Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

5 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
All perception of an event or coming to be (or perception of change in states of an object) requires successive perception.

There can’t be a perception of change in the world unless there is change in perception.
But this is just a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the perception of objective succession of events.

Just because my perceptions are changing doesn’t mean I’m perceiving change in the world.

He imagines standing in front of a very large house, and your looking at the house, and you cant see it all in one perception, so you look at the door, and then the window, etc. So there is change in your perceptions, but the object of your perception, the House, is not changing. There is succession of perception but there is no perception of succession. Nothing is changing in the house, in the door, the window etc. So although I couldn’t have perception of succession without a succession of perceptions, I can have succession of perceptions without the object changing.
To consider a succession of perceptions as perceptions of an objective succession of events, one must regard the order as irreversible.

So imagine a boat, the boat passes a dock, now passes the group of people standing on the side, now tree, now cow, so there is a succession of perceptions – the boat moves downstream – right my perceptions are changing and here the object of perception, the Boat, is changing as well.

If I perceive the boat passing a dock and then the tree, rather than the tree and then a dock, I’m not perceiving the same thing. Im perceiving the boat going upstream instead of downstream. The object would have to be different as well if the perception is not reversible.

Kant says this is what makes the difference between the House and the Boat – we can only consider the succession of perceptions as perceptions of succession if the order of perceptions is irreversible, if it couldn’t be otherwise than it is. Like in the house case it is reversible, so we are not perceiving objective succession at all.
To regard perceptions in this way is to subject them to a necessary (hence a priori) rule—viz., the law of causality.

(1) Kant moves from counterfactuality in (3) to necessity
(2) Kant moves from necessity to law or rule
(3) Kant moves from necessity to a priority

And he concludes that the law is causality

So, there are people who think, not without reason that when Kant says law of causality, all he is claiming, is

(1) Every event/change has a cause

Others think, in addition to (1)..

(2) Every event has a cause & the relation between the cause and the effect falls under a more general causal law

Sonny wants to say that Kant does accept (2) and that’s what is going on here. He’s not merely interested in every event has a cause, but that he also thinks that its gonna be part and parcel that things fall under laws.

Which is part and parcel of Kant’s view of science, as a system of laws.

This introduces for Kant thorough causal determinism, science is about causal transactions, and that everything is caused, so for Kant determinism seems to have to be true. Anything that is a possible object of science has to be caused.
As a condition of the possibility of the experience of objective succession, the law of causality is also a condition of the objective succession itself.

one is able to experience objective succession only if one thinks about the things as causally related to one another.

Step (5) moves to the world itself. The law that is a condition of our experience of objective succession is also a condition of objective succession itself. What is necessary for experiencing objective succession is objective succession itself. Which, is again, an instance of Kant’s idealism.