Critique of Pure Reason
![]() Title page of the 1781 edition | |
Author | Immanuel Kant |
---|---|
Original title | Critik ader reinen Vernunft |
Translator | see below |
Language | German |
Subject | Metaphysics |
Published | 1781 |
Publication place | Germany |
Pages | 856 (first German edition)[1] |
aKritikinmodern German. |
Part ofa serieson |
Immanuel Kant |
---|
![]() |
Category•![]() |
TheCritique of Pure Reason(German:Kritik der reinen Vernunft;1781; second edition 1787) is a book by the German philosopherImmanuel Kant,in which the author seeks to determine the limits and scope ofmetaphysics.Also referred to as Kant's "First Critique", it was followed by hisCritique of Practical Reason(1788) andCritique of Judgment(1790). In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may striveindependently of all experience"and that he aims to decide on" the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics ". The term"critique"is properly understood in this context to mean a systematic analysis, rather than finding fault, as the term is often used colloquially.
Kant builds on the work ofempiricistphilosophers such asJohn LockeandDavid Hume,as well asrationalistphilosophers such asGottfried Wilhelm LeibnizandChristian Wolff.He expounds new ideas on the nature ofspace and time,and tries to provide solutions to the skepticism of Hume regarding knowledge of the relation of cause and effect and that ofRené Descartesregarding knowledge of the external world. This is argued through thetranscendental idealismof objects (as appearance) and their form of appearance. Kant regards the former "as mere representations and not asthings in themselves",and the latter as" only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves ". This grants the possibility ofa prioriknowledge, since objects as appearance "must conform to our cognition...which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us." Knowledge independent of experience Kant calls "a priori"knowledge, while knowledge obtained through experience is termed"a posteriori".[2]According to Kant, a proposition isa prioriif it is necessary and universal. A proposition is necessary if it is not false in any case and so cannot be rejected; rejection is contradiction. A proposition is universal if it is true in all cases, and so does not admit of any exceptions. Knowledge gaineda posteriorithrough the senses, Kant argues, never imparts absolute necessity and universality, because it is possible that we might encounter an exception.[3]
Kant further elaborates on the distinction between"analytic" and "synthetic" judgments.[4]A proposition is analytic if the content of thepredicate-conceptof the proposition is already contained within thesubject-conceptof that proposition.[5]For example, Kant considers the proposition "All bodies are extended" analytic, since the predicate-concept ('extended') is already contained within—or "thought in" —the subject-concept of the sentence ('body'). The distinctive character of analytic judgments was therefore that they can be known to be true simply by an analysis of the concepts contained in them; they are true by definition. In synthetic propositions, on the other hand, the predicate-concept is not already contained within the subject-concept. For example, Kant considers the proposition "All bodies are heavy" synthetic, since the concept 'body' does not already contain within it the concept 'weight'.[6]Synthetic judgments therefore add something to a concept, whereas analytic judgments only explain what is already contained in the concept.
Before Kant, philosophers held that alla prioriknowledge must be analytic. Kant, however, argues that our knowledge of mathematics, of the first principles of natural science, and of metaphysics, is botha prioriand synthetic. The peculiar nature of this knowledge cries out for explanation. The central problem of theCritiqueis therefore to answer the question: "How are synthetica priorijudgments possible? "[7]It is a "matter of life and death" to metaphysics and to human reason, Kant argues, that the grounds of this kind of knowledge be explained.[7]
Though it received little attention when it was first published, theCritiquelater attracted attacks from both empiricist and rationalist critics, and became a source of controversy. It has exerted an enduring influence onWestern philosophy,and helped bring about the development ofGerman idealism.The book is considered a culmination of several centuries ofearly modern philosophyand an inauguration ofmodern philosophy.
Background
[edit]Early rationalism
[edit]Before Kant, it was generally held that truths of reason must be analytic, meaning that what is stated in the predicate must already be present in the subject (e.g., "An intelligent man is intelligent" or "An intelligent man is a man" ).[8]In either case, the judgment is analytic because it is ascertained by analyzing the subject. It was thought that all truths of reason, or necessary truths, are of this kind: that in all of them there is a predicate that is only part of the subject of which it is asserted.[8]If this were so, attempting to deny anything that could be knowna priori(e.g., "An intelligent man is not intelligent" or "An intelligent man is not a man" ) would involve a contradiction. It was therefore thought that the law of contradiction is sufficient to establish alla prioriknowledge.[9]
David Humeat first accepted the general view ofrationalismabouta prioriknowledge. However, upon closer examination of the subject, Hume discovered that some judgments thought to be analytic, especially those related tocause and effect,were actuallysynthetic(i.e., no analysis of the subject will reveal the predicate). They thus depend exclusively upon experience and are thereforea posteriori.
Kant's rejection of Hume's empiricism
[edit]Before Hume, rationalists had held that effect could be deduced from cause; Hume argued that it could not and from this inferred that nothing at all could be knowna prioriin relation to cause and effect. Kant, who was brought up under the auspices of rationalism, was deeply impressed by Hume'sskepticism."I freely admit that it was the remembrance of David Hume which, many years ago, first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a completely different direction."[10]
Kant decided to find an answer and spent at least twelve years thinking about the subject.[11]Although theCritique of Pure Reasonwas set down in written form in just four to five months, while Kant was also lecturing and teaching, the work is a summation of the development of Kant's philosophy throughout those twelve years.[12]
Kant's work was stimulated by his decision to take seriously Hume's skeptical conclusions about such basic principles as cause and effect, which had implications for Kant's grounding in rationalism. In Kant's view, Hume's skepticism rested on the premise that allideasare presentations ofsensory experience.The problem that Hume identified was that basic principles such ascausalitycannot be derived fromsense experienceonly: experience shows only that one event regularly succeeds another, not that it is caused by it.
In section VI ( "The General Problem of Pure Reason" ) of the introduction to theCritique of Pure Reason,Kant explains that Hume stopped short of considering that a synthetic judgment could be made 'a priori'. Kant's goal was to find some way to derive cause and effect without relying onempirical knowledge.Kant rejectsanalytical methodsfor this, arguing thatanalytic reasoningcannot tell us anything that is not already self-evident, so his goal was to find a way to demonstrate how the synthetic a priori is possible.
To accomplish this goal, Kant argued that it would be necessary to usesyntheticreasoning. However, this posed a new problem: how is it possible to have synthetic knowledge that is not based onempiricalobservation; that is, how are synthetic a priori truths possible? This question is exceedingly important, Kant maintains, because he contends that all important metaphysical knowledge is of synthetic a priori propositions. If it is impossible to determine which synthetic a priori propositions are true, he argues, then metaphysics as a discipline is impossible.
Synthetica priorijudgments
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/KantLecturing.jpg/220px-KantLecturing.jpg)
Kant argues that there are synthetic judgments such as the connection of cause and effect (e.g., "... Every effect has a cause." ) where no analysis of the subject will produce the predicate. Kant reasons that statements such as those found ingeometryandNewtonian physicsare synthetic judgments. Kant uses the classical example of 7 + 5 = 12. No amount of analysis will find 12 in either 7 or 5 and vice versa, since an infinite number of two numbers exist that will give the sum 12. Thus Kant concludes that allpure mathematicsis synthetic thougha priori;the number 7 is seven and the number 5 is five and the number 12 is twelve and the same principle applies to other numerals; in other words, they are universal and necessary. For Kant then, mathematics is synthetic judgmenta priori.Conventional reasoning would have regarded such an equation to be analytic a priori by considering both 7 and 5 to be part of one subject being analyzed, however Kant looked upon 7 and 5 as two separate values, with the value of five being applied to that of 7 and synthetically arriving at the logical conclusion that they equal 12. This conclusion led Kant into a new problem as he wanted to establish how this could be possible: How is pure mathematics possible?[11]This also led him to inquire whether it could be possible to ground synthetica prioriknowledge for a study ofmetaphysics,because most of theprinciplesof metaphysics fromPlatothrough to Kant's immediate predecessors made assertions about the world or aboutGodor about thesoulthat were not self-evident but which could not be derived from empirical observation (B18-24). For Kant, all post-Cartesian metaphysics is mistaken from its very beginning: theempiricistsare mistaken because they assert that it is not possible to go beyond experience and thedogmatistsare mistaken because they assert that it is possible to go beyond experience through theoretical reason.
Therefore, Kant proposes a new basis for a science of metaphysics, posing the question: how is a science of metaphysics possible, if at all? According to Kant, onlypractical reason,the faculty ofmoral consciousness,the moral law of which everyone is immediately aware, makes it possible to know things as they are.[13]This led to his most influential contribution to metaphysics: the abandonment of the quest to try to know the world as it is "in itself" independent of sense experience. He demonstrated this with athought experiment,showing that it is not possible to meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components and is not structured following thecategoriesof the understanding (Verstand), such assubstanceandcausality.Although such an object cannot be conceived, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, thescienceof metaphysics must not attempt to reach beyond the limits of possible experience but must discuss only those limits, thus furthering the understanding of ourselves as thinking beings. The human mind is incapable of going beyond experience so as to obtain a knowledge of ultimate reality, because no direct advance can be made from pure ideas to objective existence.[14]
Kant writes: "Since, then, the receptivity of the subject, its capacity to be affected byobjects,must necessarily precede all intuitions of these objects, it can readily be understood how the form of all appearances can be given prior to all actual perceptions, and so exist in the minda priori"(A26/B42). Appearance is then, via the faculty of transcendental imagination (Einbildungskraft), grounded systematically in accordance with the categories of the understanding. Kant's metaphysical system, which focuses on the operations of cognitive faculties (Erkenntnisvermögen), places substantial limits on knowledge not found in the forms of sensibility (Sinnlichkeit). Thus it sees the error of metaphysical systems prior to the Critique as failing to first take into consideration the limitations of the human capacity for knowledge. Transcendental imagination is described in the first edition of theCritique of Pure Reasonbut Kant omits it from the second edition of 1787.[15]
It is because he takes into account the role of people'scognitivefaculties in structuring the known and knowable world that in the second preface to theCritique of Pure ReasonKant compares hiscritical philosophytoCopernicus' revolutioninastronomy.Kant (Bxvi) writes:
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to thema priori,by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.
