What do you think?
Rate this book
Logic
The second, corrected edition of the first and only complete English translation of Kant's highly influential introduction to philosophy, presenting both the terminological and structural basis for his philosophical system, and offering an invaluable key to his main works, particularly the three Critiques. Extensive editiorial apparatus.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1799
63 people are currently reading
1163 people want to read
About the author
Immanuel Kant
2,956 books4,300 followersImmanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 21, 2017
Λυγίζει ο εγκέφαλος.
Κάθε λέξη τοποθετείται με μαθηματική ακρίβεια στην πρόταση. Κάθε έννοια μετατρέπεται σε αριθμό. Σταματάς να διαβάζεις ένα απλό κείμενο. Διαβάζεις μαθηματικές σχέσεις σε μορφή κειμένου. Η μαθηματική του συνοχή απαιτεί ολόκληρη την προσοχή σου. Η γλώσσα σαν εργαλείο παύει να εξυπηρετεί τον άνθρωπο. Εξυπηρετεί την αλήθεια και τη ΛΟΓΙΚΗ. Γίνεται η ΛΟΓΙΚΗ. Γίνεται η συσκευή εξόδου της μαθηματικής αλήθειας που χαρακτηρίζει το σύμπαν. Αυτήν τη ΛΟΓΙΚΗ ο άνθρωπος πρέπει να τη δαμάσει. Ο Kant σου λέει το ΠΏΣ.
Εκπληκτικός ο Immanuel Kant. Έχω συναντήσει πολλά αποσπάσματα από το έργο του όλα αυτά τα χρόνια, αλλά η εμπειρία να διαβάζεις ολόκληρη τη ροή της σκέψης ενός τόσο Μεγάλου Εγκεφάλου δεν περιγράφεται.
ΑΓΑΠΩ.
Κάθε λέξη τοποθετείται με μαθηματική ακρίβεια στην πρόταση. Κάθε έννοια μετατρέπεται σε αριθμό. Σταματάς να διαβάζεις ένα απλό κείμενο. Διαβάζεις μαθηματικές σχέσεις σε μορφή κειμένου. Η μαθηματική του συνοχή απαιτεί ολόκληρη την προσοχή σου. Η γλώσσα σαν εργαλείο παύει να εξυπηρετεί τον άνθρωπο. Εξυπηρετεί την αλήθεια και τη ΛΟΓΙΚΗ. Γίνεται η ΛΟΓΙΚΗ. Γίνεται η συσκευή εξόδου της μαθηματικής αλήθειας που χαρακτηρίζει το σύμπαν. Αυτήν τη ΛΟΓΙΚΗ ο άνθρωπος πρέπει να τη δαμάσει. Ο Kant σου λέει το ΠΏΣ.
Εκπληκτικός ο Immanuel Kant. Έχω συναντήσει πολλά αποσπάσματα από το έργο του όλα αυτά τα χρόνια, αλλά η εμπειρία να διαβάζεις ολόκληρη τη ροή της σκέψης ενός τόσο Μεγάλου Εγκεφάλου δεν περιγράφεται.
ΑΓΑΠΩ.
November 26, 2023
A collection of Kant's lectures on Logic, several of which being translated into English for the first time. This edition contains: the Bloomberg Logic, the Vienna Logic, the Hechsel Logic, the Dohna-Wundlacken Logic and the Jäsche Logic.
All but the Jäsche Logic are compiled from student notes taken during Kant's lectures, so we should not rely on them too greatly or trust their accuracy overmuch. The Jäsche Logic, however, was published during Kant's lifetime with his blessing, although he did not oversee its editing process. This makes it much more useful than the other Logics. It contains some fascinating, although obscure, writings on the Kantian notion of conceptual form. Particularly illuminating is that it is the first place (I have found) that Kant gives an explicit definition of discursive conceptual marks, although this definition is also complicated, dense and difficult to parse at best. Regardless, on my reading, we find the analytic activity of the discursive intellect present even at the most fundamental levels of sub-concept representation, with marks serving as indicating the possibility of the whole representation and thus grounding cognition of that representation entirely.
