Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason PDF
Preview Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason
CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY IMMANUEL KANT Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Serieseditors KARL AMERIKS ProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofNotreDame DESMOND M. CLARKE ProfessorofPhilosophyatUniversityCollegeCork ThemainobjectiveofCambridgeTextsintheHistoryofPhilosophyistoexpandtherange, varietyandqualityoftextsinthehistoryofphilosophywhichareavailableinEnglish. Theseriesincludestextsbyfamiliarnames(suchasDescartesandKant)andalsobyless well-knownauthors.Whereverpossible,textsarepublishedincompleteandunabridged form,andtranslationsarespeciallycommissionedfortheseries.Eachvolumecontainsa criticalintroductiontogetherwithaguidetofurtherreadingandanynecessaryglossaries andtextualapparatus.Thevolumesaredesignedforstudentuseatundergraduateand postgraduatelevelandwillbeofinterestnotonlytostudentsofphilosophy,butalsotoa wideraudienceofreadersinthehistoryofscience,thehistoryoftheologyandthehistory ofideas. Foralistoftitlespublishedintheseries,pleaseseeendofbook. IMMANUEL KANT Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science with Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY GARY HATFIELD UniversityofPennsylvania RevisedEdition cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521828246 © Cambridge University Press 1997, 2004 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2004 isbn-13 978-0-511-18483-3 eBook (NetLibrary) isbn-10 0-511-18483-2 eBook (NetLibrary) isbn-13 978-0-521-82824-6 hardback isbn-10 0-521-82824-4 hardback isbn-13 978-0-521-53535-9 paperback isbn-10 0-521-53535-2 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Acknowledgments pagevii Introduction ix Chronology xxxv Furtherreading xxxviii Noteontextsandtranslation xl ProlegomenatoAnyFutureMetaphysics TableofContents 3 Preface 5 Preamble 15 GeneralQuestionoftheProlegomena 24 GeneralQuestion 27 TheMainTranscendentalQuestion,FirstPart 32 TheMainTranscendentalQuestion,SecondPart 46 TheMainTranscendentalQuestion,ThirdPart 79 SolutiontotheGeneralQuestionoftheProlegomena 116 Appendix 123 SelectionsfromtheCritiqueofPureReason TableofcontentsoftheCritique 137 FromthePrefacetotheSecondEdition 139 FromtheIntroduction 154 FromtheTranscendentalAesthetic 156 FromtheTranscendentalLogic,Introduction 161 FromtheAnalyticofConcepts 163 v Contents FromtheAnalyticofPrinciples 171 FromtheTranscendentalDialectic 192 FromtheTranscendentalDoctrineofMethod 195 BackgroundSourceMaterials TheGo¨ttingen(orGarve–Feder)Review 201 TheGothaReview 208 Index 212 vi Acknowledgments This work of translation has benefited from the advice of colleagues, students,andfriends.RolfPeterHorstmannreadandcommentedonan earlydraft,raisingmanyinterestingpointsfordiscussion.HenryAllison, Peter Heath, and Karl Ameriks each provided timely and helpful com- ments and suggestions on a later version. During the academic year 1995–6ImetwithagroupofstudentsandrecentPh.DsattheUniver- sityofPennsylvaniatodiscusstranslatingandtogooverthetranslation; I am especially indebted to Lanier Anderson, Curtis Bowman, Cynthia Schossberger, and Lisa Shabel for their contributions to these discus- sions.BowmanandMichelleCasinolaterservedasmyresearchassistants in preparing the typescript of the Prolegomena and selections from the CritiqueofPureReasonforpublication.LindethVaseyatCambridgepre- pared the typescript for printing with care and thoughtfulness. Finally, HollyPittmanreadthetypescriptwithaneyeforintelligibilitytoanew readerofKant.Heradviceandsuggestionshelpedgreatly. In the second edition I have been especially aided by Peter Heath’s commentsonPartThreeandfollowingoftheProlegomena.KarlAmeriks and Lanier Anderson offered advice on the scope of the newly added Critiqueselectionsandsectionofreviews.BrianChance,MarkNavin,and YumikoInukaiservedasresearchassistants.Finally,mycolleagueLothar Haselberger has kindly abided discussion of Kant’s German during lunchtimeattheFacultyClub. vii Introduction Itwascharacteristicofthegreatmodernphilosopherstoattempt,eachin hisownway,torebuildphilosophyfromthegroundup.Kantembraced thisgoalmorefullythananyotherclassicalmodernphilosopher.Andhis work did in fact change philosophy permanently, though not always as heintended.Hewantedtoshowthatphilosophersandnaturalscientists werenotable,andwouldneverbeable,togivefinalanswerstoquestions about the nature of the physical world and of the human mind or soul, andabouttheexistenceandattributesofasupremebeing.Whilehedid notaccomplishpreciselythat,hisworkchangedphilosophy’sconception ofwhatcanbeknown,andhowitcanbeknown.Kantalsowantedtoset forthnewandpermanentdoctrinesinmetaphysicsandmorals.Though hisexactteachingshavenotgainedgeneralacceptance,theycontinueto inspirenewpositionsinphilosophicaldiscussiontoday. Kantstandsatthecenterofmodernphilosophy.Hiscriticismofprevi- ousworkinmetaphysicsandthetheoryofknowledge,propoundedinthe Critique of Pure Reason and summarized in the Prolegomena, provided a comprehensiveresponsetoearlymodernphilosophyandastartingpoint forsubsequentwork.Herejectedpreviousphilosophicalexplanationsof philosophicalcognitionitself.Hisprimarytargetwastherationalistuse ofreasonor“pureintellect”–advancedbyDescartesandLeibniz–asa basisformakingclaimsaboutGodandtheessencesofmindandmatter. Kantarguedthatthesephilosopherscouldnotpossiblyknowwhatthey claimedtoknowaboutsuchthings,becausedirectknowledgeofamind- independentrealityexceedsthecapacityofthehumanintellect.Hethus hadsomesympathywiththeconclusionsofempiricistphilosophers,such asLockeandHume,whoprescribedlimitstohumanunderstanding.But, ix
Description:The list of books you might like
