Jane and Jerica's Kant Review, 3/29-3/31

Last week, we discussed the first and second parts of Kant’s “Main Transcendental Question.” These asked how pure mathematics and pure science are possible. Pure is synonymous with a priori for Kant.

First, we distinguished empirical intuition from pure intuition. Empirical intuition is that which can be known from the senses while pure intuition is that which can be known without experience, or a priori. We also distinguished analytic from synthetic judgments. Analytic judgments are explicative, in that they do not add to our knowledge of the object, they mere define it, e.g. “All bachelors are unmarried men” Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, expand our knowledge of an object, and are therefore ampliative, e.g. “All bodies are heavy.” Experience is the product of intuitions and concepts, through the conjoining of which we can know objects and make judgments (as they appear to us). Metaphysics is concerned with synthetic a priori judgments/knowledge in so far as they relate to nature. Mathematics is mired in intuitive knowledge, but metaphysics goes beyond numbers/quantities through the use of discursive concepts (qualities + quantities = the world).

Next, we addressed how if having reason makes one human, (as may be deduced from Descartes’ argument that reason is the means to truth) then the argument can be made that women or people of other races do not have reason and, thus, are not fully human or are less human. For Kant, however, the means to truth is not based on reason. The means to truth is based on our intuition and is, thus, universal.
We also addressed the question: How is a priori intuition possible? It is important to distinguish things in themselves (noumena) from the appearances of objects (phenomena). All of our knowledge is of appearances, since we cannot know things in themselves. Material intuition, or sensation, cannot be given a priori. However, there are two forms of a priori intuition: space and time. Space and time are structures of the mind we impose upon the world and necessarily shape our “experience” of objects in accordance with concepts (rules), because we cannot intuit or experience anything that does not participate in space or time.

The Table of Categories is the result of combining the Table of Judgments with the two a priori forms of intuition: space and time. All thought and representations of objects (as they appear to us) must find their way into these 12 a priori concepts in order to have objective validity. We prescribe the laws of nature because no object appears to us or participates in the world that does not adhere to the rules of our thought, so therefore the world must follow them.

We hope this is a helpful summary. Here are a couple of questions we didn't get to cover in class that you might want to ponder:

1.Kant begins with the assumption that mathematics consist of a priori cognitions. i.e. that we have concepts of space and time before experience. Do you agree? Do space and time exist apart from ourselves? Are space and time as we conceive them?

2.Can we create universal laws from our individual judgments of perception? If objects are as we individually perceive them and not a reality in themselves, how can we know that we are perceiving the same way? Using Kant’s own example, how do we know that the sun on the rock produces the same sensation in all of us?