Kant: Natural science

Kant explains that natural science or physics is a synthetic A priori judgment. he also asks the question of natural science being pure. if he means can you just know about a science then no you must learn and be taught by someone or you must experience some type of thing to know about science.

Kant: Synthetic judgments

Kant says that you can not use synthetic judgments because you will lapse in your principal purpose. An this will make metaphysics contradict itself. Since a synthetic judgment is something that is informative i think that right there Kant contradicts himself. He is implying that if you start to expand your mind and start to see more things then you will start to realize that all things over lap some place. I think that maybe Kant could have used Analytic judgments as an example. He could have said that if you listen to analytic judgments the things you are hearing may or may not be true and it also may not have any new meaning.

Kant: pure mathematics

Kant asks the question "How is pure mathematic possible?". I think that he when he says that you need to know A priori information to know any kind of mathematics. So i think the answer would be no mathematics is not pure someone is always going to have to figure it out. You cant just know what the answers are.

Also you cant just have math in your head. You have to at least have some type of picture before you can figure out what the answers to the questions are.

"Contrary" to what Hume says about Miracles

According to Hume a miracle is “a violation of a natural law”. Thus, miracles do not exist since there cannot be a violation of a natural law without the natural law being adjusted to fit the violation. Violation, however, could mean contrary to. Thus, one can say a miracle is “contrary to a law of nature.” If miracle is defined with “contrary to” rather than “violation” then miracles can occur. Miracles are occurrences caused by nonnatural forces and hence, contrary to natural laws. This is a different way to think about it. It is a bit less cynical than Hume's thinking that miracles do not exist. To learn more about this go to....http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

Kant Section 18 and 19 (from in class discussions)

Kant says there are two types of judgments, which are polarities. There are judgments and perception and judgments of experience. Judgments of perception are ordinary sense impressions, are subjectively valid and synthetic a posteriori. Hume and Locke feel these judgments are the centerpiece of our knowledge and do not investigate any further than this. Thus, judgments of perception are not controversial to the empiricist. However, judgments of experience are. Kant says judgments of experience are the bringing together of sensory information into categories, which is synthetic a priori and objectively valid (meaning everyone else agrees that is what is seen, heard, felt, etc. )

Kant on natural science (from in class discussions)

As pointed out in earlier posts Kant believes the basis of all knowledge is synthetic a priori. People may think to themselves how in the world can arithmetic and geometry to synthetic a priori. Aren’t we taught in school how to add, subtract and what different shapes are. Kant would argue that teachers are more like guides. They help you realize the knowledge you already have. If you think about a little kid, he intuitively knows the patterns of mathematics; he just doesn’t know the system (i.e the names of the numbers, and which number is higher or lower) by which it is applied on this earth. However, the patterns are there and they are a priori. Just as a child can sense time and space he is able to add and subtract once guided in the right direction. Kant also argues that natural sciences (mostly physics) are synthetic a priori. However, Hume uses an example that contradicts this statement with the pool ball example. According to Hume, we do not know a priori which direction the pool ball will go until we observe it. Thus, this knowledge is synthetic a posteriori. It is easier to dispute that the natural sciences are not synthetic a priori than it is arithmetic and geometry due to its relation to space and time.

Kant on space and time (from in class discussions)

As for arithmetic Kant believes numbers have no meaning. Numbers can be replaced by any other symbols and as long as the pattern is known one can calculate the answer. Addition has a pattern in that it is the succession of items. Kant argues that the same operation occurs when one talks about time. Time is also the succession of items (knowing this occurred first, second, third, etc.) On the other hand, Kant argues that geometry is the relation of items and so is space. Time and space are not a posteriori but are a priori. They are pure intuitions. If time is related to arithmetic and space is related to geometry, geometry and arithmetic should also be a priori knowledge. The knowledge of space and time is definitely not analytic but rather synthetic. Having the knowledge of space and time is very informative.