Kant

Front 1

Basic kinds of judgements:

Back 1

Explicative & ampliative

Front 2

Explicative judgements:

Back 2

statement such that the predicate is contained (involved) in the subject (definition), analytic (Hume: relations of ideas): a priori (knowable prior to experience; eg Bachelors =df unmarried Men.

Front 3

ampliative judgements:

Back 3

predicate not contained in subject, synthetic (Hume: matter of fact): A posteriori (just known by experience)- eg “All bachelors are unhappy.”

Front 4

Where do metaphysical statements occur?

Back 4

synthetic a priori statements

Hint 4

if we know something a priori we have no reason to look to experience (analytic a posteriori is useless).

Front 5

If we can only know a priori of things what we put in...

Back 5

then we can have synthetic a priori knowledge only of things as appearance.

Hint 5

This is because we do not contribute anything to things as they are in themselves, since these are isolated from the subject.

Front 6

what can we know of things in themselves?

Back 6

We can't know anything a posteriori: this knowledge comes from experience, and experience comes from intuition, ie from appearances; but 2. also nothing a priori, since we put nothing in to things in themselves, so we can't get anything out.

Hint 6

So we don't know anything about things in themselves (though we must posit, assume, things about things in themselves as what appearances are of).

Front 7

What kind of system is metaphysics?

Back 7

a system of synthetic a priori knowledge;

Hint 7

Why do all this? To show the limits of metaphysics for speculative [=theoretical] reason. Then if we find it necessary to posit something beyond these limits for practical purposes, theoretical reason cannot refute it.

Front 8

Sciences are differentiated by (3)

Back 8

1) a difference of object, 2) a difference of source of knowledge, 3) a difference of kind of knowledge.

Front 9

2.What kind of knowledge if metaphysical knowledge?

Back 9

1.Analytic judgements are based on the law of [non] contradiction, and so all are a priori.
2. .Synthetic judgements

Hint 9

without synthetic judgements there is no metaphysics.

Front 10

How is pure mathematics possible?

Back 10

if an object (as appearance) must conform to the subject's cognitive faculties, and thus to the forms of intuitions; and these forms are space and time, as determined by geometry and arithmetic; then geometry and arithmetic are possible [and known to be applicable] a priori.

Front 11

6.Mathematics produces

Back 11

an instance (intuition) of concepts a priori, which is thus a pure intuition.

Front 12

Mathematics is intuitive in what sense?

Back 12

it needs pure intuitions to work at all. [i.e. we don't find mathematical individuals, we create or construct them.]

Front 13

A priori intuition is only of what form?

Back 13

A form under which objects appear to us, not as they are in themselves.

Front 14

Nature is ...

Back 14

the sum (connected system, not an aggregate) of appearances.

Hint 14

(If nature were taken as the sum of things in themselves, we couldn't know it: not a priori (which is not possible for things in themselves [because we do not contribute anything to them], except perhaps for analytic, and hence trivial, aspects; and not a posteriori (since them natural laws would not hold necessarily, but only as derived from [contingent] experience, which could never produce necessity.

Front 15

As the sum of appearances, nature contains

Back 15

a priori laws.

Hint 15

E.g. pure physics [=mechanics]; though this is partly empirical, it still contains universal and necessary principles, e.g. “substance is permanent,” “every event has a cause.”

Front 16

Nature can also be considered

Back 16

as the whole formed by the totality of all objects of experience.

Hint 16

(If anything were not possibly an object of experience, it would have to be known [judged about] through concepts which are not exemplifiable in experience (hyperphysical, mystical).

Front 17

Transcendental refers to

Back 17

the conditions of experience (ways we are enabled to know an object of experience's identity)

Front 18

we take nature as...

Back 18

the conformity to law of all objects of experience.

Front 19

it is not enough to take in sense-impressions and the objects consisting of these passively, as w/ Locke & Hume, we must...

Back 19

distinguish those that are “merely subjective” (hold only for me, the subject, the individual knower; idiosyncratic) from those that are “objective” (refer to objects, holds for everyone).

Front 20

To call an appearance “objective” is to say...

Back 20

it holds for all subjects

Hint 20

But then we must be able to meet the criteria of human cognition generally.

Front 21

the criteria of the identity of intuition:

Back 21

the objects as appearance must be “somewhere” and “somewhen” (have unique spatiotemporal determinations).

Front 22

We don't form judgments merely by comparing institutions [as the Empiricists thought];

Back 22

we need to be sure we can subsume these intuitions under categories to form judgements [which can be united with each other].

Front 23

We look at how judgements are formed because.

Back 23

we are trying to find out what ways (we) the human find can find unification (synthesis).

Front 24

We start with basic unification of terms in order to...

Back 24

make larger judgements

Front 25

We unify terms into a judgement...

Back 25

the same way we unify aspects of objects into objects.

Front 26

Any object we're trying to know has

Back 26

an identity as well as a unity in many respects

Hint 26

properties (like color or shape) has to be unified with the substance and unified with each other

Front 27

Unification is...

Back 27

an accomplishment of the knowing substance

Hint 27

(contra Locke: all ideas of qualities come into the mind individually/one at a time.)

Front 28

For Kant sensation is...

Back 28

a “blooming buzzing confusion”: there aren't any pieces that come picked out or connected, we have to pick them out or connect them.

Front 29

transcendental unity of aperception

Back 29

We think of an object as unitary because we see the properties of the object as connected together to form a whole.

Hint 29

(aperception = self-consciousness).

Front 30

You cannot have...

Back 30

an isolated object (isolated from other properties, other objects, the knower).

Front 31

How do we know substance?

Back 31

we have to posit it, to assume it in order for experience to even be possible.

Front 32

Table of Judgements gives rise to

Back 32

the Table of Categories

Front 33

The table of judgements is supposed to show...

Back 33

all the possibilities of combing representations- either a singular representations (intuition) and a universal representation (concept), or two universal representations into a judgement- and also combining judgements into further more complex judgements.

Front 34

the Table of Categories:

Back 34

f the table of judgements shows all the ways representations may be combined into (simple and complex) judgements by the mind, the table of categories is a parallel table showing all the ways representations may be combined into intuitions as objects of experience.

Front 35

Every object is...

Back 35

a unity and part of a larger unity.

Front 36

What are categories?

Back 36

A priori rules for combination (synthesis).

Front 37

What do we derive from categories?

Back 37

principles which objects must meet in order to be available for combination (synthesis)

Front 38

If Nature is the connected sum of appearances...

Back 38

the principles are something we can know a priori of natural objects, and so belong to the Pure Science of Nature

Front 39

Substance is...

Back 39

permanent

Hint 39

(change/alteration)

Front 40

What must one assume in order to have a quantitative account of change?

Back 40

there is something underlying what seems to be changing that does not change (like the wax example).

Front 41

Table of Principles of the Science of Nature:

Back 41

1.) Substance is permanent, 2.) Every event has a cause and 3.) All objects are in thorough-going interaction (reciprocity)

Front 42

How must causation (ordered change) be construed in order for change to be possible:

Back 42

We must assume cause and effect in order to determine time alterations. (like sufficient reason)

Hint 42

we assume the order of the stages (green → yellow → brown banana; dark hair → gray hair → bald)

Front 43

You can't have substances in interaction unless

Back 43

there are other substances.

Front 44

Each action on the substance on the other is

Back 44

an action of the second one back on the first.

Front 45

If there's more than one object in the universe,

Back 45

any two objects have to have some influence on each other.

Front 46

Space, time and interaction =

Back 46

(an object part of a) systematic whole

Front 47

Substance, cause and reciprocity are...

Back 47

kinds of combination (and hook together everything we consider real).

Front 48

An object is in unity with...

Back 48

every other object and every representation is in unity with every other representation for it to be real.

Front 49

transcendental condition for the possibility of experience

Back 49

Everything is extensive magnitude, intensive magnitude, substance is permanent and everything has a cause

Front 50

Hume says: Causation is incomprehensible. What does Kant think?

Back 50

so is substances and reciprocity, as long as these are held to pertain to things in themselves. But as a condition of uniting representations, they are easily understood (even though the things in themselves remain unknown and unknowable)

Front 51

Everything we can know relates to...

Back 51

possible experience; beyond this limit, metaphysics is mere illusion and mysticism.

Front 52

Why is Nature, as the sum or appearances, 1.) materially possible and 2.) formally possible

Back 52

1.) because of the constitution of our sensibility 2.)because of the constitution of our understanding.

Hint 52

How are these possible? We can't know this.

Front 53

the most universal laws of nature...

Back 53

are to be found within ourselves.

Hint 53

([like Hume's “future will be like the past”] (Empirical laws require special perceptions; they are not included.)

Front 54

substance is...

Back 54

something created by me, we must do it or experience is not possible (basis for cognition/knowledge)

Hint 54

We impose the spatiality and temporality of substances (contra Hume).

Front 55

The source of metaphysical knowledge is...

Back 55

not empirical; it comes before experience. It is not psychology; it must be a priori.

Hint 55

(But this doesn't distinguish it from mathematics.)

Front 56

the distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge:

Back 56

analytic explains what is in a concept, synthetic adds to it.

Front 57

Analytic judgments are based on...

Back 57

the law of [non-]contradiction, and so all are a priori.

Front 58

Synthetic judgments (i.e., those that do not come merely from the analysis of a concept):

Back 58

a. Experiential judgments (a posteriori);
b. Mathematical judgments (a priori); [see §7 below]
c. Metaphysical judgments (a priori); if there are pure concepts of the understanding, they are not derived from an analysis of others.

Front 59

Categories are...

Back 59

a priori rules of combination.

Front 60

[the Transcendental Deduction shows]:

Back 60

If the Categories exhaust the ways representations (especially singular ones, or intuitions) can be combined; and if all representations held to represent objects must be combinable with all other such representations (if they are to be thought to be real); then we can know a priori that the Categories apply to judgments of experience, and so to all objects of experience (since these must take part in judgments).

Front 61

The unity of every object results from...

Back 61

the mind's combining its constituents, and the mind also can combine every object with every other (thought real) to form a unity of the experienced world.]

Hint 61

[This is the gist of the Transcendental Deduction:

Front 62

it is all derived from

Back 62

the subject's (not free) contribution (no choice but to make this contribution) to the object of knowledge, and since all these are interdependent, we can develop a system of knowledge and exhaust it: we can know all there is to know about metaphysics.