Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science

1. Introduction

Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Present Itself as a Science (1783) is a short theoretical treatise designed to clarify and defend the main results of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781). It presents Kant’s critical project in a more accessible, problem‑driven form, centered on a single guiding question: How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?

Instead of offering a comprehensive system, the Prolegomena proposes what Kant calls a “preparatory exercise”. It aims to determine the conditions under which metaphysics could become a rigorous science on a par, in its own way, with mathematics and Newtonian physics. This involves:

• distinguishing different types of judgments (analytic/synthetic, a priori/a posteriori)
• examining the possibility of a priori knowledge in mathematics and natural science
• drawing consequences for the scope and limits of metaphysics.

Kant explicitly addresses readers who found the Critique obscure or overly long. The Prolegomena rearranges much of the same material in an “analytic” order, moving from the fact of established sciences to the question of their possibility, and only then to metaphysics. Commentators often treat it as both an introduction to and a condensed restatement of core critical doctrines.

Interpretively, scholars disagree whether the Prolegomena merely popularizes the Critique or subtly revises it. Some emphasize its pedagogical role and relative simplicity; others argue that its formulations—especially on things in themselves and the status of space and time—offer an important alternative lens on Kant’s system. Nonetheless, it is widely regarded as a key text for understanding Kant’s theory of knowledge and his conception of metaphysics as a disciplined, self‑critical enterprise.

2. Historical and Intellectual Context

The Prolegomena emerges from late 18th‑century German philosophy, shaped by both rationalist and empiricist traditions and by the prestige of Newtonian science. Kant positions his work as a response to what he presents as the failures of dogmatic metaphysics and the skepticism that followed.

Rationalism, Empiricism, and Newtonian Science

Kant’s immediate predecessors included:

Kant portrays Hume’s skepticism about causality as a decisive “awakening.” If causal principles cannot be derived from experience yet are indispensable to science, their status calls for a new account of a priori knowledge. At the same time, the success of Newtonian mechanics suggested to Kant that there must be genuine synthetic a priori principles at work in natural science.

Crisis of Metaphysics

By the 1770s and early 1780s, metaphysics in the Wolffian mold had come under sustained criticism in German-speaking lands. Many philosophers doubted whether it yielded genuine knowledge rather than mere verbal disputes. Kant situates the Prolegomena within this crisis, portraying traditional metaphysics as oscillating between dogmatism (overconfident speculation) and skepticism (denial of metaphysics altogether).

The Prolegomena thus intervenes in an ongoing debate:

• Defenders of traditional metaphysics held that reason could legitimately prove the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and cosmological theses.
• Skeptics and empiricists questioned such claims and sometimes extended their doubts to mathematics and natural science as genuinely necessary knowledge.

Kant’s critical philosophy, as outlined in the Prolegomena, is framed as an attempt to mediate between these camps by securing the a priori foundations of science while limiting metaphysical pretensions.

3. Author and Composition

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), professor of logic and metaphysics at Königsberg, wrote the Prolegomena after more than four decades of teaching and reflection on natural science, metaphysics, and epistemology. The work is closely tied to the reception of the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason.

Circumstances of Composition

The Prolegomena was composed in 1782–1783 in Königsberg and published in 1783 by Johann Friedrich Hartknoch in Riga. Kant indicates that it arose directly from misunderstandings and objections directed at the Critique:

"

“The Critique of Pure Reason, which I published last year, makes, I confess, a very difficult and slow progress. But I admit that I did not expect otherwise.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, Preface (AA IV 255)

He casts the new work as a shorter and more perspicuous exposition of his method and principal results, especially tailored to “teachers of metaphysics” and critics who had found the Critique inaccessible.

Relation to Kant’s Development

Scholars commonly situate the Prolegomena at the early consolidation stage of Kant’s “critical period”:

Debate persists about how far Kant’s views evolved between the Critique’s first edition and the Prolegomena. Some commentators argue that the Prolegomena simply recasts earlier arguments; others detect shifts in emphasis, such as a more direct appeal to the “fact” of mathematics and physics and a different way of presenting the thing in itself and the ideality of space and time.

