the possibility of an ethics is premised on the conclusion of the transcendental dialectic in the first critique. ethics presupposes the three pure ideas of reason (god, self, and freedom), since we have no acquaintance with any of these, they may only be postulated as noumena for practical matters. metaphysics isn’t possible as a science, like math and physics.
in saying that its fine to postulate these things for practical matters kant uses the pure ideas in bad faith… he uses them as tools.
and in so doing sets the table for someone like nietzsche to come along and repackage what kant already said less forcefully, that they’re things in themselves, and that this ethics that uses them like this is bullshit.
this isn’t my arrogant take on things, i’m pretty sure its fairly common among smart people.
My reading of the First Critique (Pure reason) Kant says that we can’t influnce anything. That what will be will be. Like the billard ball rolling across the table there is a long line of causes and effects that we can’t stop or understand.
In the second critques (practical reason) he sets all that aside and says that we have to live our lives from some intermediate point on the long causes and effects and act as if we can influence the outcome. Hence the practical title.
This always seem a little inconsitent. If you can not influence the out come (pure reason) why bother to act ethically as if you could (practical reason)?
eureka!
sounds about right.