The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics begins almost right away with the main reason as to why the book was writtein in the first place. This question is regarding whether or not any metaphysics is possible. If such a subject were a science, then why does it not advance like all other sciences? If it is not a science, what are the grounds on which its claims to truth rest? At that specific time there was no standard for agreement on metaphysical inquiries.The very fact that this question can be postulated itself implies that the validity of metaphysics is doubtable. Some people, who according to Kant, give claims that they have studied the subject might say that it is real, but according to Kant, metaphysics needs a sturdier foundation that it has.
It is interesting to note that the very author/philosopher that led Kant to such conclusions was David Hume, who according to Kant, "threw no light on this species of knowledge, but he certainly struck a spark from which light might have been obtained, had it caught some inflammable substance and had its smoldering fire been carefully nursed and developed," ( Source http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20306/kant_materials/prolegomena2.htm).
Hume concluded that if our knowledge of causes and their effects is not based on reason but rather on custom, all the metaphysical theories that attempt to explian how our reason leads us to such knowledge are worthless. Kant found that all metaphysics is based on a priori reasoning and is thus open to Humean attack. He shows how connections can be drawn a priori and how metaphysics is possible in The Critique of Pure Reason, of which the Prolegomena is a short summary.
4 comments:
isnt the definition of metaphysics that it is above physics? doesnt this have the same argument as hume's no miracles? if our knowledge is worthless, then there is no reason to keep going, but we have to keep going. cant our reason be understood by cause and effect also
i kinda agree with you on everything u just said except that last part. I we don't know that cause and effect are real, then how can we base our reason on them?
i kinda agree with you on everything u just said except that last part. I we don't know that cause and effect are real, then how can we base our reason on them?
idk, i always thought that physics would reavl the meta part eventually and that all speculation of metaphysics was based off of current physics. kind of just predicting the next discoveries.
Post a Comment