KANT

Those who cannot yet rid themselves of the notion that space and time are actual qualities inherent in things in themselves may exercise their acumen on the following paradox. When they have in vain attempted a solution and are free from prejudices at the last few moments, they will suspect that the reduction of space and time to mere forms of our sensuous intuition may perhaps well be founded.

I Found this quote interesting. I feel like Kant is trying to explain to us what he means by space and time bc maybe everyone has their own recollection of what space means to them. He explains that they are actual qualities inherent in things. Kant is saying what ever an object or something is made up of is what takes its space. that is what i am getting out of this quote.

kant: Metaphysics

Kant says: The distinction between ideas, i.e, pure concepts of reason, from the categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, as cognitions of a quite different species, origin, and use is so important a point founding a science which is to contain the system of all the a priori cognitions that, without this distinction, metaphysics is absolutely impossible or is at best a random, bungling attempt to build a castle in the air without a knowledge of the materials of their fitness for one purpose or another.

I found this quote interesting when Kant talks about ideas. What i get out of what he is saying is that without the a priori cognitions of the ideas you will never know which one will make sense or know the purpose of it. When you see someone write something or say something some ideas can be meant differently from what you think so through a priori it will help you figure the ideas out and how to experience and understand.

Kant- Syllogisms

Syllogism is defined as "a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion." An example of this would be something like (a major premise) all humans are mortal.. (the minor premise) I am mortal (conclusion) therefore I am mortal.

Kant separates the differences of syllogisms into three categories: categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive necessary. The idea of the complete subject, the idea of the complete series of conditions and the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete complex of that which is possible is what reason is founded in these 3 categories.

Through these 3 assures Kant that pure reason is completely represented.

Kant- Ideas of Reason

"..the ideas of reason, unlike the categories, are of no service to the use of our understanding in experience." Kant still believes that the ideas of reason are necessary though. He continues to say that if the soul is or is not a substance is no "consequence to us in the explanation of its phenomena." It struck me how Kant uses the word phenomena here. Looking up the definition of phenomena.. it says its something that is impressive or extraordinary.

I did some more research and I found something in which I think it might have to do with.. Kantianism which is under the definition of phenomena.. a thing as it might appears to and is constructed by the mind, as distinguish from a noumenon, or thing-in-itself." I found that to be very interesting how philosophy had its own section in the definition.

Kant-Mathematical Judgments

Kant states in this section that mathematicians all "proceed according to the principle of persuaded themselves that the fundamental propositions were known from the principle of contradiction." I agree with Kant on this matter. Kant says that he opposes this theory. Math is a priori judgement.. and a priori judgement cannot be a false, it is a fact. A priori judgement cannot be interpreted through experience.

"Mathematics cannot be proceeded from concepts but only by means of the constuction of concepts." I am not sure if I understand what Kant is specially trying to say here. What exactly is the construction of concepts? I took this quote personally by Kant trying to say that once a concept is constructed, thats it. There is no other way of doing that concept.. its almost stuck in stone.

Kant-Possibility of Nature

How is nature possible in general in the material sense, i.e., according to intuition, as the totality of appearances; how are space, time, and that which fills both- the object of sensation possible in general?

I dont think that nature is possible in general in the material sense, exept the things that are present in nature. Apperances, space and time is how nature is possibl...Appereances is mother nature(leaves, grass, water)space is the natural surroundings....and time-the sun and move-how everyday passes by.

Kant-Hume's Doubt

Now we are prepared to remove Hume's doubt. He justly maintains that we cannot comprhend by reason the possibility of causality, that is, of reference of the existence of one thing to the existence of another which is necessitated by the former.

I like that Kant points this out...I dont understant how Hume cannot understand that one thing leads to another...the existence has an effect on another thing and the effects just keep going on...cause and effect is what makes this world keep going...if it wasnt for one thing, we may not have another thing.

Kant-Nature

The word nature assumes yet another meaning, which determines the object, whereas in the former sense it only denotes the conformity to law of the determinations of the existence of things generally. Nature considered materialiter is the totality of all objects of experience.

Yes nature does consits of the existence of things, however material things dont determine nature. Objects are apart of being in nature just like humans..I dont think humans are the totality of nature. We are apart of nature, not what makes up nature. I dont understand how Kant would think there is more than one meaning for nature, and say that it is objects(the existence of things). If he said the existences of things like greenery that surrounds him, I would agree with him.

