Class Notes (838,810)
Canada (511,107)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL100Y1 (465)
Peter King (114)

Kant- Prolegomena 02.pdf

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Peter King

KANT: THE POSSIBILITY OF PURE MATHEMATICS [1] The question at issue in the First Part of the Prolegomena is how pure mathematics is possible. It will help enormously if we get two distinctions under our belt right away. The first is that Kant draws a sharp distinction between intuition and understanding. The former refers to our capacity for direct (sensory) awareness, and that of which we are aware is “presented” in the intuition; the latter refers to our capacity for thinking, which again may “present” an object (these are very roughly parallel to Hume’s distinction of impressions and ideas). Second, Kant talks of both the form and the matter of experience. In this case, any feature that an experience has to satisfy in order to count as that kind of experience is part of its form, otherwise it is part of its matter. Consider the following claim: “Any physical object is three-dimensional”. Well, three-dimensionality is part of the form of our experience of physical objects, since what it is to be a physical object is to occupy (three-dimensional Euclidean) space. [2] Kant wants to establish four main claims in Part One: (M1) Geometry and Arithmetic consist of a priori propositions. (M2) Geometry and Arithmetic consist of synthetic propositions. (M3) Geometry and Arithmetic require pure intuition. (M4) Geometry and Arithmetic get their pure intuitions from the forms of sensibility. It is very easy to lose the forest for the trees in Kant, so it’s worth reminding ourselves just what he is driving at. Remember, Kant wants to establish how mathematics can be both necessary and informative. The former he thinks is a matter of its being a priori, the latter of its being synthetic. So he has to convince us that arithmetic and geometry are somehow true in virtue of including information that isn’t derived from experience. [3] Kant simply cites the necessity of mathematics as grounds for (M1) [294]. His train of thought seems to run as follows. (See Kant’s remarks in §15 (294): “But experience teaches us what exists and how it exists, but never that it must necessarily exist so and not otherwise.”) Mathematical propositions are necessary propositions: it is in no way contingent that (say) the interior angles of a triangle are 180 . Now in experience we only ever meet with contingencies, not necessities, as Kant takes Hume to have established. Even if we should encounter necessary truths, they do not present themselves to us as such. But you can’t build necessary structures on contingent foundations. Hence the necessity that undeniably attaches to mathematical truths cannot be derived from or based on experience. Thus such truths are independent of experience, that is, they are a priori. [4] As regards (M2): To show that mathematical propositions are synthetic, Kant argues as follows: (M2a) All constructive connections are synthetic. (M2b) All mathematical propositions are constructive. The argument is contained in §7, in reverse order. Consider (M2a), the claim that all constructive connections are synthetic. Recall that Kant initially defines a synthetic proposition as one in which the concept corresponding to the predicate amplifies the concept corresponding to the subject. Now one way in which such an ‘amplification’ can take place is when the subject and predicate are conjoined in a single object of experience [281]: Empirical intuition enables us without difficulty to enlarge the concept which we frame of an object of intuition by new predicates which intuition itself presents synthetically in experience... Experience, therefore, is one way to connect the concept of the subject with the concept of the predicate. But there is another way to do so, namely by construction. In its most general terms, a ‘construction’ is the introduction of something new, typically via a representation, that serves to link the subject-concept with the predicate-concept. Kant obviously has geometrical construction in mind here. We shall see how this process is to work in a moment, but this characterization of a ‘constructive connection,’ general as it is, should serve to establish (M2a), the claim that constructive connections are synthetic. For by the introduction of something new we clearly go outside the subject-concept, and hence the proposition linking the subject to the predicate is synthetic. Establishing (2b) is more difficult. For geometry, think of geometrical construction proofs. For arithmetic, Kant says that even in a simple equation like 7 + 5 = 12 we have recourse to some intuition, since we establish its truth by enumeration. Thus: (1) Interpret numbers as quantities of units. (2) To determine which quantity corresponds to a given number, one must enumerate the units. (3) Interpret the operation of addition as quantity-combination, or, equally, as successive enumeration. Let E() be the enumeration-function. Then the reason for the dual characterization in (3) is that Kant takes the following to be the case: E(5) + E(7) = E(5 + 7) = E(12) and the fact that the function E() distributes over addition is a non-trivial res
More Less

Related notes for PHL100Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.