In any case, the Prolegomena belongs to Kant’s mature theoretical philosophy and is treated by historians as an authoritative expression of his critical standpoint, written self‑consciously in light of its predecessor’s reception.

4. Aims and Audience of the Prolegomena

Kant states that the Prolegomena has a restricted but strategic aim: it does not seek to build a complete metaphysical system but to determine the conditions under which any future metaphysics could legitimately claim scientific status.

Stated Aims

Kant’s own formulations emphasize three intertwined goals:

1. Clarificatory: to make the main results of the Critique of Pure Reason “more easily comprehensible” by focusing on a single guiding problem.
2. Diagnostic: to explain why earlier metaphysics failed to become a science, especially by ignoring the question of the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments.
3. Programmatic: to outline the necessary method and boundaries for any future metaphysics that wishes to present itself as science (Wissenschaft).

He explicitly restricts the work’s scope:

"

“These Prolegomena are not for popular use but for future teachers of metaphysics.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, Preface (AA IV 255)

The Prolegomena is thus conceived as a propaedeutic—an introduction and preliminary clearing of the ground—rather than as metaphysics itself.

Intended Audience

Kant identifies several primary audiences:

Commentators note that, in practice, the Prolegomena has often served as a first encounter with Kant’s theoretical philosophy for a wider educated public.

There is some interpretive disagreement about how far Kant designed the Prolegomena as a genuinely independent work. Some scholars maintain that it presupposes the Critique and can only be fully understood alongside it; others suggest it was meant to stand on its own as a canonical presentation of the central critical ideas, particularly concerning the possibility of a priori knowledge and the proper limits of metaphysical theorizing.

5. Structure and Organization of the Work

The Prolegomena is organized in a relatively concise and programmatic way, with a clear progression from general epistemological distinctions to the conditions of metaphysics as a science.

Overall Layout

The main parts can be represented as follows:

Analytic vs. Synthetic Order

Kant emphasizes that the Prolegomena proceeds in an analytic order, beginning from the “fact” that there is a priori knowledge (in mathematics and natural science) and then analyzing the conditions of its possibility. This contrasts with the more “synthetic” and architectonic order of the Critique, which begins from the faculties and builds up a systematic account.

Commentators often highlight this structural difference:

• Some hold that the Prolegomena thus provides a more intuitive path into the critical system, starting from familiar sciences.
• Others argue that the compressed structure omits key arguments (such as the full transcendental deduction) and therefore cannot replace the systematic architecture of the Critique.

Nonetheless, the organization is widely seen as carefully calibrated to lead readers stepwise from basic distinctions, through exemplary cases (mathematics, physics), to the implications for metaphysics.

6. The Problem of Synthetic a priori Judgments

The Prolegomena centers on Kant’s claim that the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments is the fundamental problem of metaphysics. These are judgments that both extend knowledge (synthetic) and hold with necessity and universality independent of experience (a priori).

Analytic vs. Synthetic; A priori vs. A posteriori

Kant begins the Introduction by distinguishing:

Synthetic a posteriori judgments pose no special philosophical difficulty; they simply record empirical connections. Analytic a priori judgments are also unproblematic; they rest on conceptual analysis. The puzzling case is synthetic a priori: how can the mind legitimately add new, yet necessary and universally valid, content not derived from experience?

Existence and Significance of Synthetic a priori Judgments

Kant argues that such judgments exist—and are indispensable—in:

• Mathematics (e.g., “7 + 5 = 12,” geometrical theorems)
• Pure natural science (e.g., principles like causality and conservation of substance)

From these examples, he infers that there must be conditions in the subject that make such knowledge possible.

Interpretations diverge on how to construe this central problem:

• Some commentators see Kant as formulating an essentially epistemological question about justification: what warrants the claim that certain necessary, universal judgments are valid?
• Others emphasize its transcendental character: the question concerns the necessary conditions of the possibility of such knowledge and of experience itself.

The Prolegomena maintains that any metaphysics claiming scientific status must consist of synthetic a priori propositions and must therefore first answer this problem. Traditional metaphysics, Kant contends, failed because it simply assumed such judgments without accounting for their possibility.

