Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus

You are here: Home - Uncategorized - Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics


Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics This edition of Prolegomena includes Kant s letter of February to Marcus Herz a momentous document in which Kant relates the progress of his thinking and announces that he is now ready to prese

  • Title: Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
  • Author: Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus
  • ISBN: 9780872205932
  • Page: 405
  • Format: Paperback
  • This edition of Prolegomena includes Kant s letter of February, 1772 to Marcus Herz, a momentous document in which Kant relates the progress of his thinking and announces that he is now ready to present a critique of pure reason.

    • [PDF] Download ↠ Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics | by ☆ Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus
      405 Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus
    • thumbnail Title: [PDF] Download ↠ Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics | by ☆ Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus
      Posted by:Immanuel Kant James W. Ellington Paul Carus
      Published :2018-04-19T22:37:51+00:00

    One thought on “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

    1. Foad on said:

      کتابکانت اول کتاب "نقد عقل محض" رو نوشت. اما بعد از یک سال انتظار، متوجه شد که انگار کسی کتاب رو نخونده، از بس که طولانیه، و سخت نوشته شده، و مخصوصاً این که فلسفه ای به کلی جدید بنیان گذاشته، و خواننده ها با ذهنیتی که از فلسفۀ قدیم دارن، درست متوجه نمیشن که حرف حساب کانت در این در [...]

    2. Riku Sayuj on said:

      Hieroglyphics: A Reluctant TranslationThe 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 appr [...]

    3. Szplug on said:

      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, [...]

    4. David on said:

      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) [...]

    5. Hadrian on said:

      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. Erik Graff on said:

      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 serv [...]

    7. G.R. Reader on said:

      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!

    8. Greg on said:

      I don't get Kant, and I've never derived any pleasure from reading him.

    9. Max Jackson on said:

      “Philosophers usually think of their discipline as one which discusses perennial, eternal problems - problems which arise as soon as one reflects.” Thus Richard Rorty begins his tremendous masterpiece ‘Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature’, which is not the book I’m reviewing here(1). He(Rorty) goes on to critique/demolish this idea for 400-or-so pages, suggesting (in my mangled paraphrase) that instead we should think of philosophers (and, really, people in general) as creating partic [...]

    10. Jesse on said:

      As Kant modestly put it, no one had ever thought that the conditions for our experience could be ascertained a priori (what an exciting premise!). And so comes this book, ostensibly for the layman but in reality intended for lazy academics in the backwoods of Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad) who couldn't plough through the Critique without misunderstanding it, which is mostly a polemic answering four questions that are supposed to get us riled up for a first-hand encounter with modern philosophy's m [...]

    11. Chris on said:

      Kant was a pretty smart guy and maybe I'm not so smart, but I can't understand what he thought he accomplished with the Prolegomena. Kant's stated purpose was to refute Hume, who had cast doubt on the concept of causation by pointing out that we only observe one event following another and have no reason to conclude that the first caused the second. Kant's solution is posit that all sensory information is subjective. Even so basic information as the spatial and temporal orientation of objects an [...]

    12. Andrew on said:

      Reading Kant is pretty interesting. The Prolegomena is doubtless a masterful work Kant found a totally novel way of reconciling empirical, scientific concepts with an idealistic worldview. Granted, my own perspectives are pretty far from the transcendental idealist system that he proposes, but I have massive appreciation for his insights recognizing the lens quality of space and time, for instance.I should note that I don't, for a minute, buy transcendental idealism. He's willing to chalk a lot [...]

    13. Adam on said:

      I pretty much concur with the consensus that Kant was a spectacularly shitty writer, if an important and occasionally good philosopher, but this particular book isn't as bad as reading his other stuff, and pretty succinctly covers some very important aspects of Kant's philosophy, and what it has unfortunately spawned since.

    14. CJ Bowen on said:

      "If it [metaphysics:] is a science, how does it happen that it cannot, like other sciences, obtain universal and permanent recognition?" pg. 1, pgh 256."Human reason so delights in construction that it has several times built up a tower and then razed it to examine the nature of the foundation. It is never too late to become reasonable and wise; but if the insight comes late, there is always more difficulty in starting the change." pg. 2, pgh 256."For inasmuch as our judgment cannot be corrected [...]

