I just started reading Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Meiklejohn.
On p. 2, Kant writes
“For example, the the proposition ‘Every change has a cause’ is a proposition a priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.”
On p.3, he writes
“Now, that in the sphere of human cognition, we have judgments which are necessary, and in the strict sense universal, consequently pure a priori, it will be an easy matter to show. If we need an example from the sciences, we need only take any proposition from mathematics. If we cast our eyes upon the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition 'every change must have a cause” will amply serve our purpose’.
Is this a direct contradiction to what appeared on p. 2? It sure looks like he has declared this change-cause proposition to be both impure and pure. And on facing pages!
not really contradictory… pure in this sense is uncontaminated by empirical evidence, but impure because one can only know that change occurs a posterori… he is trying to refute hume, but he fails miserably… he is saying that you know before the percieved effect that it was purely caused by a faculty of reason (not a percieved caue) which is perposterous…
thank you again… kant is a difficult subject… I am simply trying to clairify his viewpoint and what many kantian scholars have said about his apparently contradictory positions… if you think you can do better, please educate us…
i’m aware kant is difficult, which isn’t to lend you a compliment by saying you don’t understand him. you haven’t said anything.
yes, i can do much better.
you have fallen off the stupid tree.
your repeated name calling does not illustrate your knowledge of kant…
what I said: "not really contradictory… pure in this sense is uncontaminated by empirical evidence, but impure because one can only know that change occurs a posterori… he is trying to refute hume, but he fails miserably… he is saying that you know before the percieved effect that it was purely caused by a faculty of reason (not a percieved caue) which is perposterous… "
pure a priori reasoning… no empirical evidence…
“impure” (for kant) a posterori reasoning… only empirical evidence…
change always and only appears a posterori…
change must (by kant’s definitions) be impure…
pure a priori reasoning demonstrating change (e.g. cause and effect- is seemingly both pure and impure)…
this is contradictory for anyone but a kantian…
kant argues that a priori synthetic judgments are possible…
a priori synthetic judgments are as ridiculous as analytic a posterori judgments…
There is nothing about kant’s that’s really difficult to understand. The only reason one finds it difficult is because they don’t get in line with kant’s systematical ways - they don’t really buy his transcendental idealism system. Once you think the way he would want you to, then things flow fairly easy. Enistein’s Relativities are even harder. The mathematical and physcial ways behind them are just sheer abstractions.
What’s your say on Kant then monooq? Let’s hear something new and exciting from you, besides your ancient concept of “the stupid tree”.
Ops, suppose he’s fallen off “the-knowledge-on-Kant tree”.
A few things to add:
Kant’s enquiry is about human reasoning, so I’ve been told. Immediately I was intrigued by this “reasoning reason†idea. While thinking it as somehow an impossible matter, I regard it as a very significant matter. Knowing that Kant stated that the boundaries of human reasoning, I questioned: how could he know the boundaries if he had not seen what lie beyond?
Kant’s is over brave for me, to say the least. He actually systematicalised his enquiry, knowing all the potential flaws of reasoning. The first question that I would ask, which if unanswered, would shake his entire system, is: how to really distinguish between perception and conception?
Nevertheless, I find the idea of completely rejecting Kant extreme. Kant’s system could work well at lower levels of applications. I mean detailed processes of human reasoning. The biggest issues are in no rush to be solved, otherwise we would be dying of boredom. The big answers do not come easy – that’s precisely the reason why not everyone is a philosopher. With a TOA and nothing else, one should not be expected to be regarded as professionals. On the other hand, without some kind of general guide lines, no detailed tasks can be effectively achieved. This represents a mutual relationship between the “big†and the “smallâ€: they can not proceed much further without each other flowing closely. Hence, Kant must have provided us with something valuable.