7. Space, Time, and the Forms of Intuition

In answering how synthetic a priori judgments in mathematics are possible, the Prolegomena analyzes the roles of space and time as pure forms of sensible intuition.

Space and Geometry

Kant treats geometry as a body of synthetic a priori knowledge about space. He contends that geometrical judgments cannot be derived from mere conceptual analysis or from inductive generalization from experience; yet they are necessary and universally valid.

He therefore proposes that:

• Space is not an empirical concept abstracted from outer experience.
• Nor is it a property of things in themselves.
• Instead, space is the a priori form of outer intuition, a way in which objects are given to us.

On this view, geometrical truths are synthetic a priori because they describe structural features of appearances as they must be given under this form.

Time and Arithmetic

Similarly, Kant argues that arithmetic rests on the pure intuition of time. The representation of succession and addition of units, he suggests, presupposes an a priori temporal form. Time is:

• Not abstracted from change or motion.
• Not an attribute of things in themselves.
• The a priori form of inner intuition, through which we are aware of ourselves and our states.

Thus, arithmetic propositions extend our knowledge (synthetic) yet are grounded in necessary features of our form of intuition (a priori).

Interpretive Debates

Scholars disagree about how to understand Kant’s doctrine:

Despite such differences, commentators generally agree that the Prolegomena uses the ideality of space and time to explain how mathematics can contain synthetic a priori truths about all possible objects of our sensible experience, while remaining silent about things as they might be independently of our forms of intuition.

8. Categories, Understanding, and Experience

After treating mathematics, the Prolegomena turns to pure natural science and the role of the understanding in making experience possible. Kant’s central claim is that objectively valid experience presupposes categories—pure concepts of the understanding—that function as a priori rules.

From Experience to Categories

Kant proceeds from the fact that we have judgments of experience that claim necessity and universality (e.g., “Every event has a cause”). Such judgments, he argues, cannot be justified solely by empirical association. Hence there must be:

• A set of pure concepts not derived from experience.
• These concepts must structure the manifold of intuition so that it can be thought as an object of experience.

The categories—such as substance, causality, community, and quantity—are these basic conceptual functions.

Role of the Understanding

The understanding is characterized as the faculty that supplies these pure concepts and unifies the sensible manifold according to rules. In the Prolegomena, Kant emphasizes that:

• The categories have no meaning if detached from possible experience.
• They acquire objective validity only when applied to appearances under the conditions of sensibility (space and time).
• Principles like “every alteration has a cause” are synthetic a priori principles of the possibility of experience.

This leads to the thesis that nature, as a law‑governed whole of appearances, is constituted through the joint operation of sensibility (forms of intuition) and understanding (categories).

Comparison with the Critique

The Prolegomena does not reproduce the full transcendental deduction of the categories from the Critique of Pure Reason. Instead, it uses a “from below” strategy: starting from the fact of lawful experience and inferring that such experience presupposes certain a priori concepts.

Commentators disagree over the sufficiency of this approach:

• Some see it as an effective heuristic and pedagogical move.
• Others argue that it offers only a “regressive” justification and lacks the systematic depth of the Critique’s deduction.

Nevertheless, the Prolegomena’s account of categories and understanding is widely regarded as a central, accessible statement of Kant’s view that the mind actively organizes experience through a priori conceptual structures.

9. Transcendental Idealism and Things in Themselves

The Prolegomena presents Kant’s transcendental idealism: the doctrine that we know objects only as appearances structured by our forms of intuition and categories, while things in themselves remain unknowable.

Appearances vs. Things in Themselves

Kant distinguishes:

Transcendental idealism affirms that:

• Space and time, and consequently empirical objects located in them, are not properties of things in themselves.
• What we can cognize as objects are only appearances, dependent on our cognitive constitution.
• Nevertheless, there must be “something” that appears—hence the postulation of things in themselves.

Character of Transcendental Idealism

Kant insists that his idealism is not empirical idealism (the skepticism that doubts the existence of external objects). Instead, he calls his view “empirical realism” about appearances coupled with transcendental idealism about their conditions.

He writes, for example, that:

"

“If I remove the thinking subject, the whole corporeal world must at once vanish, as this is nothing but appearance in the sensibility of our subject and a species of its representations.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, First Part (AA IV 287)

This is intended to show that the dependence is on the form of representation, not on arbitrary fancy.

