Running into the limits of my own mental capacity has been alternately frustrating and refreshing. It really is something an individual must face alone.
As for Kant's writings, I did try to take a detour in 1991, following Schopenhauer's suggestion to read Kant; but I could not really get into it too much, except to gain some clarity on where Schopenhauer got "Will" (thing-in-itself = noumenon) and "representation" (phenomenon) from. I am indebted to Schopenhauer, who, to me, is much more than a philosopher, and more like the founder of a "religion without religion," much as the Buddha is the central figure in a religion without a Creator God.
He was still a kind of salvationist. While there may be no real salvation for us, the fact remains that we are in a predicament where we feel a metaphysical need for something like salvation.
That is what makes Schopenhauer's approach so helpful for me. It speaks to my heart, helps me to come to terms with our existential predicament; whereas mathematics (and physics) may be elegant, there is something about it that leaves one cold. Cioran summed it up when he says something about what he would like to whisper into the ear of a dying man, or something that could be understood and appreciated by a drunk.
We may not always be in a position to wait 10 years before we can make a conjecture.
And how has our species become so dependent on specialized training to reach "truth"?
There is one little obstacle with coming to accept the limits of our own mental capacity (or even our lack of advanced education): not everyone we encounter will respect this stance. Look around the Internet and you will see a great deal of intellectual "priick waving" or "piisssing contests."
I will also be reading through Mainlander's work. Maybe he will help me with questions I am not even fully conscious of. The first part I am reading now, where he attempts to explain the parts of Kant's work which he feels Schopenhauer did not understand correctly is very difficult reading for me. Kant's 12 categories did not appeal to me at all. In fact, all I could wonder is, "Who is he to create these categories?"
I often wondered how it is I could be drawn so strongly to Schopenhauer, who claims to be kind of a correction to "the great Kant," while at the same time wanting to forget Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic, Transcendental Analytic, etc, blah-blah-blah ...
Running into our own limitations and accepting them ... this sounds like a very sound approach. The trick, I think, is to imagine that those who write the heavy texts do not carry all that around in their heads. Also, many "rocket scientists" would be hard-pressed to be able to rub two sticks together to create fire! Our distant ancestors may have been more fit for living in this world than we are, even though our technological knowledge is more advanced. It's a paradox.
So, we may feel proud of ourselves for getting through a difficult text, but secretly be more confused than we were before we read it.
As I have told Holden before, I strive to be honest even if I come off sounding naive.
It is not only refreshing to accept our own limits, but also to openly admit when an idea is unlcear without shame.
I admire musicians, but I do not play any musical instruments. I think I also admire mathematicians, physicists, and even computer programmers who create computer algebra systems. I would like to understand their craft, their disciplines. I devote a great deal of time to studying, and I'm sure it is better for me than being abused in the work-force; but I will not shy away from being honest about just how depressing this "quest for knowledge" can be at times.
We each have to get through this life as best we can. This means we each must endure ourselves. I would not be able to endure myself if I were not totally honest with myself about whether or not I am understanding what I am studying. This is why notebooks are so important to me. When I look at my notes from many months ago, or years ago, I have to concentrate to know where I was at. The understanding is not what I would have wished it to be.
Disposable knowledge, I suppose.
And yet when Schopenhauer wrote about how our lives consist in wanting, wishing, disappointment, boredom, etc, this is refreshing to read. I see why he called Hegel's work "State Philosophy." If there is one way I am a true disciple of Arthur Schopenhauer, it is in how much I value honesty-with-myself.
I do not think I could ever be any kind of professional "teacher," since I probably would admit to the students that I forget most everything I study. Then why study at all? To remember what I forgot?
Yes, exactly, to remember what I forgot, and to try to learn it in such a way that I might remember it this time - that is, so that I might understand it.
What helps me when considering how confusing Kant can be is to realize that sometimes you gain more insight just staring at a full moon out in the cold. You know that you have to get your butt indoors or else you'll freeze to death!
This is what it is for us to exist. Maybe someone might read what we have written and find great liberation in our honesty. They may continue to study something difficult, but at a level they can better understand. We must know what that level is. If such a level does not exist, then we must create it ourselves.