Teaching Kant 1 Last night we began discussing Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals in Ethics class. The class reaction followed a two step evolution similar to that I've encountered in other classes where Kant was being read for the first time.

Step 1: complete befuddlement. Kant's approach to transcendental philosphy is, well, completely alien the way that most people think. I generally begin by doing a quick inventory of the limitations that Kant places on his own available evidence. Pure inquiry, empty of empirical content strikes the naive reader as being a meditation of nothing at all. Some commentators have noted that this is probably a healthy reaction and training students out of this reaction may not be in their best interest.

Step 2: intrique. Kant's arguments can, with effort, become clear. That clarity is surprising, its the experience of thinking in new and unexpected ways. The effort of reading Aristotle can have a dissapointing out come ("I read all of that to learn that the definiciency of courage is cowardness? What sort of person even bothers to take note of that?") Kant on the otherhand forces significant effort on the read but usually pays off with novel insights. The fact that there's no virtue of equity to offset extreme application of law doesn't really become clear until further consideration.  ¶ #

0 comments Post a Comment

  Postscript to my last post:

One reason that students taking Intro to Ethics diagnose Aristotle as having an unwavering passion for order is that they haven't read Kant yet, they don't know yet know what uncompromising really means.  ¶ #

0 comments Post a Comment