Interpretive Controversies

Transcendental idealism has generated extensive debate:

• Two‑worlds interpretation: Some read Kant as positing a strict ontological dualism between a realm of appearances and a separate realm of things in themselves.
• Two‑aspects interpretation: Others hold that “appearance” and “thing in itself” are two ways of considering the same objects, depending on whether we relate them to our cognitive conditions.

The Prolegomena has been cited for both readings:

• Passages stressing that if we remove the subject, the “world of sense” disappears have been used to support a stronger idealist reading.
• Passages emphasizing limitation rather than duplication of objects have been taken to favor a two‑aspects interpretation.

Critics have also questioned the coherence of positing unknowable things in themselves: how they can be meaningfully thought, why they are needed, and whether they undermine the claimed objectivity of experience. The Prolegomena contributes to, but does not resolve, these longstanding disputes.

10. The Critique of Traditional Metaphysics

A major aim of the Prolegomena is to diagnose why traditional (dogmatic) metaphysics failed to achieve the status of a science. Kant argues that pre‑critical metaphysics attempted to extend knowledge beyond possible experience without first examining the conditions and limits of human cognition.

Targeted Traditions

Kant’s critique is primarily directed at:

Kant contends that such disciplines overlook the necessary role of sensibility and the categories, mistakenly treating concepts as if they could be applied beyond any possible intuition.

Main Lines of Critique

The Prolegomena presents several critical theses:

• Lack of method: Metaphysics did not pose the preliminary transcendental question “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?” and thus operated blindly.
• Illegitimate extension: Reason’s ideas (God, soul, world) were taken as objects of possible knowledge rather than as regulative principles.
• Contradictions: Traditional metaphysics generates antinomies, i.e., pairs of equally cogent but contradictory theses, revealing an overreach of speculative reason.

For Kant, this leads to a choice:

• Either abandon metaphysics as impossible (skepticism), or
• Reform it by critically restricting its claims to what can be grounded in the conditions of possible experience.

Reception and Interpretive Issues

Interpreters disagree about the scope and fairness of Kant’s critique:

• Some see it as a decisive turning point that discredits ambitious speculative systems.
• Others argue that Kant caricatures earlier thinkers, underestimates the resources of rationalist metaphysics, or himself relies on metaphysical assumptions (e.g., the existence of things in themselves).

Within Kant scholarship, debate also concerns whether the Prolegomena’s shorter presentation of this critique fully captures the more extensive analyses (e.g., of paralogisms and antinomies) in the Critique of Pure Reason, or whether it simplifies them in ways that affect their force.

11. Ideas of Reason and Antinomies

The Prolegomena treats ideas of reason and antinomies as key to understanding both the ambitions and the limitations of metaphysics.

Ideas of Reason

Kant distinguishes between:

• Concepts of the understanding, which can be instantiated in experience, and
• Ideas of reason, which concern the unconditioned totality and can never be given in experience.

The principal ideas are:

In the Prolegomena, Kant argues that these ideas have a regulative function: they guide and unify our empirical inquiries by directing us to seek systematic completeness, but they do not yield constitutive knowledge of supersensible objects.

Antinomies

When reason treats its ideas as objects of knowledge and attempts to apply the categories beyond possible experience, it allegedly falls into antinomies—conflicts where reason can prove both a thesis and its negation. For instance, with respect to the world as a whole:

• Thesis: The world has a beginning in time and is limited in space.
• Antithesis: The world has no beginning and is infinite in space.

Kant interprets such contradictions as symptoms of a mistaken transcendental use of principles that legitimately apply only within experience.

The Prolegomena sketches how transcendental idealism dissolves these conflicts by denying that the world as a totality in itself is an object of possible experience. Thus, the conflicting claims are reinterpreted as illegitimate attempts to extend concepts beyond their proper domain.

Interpretive Perspectives

Commentators differ in their evaluations:

• Some see the doctrine of ideas and antinomies as primarily therapeutic, curbing speculative metaphysics by exposing its self‑contradictions.
• Others emphasize a positive role: even as merely regulative, ideas of reason contribute to the systematic organization of scientific knowledge.

