Talk:Critique of Pure Reason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

overemphasis of aesthetic, space, and time[edit]

I value what's here, AND the article still needs a lot of work. I hope to contribute when I have time. Right now, the whole emphasis of the "Kant's approach" section is on space and time as representing the subjective, or subject-based structuring of experience. For Kant this is really secondary -- the primary organizing force of experience is synthesis through the categories, in other words the transcendental unity of apperception, in which space and time really have a subordinate role. In the article, the transcendental analytic section, and the deductions, currently still have a minor role compared to the aesthetic, whereas these roles need to be reversed. The core of Kant's epistemology would still be what it is even without the transcendental aesthetic. That is, even if space and time weren't forms of intuition, the way that we create a unified world of experience and a unified self-consciousness could still be valid because of the transcendental deduction of the categories. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It may amuse you to know that Schopenhauer's opinion was directly opposite to yours. He claimed that the Transcendental Aesthetic was beautifully written because Kant knew his subject. However, the Transcendental Logic was obscure and confused because Kant didn't know whether an object is known and perceived from mere sensations or from the categories of the Understanding.

Lestrade 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

I think we have a misunderstanding. I don't have an opinion about the transcendental aesthetic. I was only pointing out that it is the just about unanimous view of all modern Kant scholarship that the Transcendental Deduction -- and the notions of the unity of apperception and of synthesis that are central to it -- is the core of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and of Kant's epistemology and of his impact on philosophy and that it is independent of whether the transcendental aesthetic is valid. I was not criticizing or passing judgment on Kant's ideas in the transcendental aesthetic. In my limited understanding of the philosophy of mathematics, there are several different recent schools of thought on the validity of the notion that space is an a priori form of intuition or perception, and the modern philosophy of time is a very complex and multilayered subject. My limited understanding of Heidegger is that he argued that Kant's notion of the foundational and a priori role of temporality was in some ways as central to Kant as the doctrines of the transcendental deduction and is in a way part of it as opposed to only a form of perception. I personally think that most of the Critique of Pure Reason is beautifully written and argued. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

In the same vein, and contrary to the unanimous view of modern Kant scholarship, Schopenhauer had an entertaining theory about the origin of the Transcendental Logic. It goes as follows:

  • Kant's only true discovery was that time and space are known to us a priori, as presented in the Transcendental Aesthetic.
  • Excessive fondness for symmetry led Kant from:
    • the pure intuitions (time, space) which are the basis of empirical intuitions or perceptions; to the assertion of
    • the pure concepts which are the basis of empirical concepts.
  • With regard to mathematics and logic:
    • the Transcendental Aesthetic is the a priori basis of mathematics (arithmetic, geometry); so, for symmetry,
    • the Transcendental Logic is the a priori basis of logic.

Lestrade 01:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

This may well be. But it is my understanding that in general any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia, should reflect and represent the current state of knowledge, scholarship, and research about every topic, and the amount of scholarship and research about Kant since Schopenhauer and Hegel is very large, and has been highly shaped, as have all philosophical topics, by the evolution of philosophy itself since that time (e.g. positivism, linguistic philosophy, hermenutics, existentialism, Marxism) as well as the evolution of science, mathematics, and the social sciences. So we as encyclopedia editors need to take a perspective on philosphical topics that incorporates the development of philosophy since any philosopher about whom we have an article or any philosopher whom we like. For example, I love Heraclitus and resonate with his views, but I can't simply write an encyclopedia article about some topic from the perspective of Heraclitus. I have to incorporate, as a responsible encyclopedia editor, the evolution of philosophy since Heraclitus. I think it's great that you like Schopenhauer and resonate with his views (as I myself do with his ideas about music), but you can't take his perspective on Kant as the defining perspective or as the perspective from which this or any other article as written. I really respect your Wikipedia work, and I was surprised in something you wrote recently when you said that Schopenhauer corrected Kant's "mistakes". I think that this idea of major philosophers having "mistakes" is deeply unphilosophical. From some point of view, just about every philosopher who ever lived has some views that seem impossible, difficult, or contradictory. And every important philosopher has been criticized for weaknesses or deficiencies by dozens of other philosphers. Yet at least the major philosophers brought to light important issues and questions about the nature of knowledge, thought, truth, and the world, and put forward interesting theses and theories in response to these issues and questions, that are still being debated and discussed and analyzed and reinterpreted, even though it is possible to point to difficulties or tensions or inconsistencies in their thought. This type of discussion and reflection is largely what philosophy consists of. The idea of "mistakes" implies that there's one true view or theory from which others deviate, and I see that as a pretty unphilosophical perspective. Since you didn't really lay out what you meant by mistakes, I may be completely misinterpreting you. But when you seem to adopt Schopenhauer's views on Kant as definitive, it reminded me of this "mistakes" idea. And what about Schopenhauer's "mistakes"? And what about Nietzsche's and Wittgenstein's and Husserl's and Heidegger's views on Kant? And what about the detailed analysis and scholarship about Kant using sources and manuscripts and new understandings of the history of science that were not available to Schopenhauer? I have nothing against Schopenhauer, I just don't think an encyclopedia editor of philosophy articles can pick some philosopher and say, "the truth stops with this philosopher" and subsequent philosophy and scholarship is irrelevant. And, in a certain way, all of philosophy consists of mistakes, i.e. of ideas that, when examined, either fall apart or are dependent on no-longer tenable assumptions from the philosophical and historical context in which they were put forward. That does not make philosophy a worthless enterprise.

By the way, my own (limited) knowledge of Kant scholarship is that it agrees with Kant's own statement of the principal motivation behind the Critique of Pure Reason: that it was Kant's reading of Hume's critique of the notion of causality that led to the attempt to ground synthetic a priori knowledge in the knowing subject, not his commitment to ideas about space and time. If you look at Manfred Kuehn's authoritative biography of Kant, published in 2001, you will see that Kant already put forward the ideas of the Transcendental Aesthetic in his Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, and that what is new in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781), compared with the Inaugural Dissertation, is the ideas in the Transcendental Logic about the role of the categories, i.e. the role of a priori concepts in making a priori knowledge, i.e. synthetic a priori judgments possible. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many Kantian mistakes listed in Schopenhauer's constructive Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy. The main one is, to him, the source of the obscurity that envelops the whole of the Transcendental Logic. Therefore, it is the most important mistake. I would think that readers of an encyclopedia who are trying to grasp Kant's thought would want to be aware of such constructive criticism.
The following quotation of Schopenhauer must be considered by any thinking person to be a description of a mistake on Kant's part. In other words, a rational human should be able to read Schopenhauer's clear description of Kant's arguments and conclude that Kant made a mistake.
"...he gives no theory of the origin of empirical perception, but, without further ado, treats it as given, identifying it with the mere sensation to which he adds only the forms of intuition or perception, namely space and time, comprehending both under the name of sensibility." Also, "He allows perception, taken by itself, to be without understanding, purely sensuous, and thus entirely passive, and only through thinking (category of the understanding) does he allow an object to be apprehended .... but then again, the object of thinking is an individual real object; in this way, thinking loses its essential characteristic of universality and abstraction, and, instead of universal concepts, receives as its object individual things .... the utter confusion of the representation of perception with the abstract representation tends to a cross between the two, which he describes as the object of knowledge through the understanding and its categories, and this knowledge he calls experience."

Lestrade 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

This is not necessarily a mistake. Kant treats empirical perception as a given because it is given. Anyone reading his book would have to acknowledge that. Kant proceeds from there, through examination of experience, to deduce the necessary faculties of the mind such that this given is possible: that is the CPR. We need to refrain from making categorical statements of the kind you are making (i.e. "any rational being would agree" Obviously Kant would not, and frankly neither would I).

Schopenhauer read Kant's book and did not acknowledge that objects are simply given to the mind. According to Schopenhauer, empirical perception is not given. Only raw sense impressions, such as touch, sound, etc., are given. They are given to the mind by the sense organs. The perception of an experienced object is the result of the mind using those given sensations in order to attribute causality, through space and time, to an object. The object is thus the product of a mental operation, and is not merely given to the mind.Lestrade 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The core of Kant's epistemology would still be what it is even without the transcendental aesthetic

First, the Critique is not an epistemology. It is a general phenomenology: which Kant in a letter to Johann Heinrich Lambert notes that it is "presupposed by metaphysics". But your claim it "would still be what it is even without the transcendental aesthetic." runs contrary to all facts. As the Critique notes at A51 "Neither of these properties( sensibility nor understanding) is to be preferred to the other". To take it further "pure a priori intuitions, space and time", the Critique notes is "one of the required pieces for the solution of the general problem of transcendental philosophy -how are synthetic apriori propositions possible." This is seen at A77 when it is noted that "transcendental logic, on the contrary, has a manifold of sensibility that lies before it a priori, which the transcendental aesthetic has offered to it, in order to provide the pure concepts of the understanding with a matter, without which they would be with out any content, thus completely empty". Thus, "if space and time weren't forms of intuition" the transcendental critique would lack one of its constitutive parts and would not be valid; for it presuppose them.

in which space and time really have a subordinate role. One needs only investigate the relationship betwixt time and Transcendental apperception. Any knowledge is a consciousness of and thus subject to the form of consciousness. Time is the form of inner intution. this means that "Time is a necessary representation that grounds all intuitions and thus "in it alone is all actuality of appearances possible" the Critique crudely placed investigates the possibility of a kind of knowledge and time is not only a requirement but the form in which it can happen. If. "Time is nothing other than the form of inner sense, i.e., of the in tuition of our self and our inner state" even the Critique itself as a science and Transcendental logic itself is subject to inner form and thus time.In the apperception is a hidden relation to time

Διοτιμα (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

First paragraphs of article[edit]

I find the introduction to be too brief, and that it should be expanded with more historical detail, so that the book is set in its historical context. This, I imagine, is what most readers want to know when they approach the topic.

Secondly, the second paragraph is slightly misleading, in that it implies that the term "analytic" was in currency before Kant. Also, the example given is a modern, twentieth century example, which does not do justice to the question Kant was trying to analyse. The argument as it stands makes it look as though "analytic" refers only to propositions which are "trivially true" (a 20th century interpretation), whereas Kant's example of "All bodies are extended" shows that by "analytic judgments" he meant something more than this.

I do feel that the word "a priori" should be explained more thoroughly - and to do this we must introduce the notion of "necessary truth", and explain how it relates to that of "a priori". Lastly, the source referred to is Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy", which is not a reliable source when referring to the philosophy of Kant's in its historical context - as this paragraph attempts to do. If we are to mention Russell's interpretatiom, it should come later, when we are explaining how Kant has been received and interpreted by later generations of philosophers.

As a whole, I find the treatment too brief and feel that the premíses of the CPR should be explained in greater detail. I made an attempt at this, but found that it was all erased promptly. Any response to this would be warmly welcomed. (Froggie213 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

I do not agree. I think the introduction is about the right length. You have to keep in mind that the introduction of an article is meant to be fairly short, per WP:LEAD. Maybe it could be lengthened a little, but I do not think that major expansion is called for. The "historical detail" you added might possibly have been helpful, but it was not properly cited. See WP:VERIFY. You may be quite right that Russell is not the best source to use; feel free to remove it, especially if you can find a better secondary source (not the Critique itself). ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at WP:LEAD, I find that the criteria laid down there are not reflected in the Critique article - there is no introduction of the major topics, and only a brief mention made of "analytic" arguments - no mention is made of the synthetic a priori, the central theme of the book; little explanation of the meaning of "a priori"; and none of "necessity". Therefore I think the introduction is lacking. We are allowed four paragraphs, at the moment we have only two. I also do not find at WP:VERIFY that we are not allowed to cite the original text, and find it odd that this would not be allowed. I will try find a better source than Russell, but it might take some time! PS What did you think of my introduction attempt?? (Froggie213 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

There would be nothing wrong with making the lead somewhat longer, but you have to be careful how you go about doing that. Your first efforts made it much too long, long enough to discourage people from reading it. I did not say that the Critique itself should never be used as a source, but it does make much better sense to use secondary sources instead of primary sources such as the Critique, which may be open to different interpretations. See WP:NOR. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

The article has recently seen edit warring from an IP address, The IP's changes are for the most part unconstructive and need to be reverted. The IP changed part of the lead so that it states that the Critique of Pure Reason, "is one of the most influential and seminal works in the history of philosophy and epistemology". It is pointless to add the words "and seminal"; "seminal" does not mean anything significantly different from "influential"; adding "and epistemology" is positively misleading, since it implies that "epistemology" is something separate from philosophy, rather than a branch of philosophy. Someone please revert the IP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Agree with your assessment and have reverted. Dwpaul Talk 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


Wisapi, please stop removing the second paragraph of the lead. It doesn't matter that it duplicates other material in the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so some duplication is fine. You commented that, "Only the first paragraph is a summary", but that's simply wrong as far as I'm aware. Nor is the material you removed an "arbitrary choice of topic" - it's important, basic material that needs to be in the lead if it is to serve its function as a basic introduction to the Critique. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that it "duplicates other material", as if it pulled in a little from here and a little from there throughout the text it supposedly summarizes. The problem is that the second and third paragraphs are essentially word-for-word identical, which is ridiculous. Practically no readers want to waste their time in this manner. Either the ideas in the paragraphs beyond the third paragraph need no place in the summary because they're not important and can thus be excised from the article or the second paragraph isn't an adequate summary. — Olathe (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Olathe, regardless of your complaint about the paragraph being repeated, the solution is clearly not to remove the paragraph from the lead. The paragraph is an essential part of the lead, and conveys information readers need to know. Find a different solution, if you perceive a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph has variously been removed by different editors but FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) keeps putting it back. I doesn't appear to me that either he or anyone else has given a justification for this curious duplication. We seem to agree that it doesn't summarise the article, but then why is it there? If it just gives background information necessary for reading the rest then its place is in the lead and not in the first section. That kind of brings the question of the woeful inadequacy of the lead as it stands now. The first paragraph (three sentences long!) is a fair summary but then a reader would expect something more about the points made in the Critique, as well as its overall significance in philosophy. Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make a serious effort to improve the lead then go ahead. I agree that ideally a whole paragraph in the lead should not be duplicated in the rest of the article. Unfortunately, none of the many editors who have removed that paragraph have done anything except remove the paragraph from the lead - they have added nothing to take its place, and no other material to convey similar information, which does not seem like constructive editing to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
So you seem to agree that this duplication isn't a good thing. Shall we then keep this paragraph in the lead but remove it from the first section? I'm not in any position to contribute content to this article but another editor had previously expanded the lead, a version of which can be seen in this revision. Of course it's a bit too long (as was discussed in a previous thread here), but it seems to me like a good place to start and then trim the excess rather than expand from the current lead. Any thoughts? Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The version you link to above is grotesquely over-long, in my view, but maybe some material could be restored. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed it down to about two thirds of its former size here. Do you think this could do? Is it accurate enough? Uanfala (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you...thanks for suggesting a new version of the lead. I think the material would need to be cut back further, however. The examples of analytic and synthetic statements are perhaps not necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long too, but hey, wikipedia isn't in a hurry. I've trimmed it down a little bit more but I was weary of removing the analytic-synthetic examples. I feel the examples make the concepts easier to grasp but I wouldn't mind it if we just kept a brief definition (with a link to Analytic–synthetic distinction). What do you reckon? Also, do you think this variant is generally OK content-wise? Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. Comments. I'm not sure it is necessary to include the words "and comes at the end of the period known as the Enlightenment"; it makes the opening sentence include too many different ideas. For "It deals with questions concerning the foundations and extent of human knowledge and builds on the work of empiricist philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume, as well as taking into account the theories of rationalist philosophers such as Leibniz and Wolff", I would prefer a slightly different wording: "In it, Kant deals with questions concerning..." etc. Also, I would include Leibniz's and Wolff's full names rather than the abbreviated versions. For the sentence, "Sometimes referred to as Kant's First Critique, it was followed in 1788 by the Critique of Practical Reason and in 1790 by the Critique of Judgment", I would prefer "also" (as in the current lead) rather than "sometimes". I think the sentence, "Kant also wrote a more popular version of the First Critique entitled, Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science (1783), in which he strove to make his ideas more accessible to the general reader" is either unnecessary or misplaced. Maybe that should be in the lead, but not in that precise location. For "The book contains radically new ideas on the nature of space and time, and also claims to solve the problem which Hume posed regarding our knowledge of the relation of cause and effect. These are central themes of the book, and Kant also claims to have assessed the ability of the human mind to engage in metaphysics", again I would prefer a slightly different wording; perhaps "Kant expounds" or something similar, rather than "The book contains". "These are the central themes of the book" is unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
In the sentence, "The hallmark of "a priori" knowledge is, according to Kant", I would put "according to Kant" before "the hallmark". For "Statements which are necessarily true are such as cannot be negated without becoming false - they are universally true and do not allow of any exceptions", I would replace "do not allow of any exceptions" with "allow of no exceptions". For "This sentence is, according to Kant" I would again put "according to Kant" at the start. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this text into the lead! I was planning to incorporate the changes you suggested but couldn't get round on time. Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


The quote at the start of this article regarding Kant's purpose in writhing this work is pretty different from the translation I have. I can't seem to find out where this quote came from. Does anyone know? p.s. my translation is by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. TimoleonWash (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is form Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant) Διοτιμα (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hermeneutical squabbles and misreads[edit]

The interpretation of the Critique as epistemological: to wit "investigation into the foundations and limits of human knowledge, and the extent to which the human mind is able to engage in metaphysics " rather than as a fundamental ontology and thus as a grounding of metaphysics as the Critique notes "critique of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all the cognitions after which reason might strive independently of all experience, and hence the decision about the possibility or impossibility of a metaphysics in general"(Axii). With this the study and limit is not on human knowledge in general but a specific kind of human knowledge that needs synthetic judgements apriori. Thus the Critique is "determination of its (metaphysics') sources, as well as its extent and boundaries, all, however, from principles"(ibid); and not human knowledge.

Another is the problem of method. How is the Critique itself as a science or investigation possible? How can it cognize itself : since in it "reason should take on anew the most difficult of all its tasks, namely, that of self-knowledge"(Axi): what is that in which, and how does it unfold therein? Then how does the distinction between the things as they appear and as they are come to lay upon the investigation.

Διοτιμα (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As Heidegger once lectured in Schelling's treatise on the essence of human freedom " how is the procedure of the Critique as a transcendental reflection determinable" Διοτιμα (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

on the transcendental aesthetic[edit]

Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic deals with sensibility and with objects as far as they can be perceived This stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of transcendental which means absolutely pure or a priori . Thus "that by means of which we cognize that and how certain representations (intuitions or concepts) are applied entirely a priori, or are possible (i.e., the possibility of cognition or its use a priori"(B81). The transcendental aesthetics is a consideration not of sensibility or cognition in general but it's a priori constitution. The transcendental aesthetic argues for the existence of pure form of sensibility and not objects or theirs perception which is just a contingent part." This pure form of sensibility itself is also called pure intuition"(B35).Iin it "nothing is to be encountered that belongs to sensation"(A20). This pure form or pure intution is a constitutive part of the synthetic a priori cognition and this the transcendental aesthetic's aim.thus the "science of all principle of a priori sensibility" is the transcendental aesthetic which, as noted in the colliding part "Here we now have one of the required pieces for the solution of the general problem of transcendental philosophy -how are synthetic a priori propositions possible? -namely pure a priori intuitions, space and time"(B73)

Διοτιμα (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject of the book[edit]

Διοτιμα, as already noted, if you want the article's infobox to state that the subject of the Critique of Pure Reason is "fundamental ontology", then you need a reliable source stating that "fundamental ontology" is indeed the book's subject. It may be that such a source does exist; if so, I hope you can find it and use it to improve the article. Your comment that "the burden of proof is equal" is mistaken. As the editor who wants to change the status quo version of the article, it is up to you to show that you are right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC).

On the burden of proof, your statement could be emended to read thus;"if you want the article's infobox to state that the subject of the Critique of Pure Reason is "epistemology", then you need a reliable source stating that "epistemology" is indeed the book's subject"; Is there any?. So the status quo you talk about is non existent and ungrounded.thus the burden lies on both claims but more so on the one claiming that it is right by virtue of a non grounded status quo. Second of all,How can such be provided if you keep removing them? from claiming that "Wikipedia does not have an article on "Fundamental Ontology", yet you revert edits on the same page. fundamental ontology is in fact a positional designation in that it denotes an analysis that precedes metaphysics or ontology. This means that Any ontological analysis of the constitution of a being as a grounding or showing that metaphysics is possible prior to metaphysics itself is a fundamental ontology. This is why Kant notes that"A quite special, though purely negative science, general phenomenology,seems to me to be presupposed by metaphysic"(10:98). By the fact the critique precedes metaphysics and performs an analysis the the a priori or ontological constitution of sensibility and understanding to show how metaphysics as a science is possible it is a fundamental ontology. As Already argued in the critiques' edits, The designation of the critique as epistemological ignores that it is a transcendental critique. This means that it "is occupied not so much with objects but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori"(A12). It does not matter if ones quote Heidegger's interpretation that "The following investigation is devoted to the task of interpreting Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as a laying of the ground for metaphysics and thus of placing the problem of metaphysics before us as a fundamental ontology"(Kant and the problem ) he could be totally misguided.Διοτιμα (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Διοτιμα, the status quo version is not "non existent and ungrounded". "Status quo" means the state of the article prior to your edits, and clearly that state is not "non existent". As for your comment, "How can such be provided if you keep removing them?", I have no idea what you are talking about. What "such" were you referring to? I asked you for a reliable source stating that the Critique of Pure Reason is about "fundamental ontology"; you never provided one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The status quo is existent but still ungrounded . An emmendation can show it: " I asked you for a reliable source stating that the Critique of Pure Reason is about "epistemology"; you never provided one" have you even bothered to check if there is any proof given that the book's content is about epistemology? As to providing evidence this has been done ad nauseam. As noted above, all that needs to be shown is that Kant places the Critique prior to metaphysics proper and if fundamental ontology is the "ontological analytic of the finite essence of human beings which is to prepare the foundation for the metaphysics” (Heidegger : Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics) ; then it is a fundamental ontology by definition. This has been shown more than once.( you can read it in the edit that you quoted about burden of proof). But as repeatedly noted , you have not provided why the reversion to epistemology is needed apart from the fact that it was prior to the new edit. You must have one at least provided during its designation: for if a demand for reason is made-to-measure what should be placed, then the epistemology claim should face up to the same demands (that's why the burden of proff is equal). It can be thought of a situation where another editor reverts your epistemology revision since it doesn't have a proof. What would have said Διοτιμα (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Διοτιμα, you may wish to review WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to present your own personal interpretation of or argument about the Critique of Pure Reason. I deliberately avoid replying to your arguments about the Critique, as they are irrelevant. Per the site's policies, a reliable source is needed. Finally, you might wish to review WP:BRD regarding editing behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read any of the edits and check the sources? If you were truly concerned with the demand for proof than rather pretending to outright consider them irrelevant (thus allowing you to wallow in vainglorious vanity by rejecting them as useless) you would have known by now that they have already been provided. You deliberately avoid replying to them not because they are irrelevant; but you cannot understand anything (barely intelligible text; poorly written addition) those are markers of deep understanding of the edits. More than 3/4 of all edits done bare direct quotes from Kant's corpus. This excludes the fundamental ontology entry which quotes secondary sources.The two quoted are Hegel and Heidegger; with the latter specifically saying in Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is " a laying of the ground for metaphysics and thus of placing the problem of metaphysics before us as a fundamental ontology". Hegel, in the introduction to the The Phenomenology of Spirit (73) specifically says "It is a natural assumption that in philosophy, before we start to deal with its proper subject-matter, viz. the actual cognition of what truly is, one must first of all come to an under­ standing about cognition" He also speaks clearly of Kant in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (in § 10) that "It is one of the main viewpoints of the Critical philosophy (Designation of Kantian philosophy) that, prior to setting about to acquire knowledge of God, the essence of things,etc., the faculty of knowing itself would have to be examined first in order to see whether it is capable of achieving this". All they show is Hegel and Heidegger understand the Critique as a prior analysis of the possibility of metaphysics. But this is beside the point they could be wrong. Lucky Kant says this is the task of the Critique both in the critique and other places with the choicest being provided for the edits .I have already quoted Kant to that effect and going with his designation it would be rather a "general phenomenology" than epistemology which until now you have not provided any proof or part in the entry that supports this. Διοτιμα (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The only part of that comment worth responding to is the mention of Heidegger's Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. The book might be an acceptable source for the claim that the subject of the Critique is fundamental ontology. I would recommend that you add a brief passage to the article stating that this was how Heidegger interpreted the Critique, possibly in a new section toward the end of the article, and then alter the infobox accordingly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)