All but the Jäsche Logic are compiled from student notes taken during Kant's lectures, so we should not rely on them too greatly or trust their accuracy overmuch. The Jäsche Logic, however, was published during Kant's lifetime with his blessing, although he did not oversee its editing process. This makes it much more useful than the other Logics. It contains some fascinating, although obscure, writings on the Kantian notion of conceptual form. Particularly illuminating is that it is the first place (I have found) that Kant gives an explicit definition of discursive conceptual marks, although this definition is also complicated, dense and difficult to parse at best. Regardless, on my reading, we find the analytic activity of the discursive intellect present even at the most fundamental levels of sub-concept representation, with marks serving as indicating the possibility of the whole representation and thus grounding cognition of that representation entirely.
March 11, 2016
Kant authorized, but did not write, this book towards the end of his life, giving the job to a former student. Basically, it is a textbook for logic classes, not an exposition of Kant's Critical programme. Almost half of this edition is devoted to an introduction by the translators and to critical apparati.
For me, The Logic is a reminder of Dartmouth and of Charles Stone, a former U.T.S. colleague who had graduated to become a librarian at the College. Being poor myself, he was kind enough to invite me up to Hanover, NH several times--a cheap vacation from Manhattan. Since Charles would work days, I would hang out at this fantastic cafe near campus which served both coffee (for afternoons) and beer (for evenings after a day of reading, but sometimes alternated with cups of coffee) and seemed to be run by a German woman who had, appropriately enough, a German shepherd with free run of the place.
For me, The Logic is a reminder of Dartmouth and of Charles Stone, a former U.T.S. colleague who had graduated to become a librarian at the College. Being poor myself, he was kind enough to invite me up to Hanover, NH several times--a cheap vacation from Manhattan. Since Charles would work days, I would hang out at this fantastic cafe near campus which served both coffee (for afternoons) and beer (for evenings after a day of reading, but sometimes alternated with cups of coffee) and seemed to be run by a German woman who had, appropriately enough, a German shepherd with free run of the place.
January 9, 2017
This little book is a lot of fun. If you're familiar with Kant's Critique's you'll find this to be largely review. I firmly recommend this book to those for whom logic - as a field of study - makes little sense.
The major benefit of the text is the fact that it is presented in a substantially more approachable lexicon than most Kantian works. While it is, perhaps, not as systematically linear as Kant's writing; the text has a gentle flowing structure which links each section in a way that should appear familiar and clear to the average student. Of course the comical consequence of a Kantian text absent the systematic style of Kant himself is a work that requires a 100-page translator's introduction. But again, the sections are so short and sweet (certainly in General Doctrine of Elements), that an exhaustive account of each subject discussed would detract from the charm of the text.
On a personal level, I believe the book to be a relaxed introduction to the underlying knowledge behind philosophical logic - it's basically an anti-anxiety pill for those who find logic daunting or lacking in context. To those less acquainted with logic as a field or confused by the matrix of logical rules, this text provides some explanation as to WHY propositional logic, for instance, works the way it does. It is theory over practice - and ideal for those comfortable with such an exchange. This is, in a very opaque sense, an introduction for the metaphysician, historian, or phenomenologist rather than those blessed with a mathematical mind.
This is a book by a student for a student. The result is a patient approach to a wonderful area of Kant's thought. Enjoy.
The major benefit of the text is the fact that it is presented in a substantially more approachable lexicon than most Kantian works. While it is, perhaps, not as systematically linear as Kant's writing; the text has a gentle flowing structure which links each section in a way that should appear familiar and clear to the average student. Of course the comical consequence of a Kantian text absent the systematic style of Kant himself is a work that requires a 100-page translator's introduction. But again, the sections are so short and sweet (certainly in General Doctrine of Elements), that an exhaustive account of each subject discussed would detract from the charm of the text.