There is also debate about whether the Prolegomena’s briefer treatment adequately represents the range and subtlety of the antinomies as elaborated in the Critique of Pure Reason. Nonetheless, the text provides a compact statement of Kant’s view that reason’s own drive to the unconditioned, when misunderstood, generates the illusions traditional metaphysics mistook for knowledge.

12. Famous Passages and Key Formulations

The Prolegomena contains several passages that have become touchstones in Kant scholarship, often cited as clear statements of his critical project.

The Question of Synthetic a priori Judgments

Kant’s framing of the central problem appears early:

"

“The real problem of pure reason is contained in the question: How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?”

— Kant, Prolegomena, Introduction (AA IV 260–261)

This formulation is frequently referenced as a concise encapsulation of his project in theoretical philosophy.

Space and Time as Forms of Intuition

A compact statement of the ideality of space and time appears in the First Part:

"

“Space and time are only forms of sensible intuition, and therefore only conditions of the existence of things as appearances.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, §11 (AA IV 287–288)

This passage is often used to illustrate the distinction between appearances and things in themselves and to summarize transcendental idealism.

Appearances and Things in Themselves

Kant’s formulation of the dependence of the “corporeal world” on the subject is also widely cited:

"

“If I remove the thinking subject, the whole corporeal world must at once vanish, as this is nothing but appearance in the sensibility of our subject and a species of its representations.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, §13 (AA IV 289)

Commentators rely on this text in debates over the strength and nature of Kant’s idealism.

The “Copernican” Proposal

Though developed more fully in the Critique of Pure Reason, the Prolegomena contains a famous summary:

"

“Hitherto it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori... have, on this assumption, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther... by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition.”

— Kant, Prolegomena, General Remark (AA IV 373–374)

This “Copernican” proposal is frequently quoted as expressing the methodological pivot of critical philosophy.

Systematic Summary

The “General Remark on the System of Principles of Pure Understanding” presents a series of compressed theses summarizing Kant’s critical results. Many handbooks and commentaries treat this as a canonical “snapshot” of his epistemological framework, though they differ on how far it can stand in for the more detailed arguments of the Critique.

13. Philosophical Method and the ‘Copernican Revolution’

The Prolegomena foregrounds Kant’s distinctive philosophical method, often referred to as his “Copernican revolution” in metaphysics.

The Copernican Turn

Kant analogizes his proposal to Copernicus’s shift in astronomy:

In the Prolegomena, Kant suggests that prior attempts to secure a priori knowledge about objects failed because they assumed a “passive” model of cognition. His alternative is to analyze the subject’s contribution—forms of intuition and categories—as conditions for the possibility of experience.

Transcendental Method

The method is transcendental in that it:

• Begins from established facts of cognition (e.g., mathematics, Newtonian science).
• Asks what must be true of our cognitive faculties for such knowledge to be possible.
• Derives principles and limits from these necessary conditions.

Unlike empirical psychology, it does not describe how we in fact think but investigates what must be presupposed for objectively valid experience and science.

Comparison with Other Methods

Commentators often contrast Kant’s method with:

• Dogmatic methods, which construct metaphysical systems from supposedly self‑evident concepts.
• Skeptical methods, which suspend judgment due to the lack of secure foundations.
• Cartesian foundationalism, which starts from indubitable inner certainty.

Assessments differ:

• Some interpret the Copernican turn as inaugurating a constructivist or conceptual‑scheme approach to objectivity.
• Others see it as compatible with a robust realism about empirical objects, given the empirical realism Kant affirms.

Debate also concerns whether the Prolegomena’s “from the fact of science upward” strategy adequately captures the deeper architectonic and systematic ambitions laid out in the Critique of Pure Reason, or whether it offers a more modest, methodological reflection tailored to its didactic purpose.

14. Relation to the Critique of Pure Reason

The Prolegomena is explicitly designed as a companion to, and clarification of, the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 2nd ed. 1787). Its relation to the larger work has been interpreted in various ways.

Kant’s Own Characterization

Kant describes the Prolegomena as:

• A “textbook” or guide for readers of the Critique.
• A shorter work that treats the same problem—synthetic a priori knowledge—but in an “analytic” order.
• Not a substitute for the Critique, which he presents as the systematic and complete exposition.