Kant's view is that in explaining the movement of celestial bodies, Copernicus rejected the idea that the movement is only in the stars in order to allow that such movement is also due to the motion of ourselves as spectators. Thus, the Copernican revolution in astronomy shifted our understanding of the universe from one that isgeocentric,without reference to the motion of ourselves as spectators, to one that isheliocentricwith reference to the motion of ourselves as spectators. Likewise, Kant aims to shift metaphysics from one that requires our understanding to conform to the nature of objects to one that requires the objects of experience to conform to the necessary conditions of our knowledge. Consequently, knowledge does not depend solely on the object of knowledge but also on the capacity of the knower.[16]
Transcendental idealism
[edit]Kant'stranscendental idealismshould be distinguished fromidealistic systemssuch as that ofGeorge Berkeleywhich deny all claims of extramental existence and consequently turn phenomenal objects into things-in-themselves. While Kant claimed thatphenomenadepend upon the conditions ofsensibility,spaceandtime,and on the synthesizing activity of the mind manifested in the rule-based structuring ofperceptionsinto aworldof objects, this thesis is not equivalent to mind-dependence in the sense ofBerkeley's idealism.Kant definestranscendental idealism:
I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not things in themselves, and accordingly that time and space are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves. To this idealism is opposed transcendental realism, which regards space and time as something given in themselves (independent of our sensibility).
— Critique of Pure Reason,A369
Kant's approach
[edit]In Kant's view,a prioriintuitionsand concepts provide somea prioriknowledge, which also provides the framework fora posterioriknowledge. Kant also believed that causality is a conceptual organizing principle imposed upon nature, albeit nature understood as the sum of appearances that can be synthesized according to a priori concepts.
In other words,spaceandtimeare a form of perceiving andcausalityis a form of knowing. Both space and time and conceptual principles and processes pre-structure experience.
Things as they are "in themselves" —the thing in itself, ordas Ding an sich—are unknowable. For something to become an object of knowledge, it must be experienced, and experience is structured by the mind—both space and time being the forms of intuition (Anschauung;for Kant, intuition is the process of sensing or the act of having a sensation)[17]orperception,and the unifying, structuring activity of concepts. These aspects of mind turn things-in-themselves into the world of experience. There is never passive observation or knowledge.
According to Kant, the transcendental ego—the "Transcendental Unity ofApperception"—is similarly unknowable. Kant contrasts the transcendental ego to the empirical ego, the active individual self subject to immediateintrospection.One is aware that there is an "I," a subject or self that accompanies one's experience andconsciousness.Since one experiences it as it manifests itself in time, which Kant proposes is a subjective form of perception, one can know it only indirectly: as object, rather than subject. It is the empirical ego that distinguishes one person from another providing each with a definite character.[18]
Contents
[edit]TheCritique of Pure Reasonis arranged around several basic distinctions. After the two Prefaces (the A edition Preface of 1781 and the B edition Preface of 1787) and the Introduction, the book is divided into the Doctrine of Elements and the Doctrine of Method.
Doctrine of Elements and of Method
[edit]TheDoctrine of Elementssets out thea prioriproducts of the mind, and the correct and incorrect use of these presentations. Kant further divides the Doctrine of Elements into theTranscendental Aestheticand theTranscendental Logic,reflecting his basic distinction between sensibility and the understanding. In the "Transcendental Aesthetic" he argues thatspaceandtimeare pure forms of intuition inherent in our faculty of sense. The "Transcendental Logic" is separated into the Transcendental Analytic and the Transcendental Dialectic:
- TheTranscendental Analyticsets forth the appropriate uses ofa prioriconcepts, calledthe categories,and other principles of the understanding, as conditions of the possibility of a science of metaphysics. The section titled the "Metaphysical Deduction" considers the origin of thecategories.In the "Transcendental Deduction", Kant then shows the application of thecategoriesto experience. Next, the "Analytic of Principles" sets out arguments for the relation of thecategoriesto metaphysical principles. This section begins with the "Schematism", which describes how the imagination can apply pure concepts to the object given in sense perception. Next are arguments relating thea prioriprinciples with the schematizedcategories.
- TheTranscendental Dialecticdescribes the transcendental illusion behind the misuse of these principles in attempts to apply them to realms beyond sense experience. Kant’s most significant arguments are the "Paralogisms of Pure Reason", the "Antinomy of Pure Reason", and the "Ideal of Pure Reason", aimed against, respectively, traditional theories of the soul, the universe as a whole, and theexistence of God.In the Appendix to the "Critique of Speculative Theology" Kant describes the role of the transcendental ideas of reason.
TheDoctrine of Methodcontains four sections. The first section, "Discipline of Pure Reason", compares mathematical and logical methods ofproof,and the second section, "Canon of Pure Reason", distinguishes theoretical from practical reason.
The divisions of theCritique of Pure Reason
[edit]Dedication
- 1. First and second Prefaces
- 2. Introduction
- 3. Transcendental Doctrine of Elements
- A. Transcendental Aesthetic
- (1) On space
- (2) On time
- B. Transcendental Logic
- (1) Transcendental Analytic
- a. Analytic of Concepts
- i. Metaphysical Deduction
- ii. Transcendental Deduction
- b. Analytic of Principles
- i. Schematism (bridging chapter)
- ii. System of Principles of Pure Understanding
- a. Axioms of Intuition
- b. Anticipations of Perception
- c. Analogies of Experience
- d. Postulates of Empirical Thought (Refutation of Idealism)
- iii. Ground of Distinction of Objects intoPhenomenaandNoumena
- iv. Appendix on the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection
- a. Analytic of Concepts
- (2) Transcendental Dialectic: Transcendental Illusion
- a. Paralogisms of Pure Reason
- b. Antinomy of Pure Reason
- c. Ideal of Pure Reason
- d. Appendix to Critique of Speculative Theology
- (1) Transcendental Analytic
- A. Transcendental Aesthetic
- 4. Transcendental Doctrine of Method
- A. Discipline of Pure Reason
- B. Canon of Pure Reason
- C. Architectonic of Pure Reason
- D. History of Pure Reason
Table of contents
[edit]Critique of Pure Reason[19] | |||||||||||||||
Transcendental Doctrine of Elements | Transcendental Doctrine of Method | ||||||||||||||
First Part: Transcendental Aesthetic | Second Part: Transcendental Logic | Discipline of Pure Reason | Canon of Pure Reason | Architectonic of Pure Reason | History of Pure Reason | ||||||||||
Space | Time | First Division: Transcendental Analytic | Second Division: Transcendental Dialectic | ||||||||||||
Book I: Analytic of Concepts | Book II: Analytic of Principles | Transcendental Illusion | Pure Reason as the Seat of Transcendental Illusion | ||||||||||||
Clue to the discovery of all pure concepts of the understanding | Deductions of the pure concepts of the understanding | Schematism | System of all principles | Phenomena and Noumena | Book I: Concept of Pure Reason | Book II: Dialectical Inferences of Pure Reason | |||||||||
Paralogisms (Psychology) | Antinomies (Cosmology) | The Ideal (Theology) |
I. Transcendental Doctrine of Elements
[edit]Transcendental Aesthetic
[edit]TheTranscendental Aesthetic,as theCritiquenotes, deals with "all principles of a priori sensibility."[20]As a further delimitation, it "constitutes the first part of the transcendental doctrine of elements, in contrast to that which contains the principles of pure thinking, and is named transcendental logic".[20]In it, what is aimed at is "pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is the only thing that sensibility can make available a priori."[21]It is thus an analytic of the a priori constitution of sensibility; through which "Objects are therefore given to us..., and it alone affords us intuitions."[22]This in itself is an explication of the "pure form of sensible intuitions in general [that] is to be encountered in the mind a priori."[23]Thus, pure form or intuition is the a priori "wherein all of the manifold of appearances is intuited in certain relations."[23]from this, "a science of all principles of a priori sensibility [is called] the transcendental aesthetic."[20]The above stems from the fact that "there are two stems of human cognition...namely sensibility and understanding."[24]
This division, as the critique notes, comes "closer to the language and the sense of the ancients, among whom the division of cognition into αισθητα και νοητα is very well known."[25]An exposition on a priori intuitions is an analysis of the intentional constitution of sensibility. Since this lies a priori in the mind prior to actual object relation; "The transcendental doctrine of the senses will have to belong to the first part of the science of elements, since the conditions under which alone the objects of human cognition are given precede those under which those objects are thought".[26]
Kant distinguishes between the matter and the form of appearances. The matter is "that in the appearance that corresponds to sensation" (A20/B34). The form is "that which so determines the manifold of appearance that it allows of being ordered in certain relations" (A20/B34). Kant's revolutionary claim is that the form of appearances—which he later identifies asspaceandtime—is a contribution made by the faculty of sensation to cognition, rather than something that exists independently of the mind. This is the thrust of Kant's doctrine of the transcendental ideality of space and time.
Kant's arguments for this conclusion are widely debated among Kant scholars. Some see the argument as based on Kant's conclusions that our representation (Vorstellung) of space and time is ana prioriintuition. From here Kant is thought to argue that our representation of space and time asa prioriintuitions entails that space and time are transcendentally ideal. It is undeniable from Kant's point of view that in Transcendental Philosophy, the difference of things as they appear and things as they are is a major philosophical discovery.[27]Others see the argument as based upon the question of whether synthetica priorijudgments are possible. Kant is taken to argue that the only way synthetica priorijudgments, such as those made in geometry, are possible is if space is transcendentally ideal.
In Section I (Of Space) of Transcendental Aesthetic in theCritique of Pure ReasonKant poses the following questions: What then are time and space? Are they real existences? Or, are they merely relations or determinations of things, such, however, as would equally belong to these things in themselves, though they should never become objects of intuition; or, are they such as belong only to the form of intuition, and consequently to the subjective constitution of the mind, without which these predicates of time and space could not be attached to any object?[28]The answer that space and time are real existences belongs to Newton. The answer that space and time are relations or determinations of things even when they are not being sensed belongs to Leibniz. Both answers maintain that space and time exist independently of the subject's awareness. This is exactly what Kant denies in his answer that space and time belong to the subjective constitution of the mind.[29]: 87–88
Space and time
[edit]Kant gives two expositions ofspaceandtime:metaphysicalandtranscendental.Themetaphysicalexpositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions purport to show how the metaphysical conclusions give insight into the possibility of already obtaineda prioriscientific knowledge (A25/B40).
In the transcendental exposition, Kant refers back to his metaphysical exposition in order to show that the sciences would be impossible if space and time were not kinds of purea prioriintuitions. He asks the reader to take theproposition,"two straight lines can neither contain any space nor, consequently, form a figure," and then to try to derive this proposition from the concepts of a straight line and the number two. He concludes that it is simply impossible (A47-48/B65). Thus, since this information cannot be obtained from analytic reasoning, it must be obtained through synthetic reasoning, i.e., a synthesis of concepts (in this case two and straightness) with the pure (a priori) intuition of space.
