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 November 11.
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?
At first I thought that Kant is leaning towards empiricism, but with further reading, I realized he seems to agree with both and in a way is relating one view to the other. I agree with his view of knowledge and experimenting in science, he claims that it is a waste to such aimlessly study or conduct an experiment with no structure but rather follow a certain method, the scientific method. He also points out a flaw with many things people study, which is they jump to conclusions. I don't really understand what he is talking about when he speaks of objects and things in themselves. When referring to priori and posteriori I believe I understand the concept, a priori is something that has nothing to do with experience, it is just in us, and a posteriori is derived from experience and observation. One cannot always depend on empirical judgement, in some cases it is limited, and our knowledge seems to be a priori. Some things that we come to understand are beyond experience and are more closely linked to reason, when it comes to reason, our knowledge has no limits. Synthetic judgement is about reason, conception and intuition, in Mathmatics for example, a lot of conclusions come from a priori knowledge and are free from empirical thinking. To understand a lot of things, pure reason must be the foundation of our understanding. This text was long and some of it was confusing, Kant relates empiricism and rationalism, but I dont exactly understand how, and I do not have a firm understanding of a priori synthetic judgement.
ReplyDeleteI believe that knowledge is mainly found in natural science. The reason why is because in order to get some knowledge, we are supposed to experience from something. In other words, knowledge can be onbtained from experience and natural science or mathemathics are perfect examples of it because we learn from it, we get experince and then, we get the most important which is knowledge. I think the problem Kant see in mathematics, natural science and philosophy is that these subjects contain a synthetic knowledge. On the other hand, the meaning of a priori synthetic judgement is that it contains information about a certain subject. In other words, it explains the subject with details, it is informative.
ReplyDeleteKant realizes that the duty of the philosopher is a difficult one. In order to assure that there actually are no contradictions in metaphysics, he must provide the key to the solution of every metaphysical problem. If he left one problem unanswered then there is a possibility that the answer to that problem, when found would contradict the answers to any or all of the other problems.Metaphysics rises above the level of experience. Metaphysics attempts to expand upon existing cognitions effectively making synthetic judgments (ignorant knowledge). According to Kant these three things must be met in order to be considered a secure path in in science, must not fail to achieve its purpose, shouldn't back track in order to complete its purpose and all experts must agree.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding of the reading. Kant believed we attain knowledge through experience. Exercising our understanding through activity, by means of objects will trigger sensous impression of knowledge. He also stressed that we can gain such based on knowledge independent of experience, that is defined as "a priori". I assume he is referring to our instincts, rather than experiences. I am confused because, how is it that we can actually have the idea of "a priori" if he claims that there is no empirical element involved? If I had a bad experience wouldn't my experience motivate me to change?
ReplyDeleteThe critique of mathematical science seems contradictory because he speaks about empiricism yet, in order to do and understand math and science related judgements human cognition and reasoning must be involved. I am confused, i will have to read this text a second time to understand clearly. mathematical science in kant's opinion is independent of all experiences. All this critique is filled with sythetical judgements.
Kant says a priori is a kind of knowledge which is independent of all experience based upon reason and apply with strict universality.Kant finds that mathematics can derive a priori without empirical observations but that can be done through all possible sciences. He finds that natural science are true but gives a new idea something different from the original concepts and metaphysicians try to gain a priori from the pure concepts of understanding but to aquire knowledge through concepts alone is difficult because concepts without intuitions are empty. Kant explains how truth is obtained but a priori uses that ability to find true science, and shows that this allows metaphysics to be a science. Because our ways of knowing puts certain truths onto our minds, we cannot come to true conclusions about reality as it actually is only as we can perceive it. while pure reason is impossible, practical knowledge is not. This metaphysics revolutionized the field of philosophy, the empiricists were wrong because they did not begin where a scientist should by synthesizing priori truths and the rationalists were wrong because they did things that they could not do by attempting to know the true nature of things outside our perceptions. The correct method in philosophy according to Kant is not to speculate on the nature of the world around us but to perform a critique of our mind in finding what we can know, defining the limits of knowledge, and knowing the mental processes by which we make sense of the world affect what we know, this change in method is a Copernican revolution in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI dont understand what Kant is talking about when speaking of pure reason. Is he saying that science is pure reason or is he arguing otherwise? In my mind I do not think pure reason exist. what is it we do not know and we cannot explain it but that does not make it pure. we as humans seem only to justify the things we dont know with an abstract idea. knowledge is something that can be learned and experience but you can only know, learn, experience so much in a lifetime... and the things we learn can or cannot be applied to life depending on the proof of the material in which we learn, therefore leading to our reasoning. But our reason is not pure no matter how you want to put it. what is this Synthetic judgement??
ReplyDeletethe text was a bit confusing but what i got from it was that priori knowledge is when its universal and posteriori knowledge is based on experience. Kant does not believe in pure reason, he says that our experiences witnessed by our senses causes us to believe and make sense of this using our mind. and unless we were able to use our mind to make sense of what our senses experience then the experience would amount to nothing. i believe in conclusion that kant believes in taking the empirical approach only because although our mind is powerful and can tell us a lot it cannot tell us about natural science, we have to look and rely on the the facts themselves?
