Kant: The Critique of Pure Reason
a. Preface to the second edition 1787;
b. the whole Introduction:
namely from “I. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge” to “VII. Idea and Division of a Particular Science, under the Name of a Critique of Pure Reason”)
text available at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/cprrn10.txt
Journals due on April 4.
Guidance questions:
1. Which problem does Kant see in Mathematics, Natural Science (Physics) and Metaphysics (philosophy)? What does he aim to achieve?
2. How is judgment important for science? What means a priori synthetic judgment?
3. What means Copernican Turn in Kant's view of knowledge?
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant defined the bases of knowledge. He created an epistemology. The two types of thinking were analytic and synthetic propositions. An analytic proposition is when the predicate is in the subject and the synthetic propositions cannot be the outcome by analysis. Results from experiences of the world are usually synthetic propositions. Analytic proposition is from the evident and the truth. Kant also defined synthetic a prior which is exact and certain. Mathematics, natural science, and metaphysics come last because at that time, people always questioned philosophy whether synthetic a priori really exists. In my opinion, the text was pretty confusing to me. I’m not sure if I really got Kant’s argument.
ReplyDeletei agree..i dont think i get it...ill post a real journal entree soon..
ReplyDeleteIn his critique of pure reason, Kant examines the basis of knowledge and differentiates the modes of thinking into synthetic and analytical propositions. Priori synthetic judgement is discovered by pure intuition and is exact and certain. It expresses necessary conditions that the mind imposes on all objects of experience. Judgement is important for science because in essence, science cannot be made without judgement. Judgement provides the backbone for science.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand Kant believes that instead of objects shaping our understnading of the world, our minds shape the understanding of things. So the way one person may see a pen as blue, another may see it as green and that pen will take on different meanings for each person.
ReplyDeletePreston Charles
ReplyDeleteApril 4th 2011
Immanuel Kant aimed to unite reason with experience to move beyond the failures of rationalist and empiricist. This is when Kant proposed a Copernican Revolution, promoting that people perception are conform to objects but challenge people to think that the objects conform to our cognition. Kant proposition was similar to Copernicus as both men believed by recognizing the features of our mental mind can help by reach knowledge and experiences of an objective world. I strongly disagree with Kant’s theory that objects conform to our cognition. For example, if an object is red and one-person cognition says its red but another says its blue and is colorblind who’s correct? The person who took the item for what it is or what their mind tell them.
Shaunelle Hall
ReplyDeleteIn the Critique of Pure Reason By Kant, he spoke on his theory of human knowledge. Kant argued and defines priori knowledge to be knowledge which is "absolutely independent of all experience," which he contrasted it from empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge also called posteriori is obtained only by experience which compared to a priori knowledge is not. A priori knowledge to my understanding is knowledge that is only gained through the uncertainty of innate ideas; ideas that someone is born with. But is this a logical fact? Can we really say its possible that we were born with our own ideas of worldly matters. This idea I find to be untrue. I believe that all knowledge starts from some sort of experience. Kant also believes that our minds not objects is what shapes our understanding of things. But once again I must argue this idea because no matter how two or more persons might disagree on the idea of a particular object or thing, their difference in opinion, idea, or observation of that object or thing does not change the true identity of whatever it maybe. Whether someone is wrong or right the object or thing is and will remain to be whatever it is.
Ruby Rios
ReplyDeleteThrough kant's definitions of synthetic and analytic propositionss he seems to prove out classes theory in that rationalism and empiricism go together. Kant also makes it evident that the individual gives definition to items and this makes sense because more than half of the things we've named we've created. So, how could it ever be that these things shape our world? Even if someone were to bringchildren into the equation it's their parents who taught them not the objects themselves.
The problem that Kant sees in mathematics, natural science and metaphysics is that they offer a different type of knowledge from the priori knowledge. He said that mathematics and science both carry a necessity.
ReplyDeleteJudgment is very important to science because we need to argue and question everything that is given to us. Science has a lot to do with the beginning of life. Judgment allows us to see things in our own way.
What Kant means by Copernican view of knowledge. A quote from Kant’s articles “Deceived by such a proof of the power of reason, we can perceive no limits to the extension of our knowledge. “From my understanding I believe that he means that it’s all up to the human being himself to accept the knowledge that is given and with its reasoning argue or agree if it believes the proof is accurate.
