Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können

Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können Kant Is The Central Figure Of Modern Philosophy He Sought To Rebuild Philosophy From The Ground Up, And He Succeeded In Permanently Changing Its Problems And Methods This New Translation Of The Prolegomena, Which Is The Best Introduction To His Philosophy, Also Includes Selections From The Critique Of Pure Reason, Which Fill Out And Explicate Some Of His Central Arguments The Volume Is Completed By A Historical And Philosophical Introduction, Explanatory Notes, A Chronology, And A Guide To Further Reading

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher from K nigsberg, 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 contributi

[PDF / Epub] ☉ Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können Author Immanuel Kant – Webcambestmilf.info
  • Paperback
  • 233 pages
  • Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können
  • Immanuel Kant
  • English
  • 14 April 2019
  • 9780521575423

10 thoughts on “Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können

  1. says:

    view spoiler hide spoiler

  2. says:

    Hieroglyphics A Reluctant Translation The Prolegomena is valuable as a summarization that is intended to be less obscure and suited for popular consumption It tries to compress Kant s criticism of all previous work in metaphysics and the theory of knowledge first propounded in the Critique of Pure Reason, which provided a comprehensive response to early modern philosophy and a starting point for most subsequent work in philosophy.A note on the Edition This is a wonderful edition to approach the Prolegomena with meticulous introductory essay and copious notes Plus it comes with a summary outline of all the sections A summary of a summary What could you want Summing up the BeastAs is well known The Critique of Pure Reason is a notoriously difficult work When first published, the early readers were not very different from modern readers they found it incomprehensible Kant was a poor popularizer of his own work and when it was finally published in the spring of 1781 with Kant nearing 57 , after almost ten years of preparation and work, Kant had expected that the evident originality of the thoughts would attract immediate attention, at least among philosophers He was well to be disappointed for the first year or two he received from those whom he most expected to give his book a sympathetic hearing only a cool and uncomprehending, if not bewildered, silence.What else would you expect for such wild intentions My intention is to convince all of those who find it worthwhile to occupy themselves with metaphysics that it is unavoidably necessary to suspend their work for the present, to consider all that has happened until now as if it had not happened, and before all else to pose the question whether such a thing as metaphysics is even possible at all He had proposed a Copernican Revolution in thinking He should have known that such stuff cannot come without a user manual.Soon Kant caught on to this, and started having some misgivings about the fact that he was clearly not getting the reception he had expected for his masterpiece Kant is known to have written to Herz expressing his discomfort in learning that the eminent philosopher Moses Mendelssohn had laid my book aside, since he felt that Mendelssohn was the most important of all the people who could explain this theory to the world Mendelssohn later wrote to a friend confessing that he did not understand the work, and professing pleasure at learning that, in the opinion of her brother, he would not be missing much if he continued not to understand it Kant s colleague in Konigsberg, Johann Schultz, in the preface to his 1784 Exposition of Kant s Critique of Pure Reason, mentioned the nearly universal complaint about the unconquerable obscurity and unintelligibility of the work, saying that for the largest part of the learned public it was as if it consisted in nothing but hieroglyphics As a reaction to this lack of public appreciation for such a vital work that was to have brought about a complete change of thinking, a great deal of Kant s effort during the decade of the 1780s had diverted away from further development of his system and towards the unforeseen task of clarifying the critical foun dations of his system of philosophy that he thought he had completed in May 1781 This work took a number of different forms the publica tion of a brief defense and attempted popularization