KANT: Critique of Pure Reason [Prefaces, Introduction, Transcendental Aesthetic]

Speaking of David Hume’s radical empiricism and problem of induction, Immanuel Kant wrote, “I freely admit that the remembrance of David Hume was the very thing that many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave a completely different direction to my researches in the field of speculative philosophy.”

In this lecture we will explore Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in which he directly responds to David Hume’s arguments regarding knowledge.

It will be helpful in studying Kant’s philosophy to first define a few terms. A posteriori knowledge is knowledge obtained through experience. A priori knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge gained independent of experience.

Analytic propositions are statements in which the predicate is contained within the concept of the subject. For example, “All bachelors are unmarried males,” is an analytic statement because the concept of bachelor contains the concept of unmarried males. Synthetic propositions are statements in which the predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but is related to it. For example, “All swans are white,” is a synthetic proposition because the concept of swan does not contain the concept of white.

According to Hume, there are only analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori judgments. If Hume is correct, then the problem of induction is very real. As we discussed in the video series on Hume, the problem of induction compels us to conclude that we cannot obtain certain knowledge, but rather only probable knowledge. Kant, however, believed that there are synthetic a priori truths. Specifically, he believed that all mathematical propositions were examples of this type of knowledge.

He asks the reader to consider the expression 7 + 5 = 12. There is nothing in the concept of 7 or + or 5 that comprises the concept of 12. Therefore, it is not an analytic truth, but rather a synthetic truth. Furthermore, we do not solve this mathematical expression by appealing to experience. We solve it through pure reason, which makes it an a priori truth. So, Kant concludes that synthetic a priori truths do exist, contrary to Hume’s claim.

Having proven the existence of synthetic a priori truths, Kant next turns to the question “is it possible to know things-in-themselves?” In order for something to be an object of knowledge, we must experience it; but according to Kant we can never directly experience anything.

He argues that our perception of reality is the result of a combined interaction between objects and the internal structures of our minds. Just as a person who is wearing rosy colored glasses sees everything as possessing a rosy colored hue, so too does our mind filter external objects through the forms of time, space, and causality.

This leads him to conclude that it is impossible to have knowledge of things-in-themselves; and thus he believes that he has conferred “an inestimable benefit on morality and religion, by showing that all the objections urged against them may be silenced forever by the Socratic method, that is to say, by proving the ignorance of the objector.”

“Now let us suppose, for a moment, that we had not undertaken this criticism and, accordingly, had not drawn the necessary distinction between things as objects of experience and things as they are in themselves. The principle of causality, and, by consequence, the mechanism of nature as determined by causality, would then have absolute validity in relation to all things as efficient causes. I should then be unable to assert, with regard to one and the same being, e.g., the human soul, that its will is free, and yet, at the same time, subject to natural necessity, that is, not free, without falling into a palpable contradiction, for in both propositions I should take the soul in the same signification, as a thing in general, as a thing in itself—as, without previous criticism, I could not but take it. Suppose now, on the other hand, that we have undertaken this criticism, and have learnt that an object may be taken in two senses, first, as a phenomenon, secondly, as a thing in itself; and that, according to the deduction of the conceptions of the understanding, the principle of causality has reference only to things in the first sense. We then see how it does not involve any contradiction to assert, on the one hand, that the will, in the phenomenal sphere—in visible action—is necessarily obedient to the law of nature, and, in so far, not free; and, on the other hand, that, as belonging to a thing in itself, it is not subject to that law, and, accordingly, is free. Now, it is true that I cannot, by means of speculative reason, and still less by empirical observation, cognize my soul as a thing in itself and consequently, cannot cognize liberty as the property of a being to which I ascribe effects in the world of sense. For, to do so, I must cognize this being as existing, and yet not in time, which—since I cannot support my conception by any intuition—is impossible. At the same time, while I cannot cognize, I can quite well think freedom, that is to say, my representation of it involves at least no contradiction, if we bear in mind the critical distinction of the two modes of representation (the sensible and the intellectual) and the consequent limitation of the conceptions of the pure understanding and of the principles which flow from them. Suppose now that morality necessarily presupposed liberty, in the strictest sense, as a property of our will; suppose that reason contained certain practical, original principles a priori, which were absolutely impossible without this presupposition; and suppose, at the same time, that speculative reason had proved that liberty was incapable of being thought at all. It would then follow that the moral presupposition must give way to the speculative affirmation, the opposite of which involves an obvious contradiction, and that liberty and, with it, morality must yield to the mechanism of nature; for the negation of morality involves no contradiction, except on the presupposition of liberty. Now morality does not require the speculative cognition of liberty; it is enough that I can think it, that its conception involves no contradiction, that it does not interfere with the mechanism of nature. But even this requirement we could not satisfy, if we had not learnt the twofold sense in which things may be taken; and it is only in this way that the doctrine of morality and the doctrine of nature are confined within their proper limits. For this result, then, we are indebted to a criticism which warns us of our unavoidable ignorance with regard to things in themselves, and establishes the necessary limitation of our theoretical cognition to mere phenomena.”

