First edition of the Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft)

A tough read, and not intuitive.

If anyone has something to add to this, please post it and we'll see if it's something that should be incorporated. Please add the word - "SUBMISSION" in the subject line of something you'd like to add. Then Arjen can either edit it or add it. Something like a wiki I suppose.

I like what you've done Arjen and I'm going to think of a way to incorporate into the other philosophers. Maybe a standard form of questions like birth - death, childhood, education, work, family, religion, philosophy, and possibly others.

Great stuff Arjen! Thank you! I'll get working on custom titles or badges as well as some of the other much needed updates.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking too: a uniform overvieuw so to speak. And thanks for the compliments.

I would like to add a few things:

To the metafysics: From these theories Kant defines his entire philosophy.

Ethics

Kant suggests that we should not look for what is good in, say an apple, but in the way that an apple is. Not all apples are good after all. Likewise he concludes that an action in itself can be good or bad. It is something about this action that we call good or bad. After all we could "borrow another persons bucket to carry our "borrowed" gold in or to carry water in to put out a fire.

Kant suggests that within our actions lies a ]maxim (a subjective principle or rule that the will of an individual uses in making a decision) which makes the difference between the imperatives.

1) The group whichs acts with a subjective "goal" in mind, which he calls the hypothetical imperative.
2) The group which acts only out of some form of "duty", which he calls the [categorical]Error imperative[/url].

The catergorical imperative can be summed up by the maxims which consist of these following (objective) reasonings:
a) "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
b) "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"
c) "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

You cannot understand Kant (or any other philosopher) unless you understand who it is he is arguing against, and what it is he is trying to defend. Kant has a love-hate relationship with David Hume. Kant tells us that it was Hume who "awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers" and make him understand that there was a crisis in philosophy as it was normally then practiced. For Hume had powerfully argued that the traditional metaphysics that Kant was brought up in, and which he was teaching, was "sophistry and illusion". And Kant recognized that the defense of metaphysics against Hume's attack was a "matter of life or death" for philosophy. In the event, Kant conceded that Hume's attack on traditional "speculative metaphysics" was entirely successful, and traditional metaphysics Rationalism (or Pure Reason) could not be salvaged. So Kant started anew to try to replace traditional metaphysics with something different that could withstand Hume's attack, and so, asked his key question, which was, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" Without understanding what this question is asking, and without understanding what Kant's answer to that question is, the point of the First Critique cannot be understood.

After Kennethamy's post a small editing of my previous post:

I would like to add a few things:

To the metafysics: From these theories Kant defines his entire philosophy.

Ethics

Kant suggests that we should not look for what is good in, say an apple, but in the way that an apple is. Not all apples are good after all. Likewise he concludes that an action in itself can be good or bad. It is something about this action that we call good or bad. After all we could "borrow another persons bucket to carry our "borrowed" gold in or to carry water in to put out a fire. The difference between the two intentions is the idea of a "goal" or of a "duty":

1) The group whichs acts with a subjective "goal" in mind, which he calls the hypothetical imperative.
2) The group which acts only out of some form of "duty", which he calls the [categorical]Error imperative[/url].

The catergorical imperative can be summed up by the maxims which consist of these following (objective) reasonings:
a) "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
b) "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"
c) "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

Kant suggests that within our intentions to act lies a ]maxim (a subjective principle or rule that the will of an individual uses in making a decision) which forms the (subjective) initiative to the action.

Summation of critique:)

Kant, Immanuel summary of the critique of reason : philosophy - Groovyweb Free Downloads and Tutorials

Kant: Metaphysics
Kant: Aesthetics

Very good summary. Thanks