Some Esential Points in Reading The Critique of Pure Reason

Please read some important summary of purely reasonable criticism: (1) I can not find an object in criticism (the real thing is also called thing - 'Pioneer' like Husserl ' Because Kant argues that these objects have the same name used in commonsense words to identify things (2) because of the lack of these things , There is no relationship between things and empirical objects

But purely reasonable criticism should not be understood as a ruin of a reasonable cognitive role. Kant wants to definitely define the boundary of reason, but this is different from the argument that it does not work with our knowledge. (§ 1.1) It is important to evaluate the relationship between rationality and empirical truth, (§ 1.2) the role of reason in scientific exploration, and (§1.3) the positive benefits of rational restrictions. In addition, reasonable philosophical reasoning requires reasonable access to its own knowledge - the first important but unfinished work (§ 1.4)

Criticism of Emmanuel Kant's pure reason Emmanuel Kant's "critique of pure reasons" is mainly considered as one of the most influential philosophical texts of history. Kant's text is one of the most important books for those interested in philosophy by exploring their knowledge and reasons, their scope and limitations, their perception of space and time. Upton Sinclair's Jungle. Upton Sinclair began writing a novel about American immigrant life in the early 20th century, but it emphasized the unsanitary custom of the meat processing industry, so the jungle eventually became more popular. Sinclair makes a great contribution to the reform of the US Meat Testing Law, by drawing countless healthful breaches and stories about unjust treatment and remuneration for migrant workers. Over time, he gained more recognition by influencing standardized wages.

To take a leading edge, I took another step. In addition to reading his most influential works such as "critique of pure reason" Kant's early work, written before he became famous. . It was when I was reading one of the earlier works that I found a man named Marquise Du Châtelet. It hampered my pursuit. At the time people were able to accept the philosophy education of the whole university without reading a single text written by women. In fact, people can take more than a dozen courses without listening to the name of the female mentioned. So, I read Kant's long explanation about Mrs. Duchat's work, and I was shocked. Who is this French woman, apparently a kind of aristocrat, Kant is discussing this issue? But sooner, a more irritable idea overcame me: why did not my teacher mention DuChâtelet? In this regard, why have not you mentioned women who have published philosophical work from the 17th century to the 18th century?