In this case, however, it was not experience that furnished the third term; otherwise, the necessary and universal character of geometry would be lost. Only space, which is a purea prioriform of intuition, can make this synthetic judgment, thus it must then bea priori.If geometry does not serve this purea prioriintuition, it is empirical, and would be an experimental science, butgeometrydoes not proceed by measurements—it proceeds by demonstrations.
The other part of the Transcendental Aesthetic argues that time is a purea prioriintuition that rendersmathematicspossible. Time is not a concept, since otherwise it would merely conform to formal logical analysis (and therefore, to theprinciple of non-contradiction). However, time makes it possible to deviate from the principle of non-contradiction: indeed, it is possible to say that A and non-A are in the same spatial location if one considers them in different times, and a sufficient alteration between states were to occur (A32/B48). Time and space cannot thus be regarded as existing in themselves. They area prioriforms of sensible intuition.
The current interpretation of Kant states that the subject possesses the capacity to perceive spatial and temporal presentationsa priori.The Kantian thesis claims that in order for the subject to have any experience at all, then it must be bounded by these forms of presentations (Vorstellung). Some scholars have offered this position as an example ofpsychological nativism,as a rebuke to some aspects of classicalempiricism.[citation needed]
Kant's thesis concerning the transcendental ideality of space and time limits appearances to the forms of sensibility—indeed, they form the limits within which these appearances can count as sensible; and itnecessarily impliesthat the thing-in-itself is neither limited by them nor can it take the form of an appearance within us apart from the bounds of sensibility (A48-49/B66). Yet the thing-in-itself is held by Kant to be the cause of that which appears, and this is where an apparent paradox of Kantian critique resides: while we are prohibited from knowledge of the thing-in-itself, we can attribute it as being something beyond ourselves as a causally responsible source of representations within us. Kant's view of space and time rejects both the space and time of Aristotelian physics and the space and time of Newtonian physics.
Transcendental Logic
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Hierarchy_Diagram_for_Kant%27s_Division_of_Logic.png/330px-Hierarchy_Diagram_for_Kant%27s_Division_of_Logic.png)
In theTranscendental Logic,there is a section (titled The Refutation ofIdealism) that is intended to free Kant's doctrine from any vestiges of subjective idealism, which would either doubt or deny the existence of external objects (B274-79).[30]Kant's distinction between the appearance and the thing-in-itself is not intended to imply that nothing knowable exists apart from consciousness, as with subjective idealism. Rather, it declares that knowledge is limited to phenomena as objects of a sensible intuition. In the Fourth Paralogism ( "... A Paralogism is a logical fallacy" ),[31]Kant further certifies his philosophy as separate from that of subjective idealism by defining his position as atranscendental idealismin accord withempirical realism(A366–80), a form ofdirect realism.[32][a]"The Paralogisms of Pure Reason" is the only chapter of theDialecticthat Kant rewrote for the second edition of theCritique of Pure Reason.In the first edition, the Fourth Paralogism offers a defence of transcendental idealism, which Kant reconsidered and relocated in the second edition.[35]
Whereas the Transcendental Aesthetic was concerned with the role of the sensibility, the Transcendental Logic is concerned with the role of the understanding, which Kant defines as the faculty of the mind that deals with concepts.[36]Knowledge, Kant argued, contains two components: intuitions, through which an object is given to us in sensibility, and concepts, through which an object is thought in understanding. In the Transcendental Aesthetic, he attempted to show that thea prioriforms of intuition were space and time, and that these forms were the conditions of all possible intuition. It should therefore be expected that we should find similara prioriconcepts in the understanding, and that these pure concepts should be the conditions of all possible thought. The Logic is divided into two parts: the Transcendental Analytic and the Transcendental Dialectic. The Analytic Kant calls a "logic of truth";[37]in it he aims to discover these pure concepts which are the conditions of all thought, and are thus what makes knowledge possible. The Transcendental Dialectic Kant calls a "logic of illusion";[38]in it he aims to expose the illusions that we create when we attempt to apply reason beyond the limits of experience.
The idea of a transcendental logic is that of a logic that gives an account of the origins of our knowledge as well as its relationship to objects. Kant contrasts this with the idea of a generallogic,which abstracts from the conditions under which our knowledge is acquired, and from any relation that knowledge has to objects. According to Helge Svare, "It is important to keep in mind what Kant says here about logic in general, and transcendental logic in particular, being the product of abstraction, so that we are not misled when a few pages later he emphasizes the pure, non-empirical character of the transcendental concepts or the categories."[39]
Kant's investigations in the Transcendental Logic lead him to conclude that understanding and reason can only legitimately be applied to things as they appear phenomenally to us in experience. What things are in themselves as beingnoumenal,independent of our cognition, remains limited by what is known through phenomenal experience.
First Division: Transcendental Analytic
[edit]The Transcendental Analytic is divided into an Analytic of Concepts and an Analytic of Principles, as well as a third section concerned with the distinction betweenphenomenaandnoumena.In Chapter III (Of the ground of the division of all objects into phenomena and noumena) of the Transcendental Analytic, Kant generalizes the implications of the Analytic in regard to transcendent objects preparing the way for the explanation in the Transcendental Dialectic about thoughts of transcendent objects, Kant's detailed theory of the content (Inhalt) and origin of our thoughts about specific transcendent objects.[29]: 198–199 The main sections of the Analytic of Concepts are The Metaphysical Deduction and The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories. The main sections of the Analytic of Principles are the Schematism, Axioms of Intuition, Anticipations of Perception, Analogies of Experience, Postulates and follow the same recurring tabular form:
1. Quantity | ||
2. Quality |
3. Relation | |
4. Modality |
In the 2nd edition, these sections are followed by a section titled the Refutation of Idealism.
The metaphysical deduction
[edit]In the Metaphysical Deduction, Kant aims to derive twelve pure concepts of the understanding (which he calls "categories") from thelogical formsof judgment. In the following section, he will go on to argue that these categories are conditions of all thought in general. Kant arranges the forms of judgment in atable of judgments,which he uses to guide the derivation of thetable of categories.[40]
The role of the understanding is to make judgments. In judgment, the understanding employs concepts which apply to the intuitions given to us in sensibility. Judgments can take different logical forms, with each form combining concepts in different ways. Kant claims that if we can identify all of the possible logical forms of judgment, this will serve as a "clue" to the discovery of the most basic and general concepts that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in all thought.[40]
Logicians prior to Kant had concerned themselves to classify the various possible logical forms of judgment. Kant, with only minor modifications, accepts and adopts their work as correct and complete, and lays out all the logical forms of judgment in a table, reduced under four heads:
1. Quantity of Judgments | ||
2. Quality |
3. Relation | |
4. Modality |
Under each head, there corresponds three logical forms of judgment:[41]
1. Quantity of Judgments
|
||
2. Quality
|
3. Relation
| |
4. Modality
|
ThisAristotelianmethod for classifying judgments is the basis for his own twelve corresponding concepts of the understanding. In deriving these concepts, he reasons roughly as follows. If we are to possess pure concepts of the understanding, they must relate to the logical forms of judgment. However, if these pure concepts are to be applied to intuition, they must have content. But the logical forms of judgment are by themselves abstract and contentless. Therefore, to determine the pure concepts of the understanding we must identify concepts whichbothcorrespond to the logical forms of judgment,andare able to play a role in organising intuition. Kant therefore attempts to extract from each of the logical forms of judgment a concept which relates to intuition. For example, corresponding to the logical form ofhypotheticaljudgment ('Ifp,thenq'), there corresponds the category of causality ('If one event, then another'). Kant calls these pure concepts 'categories', echoing the Aristotelian notion of a category as a concept which is not derived from any more general concept. He follows a similar method for the other eleven categories, then represents them in the following table:[42]
1. Categories of Quantity
|
||
2. Categories of Quality
|
3. Categories of Relation
| |
4. Categories of Modality
|
These categories, then, are the fundamental, primary, or native concepts of the understanding. These flow from, or constitute the mechanism of understanding and its nature, and are inseparable from its activity. Therefore, for human thought, they are universal and necessary, ora priori.As categories they are not contingent states or images of sensuous consciousness, and hence not to be thence derived. Similarly, they are not known to us independently of such consciousness or of sensible experience. On the one hand, they are exclusively involved in, and hence come to our knowledge exclusively through, the spontaneous activity of the understanding. This understanding is never active, however, until sensible data are furnished as material for it to act upon, and so it may truly be said that they become known to us "only on the occasion of sensible experience". For Kant, in opposition toChristian WolffandThomas Hobbes,the categories exist only in the mind.[43]
These categories are "pure" conceptions of the understanding, in as much as they are independent of all that is contingent in sense. They are not derived from what is called thematterof sense, or from particular, variable sensations. However, they are not independent of the universal and necessary form of sense. Again, Kant, in the "Transcendental Logic", is professedly engaged with the search for an answer to the second main question of the Critique: How is pure physical science, or sensible knowledge, possible? Kant, now, has said, and, with reference to the kind of knowledge mentioned in the foregoing question, has said truly, thatthoughts, without the content which perception supplies, are empty.This is not less true ofpurethoughts, than of any others. The content which the pure conceptions, as categories of pure physical science or sensible knowledge, cannot derive from the matter of sense, they must and do derive from its pure form. And in this relation between the pure conceptions of the understanding and their pure content there is involved, as we shall see, the most intimate community of nature and origin between sense, on its formal side (space and time), and the understanding itself. For Kant, space and time area prioriintuitions. Out of a total of six arguments in favor of space asa prioriintuition, Kant presents four of them in the Metaphysical Exposition of space: two argue for spacea prioriand two for space as intuition.[29]: 75
The transcendental deduction
[edit]In the Transcendental Deduction, Kant aims to show that thecategoriesderived in the Metaphysical Deduction are conditions of all possible experience. He achieves this proof roughly by the following line of thought: all representations must have some common ground if they are to be the source of possible knowledge (because extracting knowledge from experience requires the ability to compare and contrast representations that may occur at different times or in different places). This ground of all experience is theself-consciousnessof the experiencing subject, and the constitution of the subject is such that all thought is rule-governed in accordance with the categories. It follows that the categories feature as necessary components in any possible experience.[44]
1.Axioms of intuition | ||
2.Anticipations of perception |
3.Analogies of experience | |
4.Postulates of empirical thought in general |
The schematism
[edit]In order for any concept to have meaning, it must be related to sense perception. The 12categories,ora prioriconcepts, are related to phenomenal appearances throughschemata.Each category has a schema. It is a connection throughtimebetween the category, which is ana prioriconcept of the understanding, and a phenomenala posterioriappearance. These schemata are needed to link the pure category to sensed phenomenal appearances because the categories are, as Kant says, heterogeneous with sense intuition. Categories and sensed phenomena, however, do share one characteristic: time. Succession is the form of sense impressions and also of the Category of causality. Therefore, time can be said to be the schema of Categories or pure concepts of the understanding.[45]
