/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1225302]

So, by reading the introduction to the second edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I stumbled upon these lines:

"Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge"

I understands how he wants metaphysics to be: we have to consider how our perception gives us images of what lays outside in the actual world (the noumenon) and how our reason "filters" mental objects, so in the end result you have only a phenomenon produced by the subject. What, however, does kant mean when he says "Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects" which seemed to be the status quo of what people thought of perception before Kant? Can you name an example of how that should look like?

[Anonymous No.1225303]

[Anonymous No.1225307]

>>1225303
haha, fuck yeah