Critique of Pure Reason Book Summary - Critique of Pure Reason Book explained in key points

Critique of Pure Reason summary

Name: Critique of Pure Reason
Rating: 4.6 (443 reviews)
Author: Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

A groundbreaking and influential philosophy classic about the limits of human reason

Listen to the first key idea

Key idea 1 of 14

00:00

4.6 (443 ratings)

44 mins

14 key ideas

Audio & text

What is Critique of Pure Reason about?

The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) is one of the most groundbreaking, revolutionary, and influential books in the history of Western philosophy. Pointing out the limits of human reason, it argues that we can have knowledge about the world as we experience it, but we can never know anything about the ultimate nature of reality.

About the Author

Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth-century German philosopher who was one of the main thinkers of the Enlightenment. He was the central figure behind the philosophical movement that became known as German Idealism, which transformed Western philosophy and set in motion developments in the discipline that continue to this day. His main works are his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Critique of Judgment.

Table of Contents

Key idea 1 of 14

Before they build a metaphysical system, philosophers must assess the origin and nature of our minds’ mental materials.

Imagine you’re a builder living in medieval times. One day, the king summons you to a construction site. He points at a massive pile of building materials and says, “I want you to turn this into a tower that reaches heaven – or as close as possible, at least.” What do you do?

Well, you should begin by inquiring into the materials. What are they made of? How strong are they? By answering these questions, you'll be able to tell how tall you can build the tower. The alternative is to just start building and hope for the best – a recipe for disaster if you end up going higher than the materials can bear.

The same argument applies to philosophers when they want to build a metaphysical system.

The key message here is: Before they build a metaphysical system, philosophers must assess the origin and nature of our minds’ mental materials.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to elevate our knowledge of the world into the loftiest realms of human inquiry. Using the abstract concepts and logical principles of reason, it attempts to go beyond the empirical evidence of the natural sciences and grasp the ultimate nature of reality.

Consider time, for instance. Does it have a beginning? Or does it stretch back into eternity? These are examples of metaphysical questions. Answer a bunch of them, tie your answers together into a coherent body of thought, and you have a metaphysical system.

Since the days of ancient Greece, many philosophers have attempted to build various metaphysical systems. But prior to the Critique of Pure Reason, most of them tried to do so without first inquiring into the origins and nature of our minds’ mental materials. They just took the concepts and logical principles they had at hand and started building with them.

But are those materials actually fit for the task of metaphysics? And if so, how high do they allow us to build our metaphysical towers, so to speak? If the answer is “all the way to heaven,” then great – build away. But if it’s “not very far,” then we should stay closer to the earth – contenting ourselves with the more mundane knowledge of the sciences, while leaving the more esoteric stuff to religion.

Either way, we need to know the answer in advance. Otherwise, we’ll be in danger of building a tower that will crumble beneath our feet.

To avoid the danger of metaphysical dogmatism, philosophers must conduct a critique of pure reason.

Alright, so our metaphysical tower might come crashing down if we don’t investigate the mental materials we’re going to build it out of. But so what? After all, it’s not an actual, physical tower. It’s just a bunch of ideas. No one’s going to get hurt if it falls. So why not just build and see what happens?

Because that's not a very philosophical approach. In fact, it would be the opposite of philosophy, which is dogmatism.

By failing to avoid the danger of dogmatism, philosophy encourages the spread of skepticism.

If you’re a philosopher, dogmatism is one of the worst accusations imaginable. But if you’re just a normal person, you might shrug your shoulders. So what if we go on metaphysical flights of fancy? Again, we’re just dealing with abstract ideas about esoteric subjects here, so what’s the big deal?

The problem is that dogmatism can empower another enemy of philosophy: skepticism. And this one doesn’t just endanger philosophy, but all human knowledge in general.

Both religion and science depend on metaphysical concepts, making skepticism a danger to both of them.

For those of us living in the age of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” the problem of skepticism is something we’re already familiar with. In eighteenth-century Europe, when Kant was writing, it also felt like a danger, but for different reasons.

Science was on the rise, and mounting skepticism about metaphysics also meant mounting skepticism about religion. But that skepticism cut both ways, and it was starting to undermine the foundation of science as well.

If reason cannot provide us with a priori knowledge, then it cannot secure our knowledge of mathematics either.

From the idea of God to the notion of causality, all of the metaphysical concepts of religion and science are now in jeopardy. But that’s not all. The same basic argument that applies to metaphysical concepts also applies to something called a priori knowledge.

What’s that? Well, the short answer is that it’s a pretty big deal. Mathematical knowledge depends on it, so now math is in trouble too.

A priori knowledge isn’t innate knowledge; it’s knowledge that the mind produces through its own internal mechanisms.

We’ve come a long way in our journey, so let’s recap: If it’s possible for us to gain metaphysical knowledge, it couldn’t be empirical knowledge derived from experience. It would have to be a priori knowledge derived from reason. So now we’re looking for a way of gaining that.

But is a priori knowledge even possible? If you stop to think about it, the idea of it seems counterintuitive and even downright preposterous. What’s it implying? That we know things like mathematical equations before we have any experience of the world? That we’re somehow born with this knowledge?

The mind can be divided into three main faculties – sensibility, understanding, and reason.

Here’s another way of thinking about a priori knowledge: sure, the mind’s mental machinery wouldn't begin turning its wheels if it didn’t have sense data to process. But at the same time, that data wouldn’t be processed if the machinery wasn’t already there to work on it.

For example, when you were a child, maybe you needed the formula 7 + 5 = 12 written on a chalkboard in order to bring it to your attention. But still, your mind’s mental machinery needed to already have a way of understanding it in order to acquire knowledge of this universal and necessary truth.

To organize sense data into meaningful information, the mind needs predefined ways of structuring them.

Some of the ideas we’re about to explore get a little complicated, but the basic one underlying them is pretty simple. It’s the idea that the mind isn’t just a passive recipient of sense data, as if it were a blank slate. Instead, it plays an active role in shaping that data into meaningful information about the world.

How exactly does it do that? Well, that’s where things get complicated – especially when we delve into the details. But again, the basic ideas are fairly straightforward.

Time and space are pure forms of sensibility, which provide the mind with templates for organizing sense data.

Imagine if your mind didn’t have a framework of space in which it could organize the content of your sensory experience. You’d see a patch of color; let’s say blue. And then – well, that’s it. You couldn’t see another patch at the same time, because there wouldn’t be any space in which they could be co-present. Space is what allows these sensations to be simultaneously part of the same field of vision.

Given how fundamental space is to our minds’ ability to organize our sense data, we can call it a pure form of sensibility. That’s a shorthand way of saying that as a framework for organizing our sensations, space exists in the mind on a “pure,” a priori basis. In other words, the mind already has it ready at hand, prior to experience. It’s like a preprogrammed template the mind can use for structuring its data.

Our minds also contain templates for understanding and reasoning about the world.

By looking at the formal elements of our minds’ sensory content, we were able to identify space and time as the pure forms of sensibility. But sensibility is just one component of the mind; what about understanding and reason?

Remember, these are the mental faculties that enable us to further organize our sense data into concepts, judgments, and logical syllogisms. If we focus on their formal elements, we’ll be able to identify the pure forms of understanding and reason as well.

The mind can use its templates to acquire a priori knowledge and concepts.

Our journey has now taken us far. We’ve gone through the principles of reasoning, the logical functions of understanding, and the pure forms of sensibility – also known as space and time. We’ve skipped some details along the way. For example, Kant identifies 12 logical functions and three principles of reason in total. But the ones we’ve covered will do for our purposes.

We’re now ready to return to our question: How is a priori knowledge possible?

As far as we can know, the categories of understanding only reflect our experience of reality, not reality in itself.

Pretty clear so far, right? Sit tight, the argument goes even further. Not only do we not need any experience to form the concepts that make up the categories of understanding; these concepts help to make our experience possible in the first place.

That’s because conscious experience isn’t just a bunch of sensations in time and space. It’s a combination of those sensations and the thoughts we have about them. These thoughts, in turn, are a matter of making connections between the various sensations and concepts in our minds. For example, you don’t just see a round object; you see it as a bowling ball. Your mind makes a connection between the image – round object, and the concept – bowling ball.

We cannot know anything about reality in itself – even whether it exists in space and time.

If you’ve made it this far, the hard work of following these arguments is about to pay off. We’re now arriving at one of the most infamous, revolutionary, and mind-blowing ideas in the history of Western philosophy.

Ready? Here we go. Three, two, one…

Reason should not venture into metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality in itself.

So wait, are we saying that time, space, and causality don’t exist in external reality – that they exist only in our minds? Not necessarily. This is a very thorny issue within interpretations of Kant’s thought, so let’s just go with the safest one here.

The safest interpretation is that we just don’t know. Maybe time, space, and causality do exist in external reality, and our minds accurately reflect them. Or maybe they don’t, and they’re just the templates of our sensibility and understanding. The point is that we simply cannot tell one way or the other. Wherever we look, we’ll always see things in terms of the frameworks of time, space, and causality that our minds have already imposed on our sense data.

Want to see all full key ideas from Critique of Pure Reason?

Key ideas in Critique of Pure Reason

More knowledge in less time

Read or listen

Get the key ideas from nonfiction bestsellers in minutes, not hours.

Find your next read

Get book lists curated by experts and personalized recommendations.

Shortcasts ^New

We’ve teamed up with podcast creators to bring you key insights from podcasts.

Who should read Critique of Pure Reason

Skeptics
Students of philosophy
Adherents of both science and religion

Categories with Critique of Pure Reason

Philosophy

Books like Critique of Pure Reason

Life Is Hard

Kieran Setiya

How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way

Taoist Philosophy for Peace, Contentment & Balance in Life

16 min

4.2

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Karl Popper

On the Epistemology of Modern Science

A Very Short Introduction

The Classical Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness – A New Interpretation by Sharon Lebell

What It Is, Why It's Scarce, and How to Get More

The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

22 min

4.4

The Story of Philosophy

Will Durant

The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers

26 min

4.6

The Soul of the World

Roger Scruton

In Defense of a Sacred World

Uncover Persuasion and the Principles Behind Oratorical Skill

20 min

4.6

What our members say

Sven O.

It's highly addictive to get core insights on personally relevant topics without repetition or triviality. Added to that the apps ability to suggest kindred interests opens up a foundation of knowledge.

Thi Viet Quynh N.

Great app. Good selection of book summaries you can read or listen to while commuting. Instead of scrolling through your social media news feed, this is a much better way to spend your spare time in my opinion.

Jonathan A.

Life changing. The concept of being able to grasp a book's main point in such a short time truly opens multiple opportunities to grow every area of your life at a faster rate.

Renee D.

Great app. Addicting. Perfect for wait times, morning coffee, evening before bed. Extremely well written, thorough, easy to use.

Start growing with Blinkist now

25 Million

Downloads on all platforms

4.7 Stars

Average ratings on iOS and Google Play

91%

Of Blinkist members create a better reading habit*

*Based on survey data from Blinkist customers

Powerful ideas from top nonfiction

Try Blinkist to get the key ideas from 5,500+ bestselling nonfiction titles and podcasts. Listen or read in just 15 minutes.

Start your free trial

Blink 3 of 8 - The 5 AM Club

by Robin Sharma

Critique of Pure Reason summary

Listen to the first key idea

What is Critique of Pure Reason about?

About the Author

Before they build a metaphysical system, philosophers must assess the origin and nature of our minds’ mental materials.

To avoid the danger of metaphysical dogmatism, philosophers must conduct a critique of pure reason.

By failing to avoid the danger of dogmatism, philosophy encourages the spread of skepticism.

Both religion and science depend on metaphysical concepts, making skepticism a danger to both of them.

If reason cannot provide us with a priori knowledge, then it cannot secure our knowledge of mathematics either.

A priori knowledge isn’t innate knowledge; it’s knowledge that the mind produces through its own internal mechanisms.

The mind can be divided into three main faculties – sensibility, understanding, and reason.

To organize sense data into meaningful information, the mind needs predefined ways of structuring them.

Time and space are pure forms of sensibility, which provide the mind with templates for organizing sense data.

Our minds also contain templates for understanding and reasoning about the world.

The mind can use its templates to acquire a priori knowledge and concepts.

As far as we can know, the categories of understanding only reflect our experience of reality, not reality in itself.

We cannot know anything about reality in itself – even whether it exists in space and time.

Reason should not venture into metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality in itself.

Key ideas in Critique of Pure Reason

Before they build a metaphysical system, philosophers must assess the origin and nature of our minds’ mental materials.

To avoid the danger of metaphysical dogmatism, philosophers must conduct a critique of pure reason.

By failing to avoid the danger of dogmatism, philosophy encourages the spread of skepticism.

Both religion and science depend on metaphysical concepts, making skepticism a danger to both of them.

If reason cannot provide us with a priori knowledge, then it cannot secure our knowledge of mathematics either.

A priori knowledge isn’t innate knowledge; it’s knowledge that the mind produces through its own internal mechanisms.

The mind can be divided into three main faculties – sensibility, understanding, and reason.

To organize sense data into meaningful information, the mind needs predefined ways of structuring them.

Time and space are pure forms of sensibility, which provide the mind with templates for organizing sense data.

Our minds also contain templates for understanding and reasoning about the world.

The mind can use its templates to acquire a priori knowledge and concepts.

As far as we can know, the categories of understanding only reflect our experience of reality, not reality in itself.

We cannot know anything about reality in itself – even whether it exists in space and time.

Reason should not venture into metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality in itself.

Who should read Critique of Pure Reason

Categories with Critique of Pure Reason

Books like Critique of Pure Reason

What our members say

Discover the Blinkist catalogue

Popular titles

Most popular categories

Trending Collections