of the Critique in 1783 until, finally, Kant came to think that an overview would be of great value to aid the reading public in comprehending the implications of the Critique The Prolegomena was the result We can only guess what productive use could have been made of this period It is sometimes obvious in this work that Kant was pained by the need to summarize his great work and with the necessity of expending valuable time on it Only someone who has written an elaborate masterpiece would know how difficult it must be to write a summary of it And Kant lets it slip often enough one might even think deliberately that he is not too amused by having to do so But although a mere plan that might precede the Critique of Pure Reason would be unintelligible, undependable, and useless, it is by contrast all the useful if it comes after For one will thereby be put in the position to survey the whole, to test one by one the main points at issue in this science, and to arrange many things in the exposition better than could be done in the first execution of the work.Whosoever finds this plan itself, which I send ahead as prolegomena for any future metaphysics, still obscure, may consider that it simply is not necessary for everyone to study metaphysics and that in such a case one should apply one s mental gifts to another object.That whosoever undertakes to judge or indeed to construct a metaphysics must, however, thoroughly satisfy the challenge made here, whether it happens that they accept my solution, or fundamentally reject it and replace it with another for they cannot dismiss it and finally, that the much decried obscurity a familiar cloaking for one s own indolence or dimwittedness has its use as well, since everybody, who with respect to all other sciences observes a wary silence, speaks master fully, and boldly passes judgment in questions of metaphysics, because here to be sure their ignorance does not stand out clearly in relation to the science of others, but in relation to genuine critical principles, which therefore can be praised Kant hoped to hit than one bird with the Prolegomena It was meant to offer preparatory exercises to the Critique of Pure Reason not meant to replace the Critique, but as preparatory exercises they were intended to be read prior to the longer work It was also meant to give an overview of that work, in which the structure and plan of the whole work could be starkly put across offered as a general synopsis, with which the work itself could then be compared on occasion The Prolegomena are to be taken as a plan, synopsis, and guide for the Critique of Pure Reason.He also wanted to walk his readers through the major arguments following the analytic method of exposition as opposed to the synthetic method of the Critique a method that starts from some given proposition or body of cognition and seeks principles from which it might be derived, as opposed to a method that first seeks to prove the principles and then to derive other propositions from them pp 13, 25 6 What this means is that Kant realized that most of the readers were dazed by his daring to start the Critique from a scary emptiness of knowledge from which he set out to construct the very foundations on which any possible structure of knowledge can stand, and also the possibility of such a foundation i.e metaphysics There he proceeds from these first newly derived principles of the theory of knowledge to examine the propositions that might be derived from it that are adaptable to a useful metaphysics.In the Prolegomena, Kant reverses this and takes the propositions i.e structure as a given and then seeks to expose the required foundations that are needed to support such a construction This he feels is less scary for the uninitiated reader.It is true The abyss is not so stark when viewed through this approach, and we can ease into our fall Kant s work is easy to summarize well, not really but enough work has been put into it that at there least it is easy to get good summaries but is infinitely rich with potential for the inquisitive reader This reviewer has no intention of summarizing and thus reducing a method system to its mere conclusions And to summarize the method would be to recreate it in full detail Instead the only advice tendered would be to explore Kant s work in depth and not rest content with a superficial understanding of only the conclusions That is precisely what Kant criticizes in the appendix to the Prolegomena his reviewers of doing back in the day We should know better by now.