The refutation of idealism
[edit]In order to answer criticisms of theCritique of Pure ReasonthatTranscendental Idealismdenied the reality of external objects, Kant added a section to the second edition (1787) titled "The Refutation of Idealism" which turns the "game" ofidealismagainst itself by arguing thatself-consciousnesspresupposes external objects. Defining self-consciousness as a determination of the self in time, Kant argues that all determinations of time presuppose something permanent inperceptionand that this permanence cannot be in the self, since it is only through the permanence that one's existence in time can itself be determined. This argument inverted the supposed priority of inner over outer experience that had dominated philosophies ofmindand knowledge sinceRené Descartes.In Book II, chapter II, section III of the Transcendental Analytic, right under "The Postulates of Empirical Thought", Kant adds a "Refutation of Idealism (Widerlegung des Idealismus) ", where he refutes both Descartes' problematic idealism and Berkeley's dogmatic idealism. According to Kant, in problematic idealism the existence of objects is doubtful or impossible to prove, while in dogmatic idealism the existence of space and therefore of spatial objects is impossible. In contradistinction, Kant holds that external objects may be directly perceived and that such experience is a necessary presupposition of self-consciousness.[46]
Appendix: "Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection"
[edit]As an Appendix to the First Division of Transcendental Logic, Kant intends the "Amphiboly of the Conceptions of Reflection" to be a critique of Leibniz's metaphysics and a prelude to Transcendental Dialectic, the Second Division of Transcendental Logic. Kant introduces a whole set of new ideas called "concepts of reflection": identity/difference, agreement/opposition, inner/outer and matter/form. According to Kant, the categories do have but these concepts have no synthetic function in experience. These special concepts just help to make comparisons between concepts judging them either different or the same, compatible or incompatible. It is this particular action of making a judgment that Kant calls "logical reflection."[29]: 206 As Kant states: "Through observation and analysis of appearances we penetrate to nature's inner recesses, and no one can say how far this knowledge may in time extend. But with all this knowledge, and even if the whole of nature were revealed to us, we should still never be able to answer those transcendental questions which go beyond nature. The reason of this is that it is not given to us to observe our own mind with any other intuition than that of inner sense; and that it is yet precisely in the mind that the secret of the source of our sensibility is located. The relation of sensibility to an object and what the transcendental ground of this [objective] unity may be, are matters undoubtedly so deeply concealed that we, who after all know even ourselves only through inner sense and therefore as appearance, can never be justified in treating sensibility as being a suitable instrument of investigation for discovering anything save always still other appearances – eager as we yet are to explore their non-sensible cause." (A278/B334)
Second Division: Transcendental Dialectic
[edit]Following the systematic treatment of a priori knowledge given in the transcendental analytic, the transcendental dialectic seeks to dissect dialectical illusions. Its task is effectively to expose the fraudulence of the non-empirical employment of the understanding. The Transcendental Dialectic shows how pure reason should not be used. According to Kant, the rational faculty is plagued with dialectic illusions as man attempts to know what can never be known.[47]
This longer but less dense section of the Critique is composed of five essential elements, including an Appendix, as follows: (a) Introduction (to Reason and the Transcendental Ideas), (b) Rational Psychology (the nature of the soul), (c) Rational Cosmology (the nature of the world), (d) RationalTheology(God), and (e) Appendix (on the constitutive and regulative uses of reason).
In the introduction, Kant introduces a new faculty, humanreason,positing that it is a unifying faculty that unifies the manifold of knowledge gained by the understanding. Another way of thinking of reason is to say that it searches for the 'unconditioned'; Kant had shown in the Second Analogy that every empirical event has a cause, and thus each event is conditioned by something antecedent to it, which itself has its own condition, and so forth. Reason seeks to find an intellectual resting place that may bring the series of empirical conditions to a close, to obtain knowledge of an 'absolute totality' of conditions, thus becoming unconditioned. All in all, Kant ascribes to reason the faculty to understand and at the same time criticize the illusions it is subject to.[48][verification needed]
The paralogisms of pure reason
[edit]One of the ways that pure reason erroneously tries to operate beyond the limits of possible experience is when it thinks that there is an immortal Soul in every person. Its proofs, however, are paralogisms, or the results of false reasoning.
The soul is substance
[edit]Every one of my thoughts and judgments is based on the presupposition "I think". "I" is the subject and thinking is the predicate. Yet the ever-presentlogical subjectof every thought should not be confused with a permanent, immortal,real substance(soul). The logical subject is a mere idea, not a real substance. Unlike Descartes, who believes that the soul may be known directly through reason, Kant asserts that no such thing is possible. Descartes declarescogito ergo sum,but Kant denies that any knowledge of "I" may be possible. "I" is only the background of the field of apperception and as such lacks the experience of direct intuition that would make self-knowledge possible. This implies that the self in itself could never be known. Like Hume, Kant rejects knowledge of the "I" as substance. For Kant, the "I" that is taken to be the soul is purely logical and involves no intuitions. The "I" is the result of thea prioriconsciousness continuum, not of direct intuitiona posteriori.It is apperception as the principle of unity in the consciousness continuum that dictates the presence of "I" as a singular logical subject of all the representations of a single consciousness. Although "I" seems to refer to the same "I" all the time, it is not really a permanent feature but only the logical characteristic of a unified consciousness.[49]
The soul is simple
[edit]The only use or advantage of asserting that thesoulis simple is to differentiate it from matter and therefore prove that it is immortal, but the substratum of matter may also be simple. Since we know nothing of this substratum, both matter and soul may be fundamentally simple and therefore not different from each other. Then the soul may decay, as does matter. It makes no difference to say that the soul is simple and therefore immortal. Such a simple nature can never be known through experience. It has no objective validity. According to Descartes, the soul is indivisible. This paralogism mistakes the unity of apperception for the unity of an indivisible substance called the soul. It is a mistake that is the result of the first paralogism. It is impossible that thinking (Denken) could be composite for if the thought by a single consciousness were to be distributed piecemeal among different consciousnesses, the thought would be lost. According to Kant, the most important part of this proposition is that a multi-faceted presentation requires a single subject. This paralogism misinterprets the metaphysical oneness of the subject by interpreting the unity of apperception as being indivisible and the soul simple as a result. According to Kant, the simplicity of the soul as Descartes believed cannot be inferred from the "I think" as it is assumed to be there in the first place. Therefore, it is atautology.[50]
The soul is a person
[edit]In order to have coherent thoughts, I must have an "I" that is not changing and that thinks the changing thoughts. Yet we cannot prove that there is a permanent soul or an undying "I" that constitutes my person. I only know that I am one person during the time that I am conscious. As a subject who observes my own experiences, I attribute a certain identity to myself, but, to another observing subject, I am an object of his experience. He may attribute a different persisting identity to me. In the third paralogism, the "I" is a self-conscious person in a time continuum, which is the same as saying that personal identity is the result of an immaterial soul. The third paralogism mistakes the "I", as unit of apperception being the same all the time, with the everlasting soul. According to Kant, the thought of "I" accompanies every personal thought and it is this that gives the illusion of a permanent I. However, the permanence of "I" in the unity of apperception is not the permanence of substance. For Kant, permanence is a schema, the conceptual means of bringing intuitions under a category. The paralogism confuses the permanence of an object seen from without with the permanence of the "I" in a unity of apperception seen from within. From the oneness of the apperceptive "I" nothing may be deduced. The "I" itself shall always remain unknown. The only ground for knowledge is the intuition, the basis of sense experience.[51]
The soul is separated from the experienced world
[edit]Thesoulis not separate from the world. They exist for us only in relation to each other. Whatever we know about the external world is only a direct, immediate, internal experience. The world appears, in the way that it appears, as a mental phenomenon. We cannot know the world as athing-in-itself,that is, other than as an appearance within us. To think about the world as being totally separate from the soul is to think that a mere phenomenal appearance has independent existence outside of us. If we try to know an object as being other than an appearance, it can only be known as a phenomenal appearance, never otherwise. We cannot know a separate, thinking, non-material soul or a separate, non-thinking, material world because we cannot know things, as to what they may be by themselves, beyond being objects of our senses. The fourth paralogism is passed over lightly or not treated at all by commentators. In the first edition of theCritique of Pure Reason,the fourth paralogism is addressed to refuting the thesis that there is no certainty of the existence of the external world. In the second edition of theCritique of Pure Reason,the task at hand becomes the Refutation of Idealism. Sometimes, the fourth paralogism is taken as one of the most awkward of Kant's invented tetrads. Nevertheless, in the fourth paralogism, there is a great deal of philosophizing about the self that goes beyond the mere refutation of idealism. In both editions, Kant is trying to refute the same argument for the non-identity of mind and body.[52]In the first edition, Kant refutes the Cartesian doctrine that there is direct knowledge of inner states only and that knowledge of the external world is exclusively by inference. Kant claims mysticism is one of the characteristics ofPlatonism,the main source ofdogmatic idealism.Kant explains skeptical idealism by developing a syllogism called "The Fourth Paralogism of the Ideality of Outer Relation:"
- That whose existence can be inferred only as a cause of given perceptions has only a doubtful existence.
- And the existence of outer appearances cannot be immediately perceived but can be inferred only as the cause of given perceptions.
- Then, the existence of all objects of outer sense is doubtful.[53]
Kant may have had in mind an argument by Descartes:
- My own existence is not doubtful
- But the existence of physical things is doubtful
- Therefore, I am not a physical thing.
It is questionable that the fourth paralogism should appear in a chapter on the soul. What Kant implies about Descartes' argument in favor of the immaterial soul is that the argument rests upon a mistake on the nature of objective judgment not on any misconceptions about the soul. The attack is mislocated.[54]
TheseParalogismscannot be proven for speculative reason and therefore can give no certain knowledge about the Soul. However, they can be retained as a guide to human behavior. In this way, they are necessary and sufficient for practical purposes. In order for humans to behave properly, they can suppose that the soul is an imperishable substance, it is indestructibly simple, it stays the same forever, and it is separate from the decaying material world. On the other hand,anti-rationalistcritics of Kant's ethics consider it too abstract, alienating, altruistic or detached from human concern to actually be able to guide human behavior. It is then that theCritique of Pure Reasonoffers the best defense, demonstrating that in human concern and behavior, the influence of rationality is preponderant.[55]
The antinomy of pure reason
[edit]Kant presents thefour antinomies of reasonin theCritique of Pure Reasonas going beyond the rational intention of reaching a conclusion. For Kant, an antinomy is a pair of faultless arguments in favor of opposite conclusions. Historically, Leibniz andSamuel Clarke(Newton's spokesman) had just recently engaged in a titanic debate of unprecedented repercussions. Kant's formulation of the arguments was affected accordingly.[56]
TheIdeasof RationalCosmologyaredialectical.They result in four kinds of opposing assertions, each of which is logically valid. Theantinomy,with its resolution, is as follows:
- Thesis:The world has, as totimeandspace,a beginning (limit).
- Antithesis:The world is, as to time and space, infinite.
- Both are false. The world is an object of experience. Neither statement is based on experience.
- Thesis:Everything in the world consists of elements that are simple.
- Antithesis:There is no simple thing, but everything is composite.
- Both are false. Things are objects of experience. Neither statement is based on experience.
- Thesis:There are in the world causes throughfreedom.
- Antithesis:There is no freedom, but all isnature.
- Both may be true. The thesis may be true of things-in-themselves (other than as they appear). The antithesis may be true of things as they appear.
- Thesis:In the series of the world-causes there is some necessary being.
- Antithesis:There is nothing necessary in the world, but in this series all iscontingent.
- Both may be true. The thesis may be true of things-in-themselves (other than as they appear). The antithesis may be true of things as they appear.
According to Kant, rationalism came to fruition by defending the thesis of each antinomy while empiricism evolved into new developments by working to better the arguments in favor of each antithesis.[57]
The ideal of pure reason
[edit]Pure reason mistakenly goes beyond its relation to possible experience when it concludes that there is a Being who is the most real thing (ens realissimum) conceivable. Thisens realissimumis the philosophical origin of the idea of God. This personified object is postulated by Reason as the subject of all predicates, the sum total of all reality. Kant called this Supreme Being, or God, the Ideal of Pure Reason because it exists as the highest and most complete condition of the possibility of all objects, their original cause and their continual support.[58]
Refutation of the ontological proof of God's existence of Anselm of Canterbury
[edit]The ontological proof can be traced back toAnselm of Canterbury(1033–1109). Anselm presented the proof in chapter II of a short treatise titled "Discourse on the existence of God." It was not Kant but the monkGauniloand later the ScholasticThomas Aquinaswho first challenged the success of the proof. Aquinas went on to provide his own proofs for the existence of God in what are known as theFive Ways.[59]
The ontological proof considers the concept of the most real Being (ens realissimum) and concludes that it is necessary. Theontological argumentstates thatGodexists because he is perfect. If he did not exist, he would be less than perfect. Existence is assumed to be apredicateor attribute of thesubject,God, but Kant asserted that existence is not a predicate.ExistenceorBeingis merely theinfinitiveof thecopulaor linking, connectingverb"is" in adeclarative sentence.It connects the subject to a predicate. "Existence is evidently not a real predicate... The small wordis,is not an additional predicate, but only serves to put the predicatein relationto the subject. "(A599) Also, we cannot accept a mereconceptor mentalideaas being areal,external thing orobject.The Ontological Argument starts with a mere mental concept of a perfect God and tries to end with a real, existing God.
The argument is essentiallydeductivein nature. Given a certain fact, it proceeds to infer another from it. The method pursued, then, is that of deducing the fact of God's being from the a priori idea of him. If man finds that the idea of God is necessarily involved in his self-consciousness, it is legitimate for him to proceed from this notion to the actual existence of the divine being. In other words, the idea of God necessarily includes existence. It may include it in several ways. One may argue, for instance, according to the method of Descartes, and say that the conception of God could have originated only with the divine being himself, therefore the idea possessed by us is based on the prior existence of God himself. Or we may allege that we have the idea that God is the most necessary of all beings—that is to say, he belongs to the class of realities; consequently it cannot but be a fact that he exists. This is held to be proofper saltum.A leap takes place from the premise to the conclusion, and all intermediate steps are omitted.
The implication is that premise and conclusion stand over against one another without any obvious, much less necessary, connection. A jump is made from thought to reality. Kant here objects that being or existence is not a mere attribute that may be added onto a subject, thereby increasing its qualitative content. The predicate, being, adds something to the subject that no mere quality can give. It informs us that the idea is not a mere conception, but is also an actually existing reality. Being, as Kant thinks, actually increases the concept itself in such a way as to transform it. You may attach as many attributes as you please to a concept; you do not thereby lift it out of the subjective sphere and render it actual. So you may pile attribute upon attribute on the conception of God, but at the end of the day you are not necessarily one step nearer his actual existence. So that when we sayGod exists,we do not simply attach a new attribute to our conception; we do far more than this implies. We pass our bare concept from the sphere of inner subjectivity to that of actuality. This is the great vice of the Ontological argument. The idea of ten dollars is different from the fact only in reality. In the same way the conception of God is different from the fact of his existence only in reality. When, accordingly, the Ontological proof declares that the latter is involved in the former, it puts forward nothing more than a mere statement. No proof is forthcoming precisely where proof is most required. We are not in a position to say that the idea of God includes existence, because it is of the very nature of ideas not to include existence.
Kant explains that, being, not being a predicate, could not characterize a thing. Logically, it is the copula of a judgment. In the proposition, "God is almighty", the copula "is" does not add a new predicate; it only unites a predicate to a subject. To take God with all its predicates and say that "God is" is equivalent to "God exists" or that "There is a God" is to jump to a conclusion as no new predicate is being attached to God. The content of both subject and predicate is one and the same. According to Kant then, existence is not really a predicate. Therefore, there is really no connection between the idea of God and God's appearance or disappearance. No statement about God whatsoever may establish God's existence. Kant makes a distinction between "in intellectus" (in mind) and "in re" (in reality or in fact) so that questions of being area prioriand questions of existence are resolveda posteriori.[60]
Refutation of the cosmological ( "prime mover" ) proof of God's existence
[edit]Thecosmological proofconsiders the concept of an absolutely necessary Being and concludes that it has the most reality. In this way, the cosmological proof is merely the converse of the ontological proof. Yet the cosmological proof purports to start from sense experience. It says, "If anything exists in the cosmos, then there must be an absolutely necessary Being." It then claims, on Kant's interpretation, that there is only one concept of an absolutely necessary object. That is the concept of a Supreme Being who has maximum reality. Only such a supremely real being would be necessary and independently existent, but, according to Kant, this is the Ontological Proof again, which was asserteda prioriwithout sense experience.
Summarizing the cosmological argument further, it may be stated as follows: "Contingent things exist—at least I exist; and as they are not self-caused, nor capable of explanation as an infinite series, it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists." Seeing that this being exists, he belongs to the realm of reality. Seeing that all things issue from him, he is the most necessary of beings, for only a being who is self-dependent, who possesses all the conditions of reality within himself, could be the origin of contingent things. And such a being isGod.
Kant argues that this proof is invalid for three chief reasons. First, it makes use of a category, namely, Cause. And, as has been already pointed out, it is not possible to apply this, or any other, category except to the matter given by sense under the general conditions of space and time. If, then, we employ it in relation to Deity, we try to force its application in a sphere where it is useless, and incapable of affording any information. Once more, we are in the now familiar difficulty of the paralogism of Rational Psychology or of the Antinomies. The category has meaning only when applied to phenomena. Yet God is anoumenon.Second, it mistakes an idea of absolute necessity—an idea that is nothing more than an ideal—for a synthesis of elements in the phenomenal world or world of experience. This necessity is not an object of knowledge, derived from sensation and set in shape by the operation of categories. It cannot be regarded as more than an inference. Yet the cosmological argument treats it as if it were an object of knowledge exactly on the same level as perception of any thing or object in the course of experience. Thirdly, according to Kant, it presupposes the Ontological argument, already proved false. It does this, because it proceeds from the conception of the necessity of a certain being to the fact of his existence. Yet it is possible to take this course only if idea and fact are convertible with one another, and it has just been proved that they are not so convertible.[61]
Physico-theological ( "watch maker" ) proof of God's existence
[edit]The physico-theological proof of God'sexistenceis supposed to be based ona posteriorisensed experience of nature and not on merea prioriabstractconcepts. It observes that the objects in the world have been intentionally arranged with greatwisdom.The fitness of this arrangement could never have occurred randomly, without purpose. Theworldmust have been caused by an intelligentpower.Theunityof the relation between all of the parts of theworldleads us to infer that there is only one cause of everything. That one cause is aperfect,mighty, wise, and self-sufficientBeing.This physico-theology does not, however, prove withcertaintythe existence of God. For this, we need something absolutely necessary that consequently has all-embracing reality, but this is the Cosmological Proof, which concludes that an all-encompassingrealBeinghas absolutely necessaryexistence.All three proofs can be reduced to theOntological Proof,which tried to make an objective reality out of asubjectiveconcept.
In abandoning any attempt to prove the existence of God, Kant declares the three proofs ofrational theologyknown as the ontological, the cosmological and the physico-theological as quite untenable.[62]However, it is important to realize that while Kant intended to refute various purported proofs of theexistenceof God, he also intended to demonstrate the impossibility of proving thenon-existenceof God. Far from advocating for a rejection of religious belief, Kant rather hoped to demonstrate the impossibility of attaining the sort of substantive metaphysical knowledge (either proof or disproof) about God, free will, or the soul that many previous philosophers had pursued.
II. Transcendental Doctrine of Method
[edit]The second book in theCritique,and by far the shorter of the two, attempts to lay out the formal conditions of the complete system of pure reason.
In the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant showed how pure reason is improperly used when it is not related to experience. In the Method of Transcendentalism, he explained the proper use of pure reason.
The discipline of pure reason
[edit]In section I, the discipline of pure reason in the sphere of dogmatism, of chapter I, the discipline of pure reason, of Part II, transcendental discipline of method, of theCritique of Pure Reason,Kant enters into the most extensive discussion of the relationship between mathematical theory and philosophy.[63]
Discipline is the restraint, through caution and self-examination, that prevents philosophicalpure reasonfrom applying itself beyond the limits of possible sensualexperience.Philosophy cannot possessdogmaticcertainty.Philosophy, unlikemathematics,cannot havedefinitions,axiomsordemonstrations.All philosophicalconceptsmust be ultimately based ona posteriori,experiencedintuition.This is different fromalgebraandgeometry,which use concepts that are derived froma prioriintuitions, such assymbolicequationsand spatialfigures.Kant's basic intention in this section of the text is to describe why reason should not go beyond its already well-established limits. In section I, the discipline of pure reason in the sphere of dogmatism, Kant clearly explains why philosophy cannot do what mathematics can do in spite of their similarities. Kant also explains that when reason goes beyond its own limits, it becomes dogmatic. For Kant, the limits of reason lie in the field of experience as, after all, all knowledge depends on experience. According to Kant, a dogmatic statement would be a statement that reason accepts as true even though it goes beyond the bounds of experience.[64]
Restraint should be exercised in thepolemicaluse of pure reason. Kant defined this polemical use as the defense against dogmatic negations. For example, if it is dogmatically affirmed thatGodexists or that thesoulis immortal, a dogmatic negation could be made that God does not exist or that the soul is not immortal. Such dogmatic assertions cannot be proved. The statements are not based on possibleexperience.In section II, the discipline of pure reason in polemics, Kant argues strongly against the polemical use of pure reason. The dogmatic use of reason would be the acceptance as true of a statement that goes beyond the bounds of reason while the polemic use of reason would be the defense of such statement against any attack that could be raised against it. For Kant, then, there cannot possibly be any polemic use of pure reason. Kant argues against the polemic use of pure reason and considers it improper on the grounds that opponents cannot engage in a rational dispute based on a question that goes beyond the bounds of experience.[64]
Kant claimed that adversaries should be freely allowed to speak reason. In return, they should be opposed through reason.Dialecticalstrife leads to an increase of reason's knowledge. Yet there should be no dogmatic polemical use of reason. The critique of pure reason is the tribunal for all of reason's disputes. It determines the rights of reason in general. We should be able to openly express our thoughts and doubts. This leads to improved insight. We should eliminate polemic in the form of opposed dogmatic assertions that cannot be related to possible experience.
According to Kant, the censorship of reason is the examination and possible rebuke of reason. Such censorship leads to doubt and skepticism. Afterdogmatismproduces opposing assertions, skepticism usually occurs. The doubts of skepticism awaken reason from its dogmatism and bring about an examination of reason's rights and limits. It is necessary to take the next step after dogmatism and skepticism. This is the step to criticism. By criticism, the limits of our knowledge are proved from principles, not from mere personal experience.
If criticism of reason teaches us that we cannot know anything unrelated to experience, can we have hypotheses, guesses, or opinions about such matters? We can only imagine a thing that would be a possible object of experience. The hypotheses of God or a soul cannot be dogmatically affirmed or denied, but we have a practical interest in their existence. It is therefore up to an opponent to prove that they do not exist. Such hypotheses can be used to expose the pretensions of dogmatism. Kant explicitly praises Hume on his critique of religion for being beyond the field of natural science. However, Kant goes so far and not further in praising Hume basically because of Hume's skepticism. If only Hume would be critical rather than skeptical, Kant would be all-praises. In concluding that there is no polemical use of pure reason, Kant also concludes there is no skeptical use of pure reason. In section II, the discipline of pure reason in polemics, in a special section, skepticism not a permanent state for human reason, Kant mentions Hume but denies the possibility that skepticism could possibly be the final end of reason or could possibly serve its best interests.[65]
Proofs of transcendental propositions about pure reason (God,soul,free will,causality,simplicity) must first prove whether the concept is valid. Reason should be moderated and not asked to perform beyond its power. The three rules of the proofs of pure reason are: (1) consider the legitimacy of your principles, (2) each proposition can have only one proof because it is based on one concept and its general object, and (3) only direct proofs can be used, never indirect proofs (e.g., a proposition is true because its opposite is false). By attempting to directly prove transcendental assertions, it will become clear that pure reason can gain no speculative knowledge and must restrict itself to practical, moral principles. The dogmatic use of reason is called into question by the skeptical use of reason but skepticism does not present a permanent state for human reason. Kant proposes instead a critique of pure reason by means of which the limitations of reason are clearly established and the field of knowledge is circumscribed by experience. According to the rationalists and skeptics, there are analytic judgmentsa prioriand synthetic judgmentsa posteriori.Analytic judgmentsa posteriorido not really exist. Added to all these rational judgments is Kant's great discovery of the synthetic judgmenta priori.[66]
The canon of pure reason
[edit]The canon of pure reason is a discipline for the limitation of pure reason. The analytic part of logic in general is a canon for the understanding and reason in general. However, the Transcendental Analytic is a canon of the pure understanding for only the pure understanding is able to judge syntheticallya priori.[67]
The speculative propositions of God, immortal soul, and free will have no cognitive use but are valuable to our moral interest. In pure philosophy, reason is morally (practically) concerned with what ought to be done if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. Yet, in its actual practical employment and use, reason is only concerned with the existence of God and a future life. Basically, the canon of pure reason deals with two questions: Is there a God? Is there a future life? These questions are translated by the canon of pure reason into two criteria: What ought I to do? and What may I hope for? yielding the postulates of God's own existence and a future life, or life in the future.[68]
The greatest advantage of the philosophy of pure reason is negative, the prevention of error. Yet moral reason can provide positive knowledge. There cannot be a canon, or system ofa prioriprinciples, for the correct use of speculative reason. However, there can be a canon for the practical (moral) use of reason.
Reason has three main questions and answers:
- What can I know? We cannot know, through reason, anything that cannot be a possible sense experience; ( "that all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt" )
- What should I do? Do that which will make you deserve happiness;
- What may I hope? We can hope to be happy as far as we have made ourselves deserving of it through our conduct.
Reason tells us that there is a God, the supreme good, who arranges a future life in a moral world. If not, moral laws would be idle fantasies. Our happiness in that intelligible world will exactly depend on how we have made ourselves worthy of being happy. The union of speculative and practical reason occurs when we see God's reason and purpose in nature's unity of design or general system of ends. The speculative extension of reason is severely limited in the transcendental dialectics of theCritique of Pure Reason,which Kant would later fully explore in theCritique of Practical Reason.[69]
In the transcendental use of reason, there can be neither opinion nor knowledge. Reason results in a strong belief in the unity of design and purpose in nature. This unity requires a wise God who provides a future life for the human soul. Such a strong belief rests on moral certainty, notlogical certainty.Even if a person has no moral beliefs, the fear of God and a future life acts as a deterrent to evil acts, because no one can prove the non-existence ofGodand anafterlife.Does all of this philosophy merely lead to two articles of faith, namely, God and the immortal soul? With regard to these essential interests of human nature, the highest philosophy can achieve no more than the guidance, which belongs to the pure understanding. Some would even go so far as to interpret the Transcendental Analytic of theCritique of Pure Reasonas a return to the Cartesian epistemological tradition and a search for truth through certainty.[70]
The architectonic of pure reason
[edit]All knowledge from pure reason is architectonic in that it is a systematic unity. The entire system of metaphysic consists of: (1.) Ontology—objects in general; (2.) Rational Physiology—given objects; (3.) Rational cosmology—the whole world; (4.) Rational Theology—God. Metaphysic supports religion and curbs the extravagant use of reason beyond possible experience. The components of metaphysic are criticism, metaphysic of nature, and metaphysic of morals. These constitute philosophy in the genuine sense of the word. It uses science to gain wisdom. Metaphysic investigates reason, which is the foundation of science. Its censorship of reason promotes order and harmony in science and maintains metaphysic's main purpose, which is general happiness. In chapter III, the architectonic of pure reason, Kant defines metaphysics as the critique of pure reason in relation to purea prioriknowledge. Morals, analytics and dialectics for Kant constitute metaphysics, which is philosophy and the highest achievement of human reason.[71]
The history of pure reason
[edit]Kant writes thatmetaphysicsbegan with the study of the belief in God and the nature of a future world, beyond this immediate world as we know it, in our common sense. It was concluded early that good conduct would result in happiness in another world as arranged by God. The object of rational knowledge was investigated by sensualists (Epicurus), and intellectualists (Plato). Sensualists claimed that only the objects of the senses are real. Intellectualists asserted that true objects are known only by the understanding mind.AristotleandLockethought that the pure concepts of reason are derived only from experience. Plato and Leibniz contended that they come from reason, not sense experience, which is illusory. Epicurus never speculated beyond the limits of experience. Locke, however, said that the existence of God and the immortality of the soul could be proven. Those who follow the naturalistic method of studying the problems of pure reason use their common, sound, or healthy reason, not scientific speculation. Others, who use the scientific method, are either dogmatists (Wolff) or skeptics (Hume). In Kant's view, all of the above methods are faulty. The method of criticism remains as the path toward the completely satisfying answers to the metaphysical questions about God and the future life in another world.
Terms and phrases
[edit]- a prioriversusa posteriori
- Analyticversussynthetic
- Appearance
- Category
- concept versus object of sense perception
- Empiricalversus pure
- intuition
- Manifoldof the appearances
- Object
- Phenomenaversusnoumena
- Schema
- Transcendental idealism
- variant translations ofVorstellung:presentation or representation
Intuition and concept
[edit]Kant distinguishes between two different fundamentaltypes of representation:intuitions and concepts:
- Conceptsare "mediate representations" (see A68/B93). Mediate representations represent things by representing general characteristics of things. For example, consider a particular chair. The concepts "brown," "wooden," "chair," and so forth are, according to Kant, mediate representations of the chair. They can represent the chair by representing general characteristics of the chair: being brown, being wooden, being a chair, and so forth.
- Intuitionsare "immediate representations" (see B41), that is, representations that represent things directly. One's perception of the chair is, according to Kant, an immediate representation. The perception represents the chair directly, and not by means of any general characteristics.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Kant-taxonomy.svg/330px-Kant-taxonomy.svg.png)
Kant divides intuitions in the following ways:
- Kant distinguishes intuitions intopureintuitions andempiricalintuitions. Empirical intuitions are intuitions that contain sensation. Pure intuitions are intuitions that do not contain any sensation (A50/B74). An example of an empirical intuition would be one's perception of a chair or another physical object. All such intuitions are immediate representations that have sensation as part of the content of the representation. The pure intuitions are, according to Kant, those of space and time, which are our mind's subjective condition of coordinating sensibilia. Our representations of space and time are not objective and real, but immediate representations that do not include sensation within those representations. Thus both are pure intuitions.
- Kant also divides intuitions into two groups in another way. Some intuitions require thepresenceof their object, i.e. of the thing represented by the intuition. Other intuitions do not. (The best source for these distinctions is Kant's Lectures on Metaphysics.) We might think of these in non-Kantian terms as first, perceptions, and second, imaginations (see B151). An example of the former: one's perception of a chair. An example of the latter: one's memory (Gedachtnis/Erinnerung) of a chair that has subsequently been destroyed. Throughout the Transcendental Aesthetic, Kant seems to restrict his discussion to intuitions of the former type: intuitions that require the presence of their object.
Kant also distinguished betweena priori(pure) anda posteriori(empirical)concepts.
Tables of principles and categories of understanding in the critique
[edit]Kant borrowed the termcategoriesfrom Aristotle, but with the concession that Aristotle's own categorizations were faulty. Aristotle's imperfection is apparent from his inclusion of "some modes of pure sensibility (quando, ubi, situs,alsoprius, simul), also an empirical concept (motus), none of which can belong to this genealogical register of the understanding. "
Kant's divisions, however, are guided by his search in the mind for what makes synthetica priorijudgments possible.[citation needed]
Function of thought in judgment | Categories of understanding | Principles of pure understanding |
---|---|---|
Quantity | Quantity | |
Universal Particular Singular |
Unity Plurality Totality |
Axioms of Intuition |
Quality | Quality | |
Affirmative Negative Infinite |
Reality Negation Limitation |
Anticipations of Perception |
Relation | Relation | |
Categorical Hypothetical Disjunctive |
Of Inherence and Subsistence (substantia et accidens) Of Causality and Dependence (cause and effect) Of Community (reciprocity between the agent and patient) |
Analogies of Experience |
Modality | Modality | |
Problematical Assertorical Apodeictical |
Possibility-Impossibility Existence-Non-existence Necessity-Contingence |
Postulates of Empirical Thought in General |
Reception
[edit]Early responses: 1781–1793
[edit]TheCritique of Pure Reasonwas the first of Kant's works to become famous.[72]According to the philosopherFrederick C. Beiser,it helped to discredit rationalist metaphysics of the kind associated with Leibniz and Wolff which had appeared to providea prioriknowledge of the existence of God, although Beiser notes that this school of thought was already in decline by the time theCritique of Pure Reasonwas published. In his view, Kant's philosophy became successful in the early 1790s partly because Kant's doctrine of "practical faith" seemed to provide a justification for moral, religious, and political beliefs without ana prioriknowledge of God.[73]However, theCritique of Pure Reasonreceived little attention when it was first published. Kant did not expect reviews from anyone qualified to appraise the work, and initially heard only complaints about its obscurity. The theologian and philosopherJohann Friedrich Schultzwrote that the public saw the work as "a sealed book" consisting in nothing but "hieroglyphics". The first review appeared in theZugaben zu den Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigenin 1782. The review, which denied that there is any distinction between Kant's idealism and that of Berkeley, was anonymous and became notorious. Kant reformulated his views because of it, redefining his transcendental idealism in theProlegomena to Any Future Metaphysics(1783) and the second edition of theCritique of Pure Reason.The review was denounced by Kant, but defended by Kant's empiricist critics, and the resulting controversy drew attention to theCritique of Pure Reason.[74]
Kant believed that the anonymous review was biased and deliberately misunderstood his views. He discussed it in an appendix of theProlegomena,accusing its author of failing to understand or even address the main issue addressed in theCritique of Pure Reason,the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments, and insisting on the distinction between transcendental idealism and the idealism of Berkeley. In a letter to Kant, the philosopherChristian Garveadmitted to having written the review, which he disowned due to editorial changes outside his control. Though Garve did not inform Kant of this, the changes were made by J. G. Feder. Following the controversy over Garve's review, there were no more reviews of theCritique of Pure Reasonin 1782 except for a brief notice. The work received greater attention only in 1784, when Shultz's commentary was published and a review by the philosopher and historian of philosophyDietrich Tiedemannwas published in theHessische Beyträge zur Gelehrsamkeit und Kunst.Tiedemann attacked the possibility of the synthetica prioriand defended the possibility of metaphysics. He denied the synthetic status of mathematical judgments, maintaining that they can be shown to be analytic if the subject term is analyzed in full detail, and criticized Kant's theory of thea priorinature of space, asking how it was possible to distinguish one place from another when the parts of absolute space are identical in themselves. Kant issued a hostile reaction. He maintained that Tiedemann did not understand the problems facing the critical philosophy.[75]
Christian Gottlieb Selle, an empiricist critic of Kant influenced by Locke to whom Kant had sent one of the complimentary copies of theCritique of Pure Reason,was disappointed by the work, considering it a reversion to rationalism and scholasticism, and began a polemical campaign against Kant, arguing against the possibility of alla prioriknowledge. His writings received widespread attention and created controversy. Though Kant was unable to write a reply to Selle, he did engage in a public dispute with Feder, after learning of Feder's role in the review published inZugaben zu den Göttinger Gelehrten Anzeigen.In 1788, Feder publishedUeber Raum und Causalität: Zur Prüfung der kantischen Philosophie,a polemic against theCritique of Pure Reasonin which he argued that Kant employed a "dogmatic method" and was still employing the methodology of rationalist metaphysics, and that Kant's transcendental philosophy transcends the limits of possible experience. Feder believed that Kant's fundamental error was his contempt for "empirical philosophy", which explains the faculty of knowledge according to the laws of nature. With Christian Meiners, he edited a journal, thePhilosophische Bibliothek,opposed toKantianism.[76]
Feder's campaign against Kant was unsuccessful and thePhilosophische Bibliothekceased publication after only a few issues. Other critics of Kant continued to argue against theCritique of Pure Reason,with Gottlob August Tittel, who was influenced by Locke, publishing several polemics against Kant, who, although worried by some of Tittel's criticisms, addressed him only in a footnote in the preface to theCritique of Practical Reason.Tittel was one of the first to make criticisms of Kant, such as those concerning Kant's table of categories, the categorical imperative, and the problem of applying the categories to experience, that have continued to be influential. The philosopherAdam Weishaupt,founder and leader of the secret society theIlluminati,and an ally of Feder, also published several polemics against Kant, which attracted controversy and generated excitement. Weishaupt charged that Kant's philosophy leads to complete subjectivism and the denial of all reality independent of passing states of consciousness, a view he considered self-refuting. Herman Andreas Pistorius was another empiricist critic of Kant. Kant took Pistorius more seriously than his other critics and believed that he had made some of the most important objections to theCritique of Pure Reason.Beiser writes that many sections of theCritique of Practical Reasonare "disguised polemics against Pistorius". Pistorius argued that, if Kant were consistent, his form of idealism would not be an improvement over that of Berkeley, and that Kant's philosophy contains internal contradictions.[77]
Though the followers of Wolff, such as J. G. E. Maass, J. F. Flatt, and J. A. Ulrich, initially ignored theCritique of Pure Reason,they began to publish polemics against Kant in 1788. The theologianJohann Augustus Eberhardbegan to publish thePhilosophisches Magazin,which was dedicated to defending Wolff's philosophy. The Wolffian critics argued that Kant's philosophy inevitably ends in skepticism and the impossibility of knowledge, defending the possibility of rational knowledge of the supersensible world as the only way of avoidingsolipsism.They maintained that the criterion Kant proposed to distinguish between analytic and synthetic judgments had been known to Leibniz and was useless, since it was too vague to determine which judgments are analytic or synthetic in specific cases.[citation needed]These arguments led to a controversy between the Wolffians and Kant's followers over the originality and adequacy of Kant's criterion.
Later responses
[edit]TheCritique of Pure Reasonhas exerted an enduring influence onWestern philosophy.[78]The constructive aspect of the work, Kant's attempt to ground the conditions for the possibility of objects in the conditions of experience, helped bring about the development ofGerman idealism.The work also influenced Young Hegelians such asBruno Bauer,Ludwig FeuerbachandKarl Marx,and also,Friedrich Nietzsche,whose philosophy has been seen as a form of "radical Kantianism" byHoward Caygill.Other interpretations of theCritiqueby philosophers and historians of philosophy have stressed different aspects of the work. The late 19th-century neo-KantiansHermann CohenandHeinrich Rickertfocused on its philosophical justification of science,Martin HeideggerandHeinz Heimsoethon aspects of ontology, andPeter Strawsonon the limits of reason within the boundaries of sensory experience.Hannah ArendtandJean-François Lyotarddealt with its work of orientation of a limited understanding in the field of world history.[79]According toHomer W. Smith,
Kant'sCritique of Pure Reasonis important because it threw the philosophy of the nineteenth century into a state of temporary confusion. That it failed to prove its cardinal point, the existence of a priori truths, rapidly became clear. If there were no promises the fulfillment of which was to be expected, 'lying' would indeed be a universal law of action, and by Kant's own criterion lying would now be moral, and it would be truth that would be immoral.[80]
Legacy
[edit]Many titles have been used by different authors in reference or as a tribute to Kant's mainCritique,or his other, less famous books using the same basic concept,Critique of Practical ReasonandCritique of Judgment.Since the 18th century, books using "critique" in their title became common. Also, when "reason" is added after an adjective which qualifies this reason, this is usually a reference to Kant's most famous book. A few examples:
- "Critique of the Kantian Philosophy"(1818), as an appendix ofThe World as Will and RepresentationbyArthur Schopenhauer;
- Critique of Dialectical Reason(1960), byJean-Paul Sartre;
- Critique of Cynical Reason(1983), byPeter Sloterdijk;
- Critique of Impure Reason(2021), bySteven James Bartlett
English translations
[edit]- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated byFrancis Haywood.William Pickering. 1838.
critick of pure reason.
(first English translation) - Critique of Pure Reason.Translated byJ. M. D. Meiklejohn.1855 – viaProject Gutenberg.
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. 1873.
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated byFriedrich Max Müller.The Macmillan Company. 1881.(Introduction byLudwig Noiré)
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated byNorman Kemp Smith.Palgrave Macmillan. 1929.ISBN1-4039-1194-0.Archived fromthe originalon 2009-04-27.
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated by Wolfgang Schwartz. Scientia Verlag und Antiquariat. 1982.ISBN978-3-5110-9260-3.
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated by Werner S. Pluhar, including the 24-pp.IntroductionbyPatricia W. Kitcher.Hackett Publishing. 1996.ISBN978-0-87220-257-3.
- Critique of Pure Reason, Abridged.Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Hackett Publishing. 1999.ISBN978-1-6246-6605-6.
- Critique of Pure Reason.Translated and edited byPaul GuyerandAllen W. Wood.Cambridge University Press. 1999.ISBN978-0-5216-5729-7.
{{cite book}}
:CS1 maint: others (link) - Critique of Pure Reason.Translated by Marcus Weigelt. Penguin Books. 2007.ISBN978-0-1404-4747-7.
See also
[edit]- Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata
- Cosmotheology
- Object-oriented ontology– Development by Harman et al of Heidegger and Husserl's ideas that reject anthropocentrism
- Kant's antinomies
- Noogony
- Noology
- Ontotheology
- Phenomenology (philosophy)
- Philosophy of space and time
- Romanticism in philosophy
- Transcendental theology
- Transcendental subject
Notes
[edit]- ^Empirical realism was later adopted byJ. G. Fichte[33]andG. W. F. Hegel.[34]
References
[edit]Note:TheAandBdesignations refer to the page numbers of the first (1781) and second (1787) German editions, respectively. Sometimes NKS numbers are used to refer to pages of theNorman Kemp SmithEnglish translation (St. Martin's Press, Macmillan, 1929).
- ^"Seite:Kant Critik der reinen Vernunft 856.png – Wikisource".de.wikisource.org.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A2/B2.
- ^Kant 1999,p. B4.
- ^Kant 1999,Introduction, Part IV, p. A6/B10.
- ^Kant 1999,pp. A6–7/B10–11.
- ^Kant 1999,p. B12.
- ^abKant 1999,p. B20.
- ^abLeibniz, G. W. (1996).New Essays on Human Understanding.Translated and edited by Remnant and Bennett. Cambridge University Press. p. 361.ISBN0-521-57660-1.
- ^Russell, Bertrand (2008).The Problems of Philosophy.Arc Manor LLC. pp. 56–57.ISBN978-1-60450-085-1.
- ^"Kant and Hume on Causality".The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Metaphysics Research Layourmomgayb, Stanford University. 2018.
- ^abRussell, Bertrand (1990).The Problems of Philosophy.Hackett Publishing Company. p. 57.ISBN0-87220-099-X.
- ^Joad, C.E.M. (1957).Guide to Philosophy.Dover Publications Inc. p. 361.ISBN978-0-486-20297-6.
- ^Charles George Herbermann; et al. (eds.).The Catholic encyclopedia.Vol. 10. p. 232.
- ^Watson, John (1908).The philosophy of Kant explained.J. Maclehose. pp.62–72.ISBN0-8240-2335-8.
Kant synthetic judgment a priori.
- ^Makkreel, Rudolf A. (1995).Imagination and Interpretation in Kant.University of Chicago Press. p. 21.ISBN0-226-50277-5.
- ^Chadwick, Ruth F.; Cazeaux, Clive (1992).Immanuel Kant, Critical Assessments: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.Routledge. p. 43.ISBN0-415-07411-8.
- ^Angeles, Peter A. (1992). Eugene Ehrlich (ed.).The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy.Harper Collins. p. 149.ISBN0-06-461026-8.
- ^Solomon, Robert C. (2001).From Rationalism to Existentialism.Rowman & Littlefield. p. 21.ISBN0-7425-1241-X.
In theTranscendental Deduction,Kant distinguishes the transcendental ego from the empirical ego and maintains that only the transcendental ego has thesea priorirelations with experience.
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 146
- ^abcKant 1999,p. A21/B36.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A22.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A19/B33.
- ^abKant 1999,p. A20/B34.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A15/B29.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A21/B35.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A16/B30.
- ^Allison, Henry E. (2004).Kant's Transcendental Idealism.Yale University Press. p.19.ISBN978-0-3001-0266-6.
- ^Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed. (1952).Great Books of the Western World.Vol. 42. William Benton/Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. p. 24.LCCN55-10348.
- ^abcdSebastian Gardner (1999).Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Kant and theCritique of Pure Reason.ISBN0-415-11909-X.
- ^Senderowics, Yaron M. (2005).The Coherence of Kant's Transcendental Idealism.Springer. p. 270.ISBN978-1-4020-2581-5.
The problem addressed by Kant presupposes the results of the Transcendental Aesthetics.
- ^Laird, John (2010) [1917].Problems of the Self.Forgotten Books. p. 331.ISBN978-1-4400-8391-4.
... Kant hunts the paralogism which attempts to prove the existence of spiritual substance...
- ^Dennis Schulting, Jacco Verburgt (eds.),Kant's Idealism: New Interpretations of a Controversial Doctrine,Springer 2010, p. 203.
- ^Daniel Breazeale;Tom Rockmore,eds. (2010).Fichte, German Idealism, and Early Romanticism.Rodopi. p. 20.
- ^Tom Rockmore (2003).Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought.Hackett Publishing. p. xviii.
Hegel follows Kant... in limiting claims to know to the empirically real. In short, he adopts a view very similar to Kant's empirical realism.
- ^Chadwick & Cazeaux 1992,p. 104. "... the self is an intrinsically important topic and absolutely central to Kant's philosophy..."
- ^Kant 1999,p. A51/B75.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A63/B87.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A63/B88.
- ^Svare, Helge (2006).Body and Practice in Kant.Springer. p. 263.ISBN1-4020-4118-7.
Thus, like logic in general, transcendental logic is the result of a process of abstraction in which something originally part of a more comprehensive context is isolated and then examined in this isolated state.
- ^abKant 1999,pp. 8–9.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A70/B95.
- ^Kant 1999,p. A80/B106.
- ^Roy Wood Sellars (1917).The essentials of philosophy.The Macmillan Co. p.83.
kant categories.
- ^Howell, Robert (1992).Kant's Transcendental Deduction.Springer. p. 25.ISBN0-7923-1571-5.
The basic strand of his argument runs as follows.
- ^Heidegger, Martin (1997).Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant'sCritique of Pure Reason.Indiana University Press. p. 292.ISBN0-253-33258-3.
In the schematism Kant attempts to grasp the synthesisa prioriof the productive power of imagination in a unified and original manner.
- ^Hartnack, Justus (2001).Kant's Theory of Knowledge: An Introduction to theCritique of Pure Reason.Hackett Publishing. p. 87.ISBN0-87220-506-1.
- ^Wood, Allen W. (2005).Kant.Wiley-Blackwell. p. 84.ISBN0-631-23282-6.
... Ideas are such that no sensible intuition corresponding to them could ever be given in our experience.
- ^Wood, Allen W. (2001).Kant.p.84.ISBN0-375-75733-3.
... Our faculty of reason, when it functions properly, makes us subject to certain conceptual illusions or sophistical lines of reasoning...
- ^Atkins, Kim, ed. (2005).Self and Subjectivity.Wiley-Blackwell. p. 48.ISBN1-4051-1204-2.
Our understanding and experiences are limiteda priorito the modes of representation enabled by the categories. Importantly the categories only produce knowledge (or experience, that is, empirical concepts) when they are applied to intuitions. It is this principle that runs through all of Kant's arguments in the Paralogisms of Pure Reason.
- ^Atkins 2005,p. 49.
- ^Atkins 2005,pp. 49–50.
- ^Powell, C. Thomas (1990).Kant's Theory of Self-Consciousness.Oxford University Press. pp. 174, 185, 188.ISBN0-19-824448-7.
The Fourth Paralogism is, in a sense, something of a stepchild, either passed in silence or given minimal treatment in any discussion of the Paralogisms proper.
- ^Beiser, Frederick C. (2002).German Idealism: the struggle against subjectivism, 1781–1801.Harvard University Press. p. 63.ISBN0-674-00769-7.
For Kant, the great value of skeptical idealism is that it demands some proof or reason for our ordinary beliefs.
- ^Bennett, Jonathan Francis (1974).Kant's Dialectics.CUP Archive. p. 72.ISBN0-521-09849-1.
Since the fourth paralogism is misplaced, I shall say no more about it.
- ^Pittman, John (1997).African-American Perspectives and Philosophical Traditions.Routledge. pp. 188–189.ISBN0-415-91639-9.
The neglect of contemporary ethicists of Kant's firstCritiquehas been particularly unfortunate.
- ^Sorensen, Roy A. (2003).A Brief History of the Paradox: philosophy and the labyrinths of the mind.Oxford University Press US. p.287.ISBN0-19-515903-9.
- ^Sorensen 2003,p. 294.
- ^Allison 2004,p.397.
- ^Heidegger, Martin (1988).The Basic Problems of Phenomenology.Indiana University Press. p.30.ISBN0-253-20478-X.
A peculiar feature of this proof is that it tries to infer God's existence from his concept. The philosophical science which in Kant's opinion starts purely from concepts... is ontology... That is why Kant calls this proof... the ontological proof.
- ^McGrath, Alister E. (2006).The Christian Theology Reader.Wiley-Blackwell. p. 35.ISBN1-4051-5358-X.
Now "Being" is clearly not a genuine predicate: that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves.
- ^Byrne, Peter (2007).Kant on God.Ashgate Publishing Ltd. pp. 32–36.ISBN978-0-7546-4023-3.
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 391
- ^Ewald, William Bragg (2008).From Kant to Hilbert: a source book in the foundations of mathematics.Oxford University Press US. p. 136.ISBN978-0-19-850535-8.
- ^abWatkins 2005,p. 375
- ^Watkins 2005,p. 376
- ^Watkins 2005,p. 378
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 98
- ^Caygill 1995,pp. 98–99
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 144
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 110
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 292
- ^Copleston 1994,p. 183.
- ^Beiser 1987,p. 4.
- ^Beiser 1987,pp. 172–173.
- ^Beiser 1987,pp. 173–178.
- ^Beiser 1987,pp. 179, 181–182.
- ^Beiser 1987,pp. 181, 184, 186–189.
- ^Graham Bird (2005). Ted Honderich (ed.).The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Second Edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 470.ISBN0-19-926479-1.
- ^Caygill 1995,p. 149
- ^Smith, Homer W. (1952).Man and His Gods.New York:Grosset & Dunlap.pp.405–6.
Sources
[edit]- Beiser, Frederick C. (1987).The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte.Harvard University Press.ISBN0-226-50277-5.
- Caygill, Howard (1995).A Kant Dictionary.Wiley-Blackwell.ISBN0-631-17535-0.
- Copleston, Frederick(1994).A History of Philosophy Volume VI: Modern Philosophy from the French Enlightenment to Kant.Doubleday.ISBN0-385-47043-6.
- Kant, Immanuel (1999).Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant).Translated and edited byPaul GuyerandAllen W. Wood.Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-5216-5729-7.
- Watkins, Eric (2005).Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality.Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-54361-4.
Further reading
[edit]- Copleston, Frederick.A History of Philosophy: Volume VI, Wolff to Kant,Chapters 11-13, pp. 211-307.
- Durant, Will.The Story of Philosophy,Chapter 6, pp. 329–379.
- Luchte, James.Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.Bloomsbury Publishing,2007.ISBN978-0826493224
External links
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg/34px-Wikiquote-logo.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
- Hanna, Robert."Kant's Theory of Judgment".InZalta, Edward N.(ed.).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- The Critique of Pure ReasonatProject Gutenberg(Meiklejohn translation)
The Critique of Pure Reasonpublic domain audiobook atLibriVox
- Critique of Pure Reason(Norman Kemp Smith translation)
- Kritik der reinen VernunftArchived2021-01-24 at theWayback MachineOriginal German version atDuisburg-Essen University
- Philosophy of Immanuel Kantin theCatholic Encyclopedia
- Modified texts for easier reading
- Glossary of Kant’s Technical Termsfrom Stephen Palmquist'sKant’s System of Perspectives(1993)
- G.J. Mattey's lecture notes on Kant, closely explaining parts of theCritique