Kant-Nature

Nature is the existence of things, so far a it is determined according to universal laws, Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves...

Kant is saying the things(objects) around us make up nature..I dont think things themselves make up nature...I think just our natural surroundings make up nature..meaning trees, grass, water, etc. Objects are what we put in nature, not what nature is made up of.

Hume- Miracles

Miracles = violations of nature?? I believe Hume is trying to say that when you pray to God.. you are asking him to change the natural pattern. I feel that Hume is contradicting himself here. When Hume discusses the concept of God.. he says that God cannot exist because of the imperfect world that we live in. In my earlier post, I discussed how Hume views God. Hume does mention that their is no God.. but yet he is telling us that by praying to God to make our lives better, its a violation of nature.. Its kind of like a no win situation with Hume. God does not exist due to the imperfect world that we live in.. so by praying to God to make the world better would not help either because the imperfections in the world is what causes him to believe that their is no God.

Hume- God

Hume mentions the concept of God in this section. Just like Descartes, he has a problem with thinking/knowing that God is perfect. Descartes feels more that God is perfect and he cannot understand why he is not as perfect and powerful as God. Hume, on the other hand, he feels that since the world is imperfect.. he cannot exist? I think Hume is trying to say that if God did exist.. and he was all powerful and perfect.. the world would have no corruption in it? If this is what Hume is trying to say, I completely disagree with him. If the world was always perfect, people wouldn't appreciate what happens in their life.

Hume- Animals

Hume explains in this section of the book his view on animals. He states that if an animal (for example a dog) goes by fire and gets burned, or does any such action in which the dog will feel pain.. it will learn from the experience and know not to go by this cause again. I feel that Hume is stating the obvious here. If any animal/person goes by a certain object and feels pain or gets hurt in any way, they know not to go by the object again.
As discussed in class, our Professor gave us an example about monkeys. If a mirror was placed in front of the monkey, some might actually go try to grab the mirror. They think the mirror is another monkey. Comparing that example to humans.. a human would catch on that its their reflection in the mirror, not another person.

Kant: Mathematics

Kant says that Mathematics is possible invirtue of synthetic(informative) apriori (independant of observation) arithmatic and geometry -> Applied to space and time. He goes on to explain physics is a an apriori which means like i said it is independant of observation. He makes 2 distinctions.
#1- Judgements of perception: Sense of impressions and subjective validity

#2- Judgements of experience: Objective validity and conceptual categories.


I found Kant's writings on apriori somewhat confusing. I find that judgements of experience are more helpful than judgements when someone actually experiences an ecvent or something you can make your idea about it more knowingly because you went through it. Unlike perception which it is just what you think something maybe. Kant though goes towards the idea of perception and say it is not controversial but that experience is. I do not agree with this because if you experienced something then how can it be controversial and a perception is just what you see so to another person it could be different so that is definetly controversial. thats my opinion and argument for that.

Kant: Synthetic Knowledge

Synthetic apriori knowledge is the basis of all our knowledge about the natural world. Such as: Math, Science, and Metaphysics.
Kant argues that this solves the rationalists problem on skeptism about the external world. VS. The empiricists which are skeptics about the patterns of nature. Apostiori knowledge is a basis on abservation.

VS- Rationalism: Agrees about apriori knowledge and unlike synthetic it is not informative.
VS- Impiricists: THey agree with synthetic knowledge.

I agree with Kant when he describes that synthetic apriori knowledge is the basis of all knowledge about the natural world. Because Math, science and the metaphysics are all problems of logic that can be applied to the way people think. Science can be used to figure out different scientific events that have happened in the world to prove their thoughts/ideas.

Kant- Analytic/Synthetic judgement

Analytic Judgement: Subjects that contain what the predicate expresses
these judgements are explicative and adds nothing to the content of the cognition. This is true by definition
It does not tell you anything about the world.
For example: Drinking age in the United States is twenty one. You can see an idea that says your twenty one but there is no way of directly looking at you and knowing for sure that you are 21.

Synthetic Judgement: Informative and expansive.
Increasing the given cognition.
ex- Major league football players weigh over 50 lbs

Kant: Kant's problem

Kant wonders whether or not Hume's problem is through nature.