Kyle Yanagihara
ReplyDeleteKant discusses the basis for human knowledge and how we can assume one thing is true or not. Do humans use reason or evidence to determine what is true or not. Kant makes a distinction between synthetic judgement and a priori judgement, which is to make a statement that is true by itself, such as "all bodys are extended" or take up space. Kant believes that science needed a huge turn and rethinking of the perspective of knowledge and how we view truth. Kant's Copernican turn was an attempt to adjust peoples perspectives of science and analyzing what the truth really is.
Bianca Gayle
ReplyDeletePriori knowledge is the necessary and universal knowledge we have independently of our experiences; such as our knowledge of mathematics.
Kant argues that mathematics and the principles of science contain synthetic a priori knowledge. For example, “7 + 5 = 12” is a priori because it is a necessary and universal truth we know independent of experience, and it is synthetic because the concept of “12” is not contained in the concept of “7 + 5.” Kant argues that the same is true for scientific principles because it is universally applicable, so it must be a priori knowledge, since a posteriori knowledge only tells us about particular experiences.
Jennifer Bacigalupo
ReplyDeleteWhat Kant means by 'priori synthetic judgment' is that it is a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept, and that no analysis could ever determine.
Kant suggests that without judgment, science would not be possible. All science must suppose the availability of its object for our ability to judge it.
Kant believes that’s judgment forms the e link between the two branches of philosophical inquiry (the theoretical and the practical).
He claims that metaphysics has not reached its true aim, and it is open to discussion whether to be considered as a science. Metaphysics is contradicting towards reason.
I am not sure if the roots of metaphysics remain indestructible, or are if they even exist at all; I see the branches as a blurry vision; never mind the roots.
In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, he says that all knowledge begins with experience, but not all arises out of experience. Then he goes into discussing of a priori; knowledge that is independent of experience and the sense. Then he talks about the problem he sees in Mathematics, Natural Science (Physics) and Metaphysics (philosophy). This is that all theoretical sciences are of synthetic reason and judgments that contain a priori as its principles. For mathematics, all judgments are synthetic; they are a priori because they are necessary. Where, natural science contains a priori synthetic judgments as principles. And metaphysics contains a priori synthetic knowledge. And I agree with Kant, because for example, mathematics is indeed synthetic reasoning because math the connection is though without an identity. The way we do math is just because the way the numbers are, just make sense. And it is the same goes for natural science and metaphysics. Just like everyday objects we see, the connection there is also without identity. Even though it is given a name, it’s just a name. It does not have a real identity. Because these one person might see one thing, but it is something totally different from another individual. If the object had an actual identity, shouldn’t it be known universally? If so, then in every language an object has a different name, doesn’t that mean the object doesn’t truly have an identity, since it would always be constantly changing?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSaleem Bradley
ReplyDeleteTo continue to what we discussed in class, the differences between a priori and posteriori and analytic and synthetic judgments. A posteriori knowledge is the knowledge we gain from experience and a priori knowledge is the universal knowledge that is based on reasoning and is independent from experience. The analytic judgment tells us about the relationships between concepts, for example “all bachelors are unmarried”. A synthetic judgment tells us about the real world and uses of concepts to make a statement about how things are actually facts. Kant states,“The science of mathematics presents the most brilliant example of the extension of the sphere of pure reason without the aid of experience”. Judgment is important for science because it is necessary and has the truth. We need judgment to have science.
"But though all our knowledge begins with experiences it by no means follow that all arises out of experience," Kant disproves empiricism and rationalism and instead embraces a view of synthetic a priori.He also believed that our mental view of the world make for the truth and not the world molding us. I must admit that I am quite confused as to what Kant was conveying in his theory. I listened to lectures and did some research but I am at a loss for words as to how to agree or disagree with his ideas.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErik Robles
ReplyDeleteWhat kant found wrong in mathematics, natural science, and meta physics was that people (mind) trying to adapt to theobject. He proposed that it should be the vice versa and that one must come in with a principle in or minds and apply it to the object, he stated" Reason must approach nature with the view, indeed, of receiving information from it."
Innate knowledge is something which I believe one definitely has when he/she is born and can be considered our primal ability to reason. Our senses come in once we know a language and we now have a way to communicate our reasoning clearly inside ourselves and to more people who know our same language. At the same time, this ability to communicate limits us to only those people who share our language and immediately places a limit on expressing our reasoning on a wider scale. Depending on our thoughts and knowledge, we can come to be sure of certain things and uncertain of others, in which we call these priori and posteriori. But as I said before, because of the limit we find in language, our limit is then expressed in the world by our inability to verbally or even thoughtfully communicate with our surroundings. At the same time, the ability to reason is primal. Sure, it can be developed through experience to be more "mature," but it does exists primarily within us with or without our acknowledgement.
ReplyDelete