, shudder to think, /you/ -- be /determinative/ as regards
its *determinations*? Even, /shall/ it be said -- in the case of the
"general form" of 'public discourse' as it is presented to you /in
texta/? I said that before in the case of Foucault's *Order of Things*
-- which is, as per 'general assent', /available/ in a Good Enough
Translation. Or *what*? Why would it matter what /I/ said, even
regarding "the legal"?
Thusly concludes a *discorsi* [!!] on the /entirety/ of Kant's 1st
Critique. You /can/ read it all, dood-z. Maybe you /already/ did.
Even.
S*R*S*L*Y.
JDR /camera/ World