1- Does Hume's problem generalize by means of cause and effect
Empiricists hold the knowledge of cause and effect is aposteriority.
Based on consumption For ex- if triangle A is larger than triangle B then Aposteriority would be B < A.
The assumption that A has three sides is Apriori.

2- If it does generalize that the knowledge is of nature... there should be 3 distinctions
(A) Apriori- it is a true independant of the observation/Apostiori
(B) Analytic- True by def. of Kant (yes, there are apriori synthetic statements)/Synthetic judgement
(C) Necessity- true in all possible worlds/ contingency

Of the Reason of Animals

Hume- A horse, that has been accustomed to the field, becomes acquainted with the proper height, which he can leap, and will never attempt what exceeds his force and ability.

This sentence caused me to think in terms of how humans and animals are different in regards to our surroundings. Of course a horse will know its surroundings and feel comfortable in their surroundings because they have been there for some time...Humans get accustomed to there surroundings where ever they move...We are made to adapt..However, a lot of animals dont know how to adapt. So if that horse was places somewhere else, outside of what he is used to, he may not know his limits...In regards to humans we know are limits where ever we go..

Of the Reason of Animals

Hume- First, It seems evident, that animals, as well as men learn many things from experience, and infer, that the same events will always follow from the same causes. By this principle they become acqainted with the more obvious properties of external objects, and gradually, from their birth, treasure up a knowledge of the nature of fire, water, earth, stones, heights, depths &c., and of the effects, which result from their operation.

----I agree with Hume, because we learn things from experience and so do animals. Once we experience something whether its good or bad we know that outcome. Animals also use this, they learn also from instinct. Animals are smart enough to know what animals to stay away from, maybe from seeing the result of another animal. In regards to when he talks about fire, children as well as animals know how to stay away from fire from experience. We all learn from sensations also. From birth we learn things and carry them with us through life. Experiences stay with us as well as they do too with animals.

Section X-Of Miracles Part1

Hume says"A miricale is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established theses laws, the proof againsta miracle, from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly imagine"

By Hume saying miracles stop nature(that can be a yes and a no)However I would think it was a no.....He argues when something happens to someone/something we ask for a Miracle to fix it or make it better, instead of letting nature run its course..But how does he know its a Miracle that caused changed or nature just running its course-not just in the way he expected it..Someone can be praying for a Miracle however that Miracle might not have taken place but fortunately nature when in that favor of that person or thing...Hume wouldnt know because he cant grant Miracles and he's not in charge of nature..

Section II-Of Origin of Ideas

When we reflect on our past sintiments and affections, our thoughts is a faithful mirror, and copies its objects truly, but the colours which it emplys are faint and dull in comparison of those in which or original perceptions were clothed...

Hume is saying and I totally agree from experience and I know a lot of ppl have too..When we have gon through past experiences and thoughts we remember them(faithful mirror which allows that). However the faithful mirror doesnt gives us those exact images and feelings we experienced. Though we may remeber them the thought wont be the same as what that mirror captured...

Section II-Of the Origin of Ideas

Everyone will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the painof excessive heat or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipate it by his imagination.

I agree with Hume. When you think of something you really dont have a sensation of it until you experience it. Once you experience it you will be able to recall what you experienced. You wont have the same perception of what you felt but you will remember it and have some type of idea.

Hume- Constant Conjunction

Hume believes that events are related to a custom or a habit taken in by experience. We form the association of ideas which produces us to expect the effect. Whenever we experience the "cause," Hume states that we think back to that experience. This whole idea comes from Hume trying to figure out the necessary connection between cause and effect. Locke opposes this idea but Hume questions it.. voluntary motion. Doing some research on Hume on the web, I found that Hume will later on deny the fact of voluntary motion.

"if volition did always produce the intended movement, Hume argued, that would yield no notion of the connection between them."

Hume- Chance vs. Probability

Hume states in the text that he does not believe in chance yet he does believe in probability. In my opinion Hume is almost contracting himself. I feel that probability is somewhat of a chance. The definition of probability is.. "a strong likelilhood or chance of something." The definition of chance is.. "a possibility or probability of something happening." Im not saying these two terms are exactly identical but I feel that Hume is trying to say there is a massive difference between the two and that does not make too much sense to me. I don't understand how Hume doesnt believe in chance yet probability.