A bit more on Russell's reading plan

 I had a note April 2 on Bertrand Russell’s advice on studying philosophy.

He suggested reading some of the major philosophers, rather than consulting textbooks.

I’ve been following his advice. I had a note on David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding recently. Before that, I’d tackled Immanuel Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.

I remembered the main threads of their thought — Hume’s criticism of our notion of causation and Kant’s attempt to repair the damage. The surprises of rereading have been the other thoughts, the asides. One example: Hume’s observation that our notion of repentance makes sense only if we agree that crime resides in the mind. Crime, in other words, is thought. At least the crime that we punish is thought.

I’d also forgotten the occasional charm Kant's writing. Here’s an example:

 

That the human mind will ever give up metaphysical researches is as little to be expected as that we, to avoid inhaling impure air, should prefer to give up breathing altogether.

 

He's right. Any proposed set of logical limits on thought is a remarkable boundary — the ultimate fence. And we know where the grass must be greener.

• Sources: Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics; Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1950, p. 116. For the note on Russell, see “How to study philosophy,” April 2, 2023. For the note on Hume, see “Where crime resides,” April 24.