Critique of Pure Reason
Editions A and B differ substantially; A/B references allow comparison between versions.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Question the limits of reason.
Works, testimonies and further readings are distinguished. Dates refer to composition or first publication, as specified in each entry.
The catalogue distinguishes critical books, independent essays, pre-critical science and editorial collections. It is not yet the complete table of occasional writings in the Akademie edition. A separate index contains all 8,137 numbered reflection starts observed in AA XIV–XIX. Unnumbered notes and AA XX–XXIII remain to be indexed. The 1,148 letters in the Korpora AA X–XII tables are now individually indexed.
Explore letters and fragmentsEditions A and B differ substantially; A/B references allow comparison between versions.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The book establishes a foundation rather than replacing the detailed doctrine of duties published in 1797.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The essay answers a debate in the Berlinische Monatsschrift under the Prussian monarchy.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The third Critique connects the philosophy of nature with freedom without collapsing their distinction.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The second Critique develops the Groundwork without becoming merely another list of duties.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Written after the difficult reception of 1781, it adopts an analytic approach different from the Critique’s.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published after the foundational works, it combines the Doctrine of Right with the Doctrine of Virtue.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Publication difficulties and the Prussian government’s response give the book a history of censorship.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Written amid Europe’s revolutionary wars, it ironically adopts the form of a diplomatic agreement.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The book draws on many years of teaching; its empirical observations differ from morality’s a priori principles.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The preface revisits action against Kant’s religious writings under Frederick William II.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The book connects categories with Newtonian physics rather than offering a textbook of experimental results.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published anonymously before the critical period, this cosmology draws on Newton and Thomas Wright.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The work belongs to the pre-critical period; its satire should not be read as a profession of spiritualism.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This pre-critical essay lacks the transcendental argument developed in the third Critique of 1790.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This Latin text accompanied Kant’s appointment to the chair of logic and metaphysics in Königsberg.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The essay belongs to Kant’s historical reflections during the decade of the first Critiques.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The essay intervenes in the pantheism controversy involving Mendelssohn and Jacobi.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Kant responds to Garve, Hobbes and Mendelssohn in sections with distinct stakes.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This short juridical essay should not be equated without examination with the whole moral doctrine of truthfulness.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This pre-critical essay enters debates about causation, force and sufficient reason.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The work predates the Critique; its position on rational theology would change substantially.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This essay of 1768 belongs to debates preceding the critical account of space.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This religious essay precedes Religion and draws particularly on a reading of Job.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche prepared it from materials supplied by Kant; this is an authorized edition rather than a continuous manuscript wholly written for publication.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Friedrich Theodor Rink edited lecture materials; their transmission and observational dates must be distinguished from 1802.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Rink arranged Kant’s lecture notes; the published sequence is not a treatise wholly composed and revised by its author.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The title denotes a posthumous editorial collection rather than a finished book given final form by Kant.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The edition arranges manuscripts of different origins; reflection numbers are neither dates nor titles supplied by Kant.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Akademie volumes X–XIII include letters, supplements, appendix documents and commentary; not every document is by Kant.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This first published work substantially predates critical philosophy. Its scientific controversy uses concepts that do not simply coincide with those of present-day mechanics.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The essay answers a question proposed by the Berlin Academy. Apparent celestial stability becomes something to explain rather than a guarantee of immutability.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The article belongs to his early investigations into planetary natural history. It replaces a familiar image with questions about particular mechanisms and evidence.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This Latin dissertation belongs to his entry into academic life in 1755. Its material hypotheses predate thermodynamics and should not be presented as current scientific theory.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This Latin habilitation dissertation still engages Leibniz and Wolff. Its distinctions should not be equated without qualification with the categories of the Critique of Pure Reason.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The first of three earthquake writings from 1756 belongs to science without plate tectonics. Its proposed mechanisms should not be repeated as modern explanations.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)More extensive than the first article, this work reveals natural inquiry’s dependence on circulating information. Reports are uneven and hypotheses remain tied to eighteenth-century physics.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The third earthquake writing of 1756 should be read with its predecessors. It retains the documentary and theoretical limits of research conducted far from the events.