Blog

My book is published today.  I am keen to gage reactions to the book because it was intended to intervene in current debates including those concerning the way we read Kant, transcendental arguments and the nature of Deleuze’s thought.  I cannot help wondering what the response will be to my approach.  I give a close reading of parts of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in an attempt to ‘return to basics’, trying to understand the starting point of this book and the nature of the ‘architectonic’ Kant is constructing here.  It could appear too basic and simplistic but I argue that we cannot understand such things as the nature of the Metaphysical Deduction if we don’t follow Kant’s peculiar architectonic method.  We will never understand this book as a systematic whole if we reject or ignore the architectonic.  Therefore I seek to understand the Table of Categories and follow its role in the schematism and the Table of Principles.  I do this in order to see what the architectonic method represents as a whole and how we can understand it productively.  Having done this I turn to Deleuze’s thought and seek to locate a Kantian method which helps to secure the ‘actual’ side of reality.  I argue that Deleuze employs Kantian methods in a way that responds to current critics of his philosophy like Alain Badiou and Peter Hallward.  I also seek to make my reading of the Critique of Pure Reason relevant to the current debate on transcendental arguments.  I admire the clarity and analysis that has gone into this debate since P. F. Strawson initiated it.  I argue for the value of a unified reading of Kant in understanding the forms of argument he employs.

I look forward to discussing my work with others in the future.  I am currently working on the wider role of architectonics in philosophy and its potential role in contemporary debates.  In a world of increasing specialisation, attempts to be interdisciplinary and the creeping management of the disciplines, architectonics may have a role to play.  It concerns itself with what all disciplines have in common, with knowledge in the widest sense.  This has the potential to be empowering in a world of information and specialisation where we struggle to navigate and to breach the walls of terminology that keep non-specialists at bay.

My book is published today.  I am keen to gage reactions to the book because it was intended to intervene in current debates including those concerning the way we read Kant, transcendental arguments and the nature of Deleuze’s thought.  I cannot help wondering what the response will be to my approach.  I give a close reading of parts of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in an attempt to ‘return to basics’, trying to understand the starting point of this book and the nature of the ‘architectonic’ Kant is constructing here.  It could appear too basic and simplistic but I argue that we cannot understand such things as the nature of the Metaphysical Deduction if we don’t follow Kant’s peculiar architectonic method.  We will never understand this book as a systematic whole if we reject or ignore the architectonic.  Therefore I seek to understand the Table of Categories and follow its role in the schematism and the Table of Principles.  I do this in order to see what the architectonic method represents as a whole and how we can understand it productively.  Having done this I turn to Deleuze’s thought and seek to locate a Kantian method which helps to secure the ‘actual’ side of reality.  I argue that Deleuze employs Kantian methods in a way that responds to current critics of his philosophy like Alain Badiou and Peter Hallward.  I also seek to make my reading of the Critique of Pure Reason relevant to the current debate on transcendental arguments.  I admire the clarity and analysis that has gone into this debate since P. F. Strawson initiated it.  I argue for the value of a unified reading of Kant in understanding the forms of argument he employs.

I look forward to discussing my work with others in the future.  I am currently working on the wider role of architectonics in philosophy and its potential role in contemporary debates.  In a world of increasing specialisation, attempts to be interdisciplinary and the creeping management of the disciplines, architectonics may have a role to play.  It concerns itself with what all disciplines have in common, with knowledge in the widest sense.  This has the potential to be empowering in a world of information and specialisation where we struggle to navigate and to breach the walls of terminology that keep non-specialists at bay.