“It is plain that the hope of a future life arises from the feeling, which exists in the breast of every man, that the temporal is inadequate to meet and satisfy the demands of his nature. In like manner, it cannot be doubted that the clear exhibition of duties in opposition to all the claims of inclination, gives rise to the consciousness of freedom, and that the glorious order, beauty, and providential care, everywhere displayed in nature, give rise to the belief in a wise and great Author of the Universe.”

“The positive value of the critical principles of pure reason in relation to the conception of God and of the simple nature of the soul, admits of a similar exemplification; but on this point I shall not dwell. I cannot even make the assumption—as the practical interests of morality require—of God, freedom, and immortality, if I do not deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insight. For to arrive at these, it must make use of principles which, in fact, extend only to the objects of possible experience, and which cannot be applied to objects beyond this sphere without converting them into phenomena, and thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief. The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the presumption that it is possible to advance in metaphysics without previous criticism, is the true source of the unbelief (always dogmatic) which militates against morality.”

“But, above all, it will confer an inestimable benefit on morality and religion, by showing that all the objections urged against them may be silenced for ever by the Socratic method, that is to say, by proving the ignorance of the objector.”

“In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it. But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion). It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions. Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.”

“An empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction). If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori. Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.”

“Mathematical science affords us a brilliant example, how far, independently of all experience, we may carry our a priori knowledge.”

“In all judgements wherein the relation of a subject to the predicate is cogitated (I mention affirmative judgements only here; the application to negative will be very easy), this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A, as somewhat which is contained (though covertly) in the conception A; or the predicate B lies completely out of the conception A, although it stands in connection with it. In the first instance, I term the judgement analytical, in the second, synthetical. Analytical judgements (affirmative) are therefore those in which the connection of the predicate with the subject is cogitated through identity; those in which this connection is cogitated without identity, are called synthetical judgements. The former may be called explicative, the latter augmentative judgements; because the former add in the predicate nothing to the conception of the subject, but only analyse it into its constituent conceptions, which were thought already in the subject, although in a confused manner; the latter add to our conceptions of the subject a predicate which was not contained in it, and which no analysis could ever have discovered therein.”

“Judgements of experience, as such, are always synthetical. For it would be absurd to think of grounding an analytical judgement on experience, because in forming such a judgement I need not go out of the sphere of my conceptions, and therefore recourse to the testimony of experience is quite unnecessary.”

“Mathematical judgements are always synthetical. We might, indeed at first suppose that the proposition 7 + 5 = 12 is a merely analytical proposition, following (according to the principle of contradiction) from the conception of a sum of seven and five. But if we regard it more narrowly, we find that our conception of the sum of seven and five contains nothing more than the uniting of both sums into one, whereby it cannot at all be cogitated what this single number is which embraces both. That 7 should be added to 5, I have certainly cogitated in my conception of a sum = 7 + 5, but not that this sum was equal to 12.”

Advertisements

One thought on “KANT: Critique of Pure Reason [Prefaces, Introduction, Transcendental Aesthetic]”

  1. For me, Transcendental Aesthetic, is the most interesting part of ‘The
    Critique of Pure Reason’. The insight of Kant that we can speak of the existence of physical things only from human stand point and not from an imaginary God’s-eye point of view, is hugely significant. This significance has not been realized by most philosophers and scientists yet. This insight of Kant changes every thing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s