Introduction: Immanuel Kant as a Proponent of ‘Reasonable’ Philosophy
The work provides an overview of the philosophical doctrine that was expressed by one of the most prominent thinkers of all time, Immanuel Kant. Specifically, the philosopher’s idea of metaphysics is described through the review of the scientist’s work, The Critique of Pure Reason. The philosophical doctrine is meaningful for contemporary science since it serves as the first logical rebuttal of analytical reasoning.
We will write a custom Essay on “The Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Moreover, Kant dwelled on the conception of a priori knowledge as well as offered the first consistent doctrine of elements. The payoffs of the philosopher’s theory are still influencing the conceptions of modern science. Thus, it is claimed that the idea of autonomy concern that was made in the frames of the study is currently applicable to the concepts of teleology (Weber and Varela 98).
“The Critiques of Pure Reason” as a Representation of Metaphysics Analysis
The Critiques of Pure Reason summarized the findings of Kant’s metaphysics investigation. It dwelled on the use of reason in multiple natural sciences (Kant and Pluhar 15). The work was followed by two subsequent books, which was a consequence of the changes views of the philosopher.
Thus, initially, Immanuel Kant intended to express his opinion of the concepts of space and time as the forms of human nature. Later, he expected to move from the notion of reason, as a subject for his investigation, to the ideas of morality and taste justification. However, the author’s plans were altered with the controversies of his ‘nature and method’ theory (Kant, Guyer, and Matthews 18).
The philosophical doctrine represents a theory of human cognitive abilities. Mainly, Kant reflects on the stable categories of rationality that may be applied in diverse scientific dimensions. The philosopher addresses particular sciences such as, for instance, mathematics, and strives to outline the priorities of natural judgment with respect to the subject (Friedman 26).
The analysis is framed into the investigation of two fundamental distinctions, which are a priori in contrast to a posteriori as well as synthetic versus analytical. Thus, Kant analyzes the positioning of human experience and reason in the context of the reviewed dimensions. Due to the outcomes of his study, Kant pointed out that the human mind perceives a priori synthetic knowledge, which proves that the category of pure reason transmits the specific information.
Finally, the article reflects Kant’s contemplations on the categories of time, motion, and space, as well as their meanings for metaphysics. Thus, the philosopher acknowledges that space creates an absolute a priori category that is critical for human ideas to find their reflection in multiple practices and activities. Therefore, he concludes that metaphysics relies on a priori knowledge, which stems from the positioning of space. Moreover, the author concerns the category of time as a second a priori conception (“On Truth & Reality” par. 27).
The Discussion of Critical Points of the Theory
The critical aspects of the theory of metaphysics, which are described in The Critique of Pure Reason, are evaluated in different ways, according to the angle of the scientific approach. Thus, for instance, the philosopher is often regarded as a founder of a “non-conceptual concept,” which considers the issue of a priori knowledge (Griffith 195).
In my opinion, the theory that is described provided a successful example of the sophisticated analysis of metaphysics, except for one faulty assumption. Thus, in his study, Immanuel Kant made a mistake by identifying the notions of space and time and claiming them both to be a priori. The idea gave birth to a subsequent misunderstanding. Thus, the philosopher assumed that both categories could serve as the revelations of objective reality while the concept of motion was a posteriori and, consequently, depended on the primary concepts.
The assumption, however, disrupted the theoretical background of the study since the author had been obliged to consider the idea of space that haves its properties. It may be justified by the fact that the notion is wave-mediated. Accordingly, it regulates the wave motions that constitute the dimension of time. Thus, the objective reality demonstrates that the concepts of space and motion fall into the a priori category while the notion of time is described as a posteriori unit.
Despite a considerate theoretical shortcoming, the work established a high standard of metaphysics analysis that has not been surpassed by any world philosophers for centuries.
Conclusion: Summarizing the Principles of Kant’s Metaphysics
The work recounted the ideas of synthetic and analytical conceptions as well as the notions of a priori and a posteriori sources that shaped the cores of natural sciences. The ideas are transmitted through the theory of Immanuel Kant, who attempted to provide an elaborate account of pure objective reasoning.
The doctrine of metaphysics analysis provided a satisfactory model for evaluating the reality categories, which relate to knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, the theory contains a faulty suggestion, due to which space and time are described as a priori concepts, in contrast to a posteriori motion.
Friedman, Michael. “Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” History of Philosophy of Science 9.1 (2001): 25-41. Print.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Griffith, Aaron. “Perception and the Categories: A Conceptualist Reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.” European Journal of Philosophy 20.2 (2010): 193-222. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, Paul Guyer, and Eric Matthews. Critique of the Power of Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Werner Pluhar. Critique of Practical Reason, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Print.
On Truth & Reality 2014. Web.
Weber, Andreas, and Francisco Varela. “Life After Kant: Natural Purposes and the Autopoietic Foundations of Biological Individuality.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1.2 (2002): 97-125. Print.