Prolegomena: A Deep Dive - Session 1

THE PROLEGOMENA

Before there was The Lord f the Rings, there was The Hobbit, and before there was the Critique of Pure Reason (at least the final, second edition), there was THE PROLEGOMENA.

We are going to do a deep dive into this work, reading and discussing it slowly and carefully, small sections at a time. As our reading accumulates, we will compare our targeted analyses to specific sections to our overall understanding of the work as that understanding morphs and develops throughout our reading. Thus, what you think you know at the start may not be what you know in fact at the end.

So if you are into deep dish, this group is for you!

RECOMMENDED EDITION

I recommend the second edition translation by Ellington as it includes Kant's letter to Herz, which s illuminating, and which we will also read. It has the additional virtue of being easily available. For your convenience, here is an Amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/Prolegomena-Any-Future-Metaphysics-February/dp/0872205932/ref=sr_1_1?crid=FIA7LWMDO2I4&keywords=kant+prolegomena&qid=1676754694&s=books&sprefix=Proleg%2Cstripbooks%2C146&sr=1-1

READING

Come prepared to the first meeting by reading the first 22 pages, the Preamble. We will discuss and maybe we'll even manage to figure out what a "Prolegomena" is.

Kant begins with a little jab at the historians of philosophy
"There are some scholars for whom the history of philosophy . . . is philosophy itself; for these the present Prolegomena are not written. . . . Unfortunately, nothing can be said which, in their opinion, has not been said before, and truly the same prophecy applies to all future time; for since the human reason has for many centuries speculated upon innumerable objects in various ways, it is hardly to be expected that we should not be able to discover analogies for every new idea among the old sayings of past ages."

The question--what makes metaphysics possible?--seems to cast doubt as to whether metaphysics "exists" or not. To be sure, Kant believes that something exists. . . but does it exist as a science? And to the extent that there is something science-like, what is the nature of that science?

Resistance to the question is expected, both from those who are heavily invested in metaphysics and from those who have never been exposed to any alternative other than the prevailing metaphysics.