On a personal level, I believe the book to be a relaxed introduction to the underlying knowledge behind philosophical logic - it's basically an anti-anxiety pill for those who find logic daunting or lacking in context. To those less acquainted with logic as a field or confused by the matrix of logical rules, this text provides some explanation as to WHY propositional logic, for instance, works the way it does. It is theory over practice - and ideal for those comfortable with such an exchange. This is, in a very opaque sense, an introduction for the metaphysician, historian, or phenomenologist rather than those blessed with a mathematical mind.
This is a book by a student for a student. The result is a patient approach to a wonderful area of Kant's thought. Enjoy.
January 1, 2022
Just skimmed but helped clarify some kantian terms that I was unsure about
August 2, 2022
Logic is a science and all - lists definitions and terms, many coined by Aristotle. Used this as a reference for his students.
July 11, 2024
A SERIES OF KANT'S LECTURES, EDITED BY ONE OF HIS STUDENTS
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who is perhaps the founder of "modern" philosophy, with his focus on epistemology (theory of knowledge).
The Translators’ Introduction states, “The importance of Kant’s ‘Logic’ has never been fully appreciated. This is one of the reasons why this work, published in 1800, is only now appearing in a complete English translation. Its importance lies not only in its significance for the ‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ the second part of which is a restatement of fundamental tenets of the Logic, but in its position within the whole of Kant’s work… if one does not take into consideration the meanings of fundamental terms as found in the Methodology and in greater detail in the Logic, one flounders in his understanding of the Critique.” (Pg. xv)
They continue, “it gives us many insights into his work aside from the ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ In this respect, the ‘Logic’ is an introduction to Kant’s system. Nowhere does Kant specifically set down the fundamentals of both his critical and practical philosophy; but his Logic lectures developed into such an introduction. One will find in this book a transcendental critique, a moral philosophy, a rational theology, a history of philosophy, even an anthropology, all rolled into one---besides, of course, a masterful introduction to the logic of his time.” (Pg. xvii)
Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche, one of Kant’s pupils, notes in his Preface to the book, “It is already a year and a half since Kant instructed me to edit his Logic for the press as presented by him in public lectures to his listeners, and to submit it to the public in the form of a compendious manual. To that end I received from him the very manuscript he had used in his lectures, with an expression of the special honorable confidence in me that I… would readily enter into the course of his ideas; and that I would not distort or falsify his thoughts but exhibit them with the requisite clarity and definiteness and at the same time in the appropriate order.” (Pg. 5)
Kant’s Introduction states, “If, now, we set aside all cognition that we must borrow from objects and reflect solely upon the use of the understanding in itself, we discover those of its rules which are necessary throughout… because without them we could not think at all. Insight into these rules can therefore be granted a priori and independently of any experience, because they contain, without discrimination between objects, merely the conditions of the use of the understanding itself, be it pure or empirical. And it also follows from this that the universal and necessary rules of thought in general can concern solely its form, and not in any way its matter. Accordingly, the science containing these universal and necessary rules is a science of the mere form of our intellectual cognition or of thinking. And we can therefore form for ourselves the idea of the possibility of such a science, just as that of a general grammar which contains nothing beyond the mere form of a language in general, without words, which belongs to the matter of language. Now this science of the necessary laws of the understanding and reason in general, or… of the mere form of thinking, we call ‘logic.’” (Pg. 14-15)
He notes, “In logic… the question is not one of CONTINGENT but of NECESSARY rules, how we think, but how we ought to think. The rules of logic, therefore, must be taken not from the contingent but from the necessary use of the understanding, which one finds, without any psychology, in oneself. In logic we do not want to know how the understanding is and thinks, and how it hitherto has proceeded in thinking, but how it ought to proceed in thinking. Logic shall teach us the right use of the understanding, i.e., the one that agrees with itself.” (Pg. 16)
