Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, By Immanuel Kant When composing can transform your life, when writing can enrich you by providing much money, why don't you try it? Are you still extremely confused of where getting the ideas? Do you still have no suggestion with exactly what you are visiting create? Currently, you will certainly need reading Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, By Immanuel Kant An excellent writer is a good visitor at once. You can specify exactly how you write relying on exactly what books to check out. This Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, By Immanuel Kant could assist you to fix the problem. It can be among the appropriate resources to establish your writing skill.
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Read Online Ebook Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant - Amazon Sales Rank: #4964272 in Books
- Published on: 2015-11-02
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.21" h x 1.25" w x 6.14" l, 2.19 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 588 pages
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant About the Author Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was born in Konigsberg, Prussia, where he remained his entire life. His others works include Critique of Pure Reason and Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.
Where to Download Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Most helpful customer reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. THE MASTERPIECE WHICH FOUNDED MODERN PHILOSOPHY By Steven H Propp Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who is perhaps the founder of "modern" philosophy, with his focus on epistemology (theory of knowledge); he wrote many books, such as Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgement, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, etc. [NOTE: page numbers refer to the 543-page Doubleday Anchor paperback edition.].]He wrote in the Original Preface that he would "undertake anew the most difficult of its duties, namely self-knowledge, and to institute a court of appeal which should protect the just rights of reason, but dismiss all groundless claims, and should do this... according to the eternal and unalterable laws of reason. This court of appeal is none other than the Critique of Pure Reason... I flatter myself that I have thus removed all those errors which have hitherto brought reason, whenever it was unassisted by experience, into conflict with itself... In this work I have chiefly aimed at completeness, and I venture to maintain that there ought not to be one single metaphysical problem that has not been solved here, or to the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied." (Pg. xxiv) He adds in the Preface to the Second Edition, "Hitherto it has been supposed that all our knowledge must conform to the objects... The experiment therefore ought to be made, whether we should not succeed better ... by assuming that the objects must conform to the mode of our cognition, for this would better agree with the demanded possibility of a priori knowledge [e.g., knowledge independent of experience] of them... We have here the same case as with the first thought of Copernicus... If the intuition had to confirm to the constitution of objects, I do not see how we could know anything of it a priori: but if the object ... conforms to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, I can very well conceive such a possibility." (Pg. xxxiii)He explains, "I am not allowed therefore even to ASSUME... God, freedom, and immortality, if I cannot deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insights, because reason... must use principles which are intended originally for objects of possible experience only, and which... if they are applied to what cannot be an object of experience, really changes this into a phenomenon, thus rendering all practical extension of pure reason impossible. I had therefore to remove KNOWLEDGE, in order to make room for BELIEF." (Pg. xxxix)He states, "nothing which is seen in space is a thing by itself, nor space a form of things supposed to belong to them by themselves, but that objects by themselves are not known to us at all, and that what we call external objects are nothing but representations of our senses, the form of which is space, and the true correlative of which, that is the thing by itself, is not known, nor can be known by these representations, nor do we care to know anything about it in our daily experience." (First Part, Sec. 4, pg. 28) He adds, "Time therefore is to be considered as real, not so far as it is an object, but so far as it is the representation of myself as an object... Time is nothing but the form of our own internal intuition." (§5, pg. 33)He concludes the First Part, "Here, then, we have one of the requisites for the solution of the general problem of transcendental philosophy, `How are synthetical propositions a priori possible?' namely, pure intuitions a priori, space and time. In them we find, if in a judgment a priori we want to go beyond a given concept, that which can be discovered a priori, not in the concept, but in the intuition corresponding to it, and can be connected with it synthetically. For this very reason, however, such judgments can never go beyond the objects of the senses, but are valid only for objects of possible experience." (Pg. 42-43)After listing "all pure concepts of synthesis" [e.g., of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Modality; Sec. Three, §10, pg. 62], he admits, "This peculiarity of our understanding of producing unity of apperception a priori by means of the categories only, and again by such and so many, cannot be further explained, any more than why we have these and no other functions of judgment, and why time and space are the only forms of a possible intuition for us." (§21, pg. 85)He explains, "Transcendental Analytic has therefore yielded us this important result, that the understanding a priori can never do more than anticipate the form of a possible experience; and as nothing can be an object of experience except the phenomenon, it follows that the understanding can never go beyond the limits of sensibility, within which alone objects are given to us. Its principles are principles for the exhibition of phenomena only; and the proud name of Ontology... must be replaced by the more modest name of a mere Analytic of the pure understanding." (Ch. III, pg. 193) Later, he asserts, "neither on the one path, the empirical, nor on the other, the transcendental, can reason achieve anything, and that it stretches its wings in vain, if it tries to soar beyond the world of sense by the mere power of speculation." (Ch. III, Sec. Three, pg. 397)Discussing the arguments for the existence of God, he concludes, "Thus the transcendental and the only definite concept which purely speculative reason gives us of God is in the strictest sense DEISTIC; that is, reason does not even supply us with the objective validity of such a concept, but only with the idea of something on which the highest and necessary unity of all empirical reality is founded, and which we cannot represent to ourselves except in analogy with a real substance, being, according to the laws of nature, the cause of all things... This it happens that, if we admit a Divine Being, we have not the slightest conception either of the internal possibility of its supreme perfection, nor of the necessity of its existence, but are able at least thus to satisfy all other questions relating to contingent things, and give the most perfect satisfaction to reason with reference to that highest unity in its empirical application that has to be investigated, but not in reference to that hypothesis itself." (Appendix, pg. 442)He notes, "Hume was probably aware, though he never made it quite clear to himself, that in judgments of a certain kind we pass beyond our concept of the object. I have called this class of judgments `synthetical.' ... Hume was therefore wrong in inferring from the mere contingency of our being determined according to the law of causality, the contingency of that law itself... what always defeats skepticism has happened to Hume also, namely that he himself becomes subject so skepticism, because his objections rest on facts only which are contingent, and not on principles which alone can force a surrender of the right of dogmatical assertion." (II, Sec. III, pg. 492-494He concludes the book by discussing the "Ultimate Aim of Pure Reason": "The whole interest of my reason, whether speculative or practical, is concentrated in the following three questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What should I do? 3. What may I hope?" He adds, "The answer, therefore, of the first of the two questions ... is this, `do that which will render thee deserving of happiness.'" He concludes, "God and a future life are two suppositions which, according to the principles of pure reason, cannot be separated from the obligation which that very reason imposes on us." (Sec. II, pg. 515)This book is literally one of the half-dozen most important and influential of all philosophy. It's difficult, but well worth the effort of struggling through, for any serious student of philosophy.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. this volume has the worst production value I have ever seen By George A. Levine This edition is so atrocious that I must warn potential buyers not to get it. I chose it because i wanted a hardcover edition of the Muller translation. However, this volume has the worst production value I have ever seen. It looks like they just downloaded a free copy of the PDF from Internet Archive, printed it on cheap paper, and bound it together. The text even has someones old underlining and margin notes. This is a shameful and irresponsible production which I am tempted to return.
See all 2 customer reviews...
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant PDF
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant iBooks
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant ePub
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant rtf
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant AZW
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant Kindle
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant
