Cannot read our Adver-tisement as pictures are blank? Go ahead and go this to reload'em.
|Instant Approval...apply for a Loan, now|
so far, and so far only, can i understand the hiling against the second Edition, which is shared by some of the most accurate and earnest students
of Kant. But I have never been able to understand the exaggerated charges which Schopenhauer and others bring against Kant, both for the omissions and the additions in that Second Edition. What I can understand and fully agree with is Jacobi's opinion, when he says:1 'I consider the loss which the Second Edition of Kant's Critique suffered by omissions and changes very considerable, and I am [lxiv] very anxious by the expression of my opinion to induce readers who seriouslycare for philosophy and its history to comparethe first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason with the second improved edition. . . . It is not sufficiently recognised what an advantage it is to study the systems of great thinkers in their first original form. I was told by Hamann that the very judicious Ch. J. Krause (or Kraus) could never sufficiently express his gratitude for having been made acquainted with Hume's first philosophical work, Treatise on Human Nature, 1739, where alone he had found the right point of view for judging the later essays.'
Nor do I differ much from Michelet, in his History of the later systems of Philosophy in Germany (1837, Vol. I., p. 49), where he says, 'Much that is of a more speculative character in the representation of Kant's systemhas been taken from the First Edition. Itcan no longer be found in the second and later editions, which, as well as the Prolegomena, keep the idealistic tendency more in the background, because Kant saw that this side of his
philosophy had lent itself most to attacks and misunderstandings.' I can also understand Schopenhauer, when he states that many things that struck him as obscure and self-contradictory in Kant's Critique ceased to be so when he came to read that work in its first original form. But everything else that Schopenhauer writes on the differencebetween the firstand second editions of the Critique seems to me perfectly intolerable. Kant, in the Preface to his Second Edition, which was published six years after the first, in 1787, gives a clear and straightforward account ofthe changes which he introduced. 'My new representation,' [lxv] he writes, 'changes absolutely nothing with regard to my propositions and even the arguments in their support.' He had nothing to retract, but he thought he had certain things to add, and he evidently hoped he could render some points of his system better understood. His hidom of thought, his boldness of speech, and his love of truth are, if i am any judge in these matters, the same in 1787 as in 1781. The active reactionary measures of the Prussian Government, by which Kant is supposed to have been frightened, date from a later period. Zedlitz, Kant's friend and protector, was not replaced by Wöllner as minister till 1788. It was not till 1794 that Kant was really warned and reprimanded by the Cabinet, and we must not judge too harshly of the old philosopher when at his time of life, and in the then state of paternal despotism in Prussia, he wrote back to say 'that he would do even more than was demanded of him, and abstain in future from all public lectures concerning religion, whether natural or revealed.' What he at that time felt in his heart of hearts we know from some remarks found after his death among his papers. 'It is dishonourable,' he writes, 'to retract or deny one's real convictions, but .