He states, “Logic is a science of reason not only as to mere form but also as to matter; a science a priori of the necessary laws of thinking, not, however, in respect of particular objects but all objects generatim: it is a science, therefore, of the right use of the understanding and of reason as such, not subjectively i.e., not according to empirical (psychological) principles of how the understanding thinks, but objectively, i.e., according to a priori principles of how it ought to think.” (Pg. 18)
He explains, “The field of philosophy in this cosmopolitan meaning may be summed up in the following questions: 1) What can I know? 2) What ought I to do? 3) What may I hope? 4) What is man? The first question is answered by metaphysics, the second by morality, the third by religion, and the fourth by anthropology. At bottom all this could be reckoned to be anthropology, because the first three questions are related to the last. The philosopher, therefore, must be able to determine 1) the sources of human knowledge, 2) the extent of the possible and advantageous use of all knowledge, and finally 3) the limits of reason.” (Pg. 28-29)
He outlines, “The formal criteria of logic are: 1) the principle of contradiction, 2) the principle of sufficient reason. By the former is determined the logical POSSIBILITY, by the latter, the LOGICAL ACTUALITY of a cognition. To the logical truth of a cognition, namely, belongs: First: That it be logically possible, that is, not CONTRADICT itself. This characteristic of the INTERNAL logical truth, however, is only negative; for a cognition that contradicts itself is indeed false, but if it does not contradict itself, it is not always true. Second: That it be logically grounded, that is, have (a) reasons, and (b) no false consequences. This second criterion of the EXTERNAL logical truth or of the RATIONALITY of cognition, which concerns the logical connection of a cognition with reasons and consequences, is positive.” (Pg. 57)
He continues, “We shall thus be able to state here three principles as universal, merely formal or logical criteria of truth; these are: 1) the principle of contradiction and identity… by which the inner possibility of a cognition is determined for problematic judgments. 2) the principle of sufficient reason … on which rests the (logical) actuality of a cognition---that it is grounded, as material for assertoric judgments; 3) the principle of excluded middle… on which the (logical) necessity of a cognition is based---that it is necessary to judge thus and not otherwise, i.e., that the opposite is false---for apodeictic judgments.” (Pg. 58-59)
While far from one of Kant’s “major works,” this book has some fascinating material, that indeed sheds light on other aspects of Kant’s philosophy.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who is perhaps the founder of "modern" philosophy, with his focus on epistemology (theory of knowledge).
The Translators’ Introduction states, “The importance of Kant’s ‘Logic’ has never been fully appreciated. This is one of the reasons why this work, published in 1800, is only now appearing in a complete English translation. Its importance lies not only in its significance for the ‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ the second part of which is a restatement of fundamental tenets of the Logic, but in its position within the whole of Kant’s work… if one does not take into consideration the meanings of fundamental terms as found in the Methodology and in greater detail in the Logic, one flounders in his understanding of the Critique.” (Pg. xv)
They continue, “it gives us many insights into his work aside from the ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ In this respect, the ‘Logic’ is an introduction to Kant’s system. Nowhere does Kant specifically set down the fundamentals of both his critical and practical philosophy; but his Logic lectures developed into such an introduction. One will find in this book a transcendental critique, a moral philosophy, a rational theology, a history of philosophy, even an anthropology, all rolled into one---besides, of course, a masterful introduction to the logic of his time.” (Pg. xvii)
Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche, one of Kant’s pupils, notes in his Preface to the book, “It is already a year and a half since Kant instructed me to edit his Logic for the press as presented by him in public lectures to his listeners, and to submit it to the public in the form of a compendious manual. To that end I received from him the very manuscript he had used in his lectures, with an expression of the special honorable confidence in me that I… would readily enter into the course of his ideas; and that I would not distort or falsify his thoughts but exhibit them with the requisite clarity and definiteness and at the same time in the appropriate order.” (Pg. 5)
Kant’s Introduction states, “If, now, we set aside all cognition that we must borrow from objects and reflect solely upon the use of the understanding in itself, we discover those of its rules which are necessary throughout… because without them we could not think at all. Insight into these rules can therefore be granted a priori and independently of any experience, because they contain, without discrimination between objects, merely the conditions of the use of the understanding itself, be it pure or empirical. And it also follows from this that the universal and necessary rules of thought in general can concern solely its form, and not in any way its matter. Accordingly, the science containing these universal and necessary rules is a science of the mere form of our intellectual cognition or of thinking. And we can therefore form for ourselves the idea of the possibility of such a science, just as that of a general grammar which contains nothing beyond the mere form of a language in general, without words, which belongs to the matter of language. Now this science of the necessary laws of the understanding and reason in general, or… of the mere form of thinking, we call ‘logic.’” (Pg. 14-15)
He notes, “In logic… the question is not one of CONTINGENT but of NECESSARY rules, how we think, but how we ought to think. The rules of logic, therefore, must be taken not from the contingent but from the necessary use of the understanding, which one finds, without any psychology, in oneself. In logic we do not want to know how the understanding is and thinks, and how it hitherto has proceeded in thinking, but how it ought to proceed in thinking. Logic shall teach us the right use of the understanding, i.e., the one that agrees with itself.” (Pg. 16)
He states, “Logic is a science of reason not only as to mere form but also as to matter; a science a priori of the necessary laws of thinking, not, however, in respect of particular objects but all objects generatim: it is a science, therefore, of the right use of the understanding and of reason as such, not subjectively i.e., not according to empirical (psychological) principles of how the understanding thinks, but objectively, i.e., according to a priori principles of how it ought to think.” (Pg. 18)
He explains, “The field of philosophy in this cosmopolitan meaning may be summed up in the following questions: 1) What can I know? 2) What ought I to do? 3) What may I hope? 4) What is man? The first question is answered by metaphysics, the second by morality, the third by religion, and the fourth by anthropology. At bottom all this could be reckoned to be anthropology, because the first three questions are related to the last. The philosopher, therefore, must be able to determine 1) the sources of human knowledge, 2) the extent of the possible and advantageous use of all knowledge, and finally 3) the limits of reason.” (Pg. 28-29)
He outlines, “The formal criteria of logic are: 1) the principle of contradiction, 2) the principle of sufficient reason. By the former is determined the logical POSSIBILITY, by the latter, the LOGICAL ACTUALITY of a cognition. To the logical truth of a cognition, namely, belongs: First: That it be logically possible, that is, not CONTRADICT itself. This characteristic of the INTERNAL logical truth, however, is only negative; for a cognition that contradicts itself is indeed false, but if it does not contradict itself, it is not always true. Second: That it be logically grounded, that is, have (a) reasons, and (b) no false consequences. This second criterion of the EXTERNAL logical truth or of the RATIONALITY of cognition, which concerns the logical connection of a cognition with reasons and consequences, is positive.” (Pg. 57)
He continues, “We shall thus be able to state here three principles as universal, merely formal or logical criteria of truth; these are: 1) the principle of contradiction and identity… by which the inner possibility of a cognition is determined for problematic judgments. 2) the principle of sufficient reason … on which rests the (logical) actuality of a cognition---that it is grounded, as material for assertoric judgments; 3) the principle of excluded middle… on which the (logical) necessity of a cognition is based---that it is necessary to judge thus and not otherwise, i.e., that the opposite is false---for apodeictic judgments.” (Pg. 58-59)
While far from one of Kant’s “major works,” this book has some fascinating material, that indeed sheds light on other aspects of Kant’s philosophy.
