Scan barcode
gijshuppertz's review against another edition
5.0
While I was reading this next to the critique of pure reason, I was asking myself if this book is not better than the critique. It is more concise, readable and while not all encompassing it portays its most important ideas. It was a fantastic read.
hberg95's review against another edition
4.0
As a philosophy student, I read sections of Kant's Prolegomena as well as some other essays, but I'd never read it in its entirety until now.
First of all, I think Kant gets too much flack for his writing style. I think he does tend to be overly wordy, but he isn't boring and he's often very clear and even funny on occasion. The Prolegomena clearly outlined many concepts from Kant's metaphysics that I knew (e.g. space/time, transcendental idealism, etc.) but didn't fully grasp before. There were a few sections, like his argument about a supreme being, where I felt a bit lost, but I typically found my way back to the argument quickly.
Second, Kant is a much more careful critic than he's often made out to be. He takes Hume's criticism of classical metaphysics, agrees with it, and carries it to its logical endpoint wherein Hume and the classical metaphysicians are set up as two extremes (dogmatists & skeptics) on a continuum and Kant maintains that the golden mean is the real truth. He isn't reactionary or trying to 'destroy' Hume's argument, he actually takes the criticism in stride and builds a more comprehensive theory of metaphysics out of it.
Lastly, while I feel like this readthrough of the Prolegomena gave me a better understanding of Kantian metaphysics and a better historical sense of how these ideas are situated, there's still a lot that confuses me. The big thing, and I know it's in there, I just had a hard time with it, is that I don't quite understand how he goes from the perspecitive that all we truly know is in our own experience to the argument that we can know, in some sense, abiding, universal truths.
I'm glad I read this and I'm sure more reading (in addition to some supplementary texts) will clarify my confusions.
First of all, I think Kant gets too much flack for his writing style. I think he does tend to be overly wordy, but he isn't boring and he's often very clear and even funny on occasion. The Prolegomena clearly outlined many concepts from Kant's metaphysics that I knew (e.g. space/time, transcendental idealism, etc.) but didn't fully grasp before. There were a few sections, like his argument about a supreme being, where I felt a bit lost, but I typically found my way back to the argument quickly.
Second, Kant is a much more careful critic than he's often made out to be. He takes Hume's criticism of classical metaphysics, agrees with it, and carries it to its logical endpoint wherein Hume and the classical metaphysicians are set up as two extremes (dogmatists & skeptics) on a continuum and Kant maintains that the golden mean is the real truth. He isn't reactionary or trying to 'destroy' Hume's argument, he actually takes the criticism in stride and builds a more comprehensive theory of metaphysics out of it.
Lastly, while I feel like this readthrough of the Prolegomena gave me a better understanding of Kantian metaphysics and a better historical sense of how these ideas are situated, there's still a lot that confuses me. The big thing, and I know it's in there, I just had a hard time with it, is that I don't quite understand how he goes from the perspecitive that all we truly know is in our own experience to the argument that we can know, in some sense, abiding, universal truths.
I'm glad I read this and I'm sure more reading (in addition to some supplementary texts) will clarify my confusions.
blueyorkie's review against another edition
4.0
Impressive. Open the doors of perception!
By far, I didn't understand everything; it feels good to read a book without a character, story, or philosophy (the pros will laugh.) For a simple curious person devoid of knowledge in this area, I have not given a demonstration of human perception; what is metaphysics: it is the intuition of what is not physically conceivable. That I am corrected if I am wrong.
There is no philosophy; there is only a demonstration of our ignorance of what surrounds us, despite what one might think given our daily life.
As I read it, I said to myself: a person like Einstein (the only one I know, a bit) reasons like a metaphysician and then demonstrates his intuition so that we mortals can understand his reasoning.
So metaphysics is beautiful and is indeed a science.
By far, I didn't understand everything; it feels good to read a book without a character, story, or philosophy (the pros will laugh.) For a simple curious person devoid of knowledge in this area, I have not given a demonstration of human perception; what is metaphysics: it is the intuition of what is not physically conceivable. That I am corrected if I am wrong.
There is no philosophy; there is only a demonstration of our ignorance of what surrounds us, despite what one might think given our daily life.
As I read it, I said to myself: a person like Einstein (the only one I know, a bit) reasons like a metaphysician and then demonstrates his intuition so that we mortals can understand his reasoning.
So metaphysics is beautiful and is indeed a science.
theoryoftheafro's review against another edition
3.0
It's Kant, it's hard, what else did you expect?
sentient_meat's review against another edition
4.0
If you don't have time to read Critique of Pure Reason (or that matter the desire to slog through that many pages of the Kantmeister) read this. Kant lays out what appears to be a very logical way of viewing the world. The problem is we (i.e. people, the subject, the id whatever you want to call it) is completely lacking. Kant creates a metaphysical world where there is no room for people. God bless you Mr. Manny!
More...