DSC 11 Texts of Western Philosophy

TERM PAPER

THEME: Philosophical Approaches or Concepts in the Textual

Study of Western Philosophy
TITLE: Philosophical Approaches in the Textual Study of Western
Philosophy: A Metaphysical Study and Commentary

Mahak Jain
222609
4 Semester, 2nd Year
th

B.A. Honors Philosophy

1
1. Kants Metaphysics
Immanuel Kants Critique of pure reason which is considered one of his most famous works
talks about metaphysics, this idea of his metaphysics is a central theme of the book.
Kant is concerned with metaphysics in two ways, firstly he is trying to engage in the
activity of doing metaphysics i.e. he wants the reader to understand broader structure of
reality, making sense of things.
Secondly, he is also raising questions about the nature of metaphysics, its scope and limits.
this could be because since time, there has been no common consensus about metaphysical
issues and its scope. Near his time there were two groups of metaphysics, the rationalist
who thought that reason is enough to arrive at substantive conclusions about the nature of
reality whereas the empiricist said reason is more limited than what the rationalist has to
say about it, rather appealing to experience can help us reach the nature of reality. Now
kant was very interested in this argument.
Kant was inclined to agree to with the rationalist that it was possible to use pure reason to
arrive at substantive conclusion about the nature of reality. He also was inclined towards
the empiricist that it was not possible to arrive at substantive conclusions about things that
were completely independent of us without using experience and thus part of the notion of
synthetic apriori was his attempt to reconcile these.

1.1 Difference between pure and empirical knowledge

Kant states that all knowledge begins with experience, and with respect to time, no
knowledge that we have is antecedent to experience. All knowledge that we input begins
from experience. But this doesn’t mean that all knowledge comes from experience. Some
knowledge is a priori that is known apart from experience, whose knowledge is a posteriori.
A priori knowledge according to Kant can be either pure or impure. The impure a priori
knowledge can be called the synthetic a priori knowledge, I think.

1.2 Human Intellect has some A priori knowledge

While reading this I found it to be a little contradictory, but he talks about the a priori
system of our minds. According to Kant a priori truths (that come before we experience
anything) have two characteristics that is they are necessary truths and universal truths.
Kant adds here that they could not possibly be otherwise. For example, all change involves
cause and effect, according to Kant this would be both a universal truth and a necessary
truth, but it is not necessarily the truth which is experienced.

Empirical Truths, the truths of experience are contingent (accident called by Aristotle)
meaning they are not part of the essence of something. Philosophy needs to get to the
bottom of the nature of a priori truths Some of our cognitions rise above our experience
(example knowledge of cause and effect) which means they are a way our mind is built by

2
God to process the world. Some problems of pure reason such as God, free will and
immortality.

Analytic Judgements: Those in which the predicate is entailed in the subject. For example,
all bodies have extension. Synthetic Judgement is everything else except analytic
judgements. Judgements where predicate is not entailed in the subject. For example, “that
dog is a meter long” dog is not a meter long by definition and this is also an empirical
observation by the mind. Kant creates a subcategory of synthetic judgements that are a
priori, meaning they are not true by definition but they are also not truths that come from
experience. So, if we say for example that everything that happens has a cause, this is not
true by definition. Kant would say this is true as an apriori synthetic judgement.

1.3 Apriori Synthetic Judgments

Mathematical judgements are always synthetic, that is the things we say about math are not
analytical that is they are not true by definition but they are also not necessarily true by
experience. They fall in the category of synthetic apriori judgements. They are not based
on experience but they are always synthetical. 5+7=12, for this Kant says that 12 is not
entailed in 5 and 7, its not analytical but its apriori that is we do not need to experience 5
and 7 to be 12 in order to know that 5+7=12. The 12 here according to Kant is a different
attribution. Kant argues that all Math is both synthetical and a priori. A straight line between
two points is the shortest. This statement is both synthetic and a priori according to Kant.
Physics is also similar according to Kant for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. This is true on the basis of reason.
Metaphysics also fits into the category of synthetic a priori truths, he critiques previous
philosophers like Hume, Descartes for their work on metaphysics. His work in critiquing
pure reason is to create a space for metaphysics to exist again.

1.4 Pure Reason

Critique of Pure Reason asks the question about how synthetic apriori judgements are
possible. This is where metaphysics rides. Metaphysics does not have to do with the objects
of reason but has to do with the way reason itself works. Reason is the faculty that furnishes
us with the basic principles of a priori knowledge. He calls this transcendental knowledge,
knowledge of the moods of our cognition. Knowledge of not objects but the transcendental
properties of metaphysics tell us how our mind works to process things that appear.
Transcendental philosophy is a systematic presentation of all the conceptions or principles
of pure reason. The critique is a preparation of the transcendental philosophy by outlining
the structure of transcendental philosophy.

3
2. Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche was a German philosopher. This book is written in Aphorisms that is short saying
that express general truths comments or opinions. Ad hominem attacks this is where
someone attacks the philosopher rather than argument, Nietzsche chooses to use this
method of attack to show that there is a clear connection between the personality,
temperament and the experience of the philosopher and the arguments that they make. In
the book he invites us to think about philosophy differently, suspiciously and with
skepticism.

2.1 The Will to Truth

The first prejudice that many philosophers make is their view of the will to truth, it’s the
philosophers drive to search for the objective truth of the world that can be arrived at
through rational inquiry. He states that we have never questioned why we value truth so
hardly, what is its actual value of it, why do we seek it so relentlessly why do we assume
that the truth will be beneficial to us, it could be that the truth maybe the death of us and
society. It could cause the collapse all our world views and everything that we hold dear to
us. Nietzsche argues that the “will to truth” is not some honorable striving for the truth
based upon proactive and unbiased reasoning. Instead, philosophers search for truth is
determined purely by their own unconscious instincts and desires. Their reasoning is
reactive and not proactive. It’s not a genuine inquiry into the nature of truth instead the
truth that they express is merely an expression of their will.
For example, the stoics view nature as well-ordered system, that is governed by
deterministic rules, that endow us with the ability to reason. This means that the stoics
emphasized the importance of accepting fate as it is inherent facet of nature but n asks why
they think that the universe needs to be like this, why is it not equally as likely that the
universe is prodigal beyond measure without aims or intention, without mercy or justice.
So, Nietzsche states that the stoics do not act according to nature like they say they do
instead they are trying to recreate nature in the way they desire. According to him stoicism
in tyranny.

2.2 Faith in antithetical values

We divide the world into opposites for example good and evil, cause and effect, appearance
and reality etc. we assume that these things are opposite but that is not the case. Conscious
thinking is guided by our instinctive drives, falsehood allows us to simplify life in order to
survive, good actions are founded upon self-interests etc.
Nietzsche states that we must go beyond good and evil, historically philosophers have tried
to operate under the assumption that any given act is either good or evil. This is a moral
value judgement. Nietzsche is calling us to look beyond the binary mode of thinking, he
does not propose that good is the opposite of evil, he rejects the dichotomy of good vs evil.

4
2.3 Appearance and Reality
He disagrees with the separation of world into the world of appearance, things that we can
see and experience with our senses and the real world which contains things in themselves
rather than things as they appear to us. For example, this is apparent in Plato’s theory of
forms and Kant’s conception of noumena. These are delusions that devalue life, they also
devalue here and now. The splitting of the world into appearance and reality is a result of
the philosopher exerting their will to power, that is because they dislike this reality and so
they construct another. This gives them solace and reassurance in spite of them disliking
this reality of perception.

2.4 Atomism
Atomism is the idea that the world is composed of very small indivisible units called the
atoms. This scientific idea lays the basis for the religious view of the soul as something
eternal indestructible and indivisible. He says that we unsure if atomism is an accurate way
of seeing reality. It could be that the soul is mortal, subjective and also composed of only
drives and emotions. The substance predicate nature of language is inherently atomistic.
This can lead us to problems as we mistakenly exaggerate this to be an aspect of not only
language but of reality as well. The substance is the subject and the predicate is the property
that we attribute to the subject. For example, in the sentence “the dog runs.” The dog is the
substance and the running is the predicate we attribute to him.

The problem of immediate certainty follows on closely from this. Immediate certainty is
truth that are self-evident and obvious that we can be immediately certain of their truth.
Nietzsche along with empiricist philosopher David Hume are skeptical of this idea. For
example, in Descartes idea of “I think therefore I am” Nietzsche claims that there are
multiple flaws in this seemingly self-evident assertion for one he says that it is wrong to
assume that there is a single I, we can even say this for ourselves as upon closer inspection
and through some self-inquiry. It actually becomes clear that are concrete and atomistic
concepts of the self is not as immediately certain as we first assumed. When we look to see
who we really are we struggle to see exactly who and what we are. We cannot find the
single and concrete I that Descartes assumed in his argument. It is wrong to assume that I
is the cause of thought, because on a closer inspection we can say that we have little control
over our thoughts instead we are at the mercy of them.

2.5 Self-Preservation as a cardinal drive

Nietzsche critiques the view our most fundamental drives is of self-preservation instead n
writes that the living thing desires to vent its strength. The concept of the will to power was
never systematically defined by nature but it is generally understood in the following ways
1. It is the will to take and exert power over others. This is a primitive expression of the
will.
2. The will to interpret and falsify reality to suit ones aims. This is an important aspect of
slave morality, but the will to power is not all negative as it also cannot mean the will

5
 to perfect and transcend the self and exercise one’s creative power. It is an important
aspect of genius
Nietzsche believes that it is the will to power that is the most fundamental drive in not only
humans but in every aspect of reality.

2.6 Causa sui (free will)

Here Nietzsche criticizes philosophers for adopting the acceptance of causa sui latin for
cause of itself, also known as free will. Belief in the concept of free will likely result from
the substance predicate structure of language that we mistake for being aspects of reality.
Just because in language we talk of ourselves being the cause of actions it doesn’t mean
that in reality we are the accuse of those actions.
He argues that we are not free because to be free we need to be the cause of ourselves. But
this doesn’t happen because our choice is caused by many different things. If we follow the
causal chain of our actions it should lead to ourselves but this does not happen because our
choice is caused by many other things, like for example our unconscious drives, childhood
experiences and so on. In reality the will is made up of complex environment of different
drives, sensations, feelings and thoughts. It is not a simplistic cause that we have forward
on me over as Nietzsche accuses many philosophers of assuming

2.7 Analysis
I think Nietzsche even though tries to criticize not only the philosophers but also their
theory, his idea of neglecting the cause, effect seems very much plausible. Although even
when he criticizes the philosophers one thing that I seemed to not understand was the
solution to the problem. His idea of free will, even though is fair but still I think there are
other factors affecting free will. When talking of the opposites, I think for better
understanding having a solution to things then also is necessary. Overall, even after
criticizing the philosophers, understanding his own theory of things becomes a little hard.

6
3. Martin Heidegger
3.1 What is not called thinking
This work was a course of university lectures, he also considered a “nothing but”
philosopher. To understand what is that Heidegger calls thinking the most important thing
to understand is what is not called thinking. Thinking is not having an opinion or a notion.
It is not representing or having an idea about something or a state of affairs. Thinking is
also not ratiocination, developing chain of premises that lead to a valid conclusion. It is
also not systematic or conceptual. He makes no such claim that thinking can produce
knowledge as do the sciences, nor can it promote usable practical wisdom. There is no
salvation found in thinking.
He is working towards a theory of the independent role of a kind of thinking that is at once
poetic and also philosophic. He insists on a new conception of philosophy as an
autonomous inquiry. For Heidegger thinking is a response to a call which comes from the
nature of things that is the being. Thinking is determined by that which is to be thought
about and that who thinks. It involves mans receptivity to being and the opposite.
Heidegger here also talks about truth; he says that truth reveals that which is concealed in
distinction to the theory of truth as correctness. Thinking defines the nature of being human
and the more thoughtless we are the less human we will be.

3.2 Human Condition and the Nature of Thought

Heidegger gets into the essence of human condition and the nature of thought. Humans
despite being rational struggle to think in the truest manner possibly because of various
external factors like the desire for thought or the inability to delve deeply into important
matters. Heidegger also points out the interplay between our perception and thought about
the world. The major point that h is trying to make is that
Heidegger's central claim is that our inability to think deeply is what makes us most
thought-provoking in this day and age. He argues that this results from both human
indifference and the natural retreat from important issues that require consideration. He
emphasizes the necessity of unlearning conventional ways of thinking in order to genuinely
participate in authentic philosophical inquiry, challenging readers to confront the gap
between scientific knowledge and actual thinking. Heidegger's writings advocate for a
willingness to unlearn and critically examine deeply held beliefs, calling for a dramatic
reorientation of our way of thinking. He exhorts readers to welcome the unease and
ambiguity that come with real philosophical investigation, understanding that real learning
and thinking necessitate a readiness to face difficult issues and interact with ideas that go
beyond simple creativity. Heidegger proposes that with this process, we would be able to
see into the deepest recesses of our minds and set out on a path towards true comprehension
and self-discovery.
Heidegger, crucially, addresses the existential questions and uncertainties that arise from
in-depth reflection, he invites readers to see these as a new source of real knowledge.

7
3.3 Criticizing the present age
According to Heidegger, humanity is drawn towards the event of withdrawal, which shapes
our fundamental essence and serves as a guide towards what withdraws. This innate
tendency to gravitate towards the unknown suggests that people are symbols pointing to
the fundamental nature of consciousness. He emphasizes that memory goes beyond simple
remembrance and acts as the basis of poetry, which is founded in the act of reflecting back.
He draws comparisons with Hoelderlin's concept of Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses.
Heidegger emphasizes how important it is to recognize that we are unread signs and that
our epoch, which will exist for an indefinite amount of time, demands serious thought. He
encourages readers to reflect on what is most thought-provoking by delving into the
mystery of mind and its elusive nature. He accomplishes this by exploring poetic language.
Heidegger encourages readers to embark on a contemplative journey that goes beyond
traditional modes of knowing, even though the aim of citing poetry is still unclear. He
suggests that poetry has the capacity to illuminate the substance of mind.
The goal of these lectures is to set out on a trip to acquire thinking skills while
acknowledging that it is a difficult and protracted path. Reaching the foothills of mind is
the aim, from which a jump into the heart of thinking itself is required. The leap propels
us into uncharted territory where everything seems weird and confusing, in contrast to
steady progress where everything seems familiar.
It is important to recognize right away that thinking itself can be confusing, particularly
when it is done objectively. Being prepared and receptive to listening are essential to
developing a mentality that fosters true comprehension. This kind of thinking enables us
to go beyond traditional limits and investigate more expansive conceptual spaces.
There is frequently a tendency to confuse thinking with scientific investigation in the
academic setting, especially in scientific organizations. But without demeaning the
sciences either, it's critical to understand their differences. Even though the sciences are
fundamentally linked to contemporary technology, there is still confusion about what
science actually is, which needs to be cleared up by sincere thought.
The goal of the lectures is to create a real learning atmosphere where students and teachers
participate in a reciprocal process. Teaching is more than just passing along information;
at its core, it's about fostering learning. By letting students’ study on their own terms,
teachers can help them move towards true understanding. Acquiring the skill of thinking
is similar to mastering a craft, such as cabinetry. It calls for expertise, repetition, and a
thorough comprehension of the available materials. As the tool of handicraft, the hand
reaches, extends, and creates in the mental domain, embodying the very essence of
thinking.
The fact that we still don't think deeply enough is, in the end, the most thought-provoking
thing about our time. This realization invites us to set out on the path of sincere
contemplation, bringing what retreats from us—even if it stays hidden—closer. As a
result of this process, we take on the mysterious quality of thought itself and become

8
markers for that which is still unsaid. When we interact with poetry, especially the works
of poets such as Hoelderlin, we come across another form of expression that speaks to the
core of thought. But more investigation is needed into the conversation between thinking
and poetry, and that can only happen when we have started down the path of true
thinking.
In conclusion, Heidegger encourages readers to embrace ambiguity and confront
presumptions in order to engage in real thought. He highlights how cognition is dynamic
and has a significant impact on human existence. Heidegger proposes that true
understanding arises via reflection and conversation, resulting in self-discovery and a
closer bond with the essence of thought.

3.3 Analysis
Heidegger is very critical of transcendental philosophy of Kant, and also his quest to
provide a firm metaphysical grounding for knowledge. He also thought that Kant’s being
was somewhat not in line, he also has written “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” he
also has criticized Kant’s traditional Metaphysics, his idea of appearance and reality.
Heidegger was also deeply involved in the thought of Nietzsche, especially his
absolutization of the will. He also says that Nietzsche’s philosophy even though tries to
overcome Platonism and nihilism ends up representing metaphysics by transforming being
into just a value.

9
 4. Richard Rorty
4.1 Analysis of the Introduction
Philosophical inquiries address age-old issues regarding human life, including the nature of
knowledge and the link between the mind and body. Using its distinct view of knowledge and the
mind, it seeks to support or refute assertions about knowledge in fields like as science, morality,
art, and religion. Philosophy considers itself to be the foundation of culture because it assesses
claims to knowledge that are based on its investigation of how people understand and depict the
world. Thinkers like Locke gave rise to this viewpoint in the seventeenth century.

Descartes is credited with originating the idea of "the mind" as a separate entity where processes
occur, while Kant, drawing on earlier concepts from Locke and Descartes, popularized the idea of
philosophy as a judge of reason in culture in the eighteenth century.
Natural science's rise to prominence in the Descartes-Locke-Kant era made it possible for culture
to become secularized. But by the early 20th century, scientists, like theologians before them had
drifted apart from intellectuals. The "scientific" and "rigorous" aspects of philosophy caused it to
become disconnected from the rest of civilization.
Philosophers who focused on analysis and phenomenology made no attempt at all.
In this context, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey came into being. At the beginning, each
attempted to create the ideal framework for thinking in philosophy in order to make it
"foundational". They finally saw, nevertheless, that their initial attempts had been misleading
attempts to hold onto an antiquated understanding of philosophy.
They abandoned Kant's fundamentalist philosophical stance in their later writings, cautioning
against the same temptations they had themselves given up to.

Rather than offering new philosophical systems, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey sought in
their final writings to provoke the reader to consider the motivations behind their previous
philosophizing. They disagreed with the idea that knowledge is only correct mental images
rendered understandable by a representation theory. They rejected concepts such as Descartes'
epistemic skepticism, the "foundations of knowledge," and "the mind" as a unique source of
knowledge. They did not, however, present any substitute philosophies of mind or theories of
knowledge. Rather, they disregarded metaphysics and epistemology as respectable fields of
study.

They imagined an intellectual existence where 17th century philosophical jargon seemed as
useless as 13th century ideas did to the Enlightenment intellectuals, instead of openly criticizing
earlier philosophers. Just as creating a culture that separated religion from science did not argue
against Aquinas's proofs of God's existence, proposing a post-Kantian culture without an
overarching legitimizing discipline was not necessarily an argument against Kant's specific
teachings. A "revolutionary" phase in philosophy has been ushered in by Wittgenstein,
Heidegger, and Dewey, who have introduced fresh viewpoints that omit aspects that were
previously deemed essential.

This work examines current trends in analytical philosophy from the perspective of the anti-

10
Kantian and anti-Cartesian movements. Undermining faith in "the mind" as necessitating a
philosophical perspective, in "knowledge" as requiring a theory and foundations, and in
philosophy as conventionally understood since Kant is the goal. You will disappoint a reader
who is searching for novel theories regarding the topics covered. While "solutions to the mind-
body problem" are addressed, the purpose of this is to show that there isn't actually a problem.
The goal of discussions on "theories of reference" is to demonstrate why it is incorrect to look
for one. Rorty says that the text is therapeutic rather than constructive, much like the highly
regarded philosophers. But the therapy depends on tradition-criticisms taken from the works of
Kuhn, Putnam, Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Ryle, Malcolm, and other systematic analytic
philosophers.
Following Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey, the author seeks to challenge conventional ideas
of mind, knowledge, and philosophy itself through the use of techniques from analytic
philosophers such as Sellars and Quine. The book makes the case that criticism of "analytic
philosophy" and philosophy since Kant must go deeper in order to fully understand the
development of analytical philosophy on mind, language, epistemology, and science.

It sees analytical philosophy as merely another dialectical of Kant that seeks to situate
philosophy as evaluating other disciplines according to their "foundations"—a variation on Kant
that emphasizes language representation. This does not, however, resolve the Cartesian-Kantian
dilemma or provide analytical philosophy with a new identity as it still aims to provide a
permanent, impartial framework for both culture and inquiry. Descartes-Locke-Kant and modern
philosophy are related by the idea that human inquiry occurs inside an isolatable a priori
framework of presuppositions imposed by the nature or capacities of the knowing subject.

The concept of "philosophy" as something apart from "science" is based on Cartesian ideas about
discovering unavoidable truths by self-reflection and Kantian ideas about these truths restricting
actual research. It is presumptions of such a priori limitations that make "foundations of
knowledge" or a "theory of representation" possible.

Persistent limitations are precluded by a Deweyan understanding of knowledge as justified

belief, which views justification as a social phenomenon. A Wittgensteinian understanding of
language as a tool rather than a reflection steers clear of the search for representation's
prerequisites. Making the knowing subject a source of necessary truths is rejected by a
Heideggerian notion as self-deception that substitutes "technical question for openness”
In order to find ahistorical conditions for any potential historical development, the book
interprets classical philosophy—including analytical philosophy—as an attempt to escape from
history. Wittgenstein, Dewey, and Heidegger all share a historicist perspective that serves as a
reminder that inquiries into the origins of knowledge, morality, language, or society may be little
more than attempts to rationalize modern circumstances into perpetuity. The moral of the book is
historicist as well; its three sections are designed to place the concepts of "mind," "knowledge,"
and "philosophy" themselves within historical contexts.

11
4.2 Introduction to the various chapters in the book
The goal of Part 1's discussion of philosophy of mind is to demonstrate the historical roots of the
intuitions that underlie Cartesian dualism as well as how these intuitions would alter if
physiological techniques took the place of psychological ones for control and prediction. The
second section focuses on epistemology and looks for "successor subjects" to take its place. In
Chapter 3, the concept of "epistemology" is introduced and its origins in 17th-century Cartesian
concepts of "mind" are discussed. "Theory of knowledge" is shown to be predicated on
conflating the causal explanation of knowledge claims with their justification.

Sellars's attack on "givenness" and Quine's attack on "necessity" are interpreted in Chapter 4, the
main chapter, as undermining the feasibility of a "theory of knowledge". The author seeks to
expand on the themes of their pragmatism and holism, which they shared with later Wittgenstein.
With this expansion, truth can no longer be understood as "an accurate representation of reality,"
but rather as "what it is better for us to believe." "Accurate representation" is only a compliment
given to successful beliefs.

In chapters five and six, attempts to regard philosophy of language or psychology as "successor
subjects" to epistemology are criticized, with the argument being made that only the idea of
knowing as representation enables them to accomplish what epistemology was unable to. The
concept of "philosophy" itself is discussed in more detail in Part 3. The conventional divide
between the pursuit of "objective knowledge" and other pursuits is interpreted in Chapter 7 as
simply dividing "normal discourse"—which has established standards for gaining consensus—
from "abnormal discourse," which does not. It is believed that the attempt to define "rationality"
and "objectivity" in terms of true representation conditions is a false attempt to immortalize the
common language of the day. This attempt has dominated philosophy's self-image from the time
of the Greeks.

In Chapter 8, the goal of "systematic" philosophy is to precisely describe reality, while

"edifying" philosophy aims to liberate people from outdated attitudes and vocabulary, rather than
providing a solid foundation for their current intuitions. Rather than offering a methodical
foundation, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey are portrayed as "edifying" philosophers whose
goal is to assist readers in transcending their existing modes of thought. "Philosophy and the
Mirror of Nature" alludes to the notion that has imprisoned traditional philosophy: that the mind
is a vast mirror that contains representations that should be examined using only non-empirical
techniques. The idea of knowledge as an accurate representation and the Cartesian/Kantian
method of examining and mending the mirror in order to obtain more accurate representations
would not have developed without this image of the mind as a mirror.

Without this reflecting imagery that Wittgenstein derided, recent assertions that philosophy
might consist of conceptual analysis, explication of meanings, investigating language logic, or
awareness structures would be absurd. While Wittgenstein skillfully dissected such alluring
images, Heidegger gave us historical insight into the beginnings of this mirror imagery in ancient
Greece and its centuries-long transformations, enabling us to break with tradition. But neither
allows us to see the historical occurrence of the social perspective of mirror images and the
dominance of ocular metaphors over the Western mind.

12
Dewey had a vision of a future society controlled by aesthetic enhancement rather than the ideal
of objective cognition, albeit lacking the dialectics of Wittgenstein and the historical knowledge
of Heidegger. Relativism accusations directed at Dewey were a defensive response from the
tradition he opposed. Such accusations are undermined by taking Dewey, Wittgenstein, and
Heidegger's objections of mirror imagery seriously. In order to break through the outer layer of
philosophical tradition that Dewey sought to demolish, the book attempts to present some of
these criticisms.

13
5. Conclusion
Throughout this project I have tried to highlight the various theories of metaphysics
given by four philosophers and I have also added my own understanding of them.
Along with that I have also tried to elaborate on the relation among these four
philosophers. Through this project I have tried to focus on Metaphysical Approaches
of the four philosophers with relation to not only their other theories but its
comparison as well.

6. REFRENCES

Heidegger M., What Is Called Thinking, 1972, Harper and Row.

Kant I., Critique of Pure Reason, 2013, Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche F., Beyond Good and Evil, 2009, The Project Gutenberg.

Rorty R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 1979, Princeton University Press.

Guyer, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Cambridge University Press.

Internet Resources

www.researchgate.net

https://plato.stanford.edu/

https://link.springer.com/

https://epochemagazine.org/issues/71/

14