Talk:Critique of Pure Reason

Question
The quote at the start of this article regarding Kant's purpose in writhing this work is pretty different from the translation I have. I can't seem to find out where this quote came from. Does anyone know? p.s. my translation is by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. TimoleonWash (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is form Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant) Διοτιμα (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hermeneutical squabbles and misreads
The interpretation of the Critique as epistemological: to wit "investigation into the foundations and limits of human knowledge, and the extent to which the human mind is able to engage in metaphysics " rather than as a fundamental ontology and thus as a grounding of metaphysics as the Critique notes "critique of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all the cognitions after which reason might strive independently of all experience, and hence the decision about the possibility or impossibility of a metaphysics in general"(Axii). With this the study and limit is not on human knowledge in general but a specific kind of human knowledge that needs synthetic judgements apriori. Thus the Critique is "determination of its (metaphysics') sources, as well as its extent and boundaries, all, however, from principles"(ibid); and not human knowledge.

Another is the problem of method. How is the Critique itself as a science or investigation possible? How can it cognize itself : since in it "reason should take on anew the most difficult of all its tasks, namely, that of self-knowledge"(Axi): what is that in which, and how does it unfold therein? Then how does the distinction between the things as they appear and as they are come to lay upon the investigation. Διοτιμα (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As Heidegger once lectured in Schelling's treatise on the essence of human freedom " how is the procedure of the Critique as a transcendental reflection determinable" Διοτιμα (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

on the transcendental aesthetic
Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic deals with sensibility and with objects as far as they can be perceived This stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of transcendental which means absolutely pure or a priori. Thus "that by means of which we cognize that and how certain representations (intuitions or concepts) are applied entirely a priori, or are possible (i.e., the possibility of cognition or its use a priori"(B81). The transcendental aesthetics is a consideration not of sensibility or cognition in general but it's a priori constitution. The transcendental aesthetic argues for the existence of pure form of sensibility and not objects or theirs perception which is just a contingent part." This pure form of sensibility itself is also called pure intuition"(B35).Iin it "nothing is to be encountered that belongs to sensation"(A20). This pure form or pure intution is a constitutive part of the synthetic a priori cognition and this the transcendental aesthetic's aim.thus the "science of all principle of a priori sensibility" is the transcendental aesthetic which, as noted in the colliding part "Here we now have one of the required pieces for the solution of the general problem of transcendental philosophy -how are synthetic a priori propositions possible? -namely pure a priori intuitions, space and time"(B73) Διοτιμα (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject of the book
Διοτιμα, as already noted, if you want the article's infobox to state that the subject of the Critique of Pure Reason is "fundamental ontology", then you need a reliable source stating that "fundamental ontology" is indeed the book's subject. It may be that such a source does exist; if so, I hope you can find it and use it to improve the article. Your comment that "the burden of proof is equal" is mistaken. As the editor who wants to change the status quo version of the article, it is up to you to show that you are right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC).