December 18, 2023
« Logic » is definitely one of the most complicated books I’ve ever read, in the sense that tries to phenomenologically describe the origins of cognition and knowledge. Reading the preface, I was hit by some sort of contemptuousness by the translators. Kant as an author is not only seen as a philosophical model, bit an idol. They idealize everything he has ever written, and their descriptions of his work are so infinitely detailed, excessively minute, that I found myself enjoying Kant more than the modern translators. Analytical and logical philosophy has a reputation for being needlessly complicated and difficult to follow. These translators fulfilled that stereotype. The way they discard science is particularly troubling for me, calling analytical philosophy at times equal to science, at other times superior to science. It must be my academic roots that are bothered the most. Analytic philosophy is, like all philosophy, subjective at its foundations, in that its axioms and premises cannot be proven beyond consensus. Like mathematics, living in a closed system, they cannot ever peer beyond and actually discover truth. But there lies a certain insecurity of not being able to prove that the logical system is fully applicable to reality, from what I read. Morality, especially morality, cannot be expected to be dealt through purely objective manners, its existence being first and foremost a contingent truth, not a tautology. But Kant (and the modern translators) try exceedingly hard to convince you of this reality. Otherwise, this book is of considerable quality, and the knowledge that lies within it is very potent and useful. This is Kant’s introduction to philosophy, and his aim is for his students to be able to think independently, argument through solid foundational grounds, be clear, concise with their explanations and to ensure that it is devoid of any fallacy and contradiction. It builds a system (even though a closed system) of thought: how to properly understand concepts, and how what you learn can be distinguished from falsehood. To understand a concept before dealing with it proper is of utmost importance. Be it by comprehending through synthesis (mathematically) or by analysis (philosophically), to be able to reason with clarity and simplicity is a skill that will prove to be useful in any field. His work bridges the gap between science and mathematics, creates the grounds needed of a smooth transition between dealing with quantitative facts versus dealing with qualitative facts. This is the goal of philosophy, according to analytic philosophers. It should be complementary to science, used as a manual for better dealing with qualitative information. Even though we cannot ascertain truth, we should be able to build a closed system as similar to our collective agreement as a specifies of what we perceive as reality. Truth is not certain, but we can get very close to it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 16, 2024
This book really puts the perspective into the world you can’t really see, that being the laws of logic, how it works. It’s a very short book but it terms of ideas and concepts you can probably have a lifetime of revision of it, with reviewing from time to time. Now you’d think in a work of logic we would not really delve in to the more ethical and human concepts but this book does sometimes visit it with accurate ideas on humanism, the divorce of mathematics from philosophy and stoics and Epicureans battling it out in a way, as well as a great little history of philosophy section. Now Kant seems to be pretty accurate in all of his definitions probably his greatest skill which he displays in this work and what’s funny about this work is most of it is an introduction to the actual content which the actual content is 60 or so pages probably less. One complaint I have with this book though is I found the writing to be too big in a way which it makes you concentrate less and take it less seriously this is only my experience though. Now I found Kants balance of his empiricism and rationalism fantastic in this work and Kant wait to read more.
Recommended.
Recommended.
December 17, 2024
Would recommend this as the first book someone should read to start getting into philosophy
September 3, 2025
Éste ha sido mi primer acercamiento a la obra del filósofo Immanuel Kant. Es un texto sencillo, ideal para empezar a explorar a un filósofo tan complejo.
May 31, 2013
Half of this book is a long introduction by the translators. I have not read this part, so my brief review concerns the second part, Kant's book per se. Actually, it was edited by one of his students, based on lectures by Kant. As such, it makes a nice set of introductory notes to the subjective of Logic, as formulated by Kant, somewhat as a "manual". It is interesting by itself and I believe of great value to philosophy students. I would not recommend it for the general reader though, except if he/she is willing to put some effort on learning the concepts, and at the same time framing them adequately in historical context. That requires some previous introduction to Kant's philosophy and I am not sure this is the best book to start with.
August 15, 2008
I didn't find much of value here, other than pure historical interest. Reads as kind of a "this is how Kant would have presented things to a far less capable student". Compared to something like Quine's _Methods of Logic_ this is just..well, old and dusty.
October 13, 2009
clean reasoning. not philosophy at its best but good theory.
December 25, 2017
I didn't enjoy this book very much. It told in the words or perspective of the students for the most part. I had hoped it would be in Kant's words.
September 11, 2016
Concise. I must mention, though, that a background in Kant's other works were a great help.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews