What is wrong with this description of metaphysics?

Question

"It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm

Answer 1

This is a description of Kant's time, the extent of knowledge at that time, and of the man's own extent of his grasp of it.

Answer 2

You don't extend it.

It extends you.

Answer 3

there is nothing wrong with it. thats the nature of metaphysics. of course what went into category of metaphysics at his time doesn't necessarily do so today. but that sentence is generaly true for metaphysics itself.

Answer 4

I didn't read that whole link you had up, but speculative and knowledge can't both be the same thing. Kant predates Einstein, i think some things that were in his era metaphysical, since einstein, became physics. and i think that is what would happen to pretty much all of metaphysics, the category would get smaller and smaller as less things belong to it. but some things may not have a satisfying answer, such as what is beyond our universe? nothing. what is the point of human life? why do we exist? there is none, evolution made it that way.  this might seem like lack of knowledge, but i think it is just as much knowledge as anything else.

I would have liked to see his argument how he came about at this conclusion but i never found a title that was metaphysics and there was too much on that page to read it all.

Answer 5

Metaphysics is the identification of "things" into categories of "genera" and "differentia." Why Kant believed that was a "supersensible" realm makes it sound like the mysticism he espoused.

"Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason." Ayn Rand

"Kant's arguments are designed to show the limitations of our knowledge. The Rationalists believed that we could possess metaphysical knowledge...Kant argues, however, that we cannot have knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical."  from your link

If we can have no knowledge beyond the "realm" of the empirical, then how can he even use language, since it is not empirical and its entire base is metaphysical definitions of concepts?

That is what metaphysics is: conceptual definitions of genera and differentia. It is possible, and he proved it by using language.

Answer 6

To judge whether Kant's premise is wrong presupposes a commonly accepted definition of metaphysics which would render, if proved, the description wrong! But, I hold that if someone holds an argument, thus to overcome a contradiction or a faultiness, we should judge him with his own criteria and more or less frame of thinking. That is to say we should somehow apply an Analytical Scheme of Judgment to understand whether it is or not possible to extend knowledge to the super sensible realm of speculative metaphysics. In other words, we should follow a mental circle in order to understand whether the extension of knowledge is possible to the super sensible - speculative - metaphysics.

I hold that Kant defines metaphysics as an overcoming of empiricism and Pure Reason. This is how he initiates Transcendental Dialectics. First we have the notion of super sensible: I think that Transcendental knowledge extents to super sensible simply by presupposing this lack of empirical material that Logical Notions of Transcendental Logic explain. So, this is how speculative metaphysics become real in certain kind of sense. I think Kant's description is wright.

Answer 7

It was said before it's proved ability to be done. Kant stated facts as they were in his time of knowledge.