Kant’s “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics” was written as an analytic presentation of the synthetic argument put forward previously in his “Critique of Pure Reason.” It’s meant to be an easier guide to his philosophy, so that more people can begin to understand it. In his Preface, he warns, “should any reader find this plan … still obscure, let him consider that not everyone is bound to study metaphysics.”
When I began reading Kant, I started at St. John’s with the Prolegomena and was struck by this admonition. He didn’t say that if you don’t understand this, you should try again. Or, that you should find a cohort of scholars to study it with until you can understand it. Or, that you should begin with something easier and then move into metaphysics more comfortably. He literally said that if you can’t understand this work, you should consider that not everyone is bound to study metaphysics.
I had learned when reading Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” that it was simple the name Aristotle gave to the book he wrote after Physics. That it was meant to contain the things that weren’t in the physical world. That things which were not governed by the laws of physics might possibly have laws to govern them that were metaphysical.
Is Kant saying that if you can’t understand him you should limit yourself to understanding the physical world. What hubris! What arrogance! I Kant even!
As I dove into the Prolegomena now with the force of all my will, I strove to understand what he was saying as if to prove to myself that “metaphysics” was not beyond me. Philosophy itself was within my grasp. As I struggled to understand, I lost my way. For whatever we strain to do rarely comes to us.
As my child begins to read the “Critique of Pure Reason” this week, I had a call where we discussed this passage. My infection spread to my kid and we hung up quickly to enable more time to read the Critique. I sat down to re-read the Prolegomena. And see what it offers me in comprehension this time around.
