{"product_id":"2940012484932","title":"FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS","description":"PREFACE\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAncient Greek philosophy was divided into three sciences: physics,\u003cbr\u003eethics, and logic. This division is perfectly suitable to the nature\u003cbr\u003eof the thing; and the only improvement that can be made in it is to\u003cbr\u003eadd the principle on which it is based, so that we may both satisfy\u003cbr\u003eourselves of its completeness, and also be able to determine correctly\u003cbr\u003ethe necessary subdivisions.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAll rational knowledge is either material or formal: the former\u003cbr\u003econsiders some object, the latter is concerned only with the form of\u003cbr\u003ethe understanding and of the reason itself, and with the universal\u003cbr\u003elaws of thought in general without distinction of its objects.\u003cbr\u003eFormal philosophy is called logic. Material philosophy, however, has\u003cbr\u003eto do with determinate objects and the laws to which they are subject,\u003cbr\u003eis again twofold; for these laws are either laws of nature or of\u003cbr\u003efreedom. The science of the former is physics, that of the latter,\u003cbr\u003eethics; they are also called natural philosophy and moral philosophy\u003cbr\u003erespectively.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eLogic cannot have any empirical part; that is, a part in which the\u003cbr\u003euniversal and necessary laws of thought should rest on grounds taken\u003cbr\u003efrom experience; otherwise it would not be logic, i.e., a canon for\u003cbr\u003ethe understanding or the reason, valid for all thought, and capable of\u003cbr\u003edemonstration. Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each\u003cbr\u003ehave their empirical part, since the former has to determine the\u003cbr\u003elaws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of\u003cbr\u003ethe human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former,\u003cbr\u003ehowever, being laws according to which everything does happen; the\u003cbr\u003elatter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics,\u003cbr\u003ehowever, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to\u003cbr\u003ehappen frequently does not.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWe may call all philosophy empirical, so far as it is based on\u003cbr\u003egrounds of experience: on the other band, that which delivers its\u003cbr\u003edoctrines from a priori principles alone we may call pure\u003cbr\u003ephilosophy. When the latter is merely formal it is logic; if it is\u003cbr\u003erestricted to definite objects of the understanding it is metaphysic.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn this way there arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic- a\u003cbr\u003emetaphysic of nature and a metaphysic of morals. Physics will thus\u003cbr\u003ehave an empirical and also a rational part. It is the same with\u003cbr\u003eEthics; but here the empirical part might have the special name of\u003cbr\u003epractical anthropology, the name morality being appropriated to the\u003cbr\u003erational part.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAll trades, arts, and handiworks have gained by division of\u003cbr\u003elabour, namely, when, instead of one man doing everything, each\u003cbr\u003econfines himself to a certain kind of work distinct from others in the\u003cbr\u003etreatment it requires, so as to be able to perform it with greater\u003cbr\u003efacility and in the greatest perfection. Where the different kinds\u003cbr\u003eof work are not distinguished and divided, where everyone is a\u003cbr\u003ejack-of-all-trades, there manufactures remain still in the greatest\u003cbr\u003ebarbarism. It might deserve to be considered whether pure philosophy\u003cbr\u003ein all its parts does not require a man specially devoted to it, and\u003cbr\u003ewhether it would not be better for the whole business of science if\u003cbr\u003ethose who, to please the tastes of the public, are wont to blend the\u003cbr\u003erational and empirical elements together, mixed in all sorts of\u003cbr\u003eproportions unknown to themselves, and who call themselves independent\u003cbr\u003ethinkers, giving the name of minute philosophers to those who apply\u003cbr\u003ethemselves to the rational part only- if these, I say, were warned not\u003cbr\u003eto carry on two employments together which differ widely in the\u003cbr\u003etreatment they demand, for each of which perhaps a special talent is\u003cbr\u003erequired, and the combination of which in one person only produces\u003cbr\u003ebunglers. But I only ask here whether the nature of science does not\u003cbr\u003erequire that we should always carefully separate the empirical from\u003cbr\u003ethe rational part, and prefix to Physics proper (or empirical physics)\u003cbr\u003ea metaphysic of nature, and to practical anthropology a metaphysic\u003cbr\u003eof morals, which must be carefully cleared of everything empirical, so\u003cbr\u003ethat we may know how much can be accomplished by pure reason in both\u003cbr\u003ecases, and from what sources it draws this its a priori teaching,\u003cbr\u003eand that whether the latter inquiry is conducted by all moralists\u003cbr\u003e(whose name is legion), or only by some who feel a calling thereto.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAs my concern here is with moral philosophy, I limit the question\u003cbr\u003esuggested to this: Whether it is not of the utmost necessity to\u003cbr\u003econstruct a pure thing which is only empirical and which belongs to\u003cbr\u003eanthropology? for that such a philosophy must be possible is evident\u003cbr\u003efrom the common idea of duty and of the moral laws.","brand":"SAP","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47163816640752,"sku":"2940012484932","price":0.99,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0737\/7593\/9824\/files\/2940012484932_p0.jpg?v=1763569107","url":"https:\/\/shop-qa.barnesandnoble.com\/products\/2940012484932","provider":"Barnes \u0026 Noble (DEV)","version":"1.0","type":"link"}