  3. says:

    My object is to persuade all those who think metaphysics worth studying that it is absolutely necessary to pause a moment and, disregarding all that has been done, to propose first the preliminary question, Whether such a thing as metaphysics be at all possible If it is a science, how does it happen that it cannot, like other sciences, obtain universal and permanent recognition If not, how can it maintain its pretensions, and keep the human understanding in suspense with hopes never ceasing, yet never fulfilled Whether then we demonstrate our knowledge or our ignorance in this field, we must come once and for all to a definite conclusion respecting the nature of this so called science, which cannot possibly remain on its present footing It seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually advancing, that in this, which pretends to be wisdom incarnate, for whose oracle every one inquires, we should constantly move around the same spot, without gaining a single step And so its followers having melted away, we do not find that men confident of their ability to shine in other sciences venture their reputation here, where everybody, however ignorant in other matters, presumes to deliver a final verdict, inasmuch as in this domain there is as yet no standard weight and measure to distinguish soundness from shallow talk. With the completion of this essaying piece by the remarkably ideal K nigsberger, I have, or less, put paid to my desire to read Kant without having gained any degree of comprehension commensurate with the amount of time I have put in This is not in any way the fault of Kant I am simply not constituted to be a philosopher of higher rank than one who pinches just enough off of the cerebrally sound edifice to be able to pretend towards parleying its contours and construct It was actually rather fun trying to grasp the message, and coevally disheartening to discover that, heading into the greying era, my mental faculties are too slippery and scabrous to be able to accomplish such Still, it s worth a bit of gabbling about, if only because there are probably sufficient people about who don t get the dude any better, and hence would be uncomfortable with boldly proclaiming that this emperor, having finally managed egress from the water closet, is sashaying about desnudo.It was definitely an easier reading experience than The Critique of Pure Reason, but still a difficult row to hoe throughout it would also prove most helpful to the prospective philosophical explorer if she forearmed herself with a passable knowledge of the Kantian lexicon The ways in which Kant expresses his proofs of Time and Space being pure forms of intuition strike me as brilliant irrefutable to a plebhead such as myself, while his processed discursion upon how judgments of experience arise from a priori conceptual superadditions to judgments of perception, while somewhat tortuous, yet, in toto, elucidates his thought schema potently I really do need to devour such as the appendix to Schopenhauer s The World as Will and Representation, that I might understand why the Critical Philosophy was fated to being considered such a knackered perspective in days like ours it is my opinion that his Transcendental Idealism in which objective legislation proves a participatory process involving both sides of that great, perduring, and confounding philosophic divide is one of the tenable thought schematics I ve encountered, though admittedly dry as dust and lacking tangible tenterhooks sunk into such modern unearthing as that of the subconscious Yet it sensibly endows the sensibly derived with sole knowledgeable potential smartly refutes the uber scepticism of When Empiricism Attacks promotes the individual as processor of encompassed reality whilst placing her within a universal framework of laws and forms respects the conundrums and paradoxical sky hooks of the infinite and absolute by admitting its potential whilst denying its sussing though it is in this, I believe, that Schopey found the rot settling in and sorts intangible and ephemeral cognitive processes into logically derived and defensible categories that were subsequently shoe horned into fascinating aesthetic and moral mental loafers all whilst keeping God s essence simultaneously alive and fully under the thumb of his mortal progenitors and, hence, well away from dangerous far faring amongst the occluded thickets of any metaphysical wood.That the Neo Kantians have taken it to extremes, as seems the wont of all such en prefixed progeny, fails to detract from the inspired way in which the originator separated the noumenal from the phenomenal once and for all within the parlous halls of knowing, while yet leaving room for the former to be potentially explored in non epistemological manners and memes courtesy of the malachite bridges set down and forth to span those in itself waters Indeed, I always hold in mind the fact that Abraham Pais spoke of the great physicist Niels Bohr as being the natural successor to Kant, what with the latter s concept of complementarity, of a synthesis of reasoning mind with sensibly plenitudinous but transcendentally unknowable nature, meshing rather nicely in parts with the former s Copenhagen backed postulation of Quantum Reality Once again, it s little fault reflected upon Kant that so many have failed to heed the purely prudent if unsettling limits which he so carefully erected in the post Enlightenment crush, what with reasonableness lacking the excitement and aesthetic soloing a world in flux importunely demands

  4. says:

    Kant necessitated a paradigm shift in philosophy with the Prolegomena Prior to Kant, philosophy sought to discover and ask questions about an objective world Kant showed that it made no sense to talk about the world without also talking about a subject through whom it filtered The forms of human intuition, and our own conceptual framework, rightfully entered philosophy For anyone interested in the history of the discipline, this little text as unnecessarily difficult as it can sometimes be is a must For anyone else, it will seem to be inscrutable nonsense.

  5. says:

    This is what I read on lazy Sunday afternoons.A very concise and almost readable work by Kant, summarizing and clarifying some of the monstrous and intricately detailed trails of thinking from his masterwork, The Critique of Pure Reason Lays out the groundwork for the philosophy of science, logic, and metaphysics.

  6. says:

    98% of all philosophers spend their professional lives bullshitting What most people fail to appreciate about Kant is that he actually said things specific enough that they turned out to be wrong Einstein was able to refute his claims about the nature of time and space and show they were incorrect How many other philosophers can say as much Go Kant

  7. says:

    I m afraid I have to read the Critiques now.

  8. says:

    Kant is always worthwhile At times, such as in his critiques he can be prolix, but in this book he is succinct I ve noticed that Heidegger wrote a cryptic book, Being and Time , and then did everything in his power to be understood with its follow up Basic Problems in Phenomenology , that Hume s first book Treatise on Human Nature was initially rejected by the reading public for its difficulty and Hume wrote an easier to understand follow up, and similarly for Schopenhauer his Volume I on Will and Representation was a non event when released to the point where in Bryan Magee s book The Philosophy of Schopenhauer he mentioned that not a single copy was sold and it was ignored until he simplified it with Volume II BTW, in Volume I, Schopenhauer says that he is elaborating on Kant, but not so much in Volume II My overall point, sometimes the great philosophers think they wrote too complexly initially and needed a simple follow up to their masterpiece that would explain their original work to a wider audience This book is definitely Kant s attempt at that, and he does such a good job that an astute reader could just read this book and mostly understand Kant s first critique One ignores Kant at their own risk The graveyard is full of people who think they have buried Kant They are dead and Kant still has relevance by describing a world that is relational to the context of our understanding that transcends the self and gives a transcendental deduction through the analytical and synthetic purposely I wrote that sentence in Kantanese in order to be brief Kant does this by giving the faculty of understanding an intuition for causation, space and time such that the appearance differentiates from the thing in itself Kant will define the analytical as that which is not contradictory and differentiates that from the synthetic, that which comes from our senses through our perception and experiences Hume sees knowledge as experience Berkeley to be means to be perceived and Leibnitz monads have no windows believe that justified true beliefs comes through thinking Kant reconciles the two while always tending towards Hume when forced to square the circle Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber by Hume and he clearly felt Hume was worthwhile He quotes Hume frequently within this book and I would recommend reading Hume s Treatise on Human Nature and the short but many times referred to in this book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion actually I like that one so much, I would recommend it regardless if you read this one or not The connections might not be obvious to everyone Hume thanks Berkeley for inspiring him in his Treatise and Schopenhauer credits Hume as his inspiration within Volume I of Will and Representation , oh and this book Prolegomena mentions that Kant s most influential influence growing up was Christian Wolfe a follower of Leibnitz Since the refutation of the logical positivists by William Van Orman Quine in the 1950s nobody thinks in terms of apriori and aposterior synthetic or analytic foundations and previously Gottlob Frege in the 19th century put a gaping hole in the apriori synthetic But, even when the modern reader gets past Kant s shaky foundational assertions there is a reason for understanding what Kant is getting at This book gets the reader there Hume takes causation out of the world and Kant develops a Copernican Revolution of the Mind and tries to return it back to us as part of nature and preserves freedom for the will Kant wants to make our knowledge universal, necessary and certain and does everything he can to make science and philosophy metaphysics thusly, while all around the world of his time period it keeps slipping into particular, contingent and probable Note that Newton s Gravitational Theory had been understood at that time for about 75 years and was considered sacrosanct to the point that it was tautological or a synthetic aprior truth using Kant s language Kant in his second critique grants God existence only because of the moral law within man and through his antinomies repeated in this book demonstrates why other proofs will lead to contradictions and will discuss in this book how existence is not a predicate take that you Anslem of Canterbury and put your ontological proof where the sun don t shine Kant tries to defend the myths inherent in metaphysics through arguing for the universal truths, a necessary universe and the certainty of our knowledge, but in the end appeals to the relational, contextual and relative knowledge based foundations as if he knew all along that metaphysics can t resolve the mind v body problem on its own All of that is within Kant s first critique and is flushed out in fairly easy to follow language within this book.

  9. says:

    I d started but not finished this supplementary polemic to the Critique of Pure Reason while working on my seminary thesis at the Hungarian Pastry Shop on 110th and Cathedral in New York City Although some had recommended it as an easy approach to the critical project, time was short and I wanted to get through the three Critiques and all the Kant texts either cited by C.G Jung or contained in his library at the time of his death first I did so, then got back to this after graduation It served as a nice little review of the critical programme.

  10. says:

    This is a book written after the publication of Kant s first critique, designed as a companion to it Shorter and accessible, the central aim of the book is to give metaphysicians pause and consider whether metaphysics is possible at all It s goal is to convince the reader that precritical metaphysics is incoherent and in need of radical reform Kant begins with a brief discussion of metaphysics generally, attributing the most important event in its history to Hume s attack on it via his scepticism, which famously awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber Kant then proceeds to discuss the particular features of metaphysical cognition generally, before determining that it must be an apriori synthetic cognition rooted in the pure understanding and reason The concept of metaphysics implies its source cannot be empirical it s principles can never be derived from experience as it must be metaphysical, not physical, knowledge Therefore it cannot have its source in external experience physics or internal experience psychology.Kant starts his investigation proper by enquiring into how pure mathematics is possible Pure mathematics is an example of apriori synthetic cognition, and a good place to start to determine whether this classification is possible for metaphysics too Mathematics is apriori because it s propositions are always necessary, and synthetic because it increases our knowledge of the subject In the sum 7 5 12 , the concept of 12 is not thought by merely thinking of the combination of 7 and 5 We must go beyond these concepts by using our intuition and we must add 5 units from our intuition to the concept of 7, hence we add something not previously contained within the concept and the proposition is synthetic.In his investigations into pure mathematics, Kant determines that the only way our intuition can anticipate the actuality of the object and be a cognition apriori is if the intuition contains nothing but the form of sensibility, which precedes all actual sense impressions Therefore, propositions of this form of sensuous intuition are only possible and valid for objects of the senses Intuitions which are possible apriori can never concern anything other than the objects of the senses.For Kant, the senses never know things in themselves, but only as appearances This, according to Kant, is not idealism he admits that objects exist outside of us, but that we know nothing of what they may be in themselves Kant doesn t distinguish between primary and secondary qualities Instead all the properties which constitute the intuition of a body belong merely to its appearance Kant believe his doctrine of the ideality of space and time that they exist only as projections by us the subject actually safeguards reality from becoming illusion Kant makes it clear that his idealism concerns not the existence of things, but their sensuous representation the word transcendental never means a reference of our cognition of things, but only to the faculty of cognition itself The second part of the book is concerned with how is pure natural science possible Substance is permanent is an example of a universal law of nature that subsists apriori therefore, there exists a pure natural science, but how is this possible Here we are only concerned with experience and the universal conditions of its possibility which are given apriori While all judgements of experience are empirical, not all empirical judgements are judgements of experience special concepts must be superadded, concepts that have their origin apriori in the pure understanding, under which every perception must be subsumed and then changed into experience Judgements of experience take their objective validity not from the immediate cognition of the object, but from the condition of the universal validity of empirical judgements, which comes from the pure understanding Kant then presents his table of categories, which he says are objectively and universally valid synthetic propositions All synthetic principles, he declares, are nothing than principles of possible experience The possibility of experience in general is at the same time the universal law of nature, and the principles of experience are the very laws of nature Kant finally moves onto to the question at hand how is metaphysics in general possible The objective validity and the truth or falsity of metaphysical assertions cannot be discovered or confirmed by experience The representation of this problem for reason requires different concepts from the pure concepts of the understanding The concepts of reason aim at the collective unity of all possible experience, and in doing so, go beyond every given experience and become transcendent The understanding requires categories for experience, whereas reason contains innately the ground of ideas, necessary concepts whose object cannot be given in experience For metaphysics to be a science, we must distinguish between the pure concepts of reason, and the categories, whose use refers to experience However, there must be a harmony between the nature of reason and the understanding the former must contribute to the perfection of the latter On this Kant says Pure reason does not in its ideas point to particular objects beyond the field of experience, but only requires completeness of the use of the understanding in the complex of experience But this is only a completeness of principles, not of intuitions and objects Reason conceives the ideas in the fashion of the cognition of an object This cognition is completely determined, but the object is only an idea invented for the purpose of bringing the cognition of the understanding as near as possible to the completeness indicated by the idea Kant also discusses his famous antinomies, derived from the nature of human reason These are made up of pairs of contradictory statements, both validly deduced from reason These are The world has a beginning The world is infinite , Everything is constituted out of the simple Everything is composite , There is freedom No freedom, only nature and There is a causal necessary being Everything is contingent Kant argues that the first two antinomies are actually conceptually false in the same way the statements a square circle is round a square circle is not round are both false These first two antinomies are called mathematical antinomies, because they are concerned with addition and division of the homogeneous The latter two, dynamic antinomies, are presented as contradictory, but are actually compatible, according to Kant The transcendental ideas express the particular application of reason as a regulative principle of systematic unity in the use of the understanding They point out the bounds of pure reason, and how to determine those bounds Metaphysics in general is possible by ascending from the data of its actual use to the grounds of its possibility For metaphysics to be considered a science, it must first exhibit the whole stock of apriori concepts, their division according to source, analysis of the concepts, the possibility of synthetic cognition apriori by means of deduction of these concepts and their principles and bounds in one complete system.This is a fantastic book for people interested in metaphysics It presents a thorough and decisive attack on precritical metaphysics, and is a real watershed moment in the history of philosophy I would recommend this as an introductory work to the Kantian project.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *