The revolution in thinking which Kant caused is grounded largely on his distinction between sensuality and intellect and respectively between appearances (phaenomena) and things in themselves (noumena). It must be understood in order to understand Kant’s project of a critique of pure reason, whose question is mainly about the cognizability of the things in themselves and about the faculty of our intellectuality. But this distinction also has to be understood by anyone who wants to nderstand

Overview over the faculties of the mind and the critiques according to

The distinction of our judgments into analytic and synthetic ones is one of Immanuel Kant's greatest accomplishments. That metaphysics, the core of all philosophical science, was standing on a shaky foundation and was not yet a proper science, he had felt for a while. But now he could ground the attempt to turn it into a science on a single question, which was to become the central question of his project of a critique of pure reason: How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?

Kant’s critical philosophy is an answer to the philosophy that came before and can be properly understood only in this context. All pure philosophy, i. e. metaphysics, was done in a dogmatic or sceptical way before Kant: there was either a blind faith in or a blind distrust of pure reason and its ability to answer the big questions of metaphysics concerning God, freedom and immortality. With criticism Kant found a solution, by first examining reason itself, its abilities and its limits, before examining any metaphysical objects through reason.

Kant gives various pieces of advice, both on what to pick for reading and on how to read a book. In a time which is lost and not capable of telling the good from the bad, and in which reading as an art is taught almost nowhere and mastered by almost no one, such pieces of advice are more important than ever.

Absolute error is not possible, for something absolutely wrong would not seem true to anyone. Every position must therefore contain at least a partial truth. Kant’s thinking was grounded in sympathy for his fellow human beings, even in their errors. Whoever disagreed with him was not considered an opponent by him but someone with whom he wanted to participate in the common search for truth. Because of this his sympathetic method came completely naturally to him, which led him, whenever there was a conflict between two position which both were supported by sharp-minded thinkers without any private interests in the matter, to always seek a middle path and unite both of them in a third position.

Arguments and alleged proofs can be found for any opinion, no matter how wrong. And the opposing side believes in its arguments as much as one does in one’s own. It’s therefore not enough to just refute the other position in a conflict about truth and to simply prove one’s own position. One should always also ask how the other opinion, if it was indeed wrong, can still seem correct to its adherents. The critical method is about seeking the principles behind an opinion and assuming the perspective from which it had to seem true, and seeks to block the sources of the illusion. It is this method which Kant employs in his critique of reason.

Kant’s sceptical method marks the beginning of his critical turn and his critique of reason sprang from it. It is about suspending one’s judgment until one has thoroughly looked at the pros and cons while making each side as strong as possible.

The methods of a philosopher are, despite often being overlooked, of great importance for understanding his thoughts, which after all he arrived at only through those methods. Die architectonic method is described by Kant as the art of systems. And since according to him science is nothing but systematic cognition (https://youtu.be/5TmzPA8_qNE?si=ysx2fHXcjTzTpU9L), the architectonic is the method to create a science. As the masons and carpenters should build a house after the plan of an architect, so the scientists as technicians of reason should build their science after the plan of a philosopher as lawgiver of reason (https://youtu.be/YP2Dt6lILSA?si=MAu0cub-kBrJ3Gup). Kant himself is architectonic like hardly any other thinker, and can only be understood and also judged properly once one understands his architectonic.

The philosopher is not simply a scholar among others to Kant, but has a very special position and plays a very special role in the state. Unlike the priest, state official or physician he doesn't serve the world that is but the world that ought to become; he isn't directly useful, has no function in society - but for that very reason he can take responsibility for the aufklärung and the progress of humankind. The conflict of the three higher faculties of university - theology, jurisprudence and medicine - with the philosophical one concerned Kant throughout many of his writings. It may often be ignored or treated as a side matter, but it is the key to understanding Kant's philosophical aim and project. On top of that it is also of great importance in today's world.

Medicine and philosophy seem to have nothing to do with each other nowdays. But for Kant the philosopher can do healing work and his moral commandments can serve health at the same time. He himself dealt with his body which was sickly throughout all his life in a philosophical manner and thereby kept in good health, without needing a physician. His thoughts on health serve as an excellent example for what he understood by the philosopher in the world sense, that is by the wise lawgiver of reason. But the healing work of the philosopher is strictly separate from that of the physician, for the one is a salutologist, the other a pathologist.