ReplyDeleteKant tells us in the Critique of Pure Reason that he finds Empiricism and Rationalism explanation, about where knowledge come from, unsastifatory; hoever, he agrees that both ideolgies have some validity in their arguments. For this reason, Kant aims to find the limits of pure reason and sensorial esperiences. He wants to test reason and the senses to find out their strenth and limitation in acquiring knowledge. For Kant the problem with science and metaphysic is that they often conflict with each other. In his point of view, judgement is important beacuse it halps us to determine whether what we are considering makes sense or not. By using good judgment we can meke conections and discern if our reasoning is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteafter reading the text i come to an understanding that Kant is leaning towards empiricism but he finds him self unsatisfied. he talks about science and how they use different methods to get the full understanding of something. Kant says that a priori is a way of knowledge which is totaly independent of any experience. I personally agree with kants perspective because thier has to be a truth in what ever your studying.
ReplyDelete"We come now to metaphysics, a purely speculative science, which
ReplyDeleteoccupies a completely isolated position and is entirely independent
of the teachings of experience." This quote clearly states that Kant favors empiricism. Thats because he favors empiricism due to the fact that it does not involve natural science. According to rationalism, natural science is true. So, his words in the text slant more empiricism, even though he talks about rationalism as well. but in my opinion, I think that Kant is more of an empiricist than a rational person.
Kevin Granados
ReplyDeletePHI 100-141
Kant explains that a priori knowledge is obtained by humans with unique experiences bases upon reason. Mathematics is a good example when it comes to incorporating the empiricist and rationalist view because we use strict rules and observations to develop a conclusion. For natural science and metaphysics we use observations as evidence to conclude whether our judgment is correct or incorrect. Furthermore we find truth in sciences and philosophy, but the truth we obtain remain true to the individual because every human perceives life differently someway. The truth of the matter is that empiricists claim that truth only lies in the individual because indeed no truth exists, on the other hand rationalists find truth in experiences and use reason to make a final judgment. What Kant meant about the Copernican Turn in philosophy is to not form a final conclusion in life but to realize what you experienced and accept that others live reality differently. We all exist but through different perspectives meaning that the truth is unique and universal simultaneously.
After reading, I realize that Kant was talking and towards Empiricism. He seem unsatisfied with it. Kant also talks about the problems in mathematics and natural science , by talking about the way they use different methods to understand it. He says that all science must be done on the basis of principles.
ReplyDeleteChih Hao Hsu
ReplyDeleteIn "critique of pure reason" by Immanuel Kant, Kant attempted to find the limitation of pure reason. Started out as a traditional rationalist, Kant wanted to figure out to what extend can reason alone be used without the help of the senses or any other faculties. In this attempt, Kant was able to achieve a Copernican revolution in philosophy by turning the focus of philosophy from metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality to a critical examination of the nature of the thinking and perceiving mind. Kant tells us that reality is a creation jointed by the external reality and the human mind and that it is only regarding the latter that we can acquire any certain knowledge. Also not accepting the ideas of a empiricist, Kant challenges the assumption that the mind is a blank slate or a neutral receptor of stimuli from the surrounding world. He stated that the mind does not simply receive information; it also gives that information shape. Knowledge, then, is not something that exists in the outside world and is then poured into an open mind like milk into a cup. Rather, knowledge is something created by the mind by filtering sensations through our various mental faculties. Because these faculties determine the shape that all knowledge takes, we can only grasp what knowledge, and hence truth, is in its most general form if we grasp how these faculties inform our experience.
in "critique of pure reason" by kant examines the view of rationalism of priori knowledge that some judgements are analytically especially those considered to be cause and effect. he argues that synthetic judgements that every cause will have an effect. for kant the reason why we mathematics and science dont apply is cause they are both in conflict with each other. what we see with synthetic reason are not truly real they are just figment of the way what we want to see. pure reason is a justification of what we grasp and what take to heart. knowledge is always changing and our view of the world in general we must understand ourselves to understand the nature of mind
ReplyDeletekant is trying to say that both metaphysics and synthics reason need each other even thou they are diffrent in their own right. i am more than confuse when he try to explain Mathematics, Natural Science (Physics) and tie them together. i think he is saying that we have to have piror knowlege before we can experience anything.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, Kant wants to achieve the comprehension of the reader. He wants to illustrate the ideas by using examples. But as he was trying to do it he realized that the subjects were too complicated and had too many different ideas to illustrate it all with examples. He said it was going to be an overload of examples. He goes on to say that we lose track on how do we obtain our knowledge. According to Kant, we obtain our knowledge through experiences that we have throughout our lives. Then as we get older is when we realize that from where exactly to we obtain certain information.
ReplyDeleteKent says that reality is shaped by our mind. Informaion is received in our mind makes sense by itself. He says that if it wasn't for our understnaing of mind we would not understand math and science.
ReplyDeletePriori synthetic judgement is informal. It comes from our universal knowledge. This judgement is not dependent on experience.