more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 7918

[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 2. Possibility of Metaphysics ]

Full Idea

Kant turned the question 'How is metaphysics possible?' into 'How is metaphysical knowledge possible?' He thus turned metaphysics into epistemology, obliterating Aristotle's distinction between being qua being and being qua known.

Clarification

'Qua' means 'as' (Latin)

Gist of Idea

Kant turned metaphysics into epistemology, ignoring Aristotle's 'being qua being'

Source

report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason [1781]) by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things Ch.1

Book Ref

Macdonald,Cynthia: 'Varieties of Things' [Blackwell 2005], p.13


A Reaction

This makes Kant the number one villain in my philosophical pantheon, although the confusion of ontology and epistemology is found in Berkeley and others. Human speculations are not pointless, though they are difficult to verify.


The 18 ideas with the same theme [possibility of abstract wisdom through pure thought]:

Kant turned metaphysics into epistemology, ignoring Aristotle's 'being qua being' [Kant, by Macdonald,C]
Metaphysics might do better to match objects to our cognition (and not start with the objects) [Kant]
You just can't stop metaphysical speculation, in any mature mind [Kant]
The voyage of reason may go only as far as the coastline of experience reaches [Kant]
The love of certainty holds us back in metaphysics [Joubert]
Older metaphysics naively assumed that thought grasped things in themselves [Hegel]
Metaphysics divided the old unified Greek world into two [Nietzsche, by Critchley]
Metaphysics is hopeless with its present epistemology; common-sense realism is needed [Colvin]
Metaphysics cannot give knowledge of the universe as a whole [Russell]
No possible evidence could decide the reality of numbers, so it is a pseudo-question [Carnap]
Kripke separated semantics from metaphysics, rather than linking them, making the latter independent [Kripke, by Stalnaker]
Is it likely that a successful, coherent, explanatory ontological hypothesis is true? [Fraassen]
There must be a plausible epistemological theory alongside any metaphysical theory [Forbes,G]
If metaphysics can't be settled, it hardly matters whether it makes sense [Fine,K]
Questions of explanation should not be confused with metaphyics [Heil]
Metaphysical enquiry can survive if its conclusions are tentative [Sider]
Your metaphysics is 'cheating' if your ontology won't support the beliefs you accept [Sider]
There is no test for metaphysics, except devising alternative theories [Ladyman/Ross]