I really like Kant, but I'm having a hard time understanding his Critique of Metaphysics. Kant takes as illegitimate the transcendental use of the concepts of pure understanding. This seems to be the whole point of the Critique of Pure Reason, though. I have some questions about this.
- Isn't the claim that there is something beyond our possible experience a grave and quite uncritical metaphysical claim?
- Kant claims a difference of usage of ideas of reason for fruitful endeavours while setting ground to the sciences(KrV, B 676), but how to distinguish constitutive and regulative uses of reason?
- How isn't the whole critique directed itself to the Critique of Pure Reason, since it does not yield knowledge? Is the CRP's sole purpose to ground Newtonian physical theories?
I believe Kant to be one of the biggest philosophers in History, and I am in no way claiming I have any valid critiques. I just know he thought about this and there is a reasonable answer, as I should expect from such a great philosopher.