A SHORT CRITIQUE OF KANT’S UNREASON
Avi Sion, Ph. D.
First published, 2008-9.
A Short Critique of Kant’s Unreason is a brief critical analysis of some of the salient epistemological and ontological ideas and theses in Immanuel Kant’s famous Critique of Pure Reason.
It shows that Kant was in no position to criticize reason, because he neither sufficiently understood its workings nor had the logical tools needed for the task.
Kant’s transcendental reality, his analytic-synthetic dichotomy, his views on experience and concept formation, and on the forms of sensibility (space and time) and understanding (his twelve categories), are here all subjected to rigorous logical evaluation and found deeply flawed – and more coherent theories are proposed in their stead.
This essay is drawn from the author’s earlier book Logical and Spiritual Reflections.
Buy it or read it online
All of Avi Sion’s published books can be purchased at Amazon.com (in paperback or kindle/.mobi form), and at Lulu.com (in hardcover, paperback or e-book/.epub form), as well as other online stores.
They can also be read online free of charge, chapter by chapter, at www.TheLogician.net and, in '3D flipbook' format, at www.AviSionBooks.com, as well as in Google Books and other Internet locations. They are also available in many university and public libraries.
1. Kant’s transcendental reality
2. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy
3. Theory of knowledge
4. Experience, space and time
5. Kant’s “categories”
7. How numbers arise
8. Geometrical logic
Immanuel Kant (Germany, 1724-1804).
My writing the present essay focusing on some of Kant’s illogical views should not of course be construed as a rejection of everything he says. I regard many of his contributions as very interesting and instructive. Moreover, I am well aware that a philosophical system as broad and complex as Kant’s cannot be treated fairly in a few pages, particularly without claim to expertise in Kant’s philosophy. All I hope to do here is roughly sketch some of his basic ideas, and give my logical comments in relation to them. Many of these comments are, I think, original, and that is why I feel some urgency in writing them down. Of course, it would be nice if one day I have the courage to take up the daunting task of writing a large and detailed book on Kant’s thought, but in the meantime this brief exposé will have to do.