On the burden of proof, your statement could be emended to read thus;"if you want the article's infobox to state that the subject of the Critique of Pure Reason is "epistemology", then you need a reliable source stating that "epistemology" is indeed the book's subject"; Is there any?. So the status quo you talk about is non existent and ungrounded.thus the burden lies on both claims but more so on the one claiming that it is right by virtue of a non grounded status quo. Second of all,How can such be provided if you keep removing them? from claiming that "Wikipedia does not have an article on "Fundamental Ontology", yet you revert edits on the same page. fundamental ontology is in fact a positional designation in that it denotes an analysis that precedes metaphysics or ontology. This means that Any ontological analysis of the constitution of a being as a grounding or showing that metaphysics is possible prior to metaphysics itself is a fundamental ontology. This is why Kant notes that"A quite special, though purely negative science, general phenomenology,seems to me to be presupposed by metaphysic"(10:98). By the fact the critique precedes metaphysics and performs an analysis the the a priori or ontological constitution of sensibility and understanding to show how metaphysics as a science is possible it is a fundamental ontology. As Already argued in the critiques' edits, The designation of the critique as epistemological ignores that it is a transcendental critique. This means that it "is occupied not so much with objects but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori"(A12). It does not matter if ones quote Heidegger's interpretation that "The following investigation is devoted to the task of interpreting Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as a laying of the ground for metaphysics and thus of placing the problem of metaphysics before us as a fundamental ontology"(Kant and the problem ) he could be totally misguided.Διοτιμα (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Διοτιμα, the status quo version is not "non existent and ungrounded". "Status quo" means the state of the article prior to your edits, and clearly that state is not "non existent". As for your comment, "How can such be provided if you keep removing them?", I have no idea what you are talking about. What "such" were you referring to? I asked you for a reliable source stating that the Critique of Pure Reason is about "fundamental ontology"; you never provided one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The status quo is existent but still ungrounded. An emmendation can show it: " I asked you for a reliable source stating that the Critique of Pure Reason is about "epistemology"; you never provided one" have you even bothered to check if there is any proof given that the book's content is about epistemology? As to providing evidence this has been done ad nauseam. As noted above, all that needs to be shown is that Kant places the Critique prior to metaphysics proper and if fundamental ontology is the "ontological analytic of the finite essence of human beings which is to prepare the foundation for the metaphysics” (Heidegger : Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics) ; then it is a fundamental ontology by definition. This has been shown more than once.( you can read it in the edit that you quoted about burden of proof). But as repeatedly noted, you have not provided why the reversion to epistemology is needed apart from the fact that it was prior to the new edit. You must have one at least provided during its designation: for if a demand for reason is made-to-measure what should be placed, then the epistemology claim should face up to the same demands (that's why the burden of proff is equal). It can be thought of a situation where another editor reverts your epistemology revision since it doesn't have a proof. What would have said Διοτιμα (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Διοτιμα, you may wish to review WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to present your own personal interpretation of or argument about the Critique of Pure Reason. I deliberately avoid replying to your arguments about the Critique, as they are irrelevant. Per the site's policies, a reliable source is needed. Finally, you might wish to review WP:BRD regarding editing behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read any of the edits and check the sources? If you were truly concerned with the demand for proof than rather pretending to outright consider them irrelevant (thus allowing you to wallow in vainglorious vanity by rejecting them as useless) you would have known by now that they have already been provided. You deliberately avoid replying to them not because they are irrelevant; but you cannot understand anything (barely intelligible text; poorly written addition) those are markers of deep understanding of the edits. More than 3/4 of all edits done bare direct quotes from Kant's corpus. This excludes the fundamental ontology entry which quotes secondary sources.The two quoted are Hegel and Heidegger; with the latter specifically saying in Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is " a laying of the ground for metaphysics and thus of placing the problem of metaphysics before us as a fundamental ontology". Hegel, in the introduction to the The Phenomenology of Spirit (73) specifically says "It is a natural assumption that in philosophy, before we start to deal with its proper subject-matter, viz. the actual cognition of what truly is, one must first of all come to an under­ standing about cognition" He also speaks clearly of Kant in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (in § 10) that "It is one of the main viewpoints of the Critical philosophy (Designation of Kantian philosophy) that, prior to setting about to acquire knowledge of God, the essence of things,etc., the faculty of knowing itself would have to be examined first in order to see whether it is capable of achieving this". All they show is Hegel and Heidegger understand the Critique as a prior analysis of the possibility of metaphysics. But this is beside the point they could be wrong. Lucky Kant says this is the task of the Critique both in the critique and other places with the choicest being provided for the edits  .I have already quoted Kant to that effect and going with his designation it would be rather a "general phenomenology" than epistemology which until now you have not provided any proof or part in the entry  that supports this. Διοτιμα (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only part of that comment worth responding to is the mention of Heidegger's Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. The book might be an acceptable source for the claim that the subject of the Critique is fundamental ontology. I would recommend that you add a brief passage to the article stating that this was how Heidegger interpreted the Critique, possibly in a new section toward the end of the article, and then alter the infobox accordingly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
Διοτιμα, if you wish to add material to the lead as you did here, then you have to explain your change and convince other editors that it is an improvement. Failing that, the addition will be removed. Simply making the same edit over and over again, using the same edit summary, and ignoring other editors is not an option on a collaborative project. I remain to be convinced that your edit is an improvement or that it does correct "a misrepresentation of transcendental idealism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for new article - "Reception of the Critique of Pure Reason"
I am currently going through Frederick C. Beiser's work The Fate of Reason, which contains a great deal of interesting material on the early reception of the Critique. I can continue to expand the article using this and other sources. In fact, there is probably enough material available that I could continue expanding the article this way almost indefinitely. I think that there is so much material about the reception of the Critique, and how it influenced and was criticized by other philosophers, that a case could be made for a dedicated article specifically about this subject, perhaps titled "Reception of the Critique of Pure Reason", with only a briefer summary of the topic here. I welcome any thoughts on this proposal, as well as any suggestions for improving the organization of the material I have been adding. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Material from Beiser's book would greatly benefit the German idealism page, which covers the reception of Kant's Critical philosophy by his immediate successors (which is not everything, of course—there is later neo-Kantianism, etc.). PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

References to the same source?
I read this article looking for a source for some references in another article. I found the same dead source, I was hoping for a better one. Anyway, I reworked the very confusing Contents section and started checking some other cites. The question is: Are these references ^ Kant 1999, p.A22. ^ A70/B95 ^ CPR, A2/B2 for this resource? Kant, Immanuel (1999). Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521657297. If they are they should use the same style. I would do the editing once I have an answer. User-duck (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No responce. Changed these SFNs to consistent format using sfn template. User-duck (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
In the fourth paragraph of the article it Kant is quoted, in the Wood Guyer translation, as saying "matter of life and death" in the context of "It is a 'matter of life and death' to metaphysics and to human reason, Kant argues, that the grounds of this kind of knowledge be explained."

I have looked on the page referenced in the citation, B20 on page 146 of the Wood Guyer edition, and even searched through the entire text using a search engine on a PDF copy and have found no mention of 'life and death' anywhere, let alone the full quote.

So does anyone know where this quote is in the book? Or how it should be interpreted if it isn't? 2600:1700:4521:D80:D0B1:855E:2A0B:9324 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)