He suggests that the Prolegomena might be used to judge and understand the Critique, but not to replace the more detailed arguments found there.

Overlaps and Differences

Many doctrines—space and time as forms of intuition, categories and principles, transcendental idealism—appear in both works, but often with different emphases or formulations.

Scholarly Debates

Interpretations of the relationship vary:

• Continuity view: Some scholars maintain that the Prolegomena simply repackages the Critique’s main results for a different audience, with no substantive doctrinal changes.
• Revisionist view: Others argue that the Prolegomena adjusts or clarifies certain points, for example:
  • A more direct appeal to the “fact” of mathematics and physics.
  • Slightly different language about things in themselves and appearances.
  • A more prominent methodological framing.

There is also discussion about which work is better as an entry point to Kant. While the Prolegomena is shorter and more accessible, many commentators caution that it presupposes or gestures toward arguments only fully available in the Critique, especially concerning the deduction of the categories and the detailed treatment of antinomies.

15. Reception, Criticisms, and Debates

The Prolegomena played a significant role in shaping the reception of Kant’s critical philosophy and has been the focus of numerous debates about its doctrines and its relation to the Critique of Pure Reason.

Early Reception

Contemporaries generally found the Prolegomena more accessible than the Critique, and it contributed to Kant’s growing reputation in the 1780s. It was widely read among:

• Younger German philosophers who would later form the backdrop to German Idealism.
• Critics of Kant’s transcendental idealism, who used it to target what they saw as problematic commitments.

However, even sympathetic readers reported difficulty with its arguments, reflecting the novelty of Kant’s approach.

Major Lines of Criticism

Several enduring criticisms have focused on themes especially visible in the Prolegomena:

Later Debates

In the 19th and 20th centuries, different movements appropriated or criticized the Prolegomena:

• German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) often treated it as a stepping‑stone, while arguing that Kant did not carry his own insights far enough.
• Neo‑Kantians used it as a key text in reconstructing transcendental philosophy as a theory of scientific knowledge.
• Analytic and phenomenological philosophers have engaged with its arguments about a priori knowledge, the nature of space and time, and the status of metaphysics.

Within Kant scholarship, debates persist about:

• The adequacy of the Prolegomena’s abbreviated transcendental deductions.
• The best interpretation of transcendental idealism in light of its formulations.
• Whether the Prolegomena is the preferred starting point for understanding Kant’s theoretical philosophy, or whether its brevity risks distortion without the Critique’s fuller context.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Prolegomena has had a lasting impact on the history of philosophy, both as an influential summary of Kant’s critical project and as a methodological manifesto for metaphysics.

Role in the Reception of Kant

Historically, the text has functioned as a primary gateway to Kant’s theoretical philosophy:

• It helped establish the centrality of the question of synthetic a priori knowledge in subsequent debates.
• Its concise expositions of space and time, the categories, and transcendental idealism have shaped how generations of readers first encountered Kant’s views.
• Many later philosophers cited the Prolegomena more frequently than the Critique when presenting or criticizing Kant’s doctrines.

Influence on Later Movements

The work contributed to several major developments:

Methodological Legacy

The Prolegomena’s insistence that metaphysics must undergo a critical transformation before it can count as a science has influenced later conceptions of philosophical method. Its idea that philosophy should:

• Begin from recognized forms of knowledge (e.g., natural science, mathematics),
• Reflect on their conditions of possibility,
• And thereby determine the scope and limits of metaphysical claims,

has been echoed in various transcendental, structural, and pragmatist approaches.

Ongoing Significance

In contemporary scholarship, the Prolegomena remains:

• A standard point of entry for students and non‑specialists.
• A key text for debates about the interpretation of transcendental idealism and the nature of Kant’s “Copernican revolution.”
• A reference in discussions about whether and how metaphysics can attain a scientific or at least systematically justified status.

While there is no consensus on whether the Prolegomena offers the most accurate or complete statement of Kant’s theoretical philosophy, its historical role in framing central questions about knowledge, objectivity, and the limits of reason is widely acknowledged.