Sept 23, 2013
Antinomies are a bridge btw Analytic (framework - concepts and
principles) and dialectic (reformulation of metaphysics)
Point of Critique of PR:
-to delineate limits of reasons
-and where and how reason plays a role
-Kant believes reason has hereto run amok because it has tried to
make sense of things it can't
are product/conclusion of argument
first look at conclusion then look at premises (what we get from
intuition, understanding--> two are brought together to give us
synthetic a priori principles)
-transcendental idealism only way to establish principles
1. why transcendental realism is incoherent
2. why transcendental idealism is awesome
Kant: TR and TI only 2 possibilities for human understanding and
so if one is true, other is false.
if can show TR incoherent, TI is the obvious correct one
2 are mutually exclusive and exhaustive because:
TR: everyone else (including rationalism, empiricism)
assumes there is a starting point for knowledge that is a thing
i.e. Berkeley - all knowledge is perceptions/ideas
so to be is to be perceived
so if Berekely the idea is the ultimate constituent
i.e.: For Hume - the impression is the ultimate constituent
no knowledge without impression
all TR assumes a thing in itself that forms the ultimate
constituent for knowledge
Barkeley thinks it's knowable because perceive ideas in the mind.
God responsible for placing those ideas in the mind.
What kind of rationalist or empiricist you are depends on whether or not you believe in god.
1. material idealist, i.e.: sceptic. cannot guarantee that
perceptions correspond to ideas.
2. good guarantees truth and knowledge, i.e.: Descartes
Kant is a formal idealist
idealist about epistemic conditions
being an idealist about epistemic conditions enables you to be an
relation btw things we experience and conditions that make it
possible for us to experience
i.e.: tree falls and no one hears it, it still made a sound
whether or not it made the sound depends on scientific
principles, on conditions
Kant: all knowledge is knowledge of the phenomenon
not like phenomenalism like Leibniz or Merleau-Ponty (phenomenon
for Kant, phenomenon is actually knowledge of empirical things
Possible experience vs actual experience
possible experience determined by space, time and the categories
actual experience gives us truth values.
knowledge not contingent on actual experience
actual experience helps determine if smthng true/false
possible experience helps us determine if it's possible for a
judgment to have a truth value given that we were in the right
situations to determine it's true/false
i.e.: so judgments of monads cannot be given truth value
Kant's ideas about the universe:
-not scientific (Big Bang, etc.); is there an ultimate
constituent of matter (subatomic particles, etc.)
-what caused the Big Bang?
-what caused the thing that caused the Big Bang?
infinite regress to what started time/space
-the absolute origin of the universe (time, space, physics, quantum theory, gravity)
-that series of questions (what was the ultimate cause of the Big
Bang) is incoherent because assumes we can answer that question
-thinks we cannot answer what started time and space
-we think we can answer this question because we have the
mistaken notion that there is "the universe - some co