Prolegomena to Any Future Megaphysics First Edition

It was required for school and does the job to help me pass. Quite confusing though.. but ehh that's philosophy

Some years ago I tried to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: I was unable to do so. I might be able to do so having read this book -- which is in itself quite difficult, but which spells out in plain(er) language many of the ideas (as opposed to Ideas, of course) which Kant was striving for in the CPR.He appears to have written it in response to complaints that the former work was dry and unreadable and incomprehensible and other bad things. Indeed, one of his Appendices is basically a peevish swipe at one reviewer. But he recognized the stylistic flaws of the CPR and wanted to make some amends, so here we have (to give the full title) the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics Which Will Be Able to Come Forth as a Science, a defense and summa of the Critique.Kant poses the question, How is metaphysics possible as a science? and proceeds to investigate first how mathematics and then how natural philosophy (what we today call science) are possible as sciences. Having established here some groundwork, he inquires into how metaphysics is possible at all, and, finally, establishes the "bounds" of pure reason as a framework in which metaphysics might be possible as a science.In doing so he greatly limits what metaphysics can and cannot say, coming at times very close to Wittgenstein's famous rejection of metaphysical speech, but never goes quite that far: he remains convinced that metaphysics-as-science is possible and worthwhile.This is not an easy read. But I found it challenging and worth my time.

"Prolegomena to any future metaphysics" was published written by Immanuel Kant, a German Philosopher who developed Transcendental Idealism (or simply Critical Philosophy), and was published in 1783. Immanuel Kant wrote this book for several reasons: First, it was written in the attempted to provide a concise summarization and explanation of Critique of Pure Reason. Second, Kant wrote this book as a way to provide a critical response to critics who disagreed with Critique of Pure Reason; Kant also wrote it to clear away misunderstandings the critics had about Critique of Pure Reason. Third, Kant wanted to explore the general foundation of mathematics and natural science within the framework of his philosophy, but he also wants to inquire if Metaphysics itself has any purpose or role to play in philosophy.This is probably one of the books you may want to read to understand Kant's critical philosophy. However it provides a very limited understanding since Kant could not summarize his whole philosophy in a short book, nonetheless it was his intention to explicitly write down the core purpose and concerns of his critical project.While one of the reviewer criticized Kant for misrepresenting Hume and being the reason why philosophy is boring, Kant's philosophy was not suppose to represent Hume's philosophy but on the contrary it was a critical response to Hume's challenge to the problem of induction and problem of causation. Whether or not his response is successful is largely for the well-informed reader to decide. Also, to state that Kant's philosophy has made philosophy "boring" is merely a value statement without an argument, and I would like to contend that Kant's philosophy has influenced many profound philosophers who has inspired many people around the world: Schopenhauer, Hegel, Ernst Cassirer, Frege,John Rawls, Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, etc.Far from being boring and trivial, Immanuel Kant is probably one of the most challenging philosophers even to this day; to merely dismiss him out of hand is not only foolish but tragic.

The book shown is not the same as the book shipped, but the pagination and text are the same.

Kant was a charlatan who misrepresents the great skeptic philosopher David Hume throughout this monument to logical obfuscation. The plot turns on an attempt to redefine metaphysics for the rest of eternity (now that Hume has essentially disproved its usefulness). Will he succeed? You can be the judge, if you like, but please take the time to read Hume's brilliant work before you waste any time (or money) on this scoundrel's scientific-sounding drivel!Kant is one of the main reasons philosophy and philosophers are today considered boring. He influenced a generation of fools after him, most notably Hegel and Schoepenhauer. I can attest that Hegel's work is no more valuable, equally unintelligible and obscure, it clearly had no positive influence on history. His idiocy is the main reason why later philosophers Marx and Nieszche, for example, come off sounding so angry! As German intellectuals they had to swim in a sea of Kantian nonsense!

A must if your into understanding reason.