    15. Maaz on said:

      Okay, I have what I'd like to call 'the Prolegomena Paradox' as to what to read first, the Prolegomena which is meant to explain the Critique, or read the Critique, then the Prolegomena, and maybe the Critique once again. See the problem. Anyway, I have made the choice of reading this first, of course without full comprehension of the Critique, I am a bit puzzled and confused.One of the simple points in the book is the assertion that metaphysics cannot be empirical. For the cognition, as Kant pu [...]

    16. Jake Beals on said:

      Having published his Critique of Pure Reason in 1781, Kant got the impression he was being grossly misunderstood (if you can believe it) by his contemporaries. To clear up any misunderstandings anyone may have, he wrote the Prolegomena as a summary/introduction to his first Critique.I admit that I actually enjoy reading Kant. If anything, he is thorough, which means that if you don't grasp an idea the first time around you won't have to wait long for him to repeat it. Kant's writing is very meth [...]

    17. David on said:

      I'm coming back to the Prolegomena after some time away from them. It's kind of odd re-reading the book because I've been focusing so much on the CPR that the organization (Kant says that the Prolegomena take a "synthetic" rather than "analytic" approach to understanding pure reason's limitations and the possibility of metaphysics) is a little strange. Perhaps I'm just used to the so-called analytic approach and therefore I should set aside the Prolegomena. But I've found that there are a few po [...]

    18. Seamusin on said:

      The book itself - the translation, accompanying introduction and excerpts from the Critique - are great. Kant's writing is not as great. Hence 3/5."I freely admit that the remembrance of David Hume was the very thing that many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber"Interrupted. Kant woke up, made some very good points, asked some key questions, and then sort of drifted off to sleep again. Why o why Kant? Why so many fantastic jumps in logic? Is it really just a reflection of the state o [...]

    19. Yesterday's Muse Bookstore on said:

      A briefer and more accessible look at Kant's famous Critique of Pure Reason, this work has become a standard in undergraduate philosophy programs. For those who have not read any of Kant's work, this is the one to start with. It will help the reader grow accustomed to Kant's method of analysis. It also establishes the importance of Kant's thought within the history of philosophy. Much of Kant's work was a reaction to large problems he saw in the philosophical system of his time, and he is well-k [...]

    20. Brock on said:

      My appreciation for Kant has little to do with the accessibility of the writing. The philosophy is dense and readers must quickly familiarize themselves with the large vocabulary Kant creates in exploring the possibility of metaphysics. However, his argumentation is extremely convincing and it's clear by the end of the book why it is a necessary read. My thought process went something like this: "Now that I finally get what he's saying, I'm totally on board with it!"

    21. Scott on said:

      I read large portions of this work slightly drunk, and that either assisted my understanding or had no effect. It's definitely better taken in as a whole rather than scrutinized sentence by sentence. The man repeats himself enough that things will start coming together if you just press on. Don't ask me to explain anything. It makes sense in my head, but I can't make it come out my mouth.

    22. Kyle van Oosterum on said:

      Where Kant's work is not extremely dry but intelligible. This text was essential in promulgating his transcendental idealism which reconciled the rationalists and empiricist who are so often at odds. Kant took ideas from both of their sides and created a metaphysical system which is quite brilliant, but does require some serious attention to be able to understand it fully.

    23. Blake on said:

      I'm not a huge Kant fan and it's rather difficult to read. But, highly recommended for an excercise in pretension.

    24. Jake on said:

      “If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on - then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me.” ~ Immanuel Kant in What is EnlightenmentThere’s a lot of truth in this and it’s a good summary of how Kant looks at the world. This isn’t to say it isn’t without problems, which come to a head in Prolegomena. Humans are much [...]

    25. Ian on said:

      Immanuel Kant was undoubtedly the most important figure in philosophy after Aristotle. To rescue our notion of causality from the seemingly devastating critique of Hume, he effected what he called his "Copernican revolution" in philosophy: rather than ideas or essences coming into our intellect from the outside world, it is rather we who bring concepts like space and time and impose them upon our phenomenal world of experiences. It is much easier to scoff at argumentative moves like this than it [...]

    Leave a Reply

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