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The Latin dissertation of 1756 confronts metaphysics and geometry rather than immediately sacrificing either. Its model precedes the critical distinction between appearances and things in themselves and should not be retrospectively identified with it.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1756 writing also advertises his lectures, linking research with university teaching. Terrestrial rotation gives the inquiry global scope, although the article lacks the mathematical tools of contemporary meteorology.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This independent 1757 announcement differs from Physical Geography, published much later from lecture materials. It reveals the connection between a teaching program and a particular investigation in natural science.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1758 work challenges established usages in natural philosophy. Its interest concerns conceptual clarification as well as the validity of its particular physical proposal.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The short 1759 writing also announces his lectures. It belongs to a phase of metaphysical confidence distinct from later restrictions on theoretical knowledge of God.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1760, the piece belongs to philosophical and religious consolation. Its personal voice and particular addressee distinguish it from an abstract treatise on immortality.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1762 essay intervenes in traditional logical instruction. It does not reject formal reasoning but criticizes distinctions considered artificial or pedagogically misleading.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1764, the work belongs to the history of anthropology and classifications of mind. Its categories and terminology are not a contemporary clinical instrument; their organization needs historical examination.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The essay answers the Berlin Academy’s question for 1763 and appeared in 1764. It marks a methodological stage preceding critical philosophy and the ethics of autonomy.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This independent university program of 1765 differs from lecture notes published posthumously. It explains how Kant aims to connect logic, metaphysics, ethics, and knowledge of the world.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1771 review concerns a German translation of physician Pietro Moscati. The anatomical hypotheses belong to the history of science and are not present-day medical advice.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1775 lecture announcement contains scientifically unfounded racial categories and hierarchical generalizations. Its assertion of species unity does not remove the prejudices or their historical consequences.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)These interventions of 1776–1777 concern the Philanthropinum associated with Johann Bernhard Basedow. The Academy edition collects them; their advocacy must be distinguished from the school’s actual outcomes.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1782 announcement supports an editorial venture begun in 1781; it is neither Lambert's complete correspondence nor a new philosophical treatise by Kant.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1782 notice follows an epidemic affecting the Baltic and Königsberg; the appended clinical report belongs to Fothergill rather than Kant.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1783 review precedes the Groundwork and confronts a determinism presented as the basis of moral education.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1785 reviews belong to a public disagreement with a former student; they do not substitute for reading Herder's books.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1785 article responds to astronomical reports circulating through scholars and periodicals; its explanations predate modern lunar geology.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1785 essay addresses commercial reprinting before contemporary copyright systems, distinguishing a material book from public communication.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1785 essay develops the 1775 account; its taxonomy and racial assumptions belong to a criticized scientific history, not present biological knowledge.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1786, the essay calls its exercise a journey of imagination guided by reason, not an archaeological account of human origins.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1786 review examines a book published in 1785. It reports another author's arguments, which are not automatically the reviewer's own positions.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1786 remarks enter debates about knowledge of God, distinguishing claims of proof from a practical ground for belief.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1788, the essay connects these questions with research on nature and the highest good. Its historical racial classifications require critical reading.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1790, the intervention belongs to a dispute about the novelty and scope of the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant discusses arguments attributed to Leibniz rather than deciding solely by authority.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)The 1794 essay belongs to the history of natural science. Its astronomical and meteorological hypotheses should not be treated as present-day forecasts.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1794, the essay combines reflection on time, religious imagination and moral orientation without making eternity an object of experience.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1796 intervention belongs to controversies about critical philosophy and claims to intuitive knowledge of the supersensible.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in the Berlinische Monatsschrift in 1796, the clarification revisits an example used in a previous essay.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Written in 1796 after Toward Perpetual Peace, the text transfers political language to philosophical controversy, combining serious argument and irony.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This 1798 polemic follows the Doctrine of Right and examines a posthumous Möser text published by Nicolai.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Dated 14 January 1800 in Königsberg, this preface accompanies Jachmann’s examination of Kant’s philosophy of religion.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)This short 1800 postscript accompanies Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Lithuanian–German dictionary and includes historical judgments that require contextual reading.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)Published in 1764 and reprinted in volume VIII of the Academy edition, the review reports historical estimates rather than verified modern measurements.
Explore this workVisit the source(new tab)