The History of Pure Reason

This title is placed here merely for the purpose of designating a division of the system of pure reason of which I do not intend to treat at present. I shall content myself with casting a cursory glance, from a purely transcendental point of view—that of the nature of pure reason—on the labours of philosophers up to the present time.

They have aimed at erecting an edifice of philosophy; but to my eye this edifice appears to be in a very ruinous condition.

It is very remarkable, although naturally it could not have been otherwise, that, in the infancy of philosophy, the study of the nature of God and the constitution of a future world formed the commencement, rather than the conclusion, as we should have it, of the speculative efforts of the human mind.

However rude the religious conceptions generated by the remains of the old manners and customs of a less cultivated time, the intelligent classes were not thereby prevented from devoting themselves to free inquiry into the existence and nature of God;

They saw that there could be no surer way of pleasing the invisible ruler of the world, and of attaining to happiness in another world at least, than a good and honest course of life in this.

Thus theology and morals formed the 2 chief motives in all abstract inquiries.

But theology especially occupied the attention of speculative reason. Afterwards it was called metaphysics.

Types of Philosophers

Philosophers may be divided into three:

1. Sensualists and intellectualists in terms of the cognition of reason

This distinction has been known for a long time.

• Epicurus is the head of the sensualists.
• Plato is the head of the intellectualists.

The sensualists asserted that:

• reality resides in sensuous objects alone
• everything else is imaginary

The intellectualists asserted that:

• the senses are the parents of illusion
• truth is found in the understanding alone.

The sensualists:

• gave a reality to the conceptions of the understanding. But with them it was merely logical, with the others it was mystical.
• admitted intellectual conceptions, but declared that sensuous objects alone had real existence.

The intellectualists maintained that:

• all real objects were intelligible
• the pure understanding had a faculty of intuition different from sense
  • Our senses only confused the ideas of the understanding.

2. Empiricists and Noologists in relation to the origin of the pure cognitions of reason

• The empiricists believe that cognitions are derived entirely from experience
• The noologists believe that cognitions have their origin in reason alone.

Aristotle is the head of the empiricists.

Plato is the head of the noologists.

Locke is the modern follower of Aristotle

Leibnitz is the modern follower of Plato (although he did not imitate his mysticism)

• He has not been able to bring this question to a settled conclusion.

Epicurus’ sensual system always restricted his conclusions to the sphere of experience.*

• This was much more consequent than that of Aristotle and Locke.

They derive all the conceptions and principles of the mind from experience.

They maintain that we can prove the existence of God and the immortality of objects lying beyond the soul with the same force of demonstration as any mathematical proposition.

3. Naturalistic and the scientific in terms of method

Method is procedure according to principles.

The naturalist of pure reason lays it down as his principle that common reason, without the aid of science—which he calls sound reason, or common sense—can give a more satisfactory answer to the most important questions of metaphysics than speculation is able to do.

He must maintain, therefore, that we can determine the content and circumference of the moon more certainly by the naked eye, than by the aid of mathematical reasoning.

But this system is mere misology reduced to principles; and, what is the most absurd thing in this doctrine, the neglect of all scientific means is paraded as a peculiar method of extending our cognition. As regards those who are naturalists because they know no better, they are certainly not to be blamed.

They follow common sense, without parading their ignorance as a method which is to teach us the wonderful secret, how we are to find the truth which lies at the bottom of the well of Democritus.

is their motto, under which they may lead a pleasant and praiseworthy life, without troubling themselves with science or troubling science with them.

As regards those who wish to pursue a scientific method, they have now the choice of following either the dogmatical or the sceptical, while they are bound never to desert the systematic mode of procedure. When I mention, in relation to the former, the celebrated Wolf, and as regards the latter, David Hume, I may leave, in accordance with my present intention, all others unnamed. The critical path alone is still open.

If my reader has been kind and patient enough to accompany me on this hitherto untravelled route, he can now judge whether, if he and others will contribute their exertions towards making this narrow footpath a high road of thought, that which many centuries have failed to accomplish may not be executed before the close of the present—namely, to bring Reason to perfect contentment in regard to that which has always, but without permanent results, occupied her powers and engaged her ardent desire for knowledge.