Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason

268 Pages·2004·1.17 MB·English

by  Immanuel Kant

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